“New translation muddies waters” by Michael MacLachlan in UCANews.
New translation muddies waters
Comments
52 responses to “New translation muddies waters”
-
No. It doesn’t.
-
Would you mind expanding on your rather terce sounding comment?
To my ear it all sounds very clumsy.
I fail to see why there is so much stock given to Latin, when Greek was the ligua franca of the early church. This may of course just show my ignorance of matters liturgical!-
See Fr. Allan’s comments below. (I was away from the computer for awhile.)
-
-
-
I can see some clergy already sharpening their red pencils and running out to purchase some “White Out”.
-
We are the Latin Rite Church, not the Greek Rite of which there is one, sometimes called Byzantine or Melkite. Our post Vatican II reformed Mass has as its primary liturgical language Latin from which all other vernacular languages are translated.
My biggest beef with the article that is linked above are some just downright continued perpetuated myths. Jesus became man not at his birth in Bethlehem of Judea but when the Blessed Virgin Mary consented to the request to be the Mother of God, which we call the Incarnation and is a dogma that is central to the Christian Faith and which was obscured in the previous English translation. That’s been corrected. The other thing about the linked article that annoyed me is the mantra that we’re going back to the pre-Vatican II Mass in translation. That is not true, we’re recovering the post-Vatican II reformed Mass and re-translating it into English using a more literal format.
Obviously the Vatican allowed for an “Equivalency” method of translating the 1970 missal, but after 45 years of using it and recognizing how poorly this method preserves the Latin meaning and devotional aspects, they humbly admitted it was a mistake to allow for this method and changed course. Of course the specifics of translating using a literal approach can vary and certainly there could be even better translations down the road, say like in 40 or 50 years. Who knows? I broke my crystal ball. ๐ -
They humbly admitted it was a mistake! They never did anything of the like. They simply imposed a new document that deals authoritatively, not learnedly, with the intricate art of translation. In preparing the “instruction,” they consulted a very narrow coterie of experts, a group that notably excluded the possibility of contrary opinions. Not even the cardinal and bishop members of the Congregation were consulted, thus setting aside the norms of John Paul II’s Pastor Bonus (1988). The method was brutal, unChristian, and uncaring of faithful and devoted people’s reputations. The sin of slander was set at naught. And this is the way forward to deepen people’s prayer lives!
But then, you need take no account of such “niceties.” I frankly don’t understand dear Bishop Boland’s (and this as he retires) allowing your parish to introduce these texts in advance, thus breaking communion with the rest of the parishes of your venerable diocese, and indeed all of the particular Churches in the United States. Perhaps you wore him down. Now he can have some peace.
-
John Robert,
No, the Bishops of the USA allowed the laity’s sung parts to start in September at their meeting in June and stated that it was up to local bishops to give individual permission. No wearing down of the poor bishop of my diocese, he knows we are “beyond ready” to implement this. So he graciously gave us permission.
Both Scripture, theology and the Church today have much that is “implicit” rather than “explicit” and so I would still submit that “implicit” in changing the manner of translation is a humble recognition of the error of allowing too much flexibility with the “equivalency” method. And the “equivalency” method as well as the whole of the Reformed Mass was a top-down decision as were all of the decrees of Vatican II and subsequent legislation putting Vatican II’s documents into effect. The Church’s Magisterium has that authority even to this day.-
“The whole of the Reformed Mass was a top-down decision as were the decrees of Vatican II”??
You should read your history, Sir.
Are you an Old Catholic? Or a Lutheran?
-
Fr. Allan – your spinning and rewriting of history is almost amusing. You continue in your “alternative universe”….even to the very papal use of “we” – as in, “we are beyond ready to implement.”
It is amusing because most of the documentation provided to date on this and other blogs would indicate that more than 85% of participating catholics have no idea that this translation is coming; and you can probably guesstimate that more than 50% of the priests and quite a few bishops know but have done nothing to date in terms of starting to prepare for this.
As some on this blog posted months ago from your parish blog, you had already started to insert the 2010 version prior to Moroney and company making even more changes. Is this desire really coming from your folks or from you?
