Quæsumus – We’re Still Asking

Quæsumus, the presidential orations often plead: we ask, we pray. In the previous translation, this was cleverly moved to the end of the prayer: “We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ…” to make a complete sentence out of what would otherwise be “Through Christ our Lord…” (I’m not sure it’s a grammatical error, BTW, that this isn’t a complete sentence now. Liturgical diction has its own patterns. But that’s another question for another day.) Now the quæsumus is back in the middle of the prayer in our English missal, as in the Latin.

Here’s what I’m asking. Why did Vox Clara and/or the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome so often get the quæsumus wrong in the English? Or more precisely, why did they change it to make it wrong (according to their rules), when a correct (according to their rules) translation had been submitted by the bishops’ conferences?

Today’s Prayer after Communion, for example, has this:

As we give thanks, almighty God,
for these gifts you have bestowed,
graciously arouse in us, we pray,
the desire for those yet to come, …

which is a translation of this:

Gratias de collatis muneribus referentes,
fac nobis propitius, omnipotens Deus,
quae ventura sunt desiderare praestanda, …

Yup. That’s right. There’s no quæsumus in Latin. But someone added a “we pray” to the English. Why?? Was someone so taken with quæsumus-fever that he (I’m pretty sure that’s the right pronoun here) couldn’t resist? Is there some new principle according to which the Latin original, when it isn’t sufficiently Latinate, is to be made more Latinate in the vernacular version?

FWIW, the bishops and ICEL had gotten it right:

As we give thanks, almighty God,
for the gifts you have bestowed,
graciously stir in us the desire for blessings yet to come, …

The same thing happened to the Collect last Tuesday:

…look kindly, we pray,
on the handiwork of your mercy, …

where the Latin has

… in opera misericordiae tuae propitius intuere, …

and the bishops and ICEL (right again) had the following:

… look kindly on the handiwork of your mercy, …

We’ll get more questionable quantity of quæsumus on December 30:

O God, who touch us through our partaking of your Sacrament,
work, we pray, the effects of its power in our hearts, …

for this:

Deus, qui nos sacramenti tui participatione contingis,
virtutis eius effectus in nostris cordibus operare, ..

And whaddayaknow, the bishps and ICEL got it right again:

O God, who touch us through our partaking of your Sacrament,
work the effects of its power in our hearts, …

But it goes the other way too. Here are three cases season of quæsumus-cutback in our translation, though ICEL and the bishops had carefully translated it from the Latin.

First, the Prayer over the Offerings for the Vigil of the Nativity:

Current missal:

As we look forward, O Lord,
to the coming festivities,
may we serve you all the more eagerly
for knowing that in them
you make manifest the beginnings of our redemption.

Latin:

Tanto nos, Domine, quæsumus,
promptiore servitio haec praecurrere concede sollemnia,
quanto in his constare principium
nostrae redemptionis ostendis.

ICEL/bishops’ conferences:

Grant us, Lord, we pray,
that as we welcome this festive season,
we may serve you all the more eagerly
for knowing that you reveal therein
the beginning of our redemption.

Then, on December 31st (perhaps balancing out the uncalled-for quæsumus of the day before?), we’ll get this in the Prayer over the Offerings:

O God, who give us the gift of true prayer and of peace,
graciously grant that, through this offering,
we may do fitting homage to your divine majesty
and by partaking of the sacred mystery,
we may be faithfully united in mind and heart.

The Latin:

Deus, auctor sincerae devotionis et pacis,
da, quæsumus, ut et maiestatem tuam
convenienter hoc munere veneremur,
et sacri participatione mysterii fideliter sensibus uniamur.

And the ICEL/bishops’ version:

O God, author of true devotion and peace,
grant, we pray, that with this gift
we may offer due homage to your divine majesty
and, by partaking of the sacred mystery,
we may be faithfully united in mind and heart.

Finally, for the Prayer after Communion on Epiphany, Mass during the Day, the missal has:

Go before us with heavenly light, O Lord,
always and everywhere,
that we may perceive with clear sight
and revere with true affection
the mystery in which you have willed us to participate.

Latin:

Caelesti lumine, quæsumus, Domine,
semper et ubique nos praeveni,
ut mysterium, cuius nos participes esse voluisti,
et puro cernamus intuitu, et digno percipiamus affectu.

ICEL/bishops:

With heavenly light
go before us always and everywhere,
we pray, O Lord,
that we may discern with clear vision
and regard with due tenderness
the mystery you have willed us to share.

Now look, before anyone gets all worked up about this, let’s take a breath and put it all in perspective. Strange as these mistakes are, I don’t think they really matter much. The negative effect of such minutiae on our liturgical life is pretty close to zilch.

Much more pressing is whether every Latin quæsumus should be translated as an insertion in the middle of an English phrase (I’m skeptical), or whether Liturgiam authenticam’s demand to imitate Latin syntax works (I’m convinced it doesn’t). Once you’ve made the larger mistake of thinking you must slavishly translate every one of a couple hundred quæsumus’es, having two or three too many or two few doesn’t much matter.

The issue is whether the missal’s translation theory works (it doesn’t), not whether this missal translation would be improved by getting all the details of Latin grammar right (it wouldn’t).

And if this missal’s translation theory doesn’t work, other issues follow. Such as this: what was the reason again for rejecting the 1998 translation? That it didn’t follow the Latin slavishly and took too many liberties? Hello?  If a text like the current one can be approved, there’s little reason left to critique 1998 . On this point, the Holy See has pulled the rug out from under itself .

But as I was saying, the whole quæsumus thing doesn’t really matter. Still, I sure am curious. Why did they get the details of basic Latin so wrong? Who did it, and why? Who thought it would be better to insert things not in the Latin, or delete things that are there?

It’s always dangerous to impute motives, so I’m trying to resist. Maybe it was incompetence, or maybe it was sloppy inattention to detail, or maybe it was a perverse sense of humor, or maybe it was part of a larger well-intentioned plan to make any necessary change to improve the text, or maybe it was a part of a plan to advance someone’s career by pleasing a variety of perceived wishes, or maybe it was the base desire to mess things up just because one could – but I don’t know that it was any of these. I honestly have no idea why such bizarre changes, even about things that don’t much matter, were made to our missal text.

But we may never find out. So it is. Sure would be nice to know. Sure would be helpful to the Church, and to the next round of translations, to know. Oh well.

awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

76 responses to “Quæsumus – We’re Still Asking”

  1. Fr. Jim Blue

    They are all good questions, and I doubt that we will ever know.

    The sloppy work of Vox Clara is leading presiders to make all sorts of “corrections” on the fly.

    Reply
  2. Jordan Zarembo

    All good points Fr. Ruff. I’ve never recognized that the “We ask this …” in the closing petitions of the 1973 propers could be a repositioning of quaesumus. I would argue that the semantic force of quaesumus is stronger than “we ask” (I would translate it as “we beg” or “we implore”). I have further theories on quaesumus which I wish to prove soon. Doing so might make me a doctor, but not one of surgery or psychiatry, thanks be to God 😉

    The 1973/1998(?) translation of quaesumus is consistent with colloquial English usage. In English, the content of the request usually comes before the verb of petition. Often the opposite is the case in Latin. Latin often uses postpositives (igitur, ideo, as well as quaesumus, etc.) as markers of the type of message to follow. I agree that a literal translation of quaesumus in its place in a Latin sentence is contrary to English syntax.

