Wed 1st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 30th Sep 2014 at 14:53pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Former ICEL official criticises ‘secretive and top-down’ translation process

By on Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Fr Ruff says the translation process has been marked by 'deception and mischief' (Photo: CNS)

Fr Ruff says the translation process has been marked by 'deception and mischief' (Photo: CNS)

The former chairman of the music committee of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has withdrawn from all speaking engagements related to the Missal, saying he “cannot promote the new Missal translation with integrity”.

Benedictine Fr Anthony Ruff, a professor of liturgy and Gregorian chant at St John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota, made the announcement in “an open letter to the US Catholic bishops”. The letter was published in the issue of America magazine dated February 14.

Use of the new translation of the Missal is to begin on November 27, the first Sunday of Advent, in US parishes and in several other parts of the English-speaking world.

The transition to the new translation took up most of the past decade and has not been without its rough patches, with some bishops, priests and laypeople criticising changes in wording meant to bring the translation more closely into alignment with the Latin original.

There was no comment on the priest’s letter from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Fr Ruff said his involvement with the ICEL music committee, “as well as my observation of the Holy See’s handling of scandal, has gradually opened my eyes to the deep problems in the structures of authority of our Church”.

He called the Missal “part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger Church”.

“When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process – and then when I think of our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity … I weep,” Fr Ruff said in the letter.

Noting that some of his friends and acquaintances had left the Church or “remain Catholic with difficulty”, Fr Ruff said he would “stay in this Church for life and do my best to serve her”.

“This I hope to do by stating the truth as I see it, with charity and respect,” he said. “I would be ready to participate in future liturgical projects under more favourable conditions.”

A source at the USCCB said Fr Ruff’s speaking engagements were not arranged by the conference or its Secretariat for Divine Worship. The priest had reportedly been scheduled to speak about the Missal in eight dioceses.

  • mr pants

    What exactly is his concern? Fr Ruff makes rather vague remarks about Church authority. It certainly isn’t clear from this report what word, or words he has concerns about.

  • Karmenu of Malta

    If the new translation is not heretical (and nobody suggested that it is), it should be humbly accepted by all in the best interest of unity in the church. We all know that the church is not a democracy; nor was it intended to be a democracy by Our Lord.

  • Rory K.

    “how little consultation was done with priests or laity” …Are bishops not priests?

    “There was no comment on the priest’s letter from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops”…probably best to ignore the drama.

    “This I hope to do by stating the truth as I see it, with charity and respect,” …Really?!

    .

  • Phil Ewing

    I have read his letter and from what I have seen of the new translation there are parts that lead me to agree with Fr Ruff whose views and integrity I respect. It cannot have been easy for him to stick his head above the parapet and he does not deserve any of the personal attacks made on him.

  • Auricularis

    “When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process – and then when I think of our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity … I weep,”

    Is he referring to the imposition of the Novus Ordo in 1969?

  • http://lxoa.wordpress.com/ shane

    I’m glad to hear this. The last thing the Church needs is a man of such views giving “speaking engagements” to anyone.

  • RJ

    When I read books published under the Collegeville imprint, I weep.

  • W Oddie

    Another dissident and heretical priest indicates that the new translation is exactly what the Church needs. By its enemies, the auguries are emerging well for this new translation.

  • W Oddie

    Absolutely spot on. Well said. The elitists are now braying about elitism: what a delicious irony.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SH6SVZGO76NTVRKD4D7ZIBUPGU Diffal

    Exactly What I was thinking while reading it!

  • RJ

    I wonder what kind of consultation process was envisaged by Fr Ruff – would it have involved only suitably qualified laity and priests, i.e. linguists – or wider consultation groups in every diocese? If the latter, that would have been unwieldy and the results uncertain.

  • Esnofla

    How sad it is to see a priest who claims (out of “integrity”) that he cannot carry out his duty of his vow of obedience and fidelity to the magisterium of the Church. This is once again a classic example of how some of our priests are even more so, our religious are, consider their own reputation and “need” to voice their public “outcry” (seeking sympathy) as something more sacred and more holy than their responsibility to follow the Holy Father in his decree with regards to how the Church worships. Who alone but the Holy Father has the right to decide what is and what is not fit for the Church? Why do we have so many infallible teachers??? I thought that there was only one with regards to faith and morals. How sad it is when we cannot set aside our own personal positions and considerations for the sake of unity, trust, faith, hope and love.

