US bishop on the missal timeline

This from a U.S. bishop, talking to the clergy of a U.S. diocese last week, in passing: “As we implement the missal starting on the First Sunday of Advent 2011 or 2012…” Nothing more about the missal timeline from him.

Why would a bishop say that publicly, do you suppose? Apparently the bishops are talking among themselves, and they know that something’s up.

What will happen next, do you suppose? Maybe the Congregation for Divine Worship will insist on the 2010 Received Text and the implementation will happen on time as planned – with a highly problematic English text. Or maybe the Congregation will agree to just a few changes – say, to the allegedly heretical parts – but most of the Received Text will be implemented on time. Or maybe the bishops of the English-speaking world will insist on a usable text – requiring far-reaching revisions and more time. This scenario might happen because the Pope responds to the several appeals made directly to him by bishops, over the heads of the CDW. Or maybe the Order of Mass will be implemented as planned, but it will take another year or so to produce a usable translation of the proper texts. Or maybe – this is much less likely – the whole thing collapses in a tailspin of intrigue and discord and ill will.

Then there are the pipe dreams. Maybe the Pope will call for a fundamental reworking of the principles and procedures needed for truly excellent vernacular translation, and everything will start over. Or maybe the 1998 translation will be lightly revised.

Which will it be? I don’t know. No one knows.

Msgr. James Moroney, purported orchestrator of the 10,000+ changes in the Received Text, recently said this in a Pray Tell interview:

I challenge the premise that this has been a “top down and secretive process.” … I would be very surprised if any denomination has ever had the kind of widespread participation in the formation of prayers which the Catholic Church in the United States has just experienced.

As to what will happen next, as to why a bishop would say “2011 or 2012,” we don’t know. The people at the top are keeping it a secret.

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

123 responses to “US bishop on the missal timeline”

  1. Rita Ferrone

    OK, now everybody who was passionate a short time ago about the absolute necessity of obedience in implementing the new translation and putting a good face on this project even if it is flawed, let’s now hear you say again that we must not wait, nothing can be done, it’s a done deal, get in line, why are people not obedient to authority… Somehow I am not hearing that refrain here anymore.

    I wonder why I am now hearing the same people saying something must be done, don’t rush into this? Apparently obedience is only virtuous when it’s imposed on people who disagree with you.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      1. I made my judgments based on WHAT I HAD SEEN of the 2008 translation, which I still believe is a worthy translation. (I think the 2008 Order of Mass is great overall, although I think a few parts could use a little more work.)

      2. I — and many others, I’m sure — thought the Order of Mass from 2008 was actually its final form. We were mistaken. I’m not happy about the changes.

      3. From WHAT I HAVE SEEN of the 2010 translation, its changes seem to harm the text, not improve it. I agree with many of the examples discussed lately on PT which point out inconsistencies and poor word choice.

      4. I do not belong to the “if you don’t like the English, use the Latin” camp. I think we deserve a worthy vernacular translation.

      5. If my honesty in these matters is rewarded with gloating and rudeness from folks here, so be it, but I expect more from most of you.

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Jeffrey – thanks for your comments, most of which I agree with. You don’t deserve any gloating or rudeness for this! I’ll do my best to ride herd on ’em.
        Pax,
        awr

  2. Lynn Thomas

    Speaking of pipe dreams, I have this wild fantasy that the whole thing will just go away entirely.

    “It was crap in the beginning, is crap now, and crap evermore shall be” seems to be where we’re going. At least the current crap is grammatically sensible. And doesn’t torture mass-goers with an excess of archaic words. And can, in fact, be celebrated beautifully and reverently, since that has at least as much to do with how the liturgy is staged and the attitudes we bring to it, as it does the words themselves.

    Arrrrrghhhhh.

    Reply
  3. C Henry Edwards

    Well, let’s try to get a grip on ourselves here. It’s not likely that a mere handful of low-level Vatican bureaucrats could with a mere ten thousand modest emendations transform 2008 into something anywhere near as bad as the 1973 we’re still suffering with. So this is a win-win situation. The question right now is when, and how big the win. The bigger, the better, of course.

    So let’s hope there’s an adult in a position to take charge, slap the hands of whomever it is who in an excess of good will has apparently attempted to accommodate too many ill-advised bishops conference suggestions, and set this right. Why not take the word of all those who said 2008 was pretty close to as good as it gets, and let it go at that?

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      I still find it offensive to use language such as “suffering” when referring to the 1973 translation. Though you are at least consistent, including informing me that my faith is stunted because of the current Missal. Unreal.

      Reply
      1. C Henry Edwards

        It has nothing to do with you personally, Sean. But why might we lament more the disintegration of the liturgy in recent decades than for the resultant stunting of the faith of several generations of Catholics. Of course, there are several culprits to share the blame, but surely the liturgy is not least among them.

    2. Michael Podrebarac

      “It’s not likely that a mere handful of low-level Vatican bureaucrats could with a mere ten thousand modest emendations transform 2008 into something anywhere near as bad as the 1973 we’re still suffering with.”

      With all due respect, the grip needed here is one on reality. An unitelligible “formal” translation is a “win” over an imperfect yet understandable “dynamically-equivalent” one? Are you serious?

      And I’m with you, Sean. Whatever its flaws, the 1969/1973/1975 translation still makes the fundamentals of faith quite clear. There so far appears to be nothing in the new translation which will increase anyone’s likely belief in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the sacramental banquet of the Body and Blood of Jesus. My “faith” seems to have done just fine with what I grew up with, as has my children’s. In fact, the only part of my “faith” which is increasingly challeneged these days is my “faith” in the competence of certain sectors of the hierarchy of Mother Church.