You cite one example – incarnate vs. born of the Virgin – to make your point……implicit vs. explicit. But the point of liturgy is not catechesis or teaching dogmas…it is conveying meaning. And really, how much difference is there between your explanation for the dogma of the incarnation and the 1970’s use of “born of the Virgin”…..how do you think most homilists explained or used that? I, for one, can recall numerous homilies around the “Fiat” of Mary leading to the birth of Jesus…the focus was on the spirit of God and her response. Suggest that you are playing fast and loose to justify your “alternative universe”. Basically, no credible expert in translation would support what has happened and your glorification of latin leaves out much of the rest of the story.
-
Bill:
even to the very papal use of โweโ โ as in, โwe are beyond ready to implement.โ
He’s speaking on behalf of his parishioners, thus “we”. These sorts of pointless and foolish barbs are really unnecessary.
But the point of liturgy is not catechesis or teaching dogmasโฆit is conveying meaning.
What if the wrong meaning is conveyed? As I pointed out in another comment, the Apostles’ Creed mentions the birth of Christ from a Virgin, but the Nicene Creed does not.
how much difference is there between […] the dogma of the incarnation and the 1970โs use of โborn of the Virginโ?
To say that Jesus “was born … and became [hu]man” conveys the wrong meaning, because it appears to say that at the moment when Jesus was born, THEN He became human. That is not what the Nicene Creed says, and that’s not what a translation of the Nicene Creed should say.
-
Yes, Bill, we, meaning our parish of which I am pastor, are beyond ready and it went very smoothly this weekend, at our school Mass on Friday and a funeral today in which more than half were not Catholic. It’s no real big deal if you are prepared.
But for those who aren’t and who don’t study the texts, meaning parish leaders including the priest and choirs/cantor, etc., there is going to be a mess. Hopefully they will get with the program before Advent which is only 12 Sundays away! And yes, experimentation with the texts up to two years ago proved to me and other parish leaders that the hysteria on some blogs about this translation are totally unfounded as the vast majority of the laity (sensus fidelium) have no problem with it–our parish is a small sample, but they come from all over the country and world. -
Jeffrey – you are stretching again in your self appointed task as “minder”……
reality – we have all experienced pastors who use the royal we and act as if everyone is in lock step. Two points were raised by both myself and JFR……prior postings shed light on the fact that Fr. Allan started using the 2010 translation long before it was even formally released or announced by the US Conference of Bishops….in the most glaring parish website story, it showed him teaching 1st graders in latin responses, etc. that have now been revised again.
So, you can say we nit pick and yet the theme is usually that we are the cafeteria catholics; etc. and rules can be bent if it is the “new translation”.
What concerns me more are the biases used to justify the new translation even if that means having to re-invent the history; the development (as experienced and written about by those who were there – Fr. Allan was not). If your personal preference is that this is a positive development, then state that; it is your opinion…but don’t make up an alternative history that labels some very honest and dedicated individuals in the initial ICEL efforts.
Sorry, your assumption on incarnation vs. born of is yours – “what if people get the wrong idea?” Really, you appear to be rather condescending in your assumption (minder, again?)….it is in one creed; not the other; wonder why? It reflects a need for the liturgy to some how summarize and capture all the dogmas…not sure that is really the purpose. Reality – plenty of educated catholics know exactly the difference between incarnation and birth. You seem to jump to the most negative conclusion that folks will get the wrong idea about birth and becoming human – that really happened 9 months earlier. Is the purpose of this statement some type of “hidden” right to life statement? What are you afraid of? Do you really think even middle school catholics would hear that and assume what you say? Please….