  • RJ

    No, he doesn’t deserve personal attacks. Does it take courage on his part? I’m not sure. What does he stand to lose?

  • LeFloch

    “I weep,” Fr Ruff said”

    Boo Hoo! Poor diddums. I’ll save my sympathy for those ordinary decent Catholics who were heartbroken when the Traditional Mass they loved was taken from them. Those who wept as the altars their forefathers built were wrecked by ecclesiastical vandals. Those who weep at their children’s loss of faith, the legacy of modern ‘Catholic’ education. When the Modernists decided to destroy our Church, were we consulted then?

  • Sdlukac

    Why not simply go back to the old Tridentine Mass and reunite the faithful? SDL

  • Neville DeVilliers

    We all know that the church is not a democracy.
    ———————————————————————–

    Nor is it an autocracy or a plutocracy. Something we have now. Fr. Ruff is absolutely right and I hope the Anglophone bishops will muster up the nerve to send the final text of the Roman Missal back to Pope Benedict with a note, saying “this is a No Go”.

  • Neville DeVilliers

    How sad it is to see a priest who claims (out of “integrity”) that he cannot carry out his duty of his vow of obedience and fidelity to the magisterium of the Church.
    ———————————————————————————–
    You obviously did not read Fr. Ruff’s entire letter. At no point was this ever an issue of a violation of his vows as a priest, or a repudiation of the “magisterium” even involved. Pope Benedict more than likely knows nothing of the final English text and wasn’t even involved.

    The whims and machinations of Cardinal Pell, the head of Vox Clara,and others do not constitute the “magisterium”. To say they do is heresy..

  • Neville DeVilliers

    The “traditional Mass” was taken by the second Vatican Council with the approval of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II until at least 1988. They approved putting it into a museum. Where it rightly belongs.

  • W Oddie

    You “Spirit of Vatican II” boys had better get used to it: having bullied the rest of us for 30 years, and having grossly misrepresented what the Council actually said, you people are now finished. You have failed in your attempt to hi-jack the Church: the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture has been exposed for the fraud it always was; the tradition of the Church has reasserted itself. A period of silence from you all would now be welcomed by the rest of us, the “people of God” you used to rabbit on about while simply ignoring us. You all did massive damage to the church, not least through the old ICEL. But ICEL too has changed. And thank God for Vox Clara and Cardinal Pell.

  • RJ

    I would think the bishops are free to voice their concerns and no doubt will in private to each other and the Holy See. I don’t see where “nerve” comes into it.

  • Auricularis

    And it is back with approval of Pope Benedict XVI, who also states that Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II did not (and more importantly) could not forbid it because it was never abrogated. Sweet dreams

  • Anonymous

    AMEN Brother!

  • http://benedictambrose.wordpress.com/ Benedict Ambrose

    Come off it, Mr DeVilliers! Fr Ruff has “form”.

    Just trot over to his blog “praytell” for plenty other dissentient swipes at Catholic teaching: using Marcus Borg to help him find “the real Jesus”, trashing the definition of transubstantiation, doubting wether he can even reamin a Catholic at all because of the abuse crisis, etc.

    This latest is scarcely an out of the blue protest from a champion of Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

  • Sean9

    I found this interesting link regarding Father Ruff which would explain his dislike of the new liturgy
    http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/08/critical-investigation-of-fr-anthony.html

  • AgingPapist

    W Oddie, Please peddle this rubbish with the only people sufficiently out of touch with this Church who unquestioningly believe you: the SSPX.

    “you people are now finished”. Those with a mind of their own and willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes, express their outrage at what has happened in Rome by Vox Clara ,with Pope Benedict obviously asleep at the switch have indeed managed to pull this off by manipulating the papal “recognitio” for their personal agenda, realize a power grab when they see one.