    The insertion of “we pray” despite the absence of quaesumus in the typical text not only dilutes the meaning of the Latin word, but also distorts the nature of the vernacular petition. This you have shown with the examples above.

    Reply
  3. Jack Rakosky

    omnis enim qui petit accipit
    For everyone who asks receives;
    et qui quaerit invenit (Mat 7:8 VUL)
    he who seeks finds; (Mat 7:8 NIV)

    Looking up the occurrences of the two Greek words that underlie petit/ask and quaerit/seek in Scripture it seems that they are usually translated in the same way both into Latin and English.

    So my question is, does “we pray” mean “we ask” or “we seek”?
    Do we expect to receive something, or discover (find) something?

    Reply
    1. Jack Rakosky

      Luke Timothy Johnson in his recent book Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) 2009 looks at Christianity in terms of four categories of religion common in the Roman world:
      1) religion as participation in benefits,
      2) as moral transformation,
      3) as transcending the world,
      4) and as stabilizing the world.

      Johnson finds much in NT Christianity that is related to the most common and practical form of religion, i.e. 1) namely participation in benefits, and also much in NT Christianity that was related to 2) moral transformation (which was present mainly in philosophy in the Roman world). He sees Christianity as 3) transcending the world (e.g. Gnosticism) and as 4) stabilizing the world (once the Church was established under Constantine) as mostly later developments.

      If one looks at the NT (e.g. Matt) and the use of the Greek word for ask / Latin peto it usually deals with concrete benefits, e.g. money, bread, fish, gifts for children, a social position, a person, a body,

      while the Greek word for seek/Latin quero has to do with more transformative issues (seeking Jesus, the Kingdom, rest, talking to Jesus, the search for the lost sheep)

      It seems to me that “we pray” is preoccupied with getting the person who prays to adopt a “begging” attitude (probably to inculcate being a pray, pay and obey Catholic) and avoids important theological and practical religious questions, namely are we asking God for a benefit that is outside us, or are we seeking to be transformed.

      This question raises the basic issue of allowing the Roman Liturgy to be transformed by Scripture, and the tendency of some to treat the Latin text and Roman tradition as more “scriptural” than Scripture.

      Reply
    2. John Anderson

      Quaero and quaeso are two different verbs.

      Reply
  4. Alan Griffiths

    Fr. Ruff rightly draws attention to the “quaesumus” issue, and its wanton treatment by the editors in the new Missal.

    On one level it does not matter too much, but set alongside other bits of unsatisfactory work which are gradually being spotted, it is disturbing.

    Andrew Wadsworth, in a recent interview quoted in “The Tablet,” hinted that changes would be needed in the text, so perhaps he was thinking along similar lines. I find it hard to believe that ICEL can feel comfortable with the text as we have it. Given his position and the sensitivity of this issue, it was bold of him to make that point. But he is surely right.

    “Pray Tell” performs a useful service in continuing to point out the weaknesses of the Missal. Pray continue!

    Alan Griffiths.

    Reply
  5. Joe O'Leary

    Yesterday I faced the fussy preces for Monday in the 4th week of advent. The only thing to do was to simplify them impromptu (a practice that is bound to produce muddles or theological errors) or to root around in the back of the old sacramentary for the bad 1973 versions, or to come armed with the 1998 versions, or to say a prayer of one’s own instead. The collects as printed are just unprayable.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Jim Blue

      Indeed, Joe, and today’s orations were just as bad.

      Reply
    2. Jack Rakosky

      Thanks Jim and Joe for reminding those of us who do not go to daily Mass and only have to content with weekly mediocrity that some people deal with this on a daily basis.

      Reply
  6. Joe O'Leary

    Found this on the net: Quaesumus is an over-correct form. Quaesimus is a stylistic archaism (but used in the sense of ‘seek to acquire’ rather than ‘seek’). Quaeso is the form from which derives the classical quaero, through the normal phenomenon of rhotacism.
    Christian Latin is full of various kinds of solecism, one of the most abundant being over-correction.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      “We beg”?

      Reply
      1. John Anderson

        “Quaesumus is an over-correct form.”

        Actually, this is not true. Quaesere and the verb visere (“to look at intently”) are two “desiderative” forms. Quaesere is originally from *quaess-, a form with double s, and thus was not subject to rhotacism (visere<*weids- is the desiderative of the root vid-). The addition of an -s- infix to the e-grade of the stem can also be seen in the future tense of ancient Greek, where the infix was generalized throughout. The formation goes back to Proto-Indo-European. Moreover, the verb quaesere is not a peculiarly Christian form, as the verb is found frequently in Plautus (c. 200 BC).

        What may be surprising about this verb is the conservative 1st plural form quaesumus for the expected *quaesimus. However, the -umus ending (the inherited though rare ending) is found with other verbs whose 2nd plur. is not -itis, e.g. sumus/estis, volumus/vultis. *Quaesitis seems not to have been a form in use.

  7. Pádraig McCarthy

    As Anthony says, we may never know the reasons, if in fact there were reasons.
    There are similar questions about the new Irish language translation which also came into use for Advent (at least, we have just enough of it to keep us going until the close of the Christmas season). I realise that perhaps not many PrayTell users would be familiar with the Irish language. I just make the point that many of the changes seem to me to have been made simply for the sake of making changes, as if to satisfy His Eminence that the “Sapienti” Committee, the committee responsible for the Irish translation, is responding wholeheartedly to the CDW. The original Irish translation was closer to the Latin text than the 1973 English translation, so changes are less prominent. Sentences, however, are longer, as in English. I can only say that as far I can see so far, none of the changes are an improvement, and certainly not necessary.
    Interestingly, the website of our National Centre for Liturgy says: “Is féidir Ord Nua an Aifrinn a úsáid i gceiliúradh an Aifrinn ón gCéad Domhnach den Aidbhint amach” – the new Irish translation, “Ord an Aifrinn … may be used from the First Sunday of Advent”; so it appears that it is not mandatory (yet anyway).
    However, for any Gaeilgeoirí (Irish speakers) of any canúint (dialect of Irish) out there:
    Síocháin an Tiarna libh, rath Dé oraibh um Nollaig, agus go mbeirimid beo ar an am seo arís!
    Pádraig MacCárthaigh.

    Reply
    1. Mary Burke

      I wonder, Pádraig, whether making change for the sake of change was done in order to justify the cost of producing another version of the Irish missal.

      An bhail chéanna ortsa! Go néirí go geal leis an deaobair a bhí idir lámha agatsa i mbliana sna meáin éagsúla!

      Reply
  8. Mark MIller

    Let’s hear it for ” we beseech thee.”

    Just kidding.

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      Mark, you forgot “humbly”.

      🙂

      Reply
  9. Fr. Shawn P. Tunink

    I would agree that the changes between the final ICEL version and the version we have now are small. Still, I must admit I’d like to know what happened. I can understand Vox Clara making a few specific edits such as to reconcile differing versions from other member countries, etc. However, the nature of the changes that were made look more like clerical errors.

    In almost every case that I’ve seen the ICEL version was correct as it was and the changes don’t look deliberate so much as they look like mistakes. Adding a quaesumus where there isn’t one, not translating one that’s there. I could understand if the original translator had just made a mistake, but somehow we went from a correct translation to one with errors.