-
Bill, it is quite interesting that you bring up the “abortion” issue and middle schoolers. Evidently you don’t teach them very often nor understand what they comprehend. Last year when I was teaching them the revised creed in class, I asked them to read the two different versions, the uncorrected one and the corrected one in terms of the word “incarnate.” I asked if they understood the word “incarnate.” Most did not,which is sad, since this is a dogma of the Church which should be explicitly stated so in the Creed. If they had been praying that for most of their short lives, they would have long ago been asked and been taught what it meant. But that is not my point. After I explained the difference between “incarnate of the Virgin Mary” and “born of the Virgin Mary” meaning one is about the “conception” of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary and the other about the birth in Bethlehem some nine months later. I made it clear that “incarnate” means Jesus became “Man” i.e. Son of Man or human in the generic sense at that point not some nine months later. I had a sixth grade girl raise her hand and make the comment and I quote directly (since she gave me permission to use her comment in a homily) Is that why the Catholic Church is against abortion?” This child was not Catholic. But she made a very profound connection, although I told her that would certainly be part of the answer to her question, but the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death is the primary reason since we are all created in the image and likeness of God.
-
your self appointed task as โminder”
Making a public remark is an invitation for public feedback. I think your “papal we” comment was a silly and unnecessary barb. If you think otherwise, don’t let me stop you.
it showed him teaching 1st graders in latin responses
Call Child Protective Services immediately!
you can say we nit pick … rules can be bent if it is the โnew translationโ … donโt make up an alternative history
Are you addressing me here or Fr. Allan?
you appear to be rather condescending in your assumption (minder, again?)
I’m not trying to be condescending. If I’m wrong, and Catholics don’t confuse “incarnation” and “birth”, and they don’t see “was born … and became[hu]man” as implicitly stating that human-hood is attained at birth and not conception, then I’ll be happy to be wrong!
it is in one creed; not the other; wonder why? It reflects a need for the liturgy to some how summarize and capture all the dogmasโฆnot sure that is really the purpose.
I really don’t know where you’re going with this. It’s in one creed and not the other because the Apostles’ Creed is stating one truth of the faith (that Jesus was born of a Virgin) and the Nicene Creed is stating another truth of the faith (that Jesus had a true body of flesh, which He acquired from [ex] the Virgin).
You seem to jump to the most negative conclusion…
And people here assume that folks won’t understand words like “incarnate”.
Is the purpose of this statement some type of โhiddenโ right to life statement? What are you afraid of?
I do think that the Nicene Creed is affirming (perhaps unbeknownst to its authors) that human-hood (I would say person-hood, but the Word was already a person) is attained at incarnation, enfleshing, in our mother’s womb.
And I’m afraid of spiders. I freak out when I’m near them.
-
I do think that the Nicene Creed is affirming (perhaps unbeknownst to its authors) that human-hood (I would say person-hood, but the Word was already a person) is attained at incarnation, enfleshing, in our motherโs womb.
Just as a pedantic side note: Aquinas, as is well known, did not believe that the child in the womb became a human being (i.e. possessed of a rational soul) until some weeks after conception (it took girls longer than boys), but he made an exception in the case of Christ, whom he saw as a human being from the moment of his conception, since the incarnation would otherwise be delayed.
-
Deacon Fritz, that goes to show (in terms of the comment about boys and girls and when the soul enters) that even great theologians are not infallible in their musings which would include the great and not so great liturgical theologians in our midst today. We really do need the Magisterium to settle some things don’t we?
-
-
-
I thought it was a great article. Like the author, I think there are things to admire and be grateful for in the new translation, but also like the author there is a lot to be scratching one’s head over.
Why is “is โconsubstantial with the Fatherโ any better than โone in beingโ? And why is โincarnate of the Virgin Maryโ better than โborn ofโ? Would it be better to say “born a human” to give a nod to Fr. Allan’s point? Why “Go forth”?
I am sorry, but it’s like Yoda translated some of this. It’s not that I don’t understand it, but really, it doesn’t add much. In fact, I worry that it places
way too much emphasis on form and language rather than substance.We need to remember that it is what is in our hearts that counts.
-
The Nicene Creed is not talking about Jesus being born of a virgin; the Apostles’ Creed makes that point: “conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine.” The Nicene Creed highlight’s the Son’s Incarnation, not His birth: “incarnatus est de Spรญritu Sancto ex Marรญa Vรญrgine.”