      Maybe I should just adopt a “selectively blind” faith like those who seem happiest and most encouraged when something implemented under Pope Paul VI gets reversed.

      Reply
  4. Jeremy Stevens

    Right on CHE! What’s a mere 10,000 mistakes slipping past the two big commissions that are supposed to make sure everything is fine. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

    Reply
  5. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    CHE, you raise some good points. 1st a factual matter, then a more substantive response.

    1. The 10,000+ changes didn’t all come from the suggestions of bishops’ conferences. Most by far did not. One can’t chalk this up to an overly generous spirit toward conferences. Perhaps about 99% of the changes come from incompetent revisers; it is they who deserve scrutiny for their work.

    2. I’m no fan of the current translation. It is too pedestrian and fails to convey the riches of the Latin. But this doesn’t mean that anything better should be welcomed w/o question. One must look at the very unique context from which the new translation comes. As Bp Taylor reports (see previous post on this blog), Rome treated ICEL very poorly when it grabbed power and took over the translation process. Rome spoke very condescendingly about the labors of many good people on the 1998 sacramentary. Feelings were hurt, hopes were dashed, and a change of direction was announced w/o any consultation of bishops’ conferences.

    You can’t do all of these things and then expect that everyone will be happy 10 years later with a mediocre result because the current sacramentary is even worse. The more agressive the power grab, the more condescending the judgment of what went before, the higher the bar is raised for those who would do better.

    By presuming to know everything and by taking control of everything, Rome itself has justified our high expectations of any new translation.

    Reply
    1. C Henry Edwards

      Fr. Ruff: “By presuming to know everything and by taking control of everything, Rome itself has justified our high expectations of any new translation.”

      We can surely agree on this, and on disappointment with any last-minute maneuvering (on either side) that vitiates the high expectations that have been further encouraged by the 2008 version.

      Reply
  6. Bill deHaas

    Fr. Anthony – sorry I missed your presentations in Dallas. Unfortunately, my job and family did not allow me the time to head downtown. Given that, you mention a diocese and bishop – could it be our own Bishop Farrell (fondly called K-Far by R. Palmo) or one of his assistant bishops? (but then last month one of those assistant bishops asked me what would happen with the translation and the Mass of Creation music since he had not even kept up with those changes that had been announced?)

    Thanks for keeping us in the loop on developments. Mr. Edwards – appreciate many of your statements but your constant harping on the diffecencies of the 1973 translation wear thin. It is very easy to critique and Monday morning quarterback literally 38 years later but realize that 1973 translation was an immense project that makes this 1998-2008-2010 project very minor in comparison. In fact, you demean thousands who were involved across all language groups; across all dioceses; and you demean the ongoing english project to improve the 1973 version. You comment as if everything has happened in the last few years.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Bill – nope, wasn’t Bishop Farrell.
      Sorry I missed you in Dallas!
      awr

      Reply
    2. C Henry Edwards

      It’s not for me to demean or assign responsibility. However, it may be soon enough to guess how history will judge what’s happened to the Church in recent decades. As Fr. C. J. McCloskey said in comment on Fr. George Rutler’s wit and wisdom on worship in his First Things article

      The Liturgical Experts’ Long Tassels

      that I recommend as background here,

      “The forty years in the Liturgical desert that we have passed through resulted in the Mass apostasy of the Church in the West.”

      The causes of this “Mass apostasy” are surely many and diverse, but the 1973 translation has certainly contributed to the disintegration of liturgy that has played a role in the decline of faith, if indeed the liturgy is the “source and summit” of our faith.

      Reply
      1. Jonathan Day

        In my view that article by Fr Rutler showed lots of spleen but demonstrated neither wit nor wisdom.

  7. Jeffrey Herbert

    Did anybody verify that the Bishop actually said “Advent of 2011 or Advent of 2012” and not “Advent of 2011 -2012” which is a pretty common way of referring to Liturgical Years….as in “The 2011-2012 liturgical year? I would be more convinced if he had said “November of 2011 or 2012”.

    Also don’t overlook some other possibilities, such as leaving the Eucharistic Prayer untranslated (in Latin) if a suitable translation can’t be achieved. I seem to remember such an idea being bandied about only a few years ago, and this has been the example coming from Pope Benedict on several occasions. Talk about your “pipe dreams”…

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Jeffrey – Yes, I thought of this too, and went back to my source to double check. The Bishop clearly said the former.
      awr

      Reply
  8. Ken Ray

    There is one additional option that is rarely considered outside of the Greg — CDW and B16 could direct the English world to use the Latin Roman Missal until they (English world) has an acceptable English venacular translation. I like this option since it would force the outlier groups to develop an approach that avoids the off-topic issues that are basis for the objections.

    Reply
    1. Margaret O'Connor

      God hep us if that ever came to pass!

      Reply
  9. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    Well, someone has to do it, so it might as well be I.

    Ken Ray, this is the most absurd and unreasonable thing I’ve read in a long, long time. Do you really have so little sense of where the vast majority of the Church is, and how disruptive in the extreme your proposal would be?

    There is no reason why the authorities would now ban a translation which has already been approved, accepted, and used by them.