    Like I said, they’re small. But still, it would be interesting to know what happened. Given the lack of technological ability sometimes at the Vatican, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Vox Clara just had a different (earlier?) version of the text and the mistakes were accidents. It would seem strange that someone with an “agenda” aiming to change the texts would choose to leave his mark by playing around with quaesumus.

    Reply
    1. Xavier Rindfleisch

      Check out this chart:

      https://praytell.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Xavier-Rindfleish-Comparing-Received-and-Final1.pdf

      Two specific “mistakes” will certainly become annoying next spring, as throughout the entire Paschal Time, ALL of the Easter Prefaces (and those of Ascension and Pentecost) have two specific errors: “overcome” with paschal joy, mistranslating “profusis” and “even the heavenly Powers, with angel hosts, sing together” rather than, “and” or “as (or and) also” (as if we thought maybe the heavenly Powers and angel hosts wouldn’t be all that happy about the Resurrection?). Ugh.

      Reply
  10. Jonathan Day

    Small? My understanding is that Vox Clara, operating in strict secrecy, made some 10,000 changes to the ICEL text. Some of these introduced mistranslations, some added heretical content and now, as we have learned today, some added “we pray” in curious places.

    It hardly seems plausible that the interventions were accidental; and in any event, the whole procedure of central checking and approval is supposed to ensure that such “accidents” don’t happen.

    Should we assume that pronouncements of the CDF can be ignored because an “accident” could have caused someone to mail out the wrong version of a theological opinion?

    “Oh dear, reverend Father, do you mean I was supposed to send version 2210(a)(4), the one that says that the Church does have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood? So sorry…there were so many versions, and the Internet went down…”

    I don’t think so.

    Reply
  11. Henry Edwards

    To me, it seems pedantic to criticize the final editors for failure to adhere slavishly to Liturgiam authenticam. After all, our purpose is worship of God, not worship of rules and regs, norms and rubrics.

    And LA is simply an obviously imperfect set of guidelines for rendering accurately in translation the spirit and meaning of the original Latin. It does not call for and does not produce slavishly literal translations to meet this objective. At the most trivial level, why object if the Latin contains a quaesumus where a “we beg you” does not read well in English? Or if a “we pray” is inserted to make it read more smoothly even though no quaesumus is present in the Latin. Objections of this sort seem (to me) either hypocritical or hypercritical.

    But those who made these changes do deserve criticism where they produced lousy results–as well as praise where they made improvements–whether through adherence to or ignorance of the LA guidelines. Of course, most of us writing in English have the Anglo-Saxon view that laws should be obeyed absolutely, rather than a perhaps more Roman view of admitting exceptions to laws in applications where they make no sense.

    Having now examined virtually all the collects in RM3, I’ve seen numerous instances both of improvements and of cases where a simple layman in a southern backwater might have produced better results. Why not call them individually as we see them? Is it not the diligence and/or judgment (or lack thereof) in a particular instance that is fair game for criticism? And in the case of judgment that stinks, what difference does it make how noble or ignoble was the intent, or what process produced it?

    Reply
  12. Jack Feehily

    I am finding I can work with the new texts to lead the people in prayers to which they can give their amen. Some of them need some minor editing, the kind that does not at all alter the substance of what the church believes. Henry brought up the difference between an Anglo-Saxon understanding of law and a more Roman view. The Italians, I’m told, have an approach to Vatican proscriptions that we would all do well to follow. If the legislation says “no one, not even a priest, may change anything in the proscribed texts”, one should read “no one, not even a priest, may change anything in the proscribed texts unless, of course, what you find there doesn’t sound right or doesn’t seem to make sense.”
    There’s a big difference between removing an obsequious “quaesumus” here and there and just making something up out of whole cloth. The law, of course, if motivated by the fear that clerics are going to do anything more than just to read the text. Let’s recall that for ages, many clerics reading liturgical texts had little, if any, understanding of the words. Nor were they being heard by anyone who might be misled by an incorrect reading. The translations in hand missals were not official ones, but were at least declared free or error so it didn’t make any difference–to the attender–what was actually being read.
    Nor, in those days, did it matter if the cleric had the foggiest notion of what we now refer to as “ars celebrandi”. Many stumbled through the texts with the apparent goal of getting it done as quickly as possible. It was like a magic formula that as long as you said it more or less correctly, the objective was achieved.
    This is what gets me about those who today are so intrigued and inspired by the “traditional” Mass. I guess I’m glad they’re being finicky about it being done beautifully and lawfully, but that was hardly how it was back in “the good old days before Vatican II”.

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      I’m assuming you mean prescribed texts (mandated), rather than proscribed (forbidden).

      Paul.

      Reply
  13. Henry Edwards

    “I guess I’m glad they’re being finicky about it being done beautifully and lawfully, but that was hardly how it was back in “the good old days before Vatican II”.

    Certainly, the Mass was occasionally–though not frequently, in my experience–celebrated badly in pre-Vatican II days–as both it and the newer Mass can be today. And the elaborate Missa cantata with full schola-chanted propers, sacred polyphony, incense, etc. that’s typically the every-Sunday TLM norm today–can’t remember my last Sunday low Mass attended–was the exception then, when of necessity or choice most attended one of the several Sunday low Masses in their parish, and the single parish Sunday high Mass (if any) was hardly comparable to the normal expectation for a high Mass today. For instance, this coming Sunday, I will hear Orlando di Lasso’s Missa Octavi Toni for the ordinary of the solemn high Mass of Christmas, a Victoria motet for the offertory, a Palestrina final Marian antiphon, in addition to participating myself in all the responses and singing the Pater Noster, none of which I ever experienced in “the good old days”.

    However, the preponderant majority of people I attend the EF with now, and the focus of energy in most TLM communities today, are (unlike me) young folks (20s to 40s) who have no memory of or interest in the ancient past (before 1980, say), and–whether rightly or wrongly–see the TLM as indicating the future direction of the Mass, whether as EF or OF (which almost all of them still attend also). Of course, I with my aged perspective know that the OF however it evolves will continue to be the Mass of the preponderant majority of Catholics, so that arguments about how things may have been a past few have experienced are of little relevance.

    Reply
  14. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    There is no doubt that by today’s standard of critical analysis, the EF Mass was not always celebrated as beautifully as it might have been. But there was a different sense of reverence for the majority of laity that did not allow them to be overly critical of the Mass or its texts. Somehow I think it is a nobler way to be less critical of what is happening if what is happening is happening according to the books no matter how quickly or thoughtlessly. I do think that visually there was more consistency with the manner in which Mass was celebrated in the EF. But today we are so critical, not only of texts, processes and governance I wonder if we are too distracted from being Catholic, especially the focus on charity. I know for myself that when I attend Mass, I am distracted to no end by my critical eye and ear. That’s not good for my spirituality or my salvation. Sometimes letting go and letting God may be the best way to go and trusting in “ex opere operato.”

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      “Somehow I think it is a nobler way to be less critical of what is happening if what is happening is happening according to the books no matter how quickly or thoughtlessly.”

      That’s called a rationalization for reductive legalism. If you want to understand why the Church’s culture was so brittle, you can book it not so much to external forces of secularization, but to the rationalization of reductive legalism. It doesn’t seem so evil, just banal. And there is a certain comfort in that banality. But it’s not of Christ. And docility can be evil.

      ” . . . I wonder if we are too distracted from being Catholic, especially the focus on charity.”