    Priests such as Fr. Anthony Ruff and untold millions more, not to mention the Anglophone bishops who have acted more as sheep than as shepherds in this matter, will be around to do a jig or two on your grave, Mr. Oddie. Have no fear.

  • AgingPapist

    Tell your own weepy story to your bishop. If he’ll can be bothered to turn back the clock to the good old golden days of 1962 in which everyone was a silent onlooker with his or her rosary in hand speaking a dead language and nothing more. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the bishop to push the museum piece liturgies of the past. They are simply giving lip service, biding their time until after Benedict XVI has left the scene.

  • Christina

    ‘……the good old golden days of 1962 in which everyone was a silent onlooker with his or her rosary in hand speaking a dead language and nothing more’.

    Neville DeVilliers, how dare you? How dare you make such a judgement on the dispositions at Mass of me and the many good and often saintly people I knew, whose fully orthodox faith was nourished in the ‘good old golden days’ by the glorious traditional rite. Kindly give your authority for making such an outrageously wrong statement. Were you there at Mass before 1962, or have you merely been brainwashed, like so many in the pews today, into spouting such mendacious Liberal nonsense?

    I was there, along with many others, even at 6.30am on weekdays, and twice on Sundays. I didn’t get up at 5.30 to be an ‘onlooker’. I had, from my earliest years, learned about the Mass – its theology and the meaning of every word and gesture of the priest. Taught, also at school, to use a bilingual missal or prayer book, ‘silent’ we might have been, but ‘onlookers’? Gimme strength! And as for those with ‘rosary in hand’, whom I very occasionally saw, what, pray, was wrong with that? Wouldn’t meditating, for example, on the sorrowful mysteries make a fitting way to offer the Sacrifice of Calvary in union with Mary? Do you think that reciting responses, singing Kum ba yah, applauding first communicants (and anyone else Father decides should be applauded), leaping about to shake hands with all and sundry, talking immediately after receiving Holy Communion, and indulging in all the rest of the modern abuses I have endured ensure a more worthy offering of Holy Mass? Take that crippling Liberal blindfold off – it’s no good to you.

  • RJ

    This is not a tolerant reply. If people find that the extraordinary form is spritually fruitful, why can’t that be welcomed? Mainstream Catholics are not trying to replace the ordinary form with the extraordinary form. There can be unity without uniformity.
    There has been criticism of traditionally-minded Catholics on these pages for being bitter, angry etc (have sometimes crossed the line myself). Let’s try and get away from that.

  • LeFloch

    You are probably right about many of the bishops paying lip service to traditionalist concerns. But you, and they, are investing a great deal in the prospect of a liberal successor to the current Holy Father. The Holy Ghost may well have other plans. I pray that this time of Crisis will soon pass and that a fully Traditional Pope will restore the Church. St Pius X pray for us!

  • Profidebookstore

    Kudos. The liturgy is too important to be entrusted to “experts”.

  • Basil Loft@ss

    This scenario thus described is what took place at Vatican II about which he has been complaining for the last 45 years …

  • Profidebookstore

    I agree. The issue is not linguistic but doctrinal. Ask him what he believes about Sacrifice, Pristhood,
    Abiding Presence on one side and Humanae vitae and Veritatis Splendor from another, and how his wishful rendering of the Latin squares with the doctrine articulated in the original.

  • Profidebookstore

    We of course must be tolerant ( am grateful to you for that as you know, but we must distinguish between the EF in its form as conceived by the Holy Father from the form experienced by those who provide data Christine refers to which can only be spiritually harmful even to those who do not realize it. Respect an individual – yes, respect the nonsense – no. Lex Orandi -Lex Credendi. The problem with New the Mass is that it doesn’t exist in reality – what does exist is the multiplicity of the New Masses.

    But to return to the subject, Christ has died, risen, will come again, is not in the Latin text at all; and the words “Mysterium Fidei” in the Latin text refer to what is on the altar after the consecration. But “translation”: “Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith” diverts the object to “Christ…will come again” . The use of the third person singular instead of the second, with “will come again” implies that He is not on the altar.