Furthermore, the Nicene Creed appears to be linking the Son’s Incarnation with His homo factus est (being made human). It was not at our Lord’s birth that He was made human, it was at His Incarnation, and His Incarnation preceded His birth by a good nine months.
And since what is in our hearts counts, should not our hearts be properly formed, and should they not properly express themselves?
-
Just a little note: reciting the Latin for us does not explain why, for example, consubstantial is a better translation than one in being. I bet there aren’t 12 people in a given parish that could tell you accurately what consubstantial means, but everyone understands the latter. You may as well leave it in Latin. It actually sounds a little like you are questioning why the disciples are not fasting.
-
My comment wasn’t about “consubstantial”, it was about “incarnate”. If you want my thoughts on “consubstantial”, they are of two kinds: 1) there are some other good options that are not as awkward and are not neologisms, like “of one substance”, “of one being”, etc., but I think “one in being” is less accurate; 2) it is a very specific word to describe a very specific relationship, and I’ve explained it’s meaning in a few brief paragraphs here.
As for “one in being”, everyone understands the individual words, I’m sure, but do they understand the theological statement being made? Or do they, like a young Baptist man I met a few Fridays ago, think that Jesus (the Son) is the Father? Do they know what “one in being” is actually professing?
I am not questioning why the disciples are not fasting. I was simply trying to answer what I took to be a straightforward question about why “born” was being changed to “incarnate” in the new translation.
-
His Incarnation preceded His birth by a good nine months.
So we celebrate the Incarnation with the Annunciation, not at Christmas? Wouldn’t that be “in Maria Virgine” instead of “ex Maria Virgine”?
-
Yes, Jim, the Annunciation is a feast of the Incarnation of Christ. Incarnation means “enfleshing” (as was discussed back in January), and that didn’t happen at Jesus’ birth, it happened at His conception. That doesn’t mean the Nativity isn’t also a feast of the Incarnation. Notice that in the reformed Roman Rite, the profound bow during the Creed when we profess belief in the Incarnation of Jesus is replaced with a genuflection on two feast days: the Nativity and the Annunciation.
The Greek text has “แผฮบ ฮ ฮฝฮตฯฮผฮฑฯฮฟฯ แผฮณฮฏฮฟฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฮฑฯฮฏฮฑฯ ฯแฟฯ ฮ ฮฑฯฮธฮญฮฝฮฟฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮฝฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯฯฮฎฯฮฑฮฝฯฮฑ.” The Latin uses “de” for the Spirit and “ex” for Mary. Does “ex” always mean “out”, or can it also mean “from”?
-
Yes Jeffrey and we also genuflect at those words on the Annunciation as at Christmas.
-
The importance of the Annunciation is shown by the fact that in the Byzantine Tradition March 25th was not transferred even when it occurred according to the Julian Calendar on Good Friday, Holy Saturday or Easter. Rather the Offices and Divine Liturgy of the Days were combined in complex ways, even though this meant the Divine Liturgy was celebrated on Good Friday!
This combined celebration is easier in the Byzantine tradition which has tended to maintain the unity and interrelatedness of the Incarnation-Paschal-Pentecostal Mysteries rather than putting some out of sight in order to focus upon certain aspects of one mystery.
-
Jeffrey,
I wish I could answer your question about ex, but I can’t. It is just how I hear the word, but that may be an imaginary nuance.
If I understand the Greek, it is แผฮบ the Holy Spirit and Mary that Jesus was fleshed, ฯฮฑฯฮบฯฮธฮญฮฝฯฮฑ. (แผฮบ= ex = from) The Spirit and Mary are joined by a simple ‘and’, not given different roles as the Latin has it! Damn that dynamic equivalence translating.
Conversely ‘became man’ (แผฮฝฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯฯฮฎฯฮฑฮฝฯฮฑ) starts แผฮฝ-, which is like in or into. Like the in- of incarnation, except the Latin uses that for ฯฮฑฯฮบฯฮธฮญฮฝฯฮฑ แผฮบ. So the Greek has a sense of “fleshed from the Spirit and Mary into humanity” where the Latin is more “into flesh by the Spirit from Mary, he became human.”
