I see that Fr. Russell Pollitt is on the “New
English Translation of the Mass” bandwagon again. Fr. Pollitt says in his
article that, “I began to reflect on this
whole saga again and it strikes me that the implementation does not mean that
we should suddenly become uncritical of what we have been given.”
I cannot help but believe that Fr. Pollitt
just doesn’t like change and that he is simply going through the common
behavioural stages that people go through when faced with change. The stages
are typically described as: shock, denial, anger, passive acceptance,
exploration and challenge. Everyone progresses through these stages at a
different pace. Some very quickly and they therefore cope better with change.
For others progress is slow and therefore change is far more of a challenge. There
is absolutely nothing, in Fr. Pollitt’s article, that leads me to believe that
this is anything more than a typical
behavioural reaction to change.
In his article, for example, Fr. Pollitt
states, “I took some time to page through
the new book and read some of the Collects (what was previously called “Opening
Prayer” has been renamed “Collect”).” What may I ask is the big issue with
the term Collect? The term more accurately describes the very purpose of that
prayer. This prayer should never have been called the Opening Prayer in the
first place because it is not said in order to open the Mass. The introductory
rites as a whole, opens the Mass. The celebrant says this prayer, at the conclusion
of the introductory rites of the Mass, with the very specific intention of
gathering (collecting) all the intentions of the people into one unified
petition. I cannot think of a better term, except perhaps “Common Intention”.
The entire article by Fr. Pollitt shows
nothing more than his personal sentiment on the subject of the new missal and
contains nothing substantial to give cause to such resistance. By the way, neither do any
other articles that I have read resisting or objecting to the new missal. The resistance to
change is nothing more than normal personal reactions to change. There is
absolutely nothing in the new missal that is unsound and which gives cause for
such resistance to the change.
Fr. Pollitt states, “Like many other priests with unanswered questions and unacknowledged
frustrations, I must now implement
the new translation. We have been told unequivocally that we must implement
this and we shall obey.” He also says, “Long
may the debate continue, and long may priests be willing to be open-minded in
their evaluation of the real pastoral value of the revised translation.”
These words of Fr. Pollitt clearly
demonstrate a “passive acceptance” of the change. You will recall, from the
behavioural stages that I mentioned above, that this is typically stage four of
the behavioural reaction. I hope that Fr. Pollitt will soon come to happily
accept and enjoy “Implementing
the New English Translation of the Mass.”
I would like to end by questioning why it is
that The Southern Cross seems so
determined to continue stoking this fire? Especially when the editor, Gunther
Simmermacher, said recently in an article about the new missal that, “The Southern Cross has committed itself to
assist in that catechesis through a series of seven articles which will be
published in October and November, expanding on the content on the subject that
will appear in parish newsletters (in particular through the Catholic Link).”[1]
How does publishing this article by Fr.
Pollitt, so close to the launch of the new missal in November 2011, “Let
the new missal bring harmony”, which happens to be the title of Mr.
Simmermacher’s article? Publishing Fr. Pollitt’s article only serves to again
stir up emotions on this subject. Therefore contradicting the alleged
commitment by The Southern Cross to assist in catechesis on the missal during
October and November 2011.
I cannot help but wonder whether Mr.
Simmermacher is using his position, as the editor of this newspaper, to drive a
personal agenda on this subject of the new missal. Mr. Simmermacher is quoted
in another Catholic Newspaper as stating that in Cape Town the translation met
with fierce resistance and that, “all but
two priests signed a document saying they didn’t like the changes, but they
went ahead and implemented them.”[2]
I have written to the National Catholic Reporter on several occasions, including last week again, asking them to
validate the accuracy of this statement by Mr. Simmermacher. I have asked them
to make available a copy of this document to which he refers or put me in contact with an
independent third party who can verify this alleged document. Especially since
a South African priest, from Cape Town, responded to the article and stated that
Mr. Simmermacher’s statement was false. I have to date had no response to my
request, which only serves to increase my suspicions of the hidden agenda
possibility. I remain hopeful that my suspicions will shortly be proved wrong.
We can only pray that this matter of the New Missal will soon be a thing of the past and that we can begin to focus on far more critical challenges that the Church faces.
You may also like to read my post “Were
South African Catholics Deliberately Setup” on the subject of the New Missal.