    I’m sorry if my words are strong, but when I read your comment I honestly didn’t know whether it was intended seriously – not least because you do not acknowledge in any way that your proposal is a highly unlikely one.

    awr

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      I agree – it really wouldn’t work. Speaking as a Latin advocate, a sudden switch to Latin would confuse people and put them off – it was so vigilantly suppressed that most of today’s Catholics have no experience with Latin in the liturgy and wouldn’t even know how to pronounce the words, with many being unaware that the Mass was ever in Latin at all. Any wide scale re-introduction of Latin would probably need to take years of top-down and bottom-up effort. I wouldn’t want thousands of priests and choirs suddenly having to sing in a language they were given no education in. It’d be like forcing someone to take a test without teaching them any of the material, or even letting them know the material existed.

      My experience with Latin Masses (all EF – Latin OFs are impossible to find) has shown me that most people really do want vernacular liturgies to the point that they would choose the vernacular OF even if they prefer *everything else* about the EF. People can debate the merits of one form or another, or of liturgical posture, or music, reception of communion, or lay ministers, or lectionary cycles, or options, but the number one reason people like and relate to the OF is because it’s allowed in the vernacular. To disallow vernacular would be a major disruption and make people bitter towards it, completely undoing the strides made by the many grassroots efforts to bring back Latin and chant in recent years.

      Reply
  10. Leo Connor

    I think the experience of the 1960s has shown that the people will accept a great many liturgical changes provided that they are lawfully promulgated.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      I think we’re in a very different place now than in the 1960s. As Cardinal George has said several times, bishops can nolonger count on automatic credibility and unquestioned support from the faithful like they still could in the 1960s.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Chris Grady

        Faithful?

        Replace that word with ‘clergy’ and you (and His Eminence) will be closer to the reality!

      2. Leo Connor

        Can’t suggest that says much for our renewal since the council.

  11. Chris Weidner

    The Church continues to go off in a tangent far, far away from what Jesus was and who he was. This high-browing the Mass and changing to multi-syllabic non-contemporary text makes no sense… and in the end will cost parishes money on new Hymnals and printing orders of worship.

    If there’s a delay, I say BRAVO! The Church needs to find ways to connect with their members not push them further away.

    Reply
    1. John Drake

      Chris, it is clearly NOT a tangent. Nothing is more central to the life of the Church than the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

      Reply
  12. Shannon O'Donnell

    Actually, I’m taking some hope from that “Advent 2011 or Advent 2012.” If it all waits until 2012, we’ll only have to put up with a bad translation for a couple of weeks. According to the Mayans, the world is supposed to end mid-Advent of 2012.

    yes, tongue firmly in cheek.

    Shannon

    Reply
  13. Joan Grabowski

    Wow. Where is Jesus in all this? Let’s worship as best we can, and let God take care of the rest. Let our worship be about gestures and mystery and scripture and Eucharist. The rest is icing on that cake.

    The humans of the church — translators, the faithful, ordained and lay — have been and always will be imperfect. God is perfect. The evil one is having a heyday with this dissension. May God call us all ever closer to him, even using words when necessary. God be praised!

    Reply
    1. John Drake

      “Let our worship be about gestures and mystery and scripture and Eucharist”.

      How convenient to leave out “words”.

      And, the upgraded translation is, in great part, all about RESTORING a sense of mystery, lost the last 37 years in the “pedestrian” 1973 translation.

      Reply
  14. Ken Ray

    No, I am quite serious; as are many here. The objections to the new translation are a continueing effort to challenge the Vatican by national conferences. The incidental issues associated with the translation technique/process provide a forum for this issue that was decided in the mid-19th century. Bishop Trautman’s address at the spring 2010 USCCB meeting is primary evidence. I’m suggesting that CDW is considering an approach to bring the issue to a decision.

    I’m am strongly in favour of implementing the translation of the JP II missal ASAP since this will provide an opportunity to invigorate the Liturgy of the Eucharist. All of the ancillary issues need to be placed to the side so that we may focus on the important.

    I am fully aware of where the American Church is — lost in space/time without clear leadership. The American Church is near a precipice that will fracture the American Church. My fear is that this is what many American bishops desire — an American Catholic Church without Vatican oversight, but in full communion with the Vatican. The translation issues provide a forum for this debate. This lack of clear leadership is a serious hazard to the Church.

    Reply
    1. Michael Podrebarac

      “I’m am strongly in favour of implementing the translation of the JP II missal ASAP since this will provide an opportunity to invigorate the Liturgy of the Eucharist.”

      This is a strong claim. I am in earnest when I ask you to explain how exactly, in your opinion, this “invigoration” will happen because of the new text. Thanks!

      Reply
  15. George Andrews

    Father,

    I did not realize Ken Ray had stole my thunder [suggesting a Latin interim] I should have read….

    In his defense (and I won’t mention this proposal any more) but it most certainly was Paul VI’s wish that all Catholics know their Latin responses. If we never take the first step, we will never arrive!

    And those of you, having traveled, know how welcome you feel in a foreign country when some Latin is used and you look at the person next to you- with whom you can barely converse- and yet they’re saying ‘et ex terra pax hominibus’ right along with you. It’s like being in heaven! You know it is!

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      Ahem… in terra pax.

      That is all. 🙂

      Reply
      1. C Henry Edwards

        Well, Jeffrey, I must confess to feeling good when in a “foreign country” I hear agreement to within a pesky preposition, whether in Latin or the local vernacular.

    2. Chris Grady

      ‘et ex terra pax hominibus’

      CLASSIC!

      It’s almost as good as Cardinal Spellman’s intervention on the Council floor in defence of keeping the Mass in Latin – delivered by His Eminence in such bad Latin, and drawing so many complaints from the Fathers, that they had to get someone (who understood Latin) to read it out for him!

      It tells you everything you need to know, really.