      What? Did you really write that? I hope you can clarify what you mean by this, because it’s not coming across well to this reader, at least. I don’t believe there is such a thing as too much of a focus on charity, at least for Christians. So, I am being charitable here, and inviting you to disabuse me of a misunderstanding, because I can’t believe you mean that.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Charity = love, not just giving something to someone and that our critical analysis of everything and name calling and putting people down for yesteryear or today just doesn’t strike me as charitable. My last sentence is meant to indicate that being so critical of the Mass no matter which form or translation is a real distraction for those who should be focusing in on other things essential to the Mass: “I know for myself that when I attend Mass, I am distracted to no end by my critical eye and ear. That’s not good for my spirituality or my salvation. Sometimes letting go and letting God may be the best way to go and trusting in ‘ex opere operato.’”

      2. Karl Liam Saur

        So, you actually meant that there is an insufficient focus on charity, not an excessive focus on charity?

      3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        I think our culture which includes Catholics is more shrill and critical and less charitable. The polarization of our culture and our Church is from a “critical” not a “charitable” spirit.

  15. Bill deHaas

    Fr. Allan says:

    “Somehow I think it is a nobler way to be less critical of what is happening if what is happening is happening according to the books no matter how quickly or thoughtlessly. I do think that visually there was more consistency with the manner in which Mass was celebrated in the EF.”

    Really – key phrase beyond the use of “happening three times in seven words”:

    “……according to the books no matter how quickly or thoughtlessly.”

    Ah yes, an ad hoc comment about “ex opere operato” – just mumble what the books says and “presto, magic occurs” no matter how quickly or thoughtlessly.

    Is this more of your “hermeneutic of continuity” argument…….can’t remember how many 8 minute private masses at side altars I served while the community was celebrating in the main part of the church; or how many times Father rushed through 6AM mass with a hangover stumbling over the latin but….it was from the book.

    When did lex credendi lex orandi become “by the book” ….can hear the hermeneutic of reform from VII & SC crashing down already and echoing in the empty churches.

    Could have sworn that one of the goals and principles of VII bishops was to REFORM the “by the book” mentality; to recapture the root of eucharistic and communal celebrations which was not “by the book”.

    Geez, Fr. Allan – I know, I missed your point about “too critical” but really….what point is being missed.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Bill, I know you’re a bit older than me, but if you had sisters in elementary school, didn’t they tell you “Geez” is not appropriate for a good Catholic boy to use? And yes, you miss the point.

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        who said anything about a “good” catholic boy – you referring to Newt?

        Rather, think I got the point and you missed it.

        One of the significant failures of the VII liturgical reform was in seminary and priestly liturgical/ars celebrandi training, education, etc. along with the failure over time of conferences and individual bishops in terms of instituting consistent and regular liturgical updates, continuing education, feedback, etc. Reforms in worldwide institutions are difficult at best (look at any worldwide top 50 US corporation). Add to that the JPII/B16 retraction and reinterpretation of liturgical reform and, like history and tradition shows us, it will easily take 100 years for VII to finally be absorbed into the life of the church.

        History will eventually show that the indult and SP were polarizing steps that indicate poor theology, even poorer ecclesiology to the detriment of the church. The future church will be in the southern hemisphere – the EF will have little impact there. LA and the MIssal Moronicum are interim steps that will painfully highlight the genius of the VII reforms.

      2. Mary Burke

        Your agist comment, father Allan is also grammatically incorrect. It shoud read: “Bill, I know you’re a bit older THAN I AM.”

        If you’re not so bothered by bad grammar in English, it’s no wonder you’re such a cheerleader for the new “translation.”

        Your point about Geez is the reddest herring I’ve seen in a long time.

      3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Mary, I see you don’t like inculturation in the English language; I write like southerners (USA) speak! I’m also happy that you are not color blind and can see what isn’t there. How odd! How’s your sense of smell, did you smell the red herring? BTW when using father as a title it is capitalized. 🙂

      4. Mary Burke

        There is an excuse, father, for your defective grammar, but none for your bad manners to Bill.

        I’d suggest you update your familiarity with registers of language. Then you might have something more worthwhile to contribute to the debates on the new ‘translation.’

        In view of your self-declared devotion to the Tridentine form of the liturgy, I wonder whether your proficiency in Latin is a function of your competence in English grammar. Do you know the meaning of the Latin texts your read?

        Or is that what you had in mind when you were recommending falling back on ex opere operato?

      5. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        My self-declared devotion is to our Lord no matter which form of the Liturgy my congregation and I experience Him and I’m grateful for whatever form even the defective and now defunct 1973 missal that makes that Real Presence happen (and in all four ways). I’m happy to celebrate what the Church allows.
        As for my bad manners, one should view the plank in one’s own eye before pulling the splinter out of another’s eye or something like that. I suspect you are projecting on me what you are guilty of, but I’m not a psychologist. Bill loves me and I love Bill why else would we respond to each other the way we do! 🙁

    2. Henry Edwards

      Again, Bill, whatever you or I remember about the old Mass in the old days could hardly be more irrelevant to the young devotees of the EF today, who are looking to the future rather than to the past–nor to Benedict’s intent for the OF with the hermeneutic of continuity.

      Hmm . . . Can we thank VII and SC for the fact that those abuses of yesteryear would not be tolerated (and are not seen) in the EF today? Seriously, I think it’s arguable that the EF has benefited more from the Council than has the OF. And that many a bishop might have to attend an EF to see the intentions of the Council best realized in his diocese.

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        The celebration of the 1962 Missal benefits from many aspects: intentional communities, a strong dedication to good liturgy, and not least: the freedom of its leadership to remain focused on a minimal schedule.

        In any busy suburban parish, there are likely four or five weekend Masses, a wedding, a funeral or two, a school Mass, and five or six weekday Masses. I’d like to see how traditional ars celebrandi fares if all of those were high Masses except for the weekday liturgies.

        If the situation were reversed and vernacular-language liturgies were extraordinary, you would have great clamor nearly everywhere to permit it as a regular occurence.

        Oh wait, that clamor’s already happened.

  16. Jonathan Day

    Let me build on Henry’s post, which – apart from the “hermeneutic of continuity” idea, a nonsense that he certainly can’t be blamed for – strikes me as very wise.

    Vatican II and the liturgical movement that preceded it created a generation of liturgically aware laypeople. And I am convinced that this has borne fruit for the EF as well as the OF.

    There was evidence of this before the New Mass came along. My experiences parallel Bill’s, in many ways – mumbled Masses, congregations focused and priests focused primarily on getting through and getting out, Jansenist homilies. And the music! Not Lasso and Victoria and Palestrina but cheesy Italianesque ditties with sentimental words, far worse than the folky Mass music that the traditionalists decry.

    The changes were starting to happen, though: dialogue Masses, courses to help laypeople understand more about the liturgy, the St Joseph Missal (whose translations were surprisingly dynamic). And then the vernacular Mass. Meanwhile, little groups around the world recovered chant MSs and pushed hard for better liturgical music.

    In part because of enthusiasm for the Ordinary Form, in part because of resistance to it, we now have a good number of ‘lay clerkes’, individuals who have no intent of becoming a priest or deacon but are entranced by liturgy and who seek excellence in whichever form.

    There is no going backward. We can no more return to the unchanging ‘traditional Latin Mass’ or ‘Mass of all time’ than to the eucharist of the Christians in the catacombs.