But I have no idea if any of these things are significant in any way. I like the English of the Ruthenians best:
“was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, and became man.”
But that translates the Greek, and is not faithful to the Latin because the Latin was not faithful to the Greek. sigh. -
Since the present texts were introduced there have always been two versions of the text of the Nicene Creed in English: the American version which says ‘born of the Virgin Mary’; and the British text which says ‘incarnate of the Virgin Mary’. Now at least both versions of English will be using the same text!
-
Our pastor says the Nicene Creed will drop out of use in 95% of the parishes:
Using the Apostles’ Creed 1) eliminates “for us men” 2) doesn’t have “consubstantial” 3) or “was incarnate”
and most importantly:IT’S SHORTER!
Remember, the only reason Eucharistic Prayer II is used so much is that we don’t have a shorter one!
-
-
-
Dear Father McDonald,
I knew of the US bishops’ permission for the sung texts from September, but did not think that this applied also to the texts when spoken. Are even the daily Masses sung Masses? And did you not say that you had been gradually introducing the texts over the past several months?
-
And what of texts such as the Confiteor and the invitation to Communion? Or perhaps you sing those at St. Joseph’s.
-
Yes, we sing our Masses including daily! And yes, I find myself agreeing with Fr. Jim Blue below this post.
-
Well John, evidently you don’t know about Form B or C of the Penitential Act. Be more concerned with your deficits rather than mine or my parishes. I’d love to hear about your parish’s endeavors in preparing for the corrected translation. You’d have more credibility critiquing that. ๐
-
-
A very wise pastor taught me a vital principle more than 25 years ago: “What you can do with permission you can do without permission.” It is very freeing.
-
“but do they understand the theological statement being made?”
My bad, I can see how the term ‘consubstantial’ will clear that up for them.
-
Father Blue’s axiom was, and is, often invoked by some of the most eminent interpreters of liturgical law, especially following on SC and its implementing documents, including those of the frequently vilified Consilium ad exsequendam. Your espousal of such openness is welcome news indeed, and I am heartened to learn that you are a proponent of the sound principles of liturgical law on which it is based.
Whether yours and Father Blue’s application of this principle would coincide in particular cases, I, of course, cannot say.
Just as a matter of curiosity, does the assembly in your parish sing the “I confess to Almighty God ….” recto tono or to a specially-composed Gregorian melody?
-
Again I draw your attention to the corrected missal and the music for both forms B and C of the Penitential Act as well as the music for the Pray…that my sacrifice and yours…. with the congregation’s response. I ask you, if permission is granted to a parish to sing the Gloria, are they then forbidden to speak it? I know you’re just trying to be contrary, but really is that productive?
-
-
IF one can presume permission to implement aspects of the New Missal early, then one can presume permission to implement them later on (i.e. retrain the Current Missal or aspects of it) and one can presume permission to implement now the corrections that will obviously some day be made in the New Missal when it will be revised.
Two things which I learned in my brief journey into the clerical world many years ago as a Jesuit Novice:
1. Always โpresume permission.โ
2. Always give others what we novices called the โplus signโ that is assume that they have permission to do whatever they are doing. We, of course, delighted in tracing this โplus signโ as a blessing upon anyone we encountered breaking a rule!
-
Yes, and Jack I think part of that will be the judicious use of the ICLE1998 which I would prefer rather than trying to fix VC2010 on the fly.
-
But there is always a prudential judgment made when doing things of this sort. For example is there a snow ball’s chance in hell that the 1998 translation will be permitted or even the bishop of the local diocese will allow for its experimentation? Prudently we’d have to say no. But there is certitude that in 12 Sundays from now the entire corrected 2010 translation will be implemented and no other will be allowed either experimentally or otherwise unless there is a tremendous reversal in the next 12 Sundays. So to implement something now that has not a snow ball’s chance in hell of being adopted universally by the English speaking Church or even “congregationally” by a local bishop seems to me to be an imprudent decision to proceed with that particular translation even experimentally.