    What else can an ordinary mass-goer, who listens and proclaims this “fruitfully” all the time, and doesn’t learn anything from the current “catechetical” formation, infer from this experience?

  • RJ

    When you said “EF” above, did you mean OF? In other words, you were raising some problems with the OF, not the EF. That would seem to fit in with the overall sense of your paragraph.

  • Deesis

    St John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota…. well that says it all. That place has done immense damage to the liturgy since the 1950′s. I am not suprises Fr is throwing a little hissy fit. The little cosy status quo the monks of St Jon’s created for themselves is being challenged.
    Think of all the cash St John’s has made promoting the Missa Bugnini. Oh wasn’t that forced on us all by nasty authority from the top? Now we realise it was not translated properly from Bugnini’s latin original.
    I rejoice at his weeping. Monks like him have mitigated and wormed there way around observance…. and obedience…. Think of Archbishop Weakland…. hmmm

  • Profidebookstore

    More than thanks, RJ. I meant OF (Ordinary Form), not EF; otherwise, the comment wouldn’t make sense.

  • Bishop of Brunswick

    I agree. I’ve read Fr. Ruff’s original statement refusing to participate in selling this missal to Catholics.

    He’s to be congratulated for daring to expose the stench of incompetence and corruption existing in the pope’s inner sanctum. Now bent on giving final approval to mediocre missal translations by people who can barely speak English.

    If this farce weren’t so tragic for the liturgy of English-speaking Catholics , it would make a marvelous television spoof on a Vatican which seems to distinguishe itself by committing one comedy of errors after another. By any chance has Peter Sellers been resurrected from the dead to play
    “Dr. Strangepope” for a new comedy on the BBC?

  • RJ

    On that point about “Christ will come again”. Clearly, Christ is present ‘really, truly and substantially’ under the appearances (accidents) of bread and wine, so I surmise that ‘will come again’ refers to his coming in glory at the parousia. I must admit that this phrase puzzled me for some time although it never led me to doubt the real presence. I suspect the ordinary Mass-going Catholic would not notice. I myself grew up with no doctrinal teaching in school (apart from preparation for Holy Communion though I don’t now remember the content) or from my family that I can remember (apart from the fact that God is merciful). In my teens, I bought a Catechism. Later I read the Bible, encyclicals and, later still, attended theology lectures given by the diocese and subsequently took a degree in theology. I don’t think this phrase had a misleading effect on me in either stage of my life. Even if I was puzzled at one point, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make a doubt” as Blessed John Henry said.

    I have taken issue with a priest about liturgical abuses on the basis of ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, but I seem to remember that Pius XII also wrote ‘lex credendi, lex orandi’, reversing the normal order. “The liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith but springs from it in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree” (Munificentissimus Deus?). (The liturgy would not make the faith what it is but could serve an epistemological function: i.e. enquiring what the Church prays is one way to find out what she believes, and in this sense: lex orandi, lex credendi.) Would this diffuse the situation somewhat? If the faith were dependent on the liturgy, then it would be disastrous for there to be the least failure. On the other hand, if the liturgy is an expression of the faith, then the faith can survive some liturgical weaknesses. Does this reasoning work?

    I have encountered liturgical abuse. I found it very annoying. It is important. As Sacrosanctum Concilium taught: “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop… Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

  • RJ

    Further to the above: the quote is from Munificentissimus Deus 20: ‘However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. ‘
    My bracketed remarks on epistemology in the original post are my own thoughts. I leave you to determine whether they follow from what the Pope said.

  • froglady

    Awkward and clunky does not equal sacral.

  • Profidebookstore

    (I took liberty to separate your two comments to provide a wide space for mine, but I took into consideration yours that now follows mine.)

    ACCLAMATION
    On that point about “Christ will come again”. Clearly, Christ is present ‘really, truly and substantially’ under the appearances (accidents) of bread and wine”, ANSWER: yes but that is not acclaimed by this DIY acclamation – that is my point – but in effect denied. What is acclaimed is that He has died, risen, and will come again, the latter as you put it “refers to his coming in glory at the parousia”. Although He is on the altar, He is referred to as if somewhere else.