      And as for ‘Paul VI’s wish that all Catholics know their Latin responses’ what’s left of poor old Papa Montini’s English-speaking church is about to find itself in a situation where Catholics don’t know even their English responses!

      The Lord be with all your spirits, anyway!

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        And as for ‘Paul VI’s wish that all Catholics know their Latin responses’ what’s left of poor old Papa Montini’s English-speaking church is about to find itself in a situation where Catholics don’t know even their English responses!

        Can you address the matter of Sac. Conc. 54 and 1974’s “Jubilate Deo” in a way other than such deflection? The phrase “poor old Papa Montini’s English-speaking church” is priceless, by the way.

      2. Margaret O'Connor

        Thank you Chris, your post made me smile amid the strong words.
        I for one don’t favour any return to Latin, only “knowing the Latin responses” harks back to learning by rote and not fully understanding what you are meaning. What is the point of that! How will that bring us closer to God?

      3. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        Margaret, ignoring what the Council Fathers said concerning the use of Latin by the congregation at Mass, there’s no reason that learning the Latin responses is any more “learning by rote and not fully understanding” than learning vernacular responses. That can happen with the vernacular, and there can be a false sense of security in the vernacular because the words are words you know at face value.

      4. Jack Wayne

        I don’t understand the either/or mentality many take towards Latin. Using Latin on a regular basis and teaching people what it means so it may be used in Mass doesn’t exclude vernacular. It also isn’t so time consuming that it would detract from other important things.

        Most of the Latin used in the Mass ordinary is simple and repetitious. Anyone who knows the responses in English is going to understand the meaning in Latin once the connection is made between the two of them.

        When I was in high school we had to learn “Happy Birthday” and a few Christmas carols in Spanish. The teacher didn’t exactly have to go through a lot of trouble to explain what the Spanish meant since we knew the songs by heart in English. It wasn’t brainlessly learning by rote either, since we were taught some of the word meanings and were able to make connections on our own.

        I have to wonder how completely excluding Latin from virtually all liturgy and religious education and then laughing when people get it wrong brings us closer to God.

    3. Jeffrey Herbert

      And it was not just Paul VI’s desire… this principle (the assembly responses in Latin) has been part of every liturgical document since Tra le sollecitudini, and is a central part of that “full, active and conscious participation” outlined in the relevant documents of Vatican II.

      Your observation about the unifying properties of Latin is a great example of how our (misguided) efforts to “make things simpler” can actually confound and interfere with far more important considerations. The ability for everyone in the world to celebrate Mass together with one set of responses is worth the (what?) half-hour or so that it would take the average person to learn them? This very idea was expounded on at length in “Sing to the Lord”…. I think that puts it outside of the realm of “fringe ideas”.

      Reply
  16. Jared Ostermann

    If we want to invigorate the liturgy, how about priestly formation that includes the idea of being faithful to Mass texts and rubrics? In my experience, these are both routinely ignored or elaborated on. To my mind, although I would like an improved translation, what is the point? All we end up with is a new set of words to be ignored. And unless American priests are suddenly committing en masse to using the texts verbatim, I also don’t understand why so many are up in arms about the imposition of new texts.

    To the roundly refuted idea of switching to Latin just before and during the transition, this is actually an extremely practical and sensible thought (at least for the ordinary). I agree that it would never work as a universal, official prescription, but at the individual parish level it certainly could. A number of music directors I highly respect are doing just this when the time comes. For the fall, before Advent they will use a Latin ordinary. Then, the new ordinary translations will be introduced one at a time. Most parishes (including tiny rural ones I’ve worked at) are able to sing at least the basic chant Mass (mostly from the Requiem Mass) in hymnals. This avoids changing the whole ordinary all at once, and smooths the transition. This is very smooth for the ordinary – I don’t know if it would be worthwhile for the dialogues since people would have to learn those in Latin.

    Reply
    1. Michael Podrebarac

      Indeed, the ordinary sung in Latin is really not that difficult at all. The dialogues aren’t that difficult either. The entire Mass in Latin is another subject altogether.

      Reply
  17. Sean Whelan

    Disintegration. So abstract. The liturgy seems to be alive, well, and vigorous in my part of the US. On the whole, it is done with care and reverence. I’m certainly not aware of people leaving the Church because we say “And also with you.”

    C Henry Edwards :

    It has nothing to do with you personally, Sean. But why might we lament more the disintegration of the liturgy in recent decades than for the resultant stunting of the faith of several generations of Catholics. Of course, there are several culprits to share the blame, but surely the liturgy is not least among them.

    Reply
  18. Bill deHaas

    Sean – agree with you. This constant refrain and quoting from one isolated part of a document or inferring what Paul VI may or may not have intended does an injustice to the 2,000+ bishops of Vatican II and to Paul VI who understood the liturgical principles and evolution set up by VII and realized that in the following years the conferences began to implement those principles in the best pastoral and liturgical manner possible. They were not afraid that excess or wrong turns might be made. Trying to re-insert latin and using the excuse that travelers and visitors need one way to celebrate is like the tail wagging the dog. Sometimes it is just good to participate in a different culture and way they pray, sing, etc. Uniformity is not unity. Quoting from Rutler – yes, he is an objective liturgical expert; read his lifestory; speaking of an ax to grind.

    This rewriting of history and statements that “I know what Paul VII intended” and now the justification by used of various “hermeunetics” – can’t ever get it right – is it “disruption or continuity”. …..love the new use of “continuity”…..whatever ax I need to grind becomes continuity depending upon who is saying this.