-
Nothing is going on – we have a diocese in which our bishop is quoted as saying – “what is the big deal? The peoples’ parts only have minor changes”
He reluctantly allowed Paul Inwood to do one presentation to parish music directors – probably 1/4 attended.
The diocesan paper has barely commented on this – usually reprinting a brief USCCB announcement.
Our pastor had our newly graduated minister of education do two Sunday afternoon presentations in early August which focused on how this was an opportunity to learn more about the eucharist.
Have repeatedly volunteered to support education, ministry group awareness, etc. He is not interested and will not vary much from the diocesan line. The outcry will come in December.
This diocese is in the middle of roughly $30 million in new parishes and expansions; new bishop fundraisers, etc. Five out of 8 pages in the diocesan rag highlighted that.
It is rather sad.
So, appears that I touched a nerve and now you want to change the subject again. You never did answer JFR’s questions?
-
-
Thanks, Jack. For me, it puts a lie to the whole argument and approach of folks such as Fr. Allan.
It continues to remind me of George Orwell’s Animal Farm….the pigs were in power and would change the rules as they went along when the common folks (horse, dogs) found that the pigs were living free and loose.
Fr. Allan – enjoyed your anecdotal middle school story. BTW – have taught more kids than you will ever be able to do in your lifetime. You and Jeffrey continue to make a mountain out of a molehill with this incarnation vs. born of. Your life from conception is great but doesn’t exactly capture the debates going on in moral theology currently (don’t want to get into an abortion debate here).
Jeffrey – yes, would state that most catholics know the difference. Appears that you still have to explain it even with the new translation – so, what do we gain? Again, the post is about the new translation…you pick out one phrase to justify this whole experience. Fr. Allan justified by making up a story about ICEL, LA, and those consulted about this project. My point using two creeds is that they both don’t intentionally use incarnation the same way…so, guess incarnation and born of were not essential to both creeds…can’t we say the same about a liturgy translation – is liturgy about a list of dogmas? Paul Inwood cited the history of adding and including the creed into the eucharistic liturgy centuries ago…there were differences of opinion about that. In fact, the creed on the “importance” scale is not at the top……a eucharist would be fine without the creed because that is not the main meaning or focus of liturgy.
So, you pick up on a secondary element in the order of mass in order to justify this whole project. The same could be said about consubstantial. Sorry, it comes down to an interpretation and judgment call.
-
Bill, I’d love to know how ready your parish is and how you’ve assisted your pastor and pastoral team in preparing for the corrected translation which will be implemented in 12 Sundays from now in your parish. Focusing on your efforts and offering suggestions for us might be better than your reactionary ways of making your points against those whom you disagree. Just what’s going on in your parish anyway?
-
-
While โpresumed permissionโ fits well with the long standing tradition of allowing the superior of the local community to adapt the liturgy to fulfill its purpose rather than our modern bureaucratic โdo the red, read the blackโ there do have to be limits against the abuse of pastor authority.
My suggestion is โinformed consentโ by actual vote of the local congregation. If real โinformed consentโ, not some rubber stamp liturgy committee or pastoral council. were in place โpresumed permissionโ would much more likely be used for the benefit of the congregation rather than the ego of the pastor.
-
Yes. The pastoral council or liturgy committee has a very very strong tendency to be distorted by selection and confirmation bias over time. Unilateral action by priests who come and go, while the congregation is left to mop up after them, is very undesirable. We shouldn’t do Vatican III in a Vatican I way as a local matter…..
-
That’s not how parishes operate in making any major decisions and is very congregational. We have councils in place to advise the priest, either pastoral councils or finance councils, but these are advisory as per canon law, which has to be taken into account also.
-
Fr Allan
Be that as it may, a pastor or celebrant who Lone-Rangers without sufficient warrant from his congregation is, in a word, a fool. While consulting the congregation is not part of Roman legal culture, it is Roman in the best sense: prudently aware of human nature and how organic societies work in practice. The model is not of absolute monarchy in the Baroque sense, but of the abbot who is profoundly aware that his authority depends in practice upon deep and broad consultation and understanding of those who bear the burden of his authority; without that awareness, he exercises power, but not true authority.