    Henry, in an earlier post you wrote of ‘young folks … who … see the TLM as indicating the future direction of the Mass, whether as EF or OF.’ By this did you mean that the ‘TLM’ can also be done in the Ordinary Form, i.e. Novus Ordo, in Latin, with appropriate ceremony? I hope and pray that you did!

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      Except for the fact that there are plenty of EF enthusiasts who resent the marginalization of the dry Low Mass without dialogue. They are largely not in control of how it is offered, but that could change.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Bill, I find it fascinating that you would like the next pope to use his authority to over rule the broad permission for the EF Mass that this pope has allowed. Very interesting. Have you had a conversion toward papal authority? As for me, I would suspect that a future pope may allow two forms for the one revised missal (the current OF missal). How would you like that?

      2. Bill deHaas

        Fr. Allan – see below by Jonathan Day. I find various papal pronouncements to be just that; they change given the curial winds and how they blow.

        Until we get back to conferences of bishops and a pope that actually wants to govern using them, we will continue to swing back and forth.

        Right, I will “use” another papal pronouncement to overrule a papal pronouncement. Neither would be very pastoral but they at least would cancel each other out and we would get back to the last council of the church and, to a degree, the synods called for by the council until JPII gutted that direction.

    2. Jordan Zarembo

      re: Jonathan Day on December 20, 2011 – 6:03 pm

      Jonathan, I entirely agree that the postconciliar era has created a greater awareness of liturgy in general, and not only among Roman Catholics. You are also right to say that the Tridentine celebrations of today are largely free of the schmaltzy hymns of the past. The EF’s relegation to a minority liturgy has allowed it to reach a new aesthetic potential.

      “There is no going backward” neglects the reality that the OF cannot be understood without the EF. Pope Benedict’s “one rite, two forms” realizes that the distinctive qualities of the EF complement, rather than detract, from the maturation of the OF.

      The EF is profound beauty and pathetic hatred at once. The intricately profound prayers of the “old offertory” uplift, while the EF Passiontide dehumanization of the Jewish people forces us to confront the potency of liturgical violence. Yet, the ethical and moral maturation of the EF cannot happen without the two liturgies living side by side. The alternate option, a consignment of the EF to history, refuses to confront the beautiful and violent turbulence of Tridentine liturgy. Our liturgical past, practiced or not, will inevitably influence the ethical and moral import of the OF. Better, then, to let the EF grow into its ethical, moral, aesthetic, and devotional potential than wipe its existence and practice away.

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        one rite, two forms….let’s see what the next pope rules on that one.

        in the synod in early 1980’s, bishops around the world overwhelmingly begged JPII not to grant the indult; he did anyway.

        Eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way; the Tridentine liturgy was consigned to history; some just missed or refused to read the announcement.

      2. Jordan Zarembo

        re Bill deHaas on December 20, 2011 – 10:03 pm

        Perhaps a future pope will revoke Pope Benedict’s instructions. Yet, you have dodged the implicit questions of my post. History cannot be evaded. Either the “past” (or what some consider to be past) continues to evolve and relentlessly challenge ethics, morality, and theology, or the past is denied and unresolved even if we are forever bound to its implications. There is no end in “liturgical renewal”. Postmodernism is largely dependent on its pre-modern obverse for self-definition.

      3. Jonathan Day

        Jordan, “one rite two forms” has always struck me as something of a legalistic fudge. Most proponents of the Tridentine Mass that I know loudly assert that the Novus Ordo is fundamentally defective, or at least greatly inferior to the Tridentine liturgy. The more balanced positions I hear from you, from Henry Edwards and many others on Pray Tell are rare on the ground. The existence of groups like FSSP and the potential creation (may God forbid this) of an “ordinariate” for the SSPX all suggest that the rites are almost entirely different.

        In addition to the pathetic hatred and antisemitism you describe (not confined to the Passiontide liturgy) there is also a different view of the relationship of priest and assembly. And there are the winding repetitions and aporias in the text of the Tridentine rite; Catherine Pickstock writes about these in incomprehensible length. She sees them as an advantage…

        I continue to think that the co-existence of the two forms or rites in one parish presents a pastoral problem. The evidence to the contrary, cited by Samuel Howard and others on PTB, is that some parishes manage to make this work. Perhaps in another topic it would be helpful to discuss how this is done.

      4. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Jonathan Day on December 21, 2011 – 4:41 am

        I’ve often thought that the best rosary crusade is the one which prays for Our Lady’s intercession against the SSPX infecting the Body of Christ with its malignant metastasis. The rot in the SSPX extends far beyond their anti-Semitism: their disdain for the pastoral and social justice constitutions of Vatican II in particular betray a manifest disregard for the dignity of all persons.

        You are right that Passiontide is but one example of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism in the EF. The reformed Mass and Breviary’s thorough rejection of liturgies of hatred and dehumanization is one of the greatest triumphs of conciliar liturgical change. It is of the highest imperative that the 1962 Missal and the 1961 Breviarium Romanum are similarly reformed so that the traditional faithful might worship in integrity.

        Both the “making-just” of liturgy and personal metanoia for all hatred are unconditional requirements of taking up the Cross. No Catholic is bound to the various ideologies of successive Liturgical Movements. I do not adhere to recent scholarship on “assembly” or the way in which many clergy permit the laity to participate in the Mass. I agree with Dr. Pickstock that the “repetitions” are not irrational. In my view, the repetitions of the Tridentine rite are integral to the “score” of the liturgy as an eternal and inscrutable eternal dance. My reluctance to worship at most celebrations of the OF stem from my ideological differences.

        Yes, perhaps the editor would permit a thread on the ideological and logistical clash of the EF and OF in one parish.

      5. Karl Liam Saur

        You mean like Maurice Pinay, who I believe would find some folks at Rorate Caeli to be modernists…?

        http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/

    3. Jordan Zarembo

      re: Karl Liam Saur on December 20, 2011 – 6:11 pm

      Yes, I and many traditional Catholics love the “silent” Low Mass. Many priests today do not like celebrating the public Low Mass, and especially the Sunday Low Mass. If I were a priest I would want nothing more than to be consigned to a side altar in a chantry to recite the votive requiem every day. The postmodern and post-conciliar emphasis on “Christ given for you” neglects the balance of the equation. We are of Christ’s creation, formed in the image of God and given free will. The reality of both salvation and damnation must also be made manifest in public (or in the case of chantries, private) liturgy. The low liturgy often conveys the stark realities of creation and the Creator with honesty and sobriety.

      I do wonder if some priests are attracted to the EF because of a grotesque idealized baroque and not necessarily because of a contemplative immersion in the prayer. Websites such as The New Liturgical Movement present the EF as a Broadway spectacular rather than the song of salvation. I pray that priests learning the EF will realize that few Masses are solemn, and that the least “liturgical” Mass is Mass even if the brocade and tat are absent. I am sadly convinced that many young priests are attracted to the chintz.

      Reply
    4. Henry Edwards

      Jonathan, I do indeed agree with your last sentence. Although a founding member of a now-thriving EF community, I am also devoted to the OF — as are most of our community members, many of whom attend the OF as “religiously” on a weekday basis as the EF on Sunday. Moreover, although primarily an EF community, we also sponsor occasional Latin OF Masses (and some find attractive the flexibility–in language, music, and solemnity–of a largely Latin OF funeral Mass), . Although I am certainly familiar with disagreement on the issue, I wonder personally how a witness to a Latin OF Mass celebrated ad orientation can fail to recognize it as a Mass of the historic Roman rite.