    These comments are linked to the postings in this and other blogs about the bloggers who are now investigating any and all catholics that they deem as “unorthodox” – whatever that means. Think John Allen has named this the “Taliban Catholics”. Examples – EWTN (read Rutler, Sirico, Arroyo, Mother herself).

    Reply
    1. Leo Connor

      “who understood the liturgical principles and evolution set up by VII and realized that in the following years the conferences began to implement those principles in the best
      pastoral and liturgical manner possible.”

      You’ve not defined liturgical principles or evolution – what does that mean?

      “best pastoral & liturgical manner possible” are you sure?

      Reply
  19. Joe O'Leary

    I have to laugh when laudators of Latin can’t even get right one of the best known pieces of Christian Latin, the opening of the Gloria. The same is true of laudators of orthodoxy who seep theological ignorance at every pore. Palinesque ignorance is running rife in the religious world, on the premiss that that world is the one place where it will go unpunished, or indeed be rewarded.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      This is the sort of gloating we can all do without. Laughing at mistakes that might be mere typos.

      Reply
    2. Jack Wayne

      While I also think it was probably a typo, I find it funny when people laugh at Latin advocates for getting things wrong because such advocates probably had to go through a lot of trouble to learn any of it at all. I’ll bet your average Catholic under 40 hasn’t ever heard “et in terra pax” in his life. “Gloria in excelsis deo” is very well known, but only because of popular Christmas carols.

      I remember being puzzled when a priest said during a homily “everyone knows what Kyrie eleison means” since I had probably only heard the phrase for the first time about a week prior and would have been totally clueless as to its meaning before that. People are learning this stuff on their own without any real help and all they get is ridicule from the Joe O’Learys in the Church.

      Reply
  20. George Andrews

    Father O!
    you got me! maybe now Father Ruff will allow me to use my preferred handle on internet forums: ‘Luke Skywalker’! (btw, Jeffrey P was way quicker on the draw!)

    It was not deliberate, but it is hilarious…..!!!!
    But see, Fathers O and R ? My ‘unlearned ears’ are a shame on the clerics who have eradicated an incredible testimony to the Church’s catholicity and replaced it with ….Babel.

    and dear Margaret, I don’t believe the use of the vernacular in the liturgy has ushered in any general increase in our level of understanding. Otherwise the average Catholic would not be telling me things like…. ‘Dan Brown’s writings are historical’ or ‘Vatican II did away with kneelers’, etc. These things I hear from very intelligent laity!

    Reply
    1. Lynn Thomas

      George,
      Your very intelligent laity must not be attending church very much – my parish built the current church in 1992, and we most definitely have, and use, kneelers.

      Intelligent does not equal observant of details

      Reply
      1. Jack Wayne

        One could confront one anecdote with another. I encountered a lot of people coming over to my parish from another one in town after the priest there removed the kneelers and forbade kneeling in the name of Vatican II. That it doesn’t happen everywhere doesn’t mean it never happens anywhere.

      2. George Andrews

        Lynn, if you visit or live in central CA, take a tour of the Cathedral in San Jose….there’s one of those anecdotes Jack speaks of….no kneelers, and the tourguide will explain that it is because of V II.

  21. Paul Schlachter

    The U. S. Catholic bishops will be holding their semi-annual meeting in a few weeks. At the very least they should ask for more than lame assurances that everything will be all right when the latest changes are scheduled to take effect. Fr. Ruff’s comments about the last-minute back-room process of fine tuning the translations, even after the recognitio was given and the final text ostensibly presented, need careful consideration. Our bishops are not the only ones with something at stake in this process. All of us in liturgical ministry are involved in teaching by example, and do not want to have to defend an end product that is not defensible. Our credibility before our own people will be in question.

    Reply
  22. Ken Ray

    I enjoy the lively discussion of this group. But, may I suggest that the objective of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is not the central topic of discussion. The Mass in Latin or the venacular is about adoration and worship. The New Mass is most often a performance piece with the people and ministers as the principle objective. This must change.

    The implementation of the English translation of the JPII Missal provides an appropriate time to correct and redirect the Liturgy. We must take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity to return the liturgy to its proper objective in the vernacular if possible; in Latin if necessary.

    The bishops cannot allow this argument to continue. It is time for the American Church to move forward in full communion with Rome. It is time to be catholic Catholics.

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      Any evidence to back up your claim? A performance piece? What is going on that makes some parishes “non-catholic Catholics?” And who is the judge on this matter?

      Reply
      1. George Andrews

        Sean,
        It is possible for Catholics to become non-catholic, right?

        Don’t you think allowing each country’s Church its own ‘lex orandi’ (I googled the spelling!) which may or may not resemble a mainline protestant worship service, or tent revival, or a 1972 folk festival….such a free-for-all works against the definition of the word ‘catholic’, right?

    2. Michael Podrebarac

      “But, may I suggest that the objective of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is not the central topic of discussion.”

      But you earlier said:

      “I’m am strongly in favour of implementing the translation of the JP II missal ASAP since this will provide an opportunity to invigorate the Liturgy of the Eucharist.”

      I asked you how this was to be. You haven’t answered. Now, you suggest it’s not the point of discussion. Huh?

      You also say:

      “The implementation of the English translation of the JPII Missal provides an appropriate time to correct and redirect the Liturgy. We must take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity to return the liturgy to its proper objective…”

      Again, I ask you in earnest: how does this translation accomplish this? How will the new words “correct and redirect” the sacred Liturgy? How will the new translation return the liturgy to its proper objective?

      Thanks in advance, Ken, for your thoughtful answer to these questions.