-
-
Bill:
the post is about the new translationโฆyou pick out one phrase to justify this whole experience.
I like a lot of the new translation, I don’t like all of it. There are things I acknowledge are translated wrong, others are translated poorly, others are translated well. I’m not trying to “justify this whole experience” in the comments I’ve made in this thread, I’ve been defending the specific choice of using “incarnate” instead of “born” to translate “incarnatus”. Then someone brought up “consubstantial” and I gave my opinion of that. I’m not talking about “the whole experience” here, I’m talking about individual changes.
My point using two creeds is that they both donโt intentionally use incarnation the same wayโฆso, guess incarnation and born of were not essential to both creeds
That’s your guess. Does it mean we don’t need to accurately translate what you guess is “not essential to both creeds”? Do we need to translate these two different creeds so that they sound more similar to one another than they actually are? Why have (the option of one of) two creeds anyway?
the creed on the โimportanceโ scale is not at the topโฆโฆa eucharist would be fine without the creed because that is not the main meaning or focus of liturgy.
What do you think might have been the ecumenical impact of removing the Creed from the Mass?
-
Two things which I learned in my brief journey into the clerical world many years ago as a Jesuit Novice:
1. Always โpresume permission.โ
—————————————————–
Presuming permission, should we assume a bishop wearing his pectoral cross over his chasuable at Mass has permission? I think so, but I’m flabbergasted to find Catholics on certain liturgy blogs which will be nameless who jump on any and all bishops who wear the pectoral cross in this manner. Citing chapter and verse of the regs, why the bishop should be tried, deposed, and imprisoned, or sent into exile for daring to wear the most clearly identifiable Christian symbol over the chasuable.
These folks I’m sure aren’t Jesuits or can have been former Jesuit seminarians either.
-
-
The back and forth seems to have moved rather far afield of the original posting about the columnist’s first experience of the new translation in London! I wish to put in my two cents (or two pence) worth on that actual subject:
-
Sorry — I was trying to finish my comment using the editing box and got timed out. I was describing my own first experiences, since we are just back from London ourselves. But I didn’t save what I had written, and I don’t have time to reconstruct it right now — please just delete these two comments from me and I’ll submit my own “London experience” sometime tomorrow. thank you!
-
Jeremy Stevens :
Our pastor says the Nicene Creed will drop out of use in 95% of the parishes:
Using the Apostlesโ Creed 1) eliminates โfor us menโ 2) doesnโt have โconsubstantialโ 3) or โwas incarnateโand most importantly:
ITโS SHORTER!
Remember, the only reason Eucharistic Prayer II is used so much is that we donโt have a shorter one!Resisting AWR’s standard plea, “Evidence, please.”….
So, your pastor’s projecting the most efficacious “solution” to skirting the MR3 “disaster” by 95% of all celebrants to opt for the AC is based upon a clerical authority to “SHORTEN” the Mass? Wow. If that doesn’t open a pandorum of paradox, cynicism and resignation within this hallowed forum of progressive thought, what other pinnacle shall we ascend to find “source and summit?” Oh, I forgot, we can’t ascend; things need to be “shorter.” Especially in “Ire”-land.-
In my experience, a number of parishes in South Africa no longer use the “new” Nicene Creed because of its problematic translation, and have instead chosen to use the Apostle’s Creed.
I should qualify that in SA we’re using the 2008 ICEL Grey Book version of the Nicene Creed with its “dangling ands”, not the 2010 Vox Clara version. Our version was approved by the SA bishops and the CDW and was taken into use nationally (by mistake) well before the appearance of the final, Vox Clara version.
-
-
I attended Mass at the Dominican Church in Popeโs Quay, Cork, yesterday and heard the people recite their newly translated parts tranquilly. Delivery of โand with your spiritโ, strong at first, became increasingly uncertain and at its fifth and last appearance we had a resounding โand also with you!โ
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.