      In any event, it seems obvious to me that Pope Benedict intends “mutual enrichment” to go both ways. His own celebrations of the OF — and many you see there in London — illustrate the ars celebranda that many incorrectly associate only with the EF. In my opinion, the OF is textually richer in some ways. For example, many OF orations and prefaces show a greater richness than in the EF. For instance, the deep and beautiful OF collect of yesterday, which in the EF was a mere feria with no propers of its own.

      While preserving Latin as Sacrosanctum concilium directs — in both forms, even though the Council surely did not anticipate two co-existing forms as such — I also think more vernacular should be available in the EF (as the Council also directed). At some of the EF Masses I attend, the Epistle and Gospel are read in the vernacular (only) at the altar, and the Pater Noster is sung (though in Latin), doubtless an influence of the originally OF formation of most of the young folks there.

      Reply
    5. Henry Edwards

      (concluding) So already I see the beginnings of the convergence of forms that Benedict seems to call for–especially in the joint EF-OF intentions of most of the current seminarians I know. Really, from a historical perspective–independent of individual preferences– is there any doubt that within this century the present two forms (legally) will merge in a glorious single form realizing the aspirations of Vatican II, though with a diversity of practice regarding language, sacred music, etc?

      Reply
  17. Bill deHaas

    Well said but not sure I agree with your “young folks” and TLM conclusion. Think that there are lots of reasons for young folks to be initially attracted to TLM or EF. Let’s see over time. What I have experienced are the typical needs for certainty in perilous times; a need to be told or hear that their worship protects them and removes fear – they want to feel secure; a need for a liturgy that allows them to observe; a liturgy that I can best describe as “comfort food”.

    Reply
    1. Dunstan Harding

      Newman Centers are where you’re seeing the mutual enrichment of the EF an OF. Quite often with very good results.

      Traditional prayers at the foot of the altar added to the OF, but with an OF greeting

      OF celebrated ad orientem (in some cases altar for ad versus populum masses has been removed)

      Propers in English, but commons in Latin

      Scripture (including old testament lesson) said/sung in vernacular facing the people

      Deacon/cantor chants Byzantine-style litany with petitions added for local needs

      Offertory procession either dropped entirely, or the routine of having husband and wife presenting ciborium and cruets is part of a larger procession of the people with money, gifts of one kind or another, and received by the deacons and acolytes.

      Roman canon with Hanc igitur to the end of the amnesis in vernacular or Latin, but the rest of RC said quietly. EP III and IV said/sung in toto in vernacular/Latin

      Lord’s Prayer said by all in Latin

      Provision for concelebration with concelebrants either remaining in the choir stalls/seats, or coming together to stand around or before the altar

      Communion under both forms, standing but with provision for those wishing to receive kneeling

      Reply
  18. Xavier Rindfleisch

    Some time ago, I prepared a comparison chart of points brought to the attention of the Congregation for Divine Worship (“Areas of Difficulty”) and actions taken by the Congregation in response. Readers may find the comparison interesting: the “quaesumus” issue is one of many such issues raised by “Areas”. See sections 4 & 5.

    Here is the link:

    https://praytell.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Xavier-Rindfleish-Comparing-Received-and-Final1.pdf

    Without (again) suggesting why so little by way of correction was done by the CDW after so many “difficulties” (how diplomatic!) had been made known to them – none of the possible answers to that question are very flattering – it cannot be doubted that MANY “difficulties” were identified and forwarded to the Congregation, which did LITTLE in response.

    Very sad.

    I still wonder: does the Pope know? If not, when will someone tell him?

    Reply
    1. Simon Ho

      Thanks for the work.

      I certainly hope the story of the editing to produce the final texts that we now have will be told in the future, then your comparison will come in very useful in such a study.

      Reply
  19. Simon Ho

    “what was the reason again for rejecting the 1998 translation? That it didn’t follow the Latin slavishly and took too many liberties? Hello? If a text like the current one can be approved, there’s little reason left to critique 1998 . On this point, the Holy See has pulled the rug out from under itself .” – Fr Ruff

    Translation is an art and it will be difficult to exactly quantify how much departure from the Latin text is too much. So while, as a Science-trained person, I would really love to have such clear, objective, repeatable standards, I’m afraid that such an expectation is not going to be apt for such a craft.

    Would the 1998 texts pass LA? Looking at LA, one would notice that there is room left for sober and discreet departures from the original text – perhaps the space available is more than the rules appeared to suggest. Maybe some of the 1998 prayers would be accepted as sober and discreet departures, maybe some wouldn’t.

    It would be interesting to study how the other vernacular languages approved under the new rules fared in terms of variations from the Latin text. I think the Spanish, Romanians and Vietnamese had their new texts before we did. Perhaps we would have a better understanding of the application of LA and come up with better translations of the other liturgical texts.

    Reply
  20. Jack Feehily

    Jordan says that many traditionalist Catholics prefer the silent low mass. Could you walk that back for us. How does that connect to Jesus and the disciples at the last supper, or to what occurred at Emmaus, or what the Jerusalem Christians did when they met at each others homes for the breaking of the bread, or to the liturgies celebrated in the catacombs? Can you not see that it is more likely tracked back only to a time when worship had devolved into an exclusively clerical ritual that earned for them a little food or drink, or rescued souls from purgatory.
    The reformed liturgy, on the other hand, echos the synagogue services built around the scriptures in which cognition plays a vital role. It also
    Makes it clear that all are invited to offer the sacrifice of the mass for “the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all his holy church”. The clearly visible gestures, the audible prayers, the processions….all bespeak a community seeking to worship not only with our words but with our loving actions.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      How did the Blessed Virgin respond to the archangel Gabriel at the Annunciation?

      Ecce ancilla Domini: fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. (Luke 1:38)

      “Behold a servant of the Lord: let it be done to me according to your word.”

      Mary’s only response was complete trust. She wasn’t part of an “assembly”. She did not ask to be a lector. She did not ask to touch the Eucharist (she was the first tabernacle of the Lord!). She did not need to participate in a focus group for the implementation of the revised translation. She did not need to dance in the sanctuary. She did not question whether a transcript of the archangel Gabriel’s proclamation of the entrance of the ex nihilo Creator into His creation was “understandable” according to the Flesch–Kincaid Readability Test. She did not question whether or not Gabriel’s statement was congruent with research into prophetic antecedents.

      fiat mihi. I am convinced that the only action and disposition that absolutely necessary and most salutary for Mass is the willing and joyful participation in the sacramental grace of the Eucharist after the renewal of justification in Confession. This joy need not be spoken, perhaps because there are few ways to tell of this joy. What action can either the priest or layperson do that rivals the re-presentation of salvation and the partaking of Eucharist? Better, then, to say fiat and encounter Christ in near silence, than drown him out with what we think He would rather hear.

      Reply
      1. Jim McKay

        So

        you accept whatever ritual is offered? In whatever language? No questions asked?

        How is that actual participation?

        Note, I do not buy your reading of Mary, who first withdrew timidly, next questioned the biology, and THEN said fiat mini.
        And then danced and sang her way to visit Elizabeth, spirit rejoicing, and soul proclaiming.