    This DIY acclamation, as the other acclamations do, should be the acclamation of the Mystery on the altar: Transubstantiation, Presence, and Sacrifice. For this reason the “Mysterium Fidei” was taken out of the traditional place in the consecration of the wine, and made to refer to both consecrations, and Christ is addressed in the second person singular, i.e. as one who it present on the altar. In the Byzantine Liturgy, Orthodox and Catholic (Ukrainian, Melchite etc), it runs: We sing of Thee, we bless Thee, we give thanks to Thee, O Lord, and we pray to Thee, our God.

    On the other hand, the DIY product refers the Mystery to what is, in fact, in the Anamnesis that follows: it is a paraphrase of it, and to reassure us that it doesn’t refer to Christ on the altar, the third person singular is used: Christ, not Thou, has died, risen and will come again. So, what we are supposed to acclaim as the Mystery is that He has died, risen, and will come, not that he is on the altar. I am not saying that it (the Amanensis) is not true, but that it should not be an object of Acclamation, becuse is is not meant to be.

    You have noticed it and were puzzled; but what about those who, as you put it, wouldn’t notice. Where would they learn abut the Presence and Sacrifice, when this acclamation is, almost as if deliberately, placed as the first option, used perhaps most frequently, when – as we all know – they learn nothing from their “Catholic” education. (Not to mention if combined with the EP II – also used most frequently – in which the word “Sacrifice” doesn’t appear at all, and the word “for us” in the Epiclesis suggests transfinalization, transignication. But this is another subject.) Most of what an ordinary Mass-goer learns about Faith, he learns from the liturgy. Your example is not representative.

    PIUS XII etc.
    “Does this reasoning work?” – Not in my understanding of DV on Revelation, its transmission, and interpretation (the CCC reiterates it). I have repeated the point several times in debate with Martyjo and some others, from Dr.Oddie’s post on “funny farm” of 13th January, onwards, mostly in his posts about the Pope. I vaguely think that you came in on one occasion (about Magisterium).

    Also, my understanding is that an ecumenical council (which by definition includes the pope) has, in principle, a greater authority than the pope alone; his dogmatic definitions (in strictest sense) apart, of course. But what Pius XII says on lex orandi – lex credendi is not part of his definition, it is “not dogmatic” according to some, and can be dismissed if it is not in accord to what they conceive to be “tradition”.

    Also, more recent documents tend to synthesise the previous ones, not just one of them. In this sense they “overrule” them, in another they are essentially dependent on them. In other words, new documents on one subject re-interprete the whole tradition on that subject; in the same way as documents immediately preceding the now new one, were new in their time and did the same with tradition that preceded them.

    What Pius XII says is true (it is better formulated in Mediator Dei), but not the full truth, and in point of fact, doesn’t account for the sacramental doctrine, for example, most of which has been worked out from the way how the sacraments are celebrated.

    TRANSMISSION OF REVELATION
    My understanding is that the doctrine, life (organization, morality) and worship are interrelated and cannot be separated; nor one placed “in command”. For example, I doubt that the Assumption would have ever been defined had it not had its place in the worship of both East and West. There is no evidence that it had been communicated “from mouth to mouth” prior to its adoption in liturgy.

    The Faith doesn’t seem to be merely a catalogue of propositions, still less a list of “dogmas” which articulate what the things are and how the Church should worship or live; but all this together, and interdependent. A change of any affects the others.

    A change of the Church liturgy, of course, cannot adversely affect the faith if it is really the Church’s liturgy. But the latter shouldn’t be identified with Church officials at any point of time but of all of them throughout the history.

    I guess you won’t be happy, but what can I do, except write a tome, which I cannot afford here; or recommend a literature, while I myself resent it if it is recommended to me by others.

    Perhaps, we could both benefit from exchange of a single point at a time. My views are all open to rational correction, and also to the Magisterium even if I don’t underestand its ratinale provided that I am sure that it is the Magisterium and not a non-magisterial interpretation by somebody else.

  • RJ

    I see what you mean about the Acclamation. More widely: the present OF is not beyond criticism though this is for well-informed and well-disposed liturgists. I am not well-informed though I hope I am well-disposed and I believe you are too. You clearly know so much more than I do that I would advise you not to spend too much time on enlightening me, as I need to catch up first.

    I note your point on “for us”. To my mind, this has unfortunate connotations of “for us subjectively but not necessarily in objective reality” though my faith tells me it most certainly cannot be intended to mean that.

    Your further thoughts will require more time, as I need to revisit DV. Yes, I think there is an interrelationship between faith and liturgy, and I think it is the way you hint at.

    I said that main-stream Catholics don’t want to replace the OF with the EF but I would not want to anathematise those who, recognising the imperfections of the OF, may even hold the private opinion that it would be better for it to give way eventually to the EF, subject to any necessary organic development of the latter. This is far from the spirit of hostile polemic which condemns the OF completely. In the meantime, let the riches of the EF benefit the celebration of the OF.

  • RJ

    Correction on relationship between faith and liturgy: I would have thought that one of the three – doctrine, life and worship – would have to be in command – capable of defining what is authentic in a way similar to the way in which the magisterium defines doctrine – how otherwise could bad liturgy be corrected if it were equally authoritative?

  • Profidebookstore

    I was just about to tell you obliquely again to go to DV, rather than me; but you evidently read me between the lines already. Will wait until you come back. Good luck.

  • Anonymous

    is Fr Ruff yet another pope in his own pulpit?

  • RJ

    Quick reaction piece after a brief look at DV. It says ‘the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.’ This is what you have been saying. It is clear that the liturgy is one way in which Tradition is handed on, and that includes doctrine. This would be subject to the magisterium, not in the sense that the magisterium creates Tradition but in that it identifies what the Tradition is, when necessary. It is the servant of authentic Tradition.

    The second paragraph of DV 8 is significant in expressing the notion of development of doctrine. As you have been saying, we can come to a new and broader perspective over time, and this can put previous teaching in a new and surprising light (I am thinking about the possibilty of how those ‘outside the Church’ might be saved; or the relationship between Catholics and other Christians as taught in Lumen Gentium). It is here that ‘traditionalists’ and indeed liberals have difficulty, because they both see discontinuity.

    I would have qualms about ‘dismissing’ what Pius XII said on lex orandi. No doubt this point can be reconciled with the previous tradition. I recognise there are different levels of teaching within documents and between different fora (ex cathedra, councils, encyclicals) but nobody taught me the criteria for discernment. (Some of it may be ‘common sense’) This again is a massive danger for ‘traditionalists’ because it seems to me they do not distinguish the levels: they tend to take everything at the same level – as ex cathedra definition – interpreted according to their own lights, and then beat other people over the head with it.

    Too many points at once. Have probably gone as far as I can with it for now.

  • RJ

    Oh dear, I did it again: re “salvation outside the Church”. I didn’t mean that there can be salvation outside the Church but merely that all those who are saved are (will be?) in the Church; at least this is how I understand LG 2: “At the end of time it will gloriously achieve completion, when, as is read in the Fathers, all the just, from Adam and “from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect,”(2*) will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church.” If “all the just..will be gathered together in the Church”, then none of the just will be outside the Church. This, it seems to me, is a positive (and surprising way) of expressing the doctrine.

  • Mclom

    Thank you for outing Fr Ruff. Why did the Catholic Herald bother to publish his views?

  • Mclom

    What people who think like you forget is that the majority, just ordinary men and women but people of Faith, followed the Mass with devout, silent attention, keeping one ear open for the Latin while they read the English/French/German/You Name it! Their attention guaranteed by the beautiful, even poetical, translations of the texts. And by doing this, they picked up quite a lot of Latin along the way!

  • Solideus

    ““When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity”.  Hummmm.  I think the same could be said about ICEL for many years prior to the shake up of ICEL by the “authority” in the church.  It’s pretty funny when one could say about ICEL what they are saying about Rome.  Perhaps its time that these friends of Fr. Ruff do depart from the Church.  It is so sad that they leave because of a translation since many of us have stayed even because of the poor translations that ICEL has done in the past and put up with it; hoping and praying that somehow this would changed.  There is a God in Heaven and He is answering our prayers.