      Reply
  23. Ken Ray

    “catholic Catholic” is a way describing the universal nature of the Church. The Liturgy should be recognizably the same everywhere. This is one of the objectives of LA.

    The “judge” should be the local ordinary. But many seem to abdicate this duty.

    The first “evidence” is applause. If the focus is adoration, who, what is receiving the applause. Why is a cantor’s prayer applauded? a particularly interesting homily? or a social achievent?

    The second is the casual editing of the Liturgy/Ritual by the ministers. Adding words, droping prayers, or dismissal of ritual are all evidence.

    The third is where the focus of the Liturgy is directed — toward the ministers/people rather than the adoration.

    I could continue but the point is for almost forty years the Mass has continued to loose its trancendent focus. The implementation of the English translation with all of the flaws discussed is an opportunity to correct these errors that were introduced/allowed after VII. It is once in a life-time teaching moment.

    As an aside, can anyone explain why the ministers are the most vocal critics of the JPII Missal and the English translation?

    Why the bishops have taken almost ten years to translate a relatively simple document? My dissertation was longer and much more complex than the Missal. It only took me six months to get the Latin translation accepted.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      Why the bishops have taken almost ten years to translate a relatively simple document? My dissertation was longer and much more complex than the Missal. It only took me six months to get the Latin translation accepted.

      That sounds like a very long dissertation. Are you sure you’re not comparing your dissertation to, say, the Order of Mass, rather than the whole Missal?

      And I would not say that the Missal is a “simple document.” It may have a limited vocabulary, but it is a “technical” vocabulary, a religious-liturgical vocabulary, in stylized Latin, often tightly compact.

      Reply
  24. Philip Endean SJ

    If we regard the ‘transcendent’ and the ‘immanent’ in some sort of competition, we are fundamentally misunderstanding the reality of grace.

    I think the deficiencies Mr Ray is complaining about do occur–but it’s a question of the appropriate symbolic balance between the God-beyond-us and the God-among-us, rather than one of deciding which of these the liturgy is centrally about.

    Reply
  25. Joe O'Leary

    But, Jack Wayne, it is inherently ridiculous to go on and on about the glories of Latin when you have never heard the phrase et in terra pax (which means never sung the Missa de Angelis, or never listened to any setting of the Latin Mass). Yes, many young people, nourished on pop music, may not know these expressions; but they would be equally ridiculous if they then started lecturing their priests on the merits of Latin and the need to restore it.

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      I don’t think you actually read my comment. I wasn’t talking about people who have never ever heard Latin* “lecturing” priests about the merits of it, but rather people who are actually trying to make an effort to get to know it and follow Vatican II’s teaching on the use of Latin (which takes a lot of mental gymnastics to interpret as “Never use Latin. Ever.”). Most Catholics are unfamiliar with the phrase, so when they do “discover” it, it takes effort on their part to become familiar with it to the point one can quote it from memory (and in spite of ridicule from folks like yourself). One doesn’t have to be fluent in the Latin of the Mass ordinary to realize the value of using Latin in the Mass.

      *I’m sure most people have, at some point, heard a recording of a Latin Mass setting – but that’s not the same as experiencing it as a part of the liturgy.

      Reply
      1. Sean Whelan

        Is it just possible that perhaps the Church, that is the People of God, have mostly rejected latin as the primary liturgical language? The documents of V2 indicate a preference for retaining latin, but V2 also instructed to to be mindful of and to keep alert to the signs of the times. Maybe this is one of those instances of the liturgy continually evolving.

      2. Lynn Thomas

        And that value would be precisely what? The church started using Latin precisely because it was the vernacular – it’s what the Roman in the first century street spoke.

        There is exactly NOTHING particularly sacred about Latin. It can be beautiful, sure, but so can English, Spanish, French, German, Mandarin, and Tagalog. Either of the first two would be a better choice right now for a ‘universal’ language in the Church, given the number of English and Spanish speakers presently breathing, as opposed to the number of Latin speakers…

      3. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        Lynn, liturgical Latin was not street Latin.

        See Christine Mohrmann, “Liturgical Latin, Its Origins and Character”

        And as for English being a candidate for a “universal” language, Bl. John XXIII said Latin was a good universal language because “[i]t gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.”

        English favors certain nations. Latin doesn’t, really.

    2. Leo Connor

      Wow-Joe, this sounds close to the “pray, pay, and obey” canard to the laity who dare to give their opinion about ecclesiastical things.

      Reply
      1. Lynn Thomas

        Jeffrey,

        The Latin used in the worship services of the first/second century may not have been ‘street’ Latin, but it was Latin at all because that’s what the Roman on the street was speaking. Kind of hard to spread the Gospel when no one can understand what you’re saying.

        Or, maybe it _was_ street Latin. We can not know, exactly, since there are no extant contemporary recordings of either worship services nor street conversations.

        Sorry, Leo, but if I didn’t reply after you, my reply would have gone to the bottom of the stack, breaking the thread.

  26. Joe O'Leary

    Ken Ray asks why it took the new ICEL so long to translate the simple Latin of the liturgy. Probably because they were following the very bad principles set out in Liturgiam Authenticam.

    He also says: “The New Mass is most often a performance piece with the people and ministers as the principle (recte: principal) objective.”

    This is absolutely untrue. Perhaps he does not want a Mass in which the celebrant greets the community, in which readers read abundantly from Scripture (and would that they performed more!), in which people are welcomed (with applause, as often happens). The Mass as community event seems repellant to many of those who long for the frozen pre-V2 liturgy.

    Reply
  27. Jonathan Day

    I would argue that ‘catholic’ should be interpreted as ‘universal’ when applied to liturgy.