      2. Karl Liam Saur

        Jordan

        That is extraordinarily reductive, as Jim alludes. It’s actually hyper-intellectualized. Consider that it is, in John’s Gospel, Mary who prompts Jesus to begin his public ministry by a miracle. The verb construction is a literary device meant to mimic the opening act of creation in Genesis: Fiat lux. Reading passivity further into that is a huge stretch.

      3. Jonathan Day

        Jordan, if everyone had applied fiat mihi to the liturgy, there would have been no intervention by Ottavani, no Lefebvrists, no Summorum Pontificum. The Tridentine Mass would be a bit of history.

        The Church has never worked that way. Cardinal Newman puts it very well in chapter 5 of the Apologia, discussing the (productive) conflict of “Authority” and “Private Judgement”. It’s worth looking up the full quote, which I can’t provide because of character count limits.

        The energy of the human intellect “does from opposition grow;” it thrives and is joyous, with a tough elastic strength, under the terrible blows of the divinely-fashioned weapon, and is never so much itself as when it has lately been overthrown. … It is necessary for the very life of religion, viewed in its large operations and its history, that the warfare should be incessantly carried on.

        Every exercise of Infallibility is brought out into act by an intense and varied operation of the Reason, both as its ally and as its opponent, and provokes again, when it has done its work, a re-action of Reason against it; …
        Catholic Christendom is no simple exhibition of religious absolutism, but presents a continuous picture of Authority and Private Judgment alternately advancing and retreating as the ebb and flow of the tide;—it is a vast assemblage of human beings with wilful intellects and wild passions, brought together into one by the beauty and the Majesty of a Superhuman Power, … brought together as if into some moral factory, for the melting, refining, and moulding, by an incessant, noisy process, of the raw material of human nature, so excellent, so dangerous, so capable of divine purposes.

        (I am well aware that the final sentence, without ellipses, has over 200 words. If the Missale Moronicum translators had been able to write like Newman, nobody would have objected to the length of their sentences.)

      4. Bill deHaas

        Mr. Day – had forgotten that section from Newman; excellent reflection.

        Thought you might enjoy this fable posted yesterday in Australia about Ottaviani:

        http://www.catholica.com.au/gc3/pewter/008_pewter_221211.php

      5. Mary Burke

        You make it sound as if you think Luke 1-2 is an account of something which happened rather than a superbly created theological construction in light of post-Calvary experiences of Jesus’ disciples, to enable them to proclaim him as Lord and Messiah.

      6. Henry Edwards

        On authentic participation, from a fine sermon by Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP:

        http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/goodwinmass.HTM

        “The most perfect participation in that sacrifice is in fact exemplified by Our Blessed Lady at the foot of the Cross. And what is it that she does there at the foot of the altar of the Cross – nothing, in fact, that mortal eyes can perceive. What does she say there – nothing that mortal ears can hear. And yet no human being ever was or ever could be more fully or more intimately involved in that Sacrifice than she was at that moment. As always, she shows us the way. Thus with Our Lady at the foot of the Cross, we too can only be present and wonder, asking ourselves in union with the prayer of the priest at the altar, “Quid retribuam…..,” what return shall I make to the Lord for all that He hath GIVEN unto me……….. This is both the beginning and the goal of participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Everything that fails to lead to that reverence and interior union, or which impedes it, impedes authentic participation. And all elements of exterior participation consonant with these principles will inevitably have the character of authenticity.”

      7. Jonathan Day

        Henry, I found some edifying points in that homily but many that were far from edifying. Instead of hammering on those, though, I want to ask about the following passage:

        Latin is, in effect, our iconostasis. It serves as a “verbal” curtain drawn over the mysteries being carried out at the altar to remind us that, yes, there is a wide and fathomless gap between the incomprehensible majesty and holiness of God on the one hand, and our human sinfulness and smallness on the other. It is a gap which cannot be breached by human presumption or initiative. It is a gap unbridgeable by anything we DO and is overcome only by what GOD does and which we RECEIVE from Him.

        This is not the first time that “Latin as a verbal iconostasis” has turned up in traditionalist writing. But what does it mean?

        Is the idea that the laity should never have been allowed to learn Latin? Or that the Mass should never have been translated into English? Or that the English Mass should be incomprehensible to the laity? Or that the task of translation is simply too difficult, “a gap which cannot be breached by human presumption or initiative”?

      8. Bill deHaas

        Mr. Day – you are much too polite. This reminds me of a Louisiana Cajun priest who would hunch over the host and emphatically spit out the words of iinstitution in a stage whisper reminding me that “hocus, pocus” is a derivative from “Hoc est enim……” or the historical stories about the Middle Ages folks paying the celebrant to keep the elevation going as long as they physically could because they thought they received extra indulgences and would dash from church to church.

      9. Henry Edwards

        Jonathan, I believe that Fr. Goodwin is referring to his belief that Latin is one element–though not the sole one, nor (in my own view) an indispensable one–of the traditional Mass that contributes to the necessary sense of mystery in divine worship.

        I cannot speak for him in this regard, but many very traditionally minded devotes of the traditional Mass would answer “No” to each of your final questions. I recall many discussions among “us” that have expressed a desire that the TLM be translated into English available for liturgical celebration–perhaps like the high church Anglican Missal. (I must have mentioned previously that I enthusiastically greeted the 1965 missal as a step in the proper direction, as did most pew Catholics at the time, before things rapidly began to turn sour.)

        If for no other reason than the obvious fact that a purely Latin liturgy can appeal only to a small minority of present-day Catholics, even if that minority (like me) might favor a Latin Mass for personal attendance. In that direction, I have mentioned that I like the now not uncommon practice of vernacular readings at daily EF low Mass. (I do not favor, and never see, a low Mass for Sunday parish Mass.)

        Of course, I do not think the language of the Mass should be incomprehensible to the laity, even if it is directed to God and not to them. They still should be able to be comprehend what is being said to God on their behalf. As of course they typically do so, in this relatively enlightened age when most laymen seen at Mass are at least following the meaning on the English pages of their Latin-English missals. So I think the incomprehensibility that Fr. Goodwin refers to is that of God Himself–not that of the language itself–which surely is independent of the particular human language used.

      10. Henry Edwards

        (continuing) Incidentally, recalling a previous question, I find (contrary to you own reported experience) the twisted and bitter traditional types (as well as similar ones at the other end of the liturgical spectrum)–who predominate in parts of the blogosphere–to be rare on the ground. At least in numerous TLM communities of my knowledge in the U.S., where a majority are young folks who tend to go both ways liturgically–indeed, having (including celebrants) OF backgrounds–and whose EF sensibilities differ little from their OF sensibilities. Though the situation may be quite different in areas (including European) where older and long-separated traditional communities are more common than in the U.S., where I believe it’s true that EF attendance under ordinary diocesan auspices is more prevalent.

      11. Jordan Zarembo

        The Christian servanthood exemplified by Mary’s fiat mihi is foremost an active and voluntary dispositional service which both pervades the interior life and prepares the self for participation in the sacraments. Henry Edward’s second bolded excerpt from Fr. Goodwin’s sermon demonstrates the symbiosis between the internal and external participation. Per Fr. Goodwin, a block to the interior participation also impedes external participation.

