For those that lived through it, the Second Vatican Council was a momentous experience, radically changing the day to day life of Catholics around the globe. There was a definite 'before' and 'after' the Council. For most Catholics the biggest change was to hear the mass said in the vernacular, in English, rather than Latin.
We have lived with that particular translation now for over 40 years. Amid some heated debate we are about to receive a new English translation, one which is close in structure and feel to the original Latin text introduced by the Council. How this is implemented and how it will be received within the church remain to be seen.
I am not a liturgical theologian. Indeed my liturgical tastes are not very refined or critical. Like many church members who sit in the pews, I take what I'm given. I've lived with the present translation of the mass for most of my life, and have only fleeting memories of an earlier time when the mass was in a language completely incomprehensible to me.
The present translation has become part of parcel of my liturgical experience, and I am blissfully unaware of its supposed multiple shortcomings that seem to annoy some purists. I also have no great sense of loss in relation to the Latin mass. I studied and enjoyed learning Latin for six years of my high schooling but know well that a liturgy can be equally poor in either Latin or English.
But though I am not a liturgical theologian I do have a strong interest in the theology of the church and in the event of Vatican II itself. The Council brought about major changes in the life of the church, at multiple levels of its existence. It endorsed a shift from the metaphysical language of scholasticism to a more biblical and personalist mode of communication. It encouraged genuine respect for other Christians and even non-Christian faiths. It sought to recognise the rights and dignity of the laity as priestly people.
None of these changes involved a change in dogma, but it did change the way the church related both internally and externally. One major changewas in the liturgy and the celebration of the sacraments. For many Catholics this is where the rubber hit the road, because these changes impinged immediately on their religious lives.
Overall, these changes were not well managed. The general model was one based on obedience, with the command to change coming from the Pope and moving its way down the ranks to the local parish. It is clear, for example, that the Vatican II document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, envisaged a continuing role for Latin, while also suggesting the introduction of vernacular translations. However, Pope Paul VI decreed that the vernacular was to become the dominant form, with the use of the Latin rite to be restricted.
Overnight Latin vanished, and for many people this was a shock. Some were not only shocked; they were hurt by the rapidity of the change. They found this change deeply alienating, to the point of schism. The vocal opponents of 'the spirit of Vatican II' regularly argue that this marked the beginning of a long process of decline, with a significant falling off in church attendance. (Of course it is simplistic to suggest that this is the sole reason for the decline, or indeed a reason at all, but that is the argument.)
Given this, one might think and hope that our church leaders will learn from previous experience. They may remember the trauma caused by sudden and largely unexplained changes in the liturgy, and engage in some significant change management of the whole process.
On the other hand, out there in Catholic blogger land, particularly in the US, many see the new translation as payback for what happened after Vatican II. Now the 'liberals' are going to know what it felt like to have their liturgy changed without consultation, without explanation. 'They made us suffer, now it's their turn.'
There are also romanticised postings on restoring dignity and a sense of the sacred to the liturgy though this new translation. But a new translation does not produce new priests, nor will it create a new liturgical sensibility among the people and their celebrants. For many it will just seem like change for change's sake.
The changes are not drastic, but they will jar for people who have spent a lifetime becoming familiar with the present translation. Saying 'and with your spirit' instead of 'and also with you' will take some getting used to; and the use of the word 'chalice' instead of 'cup' in the Eucharistic Prayer seems odd to me.
The Trinitarian theologian in me is happy to see the word 'consubstantial' returned to the Creed in place of 'of one being' in describing the relationship between the Father and the Son, if only because it will give me something to talk about.
I am not privy to what the Australian bishops are planning in relation to the change here, but if the process is just dropped into parish life from on high, with the expectation of automatic obedience, then there may be problems. Present day Catholics are not as compliant as they were in the '60s when the vernacular was first introduced. Without proper preparation, the liturgy could become a battleground, and this would be tragic.
Any expectation that people will flock back to mass because a new translation is in place is not likely to be fulfilled. Far more likely is that, as with the change at Vatican II, there will be a disaffected minority who leave or cease to practice because their experience of the sacred has been violated. At the end we will probably be left asking whether it is all really worth it.
Neil Ormerod is Professor of Theology at Australian Catholic University, and contributed to John O'Malley, Neil Ormerod, Stephen Schloesser, and Joseph Komonchak. Vatican II: Did Anything Happen? (New York: Continuum, 2007). He has an article appearing in Theological Studies (2010) on the debate on continuity and discontinuity at Vatican II.