    One of the glories of the Catholic Church is the global diversity of our worship – in hundreds of languages, in the variety of Eastern rites (Byzantine, Coptic, Syrian, Marionite, Armenian, Chaldean) and the Western rites, in the Novus Ordo and in the Tridentine Mass, plus Anglican uses (which Pope Benedict called ‘treasures to be shared’) and the special uses of orders such as the Dominicans. Summorum Pontificum, far from a move to standardise on any form or style of Mass, increased the diversity of Western Catholic worship.

    People have all sorts of strong views on Benedict’s intent. But the impact of his actions has been to increase liturgical pluralism, rather than to impose some sort of ultramontane ‘catholic Catholic’ standardisation.

    Reply
  28. C Henry Edwards

    Looking through this now rather lengthy thread, I am reminded how fruitless it is for many of us–including me, no doubt–to continually state and restate arguments that look mainly to the past. When all the current enthusiasm surrounding the re-enchantment of the liturgy and the reform of the reform–from traditional Latin to new English–looks to the future.

    As, for instance, in a post today at the Chant Cafe, whose author remarks that “many of my generation (my mid 30’ s for those who are wondering) are anticipating a renewal of the Ordinary Form of mass as more and more musicians begin to write truly edifying music with the encouragement of the Holy Father, their creative flow liberated by the new English translations of the mass that capture the reverence and poetry of the Latin and the resurgent interest in the older forms of liturgy, chant and polyphony by my generation and younger.”

    Reply
  29. John Quinn

    “As, for instance, in a post today at the Chant Cafe, whose author remarks that “many of my generation (my mid 30’ s for those who are wondering) are anticipating a renewal of the Ordinary Form of mass as more and more musicians begin to write truly edifying music with the encouragement of the Holy Father, their creative flow liberated by the new English translations of the mass that capture the reverence and poetry of the Latin and the resurgent interest in the older forms of liturgy, chant and polyphony by my generation and younger.”

    – Where is this music? – have they written music that people will sing and ask for? (Eagles wings ect.)

    The creative flow may be blocked by awkward / archaic language. No original liturgical or scriptural text was ever in Latin, so would it be better to look at translations from the original languages – Hebrew, for example?

    Those intersted in older forms of liturgy / chant / polyphony are clearly looking to the past, not the future.

    Would anyone seriously impose Latin on a congregation who had only celebrated Mass in their own language?

    Are people going to ingnore the small but fine body of work that has emerged over the last 40 years?

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      No original liturgical or scriptural text was ever in Latin, so would it be better to look at translations from the original languages – Hebrew, for example?

      I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making here. There are plenty of liturgical texts which are originally in Latin. I think the majority of the orations are original Latin compositions; am I wrong about that?

      Are you serious about pursuing translations of Hebrew and Greek texts, or are you just offering that as a reason to avoid translations from foreign languages altogether?

      It’s really not clear to me what you were saying with that point. Could you explain it further?

      Reply
      1. Jack Wayne

        In prior threads, some here have spoken about the folly of seeing Latin as a “magic” language and exaggerating its importance and perceived holiness, but I think the more prominent view in the Church today is the polar opposite – the opinion that Latin is completely useless and should be ignored and downplayed at all costs. I think the Church and her liturgy would be much healthier today had that view not taken hold so strongly in the years after the council.

    2. George Andrews

      >>Those intersted in older forms of liturgy / chant / polyphony are clearly looking to the past, not the future.<<

      John,

      I must disagree with your assumption that somehow it is wrong to look to the past.

      If the Church is timeless, there can be no such rule! I think the source of so much of our sorrow and strife is that certain people, mostly clergy, did their best to plow a deep furrow between the post V II mode of worship and what came before.

      As I have been reminded, and rightly – thank you Father O!- I am ignorant. My ignorance is a product of that furrow. Maybe I wouldn't like Chant, maybe I would. The iconoclasts who run things have determined its best for me and the rest of the rabble to not have it.

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        George Andrews writes: “If the church is timeless…” But it isn’t. Pure and simple. As every book on the nature of the Church states, the Church has both human and divine elements. But the Church exists in time, entirely and without remainder. Only God is timeless. To attribute timelessness to anything but God is simply idolatry. A major problem in some resurgent conservative thought is the tendency to do theology and ecclesiology and liturgy as if culture and history do not exist, as if sacred things somehow stand outside of culture and history. They don’t. They never have. They never will.
        awr

  30. C Henry Edwards

    Where is this music?

    From the same Chant Café post quoted previously:

    “This movement (if I can call it that) is finding its roots in the USA where bishops and musicians have started to really capitalise on the opportunities to educate and train singers and choir directors over the internet. There are now literally hundreds of instructional videos and resources for Gregorian Chant on YouTube and Vimeo . . . . The newly formed apostolate of artists and musicians of Corpus Christi Watershed have produced audio and video files of chant spanning the centuries as well as fantastic new psalms and choral music that will suit parishes with even the most modest of resources. And the Choral Public Domain Library has literally thousands of freely available editions of sacred music.”

    And these “fantastic new psalms and choral music” and even the so-called “Gregorian Chant” are mostly not in Latin but in English. This stuff is blossoming all over for the resurgence not of the EF but for the OF.

    Really, wouldn’t it be more constructive for everyone to set aside the baggage and hangovers of the past and turn toward the glorious future of the liturgy that’s now dawning for us all, with lots of different flowers in the garden (“different strokes for different folks”, in 1970s lingo)?