        Karl’s comparison of Luke’s fiat mihi with the Genesis creation allegory’s fiat lux presents no contradiction. Mary proclaims her acceptance of the Incarnation of God the Son who is consubstantial with the God the Father. Do we not also proclaim this consubstantiality? Are not human beings some way inherently called to serve before the triune God simply because of our place in the created order? Or, pace Karl, is the righteous deference of Mary’s “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5 NRSV) meaningless to 21st century postmodern, post Hegelian, and self-actuating human beings?

        Jim asks if this disposition is compatible with any rite. Any rite of the Universal Church, and even spiritual communion with the Orthodox, is an abundantly fruitful ground for serving the Lord in reflection. the 1970 Missal, as with all rites of the Church, is conducive to interior reflection as the basis for servanthood. The cultivation of an inner life is increasingly endangered by an engineered “active participation” focused on didacticism, novelty, and a misappropriation of clerical servanthood to the laity. All impede the construction of an emotional, spiritual, and intellectual scaffold for the sacraments. Servant roles are not interchangable, or able to be blurred for the sake of a contrary-to-fact egalitarianism.

      12. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Jonathan Day on December 22, 2011 – 5:03 am

        Jonathan, it is true, as Cardinal Newman writes, that the tradition (the “constant teaching”) is forged in reasonable thought. Abp. Lefebvre, Cdl. Ottaviani, Cdl. Heenan, and other prelates who questioned the Concilum project were right in the forge of a liturgical revolution stoked by human reason. Ultimately, through Paul VI’s constitution Missale Romanum, the Consilium project was “ratified” as part of the Church’s liturgical tradition. The conservative Council fathers’ reservations preceded papal endorsement.

        As mentioned, the cultivation of the interior contemplation can be realized in any rite, including the OF. fiat mihi stands apart from typical text or even translation. Rather, the dividing issue is the science of “participation”. Here the magisterium is silent; no molten lead has sealed any bulls. We are at a juncture in history where many advocate for an didactic, explicit, and demonstrative rite focused on constant innovations designed to elicit visible response. I contend that any elicited response not grounded in inner reflection is superficial. Why then the insistence that if some “active participation” is good, even more is better?

        There is no reason why the OF cannot recapture the contemplation of the Tridentine Low Mass. Rather, the beauty of reflective silence, which is entirely reasonable and desired by many reasonable people, has been soundly discarded.

      13. Jim McKay

        Again I find the use of Mary reductionistic. She stands at the foot of the Cross — that is a very visible action. She accepts the Beloved Disciple as her child, and entrusts herself to him. While not verbal, these are sacrifices united to the sacrifice of Christ. They are not the pure silence the homilist acclaims.

        And that is the difficulty I see here. Like Mary, we have a responsibility for our brothers and sisters. We need to use every tool at our disposal so that all can encounter God in Christ. This means vernacular language, reading indices, and other scientific analysis. It can even mean the use of an iconostasis, as long as it does not obscure the presence of God and create a mysteriousness that has more to do with wood than with God. Any attempt to make the infinitely far away God seem farther away is a travesty, a blasphemy against the person and mission of Christ.

      14. Jack Rakosky

        Golitzin’s model of Eastern Spirituality “: “the church on high”, i.e., heaven and the heavenly liturgy around the throne of Christ God; “the church on earth”, with its clergy and sacraments, and “the little church” of the heart or soul. implies that the liturgy of the heart goes on all the time not just doing the Divine Liturgy and the Office.

        The spirituality of our parishes is closer to the spirituality of the Benedictines (worship, community, education) than to the spirituality of solitaries (contemplation), or of active orders like the Jesuits “(mission and service). Our parishes do a good job of education, but have a long way to go to have better worship and community. They should do these better, especially since that is what Vibrant Parish Life said the people want,

        But parishes cannot be expected to be centers for contemplative spirituality. If some people find the EF (even a Low Mass) aids their spirituality that needs to be cared by parishes staffed by religious orders devoted to the EF. The early solitaries recognized the parish was not the place for them; they withdrew to the desert. They organized forms of the Divine Office that served their needs. But they did not remake the Mass to their needs. Even when urban monasteries were founded they simply did their office before the parish (cathedral) office which shaped our modern hybrid offices.

        A far great argument can be made that our parishes should become more centers of spirituality for the active life of mission and service to others, and of forms of contemplation more suitable to the active life. Even here there is an alternative, however. Vatican II, especially in the Apostolate of the Laity, presumed that much of the apostolic life would take place in associations rather than in parishes. This has occurred to some degree in Europe.

  21. Alan Griffiths

    Re. Fr. Tunink’s comment no.14 above:

    In the Preface for the Annunciation of the Lord, the Latin has:

    Quem inter homines et propter homines nasciturum,
    Spiritus Sancti obumbrante virtute,
    a caelesti nuntio Virgo fidenter audivit …

    The new English reads:

    For the Virgin Mary heard with faith
    that the Christ was to be born among men and for men’s sake
    by the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit …

    What has become of “caelesti nuntio?” The Archangel has disappeared from the scene in the approved text.

    Why did Vox Clara’s editors leave the “heavenly messenger” out? If a celebrant wants to render the text integrally, he would have to amend it to something like this:

    The Virgin Mary listened with faith
    to the messenger from heaven,
    that among men and for their sake
    the Christ was to be born,
    through the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit …

    I am at a loss to understand the omission, unless it be an error. But what an error!

    Alan Griffiths.

    Reply
  22. Rev. Gene Vavrick

    Once again, great comments and insights, Anthony!

    Reply
  23. Paul Robertson

    Oops. And now I can edit but not delete.

    Move along, please. Nothing to see here.

    Reply
  24. William Taylor

    As another old guy, I can say that Fr. Allen way up there got it right. Once I entered the seminary and really understood Latin, I began to see how poorly Mass was usually “celebrated.” Really, looking back, I conclude that we were barely clinging to what is meant by the word Eucharist, and had been doing so for centuries. No wonder the Protestant Reformers rejected the charade of what often passed for the Mass.

    I tried to celebrate prayerfully in Latin and when the words were in English, I redoubled my efforts. I still think this is the key. Now that I am retired, I attend many Masses from the pews, which has been a revelation. Some really bad celebration style out there. And I am particularly concerned with all the sincere and good International priests who turn the whole Mass into something almost unintelligible, especially the sermon. I emerge from those Masses simply exhausted.

    Reply
  25. Jack Feehily

    I think that Jordan is risking the worship of a particular form of the Divine Liturgy. I must respect what he reports about his personal experience of the silent low Mass, but to advocate it as a model reflecting Mary’s silent and sorrowful contemplation at the cross just doesn’t make sense. The Tridentine Mass didn’t acquire it’s form as the result of theological reflection and a careful examination of the liturgical traditions going all the way back to the cenacle. It was a rite devised by clerics who were at the service of emperors and their nobles. It is perhaps miraculous that it’s prayers do in fact reflect and express the faith of the church, but alas not for the edification and formation of worshippers who were passive spectators attending out of fear for the loss of their souls.
    The roman rite as reformed by the council fathers and Paul VI represents an attempt to restore the rite in a way that it no longer even looks like the private preserve of the clergy. A rite that restores the dignity of God’s priestly people and calls them to a full, consciou, and active participation–both exterior and interior–commensurate with the rights of the baptized. These attempts can be improved upon and perfected but not by antiquarian notions that fail to inspire or speak to none but a few.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading