The Australian Catholic Bishops are taking the first steps to catechise the people concerning the changes that will occur with the new translation of the liturgy.As we’ve seen in other arenas such news is greeted with an array of responses in the blogosphere, some attacking the new translation as retrograde and others trumpeting it as a necessary element in the “reform of the reform”.
Of course there are various things one could say about the new translation, some positive, some more negative.
The hopes and aspirations some have expressed that somehow this new translation will set everything right in the Church is really a good example of magical thinking.
Nonetheless, I am intrigued by the notion that this new translation is part of a larger movement within the Church to “reform the reform”.
Many of the great church councils which are better known for their doctrinal content also spent time seeking to reform aspects of Church life.
Perhaps the most notable was Trent, which, along with its doctrinal decrees also implemented a number of reforms of clerical and religious life, and of religious practices, including the liturgy.
I’m sure at the time all these reforms had their detractors and their enthusiastic promoters.
Such tensions are part of the ebb and flow of history.
What was significant about Vatican II is that unlike any other council in Church history, it had no doctrinal agenda.
It was a pastoral council, seeking nothing but the renewal and reform of Church life.
Surely at the time a necessary thing! Does anyone now seriously suggest that the Church could and should have just continued the way it was prior to the Council?
That John XXIII (pictured) was wrong to throw open the shutters and allow a spirit of aggiornamento to enter?
Of course the implementation of the reforms was not always well handled, nor should we think that the reforms themselves were necessarily set in stone, the last word that could ever be said on the matters of Church life and practice.
In that sense a reform of the reform should not be seen as unnecessary or unexpected. And further if there is to be a reform of the reform, surely, logically, there can also be a reform of the reform of the reform.
And then a reform of the reform of the reform of the reform etc. Constant reform and renewal should be an expected part of Church life.
As Vatican II stated, the Church is semper purificanda, constantly in need of purification.
And Benedict XVI has spoken of the need to interpret the Council in terms of a “hermeneutic of reform”.
In fact in any other arena apart from the Church such a process of implementation, review and evaluation leading to further reform would be considered normal.
So let’s welcome the reform of the reform.
And at the same time let’s start planning for the reform of the reform of the reform. Let’s set in place processes for evaluating its successes and failures.
Let’s plan for the fact that, for example, in another 20-30 years we should review this new translation and think about changing it again, because it will not be perfect, nor will it continue to communicate to all people for all time.
It is after all just a translation, not a text from God.
And the reform of the reform will no more be set in stone than the reform itself.
SIC: CTHAUS