    Reply
  31. David Haas

    While this is not the intent of my entry.. I really do not share Jonathan’s assertion (#62) that the impact of B16’s liturgical stance is terribly expansive or increasing liturgical pluralism….

    Some of the other posts here are raising the question that has come up in every single workshop that I have presented since the summer and throughout this fall – and that is that many people (whether we like it or not) are wondering why latin is the standard… I have to say, when we hold up that the present translation is more “faithful” to the latin… a good percentage of people (I would venture to say a majority of sorts) respond with: “so?” In other words, the grounding of latin as being where we begin in our liturgical language is by NO means a universal value from the people in our praying congregations. Also, a critique of our present language as being overly “pedestrian” is seemed by many of these same people whom I encounter, as an insult to the prayer that they have been accustomed to (and largely without complaint) the past 40 some years. When is the leadership going to face these facts? The suggestion that some here are making that we go to an entirely latin liturgy again, seem to, from my perspective, be totally out of touch, and do not seem to realize that if this were to happen, many who are hanging on to the church by their fingernails would cease to be a part of it anymore.

    Reply
    1. C Henry Edwards

      David Haas, I see at least three different issues here:

      (1) Anyone who has the ability to compare the Latin originals with the current English translations surely must agree that the latter certainly are “pedestrian” in that they are so much flatter and thinner in content and expression. Wouldn’t the more “insulting” attitude be that ordinary Catholics do not deserve the whole richness and fullness of the faith as received? It’s precisely a measure of my love of the Mass that I regret an English translation that has failed to do it justice.

      (2) At any rate, an appropriate answer to one who asks “why Latin” is that that’s the original language our modern Roman Missal is written in. When one wants to check what a soliloquy of Hamlet really says, he consults an edition of Shakespeare in its original English, not in a French or Russian translation.

      (3) [ continued below ]

      Reply
  32. Lynn Thomas

    @Jack,

    I don’t think Latin is useless, but I think it’s time to choose a modern language if the Church insists on having an ‘official language’ at all. Based on numbers, I would suggest English or Spanish.

    Personally, I don’t have any desire to attend a Latin mass, other than perhaps once or twice for the sake of having the experience. We sing, and sometimes chant, in Latin at my parish, but we also use a number of other languages. So, please don’t count me among those whom you accuse of wanting to ignore it as useless. I just don’t have any interest in giving Latin pride of place.

    Reply
    1. C Henry Edwards

      Lynn,

      I just don’t have any interest in giving Latin pride of place.

      Of course, this is not simply a matter of your personal interest or mine, but a matter of faithfully following the instructions of Vatican II.

      No one has appointed me to say what the Fathers of Vatican II actually meant by “pride of place”—or “the first or principal place” as the Latin words of Sacrocanctum concilium might more accurately be translated. However, I doubt that this means most of the time for anyone, or even any of the time for everyone. Perhaps just some of the liturgy in some parishes some of the time. Many flowers in the garden, etc.

      But I do suspect their intent would exclude the replacement of the Church’s unchanging official liturgical language—the one in which the mind of the Western rite developed—by any still changing modern language.

      Reply
      1. Lynn Thomas

        CHE,

        I don’t have any quarrel with what you describe, if things were going that way. To me it seems they’re not, but I could be wrong.

        As to changing the official language and the intent of the Fathers of VII, perhaps you are correct. However, at the time of the original decision, way back when, Latin most certainly did favor one particular nation. And I think it’s stretching a point to suggest that Latin is equally acceptable to all. But mostly, I find myself thinking of what Benedict wrote in his Rule, not once, but many times, about rearranging things he’d prescribed, if that better suited the need of the community in that community’s time and place. I can find no compelling argument for Latin remaining the best fit for the worldwide, 21st Century Catholic community/ies.

  33. David Haas

    And may I add to my previous post, after reading what Jack has just shared, that I too am not promoting any stance that would see Latin as either useless or without value.. FAR from it. But I cannot help but wonder, and please know that I mean this as respectfully as possible – are we really trying to see all of these developments through the lens and experience of our people? I do so much appreciate the professional exchange that takes place here – I have learned so much from so many here… and it is important and critical dialogue – but we have to balance this with the pastoral reality that most of the baptized people do not care about most of the things that we “talk shop” about here. I have had many exchanges with folks in many diverse parish settings, who do not understand why the church is doing this. There are so many people who could care less about whether WE think the present translation is inadequate or not, or whether or not the new translation is more true to the original latin or not. Again, hear me correctly – I am dedicated to do everything I can as a workshop presenter, as a composer, and as a parish leader to present the new missal in the most positive way possible, and to encourage people to find ways that they can pray and celebrate well with it. But can we be honest and say, that MOST of our folks, many of them liturgical leaders, pastoral musicians, and most importantly our praying people – did not ask for this. (to be continued)

    Reply
    1. Leo Connor

      “but we have to balance this with the pastoral reality that most of the baptized people do not care about most of the things that we “talk shop” about here.”

      “MOST of our folks, many of them liturgical leaders, pastoral musicians, and most importantly our praying people – did not ask for this.”

      “They do not understand why the “experts” or those in church leadership are doing this, or they do not understand from their point of view, what is so bad about the current (liturgy)”.

      These comments echo what was said by traditionalists about the renewal of the 1960s and 1970’s.

      Reply
  34. David Haas

    (con’t from previous post)… They do not understand why the “experts” or those in church leadership are doing this, or they do not understand from their point of view, what is so bad about the current translation. Many of them were formed in the midst of this new translation of the past 40 some years; many of them have come to love and pray the liturgy with vigor with this so called “inadequate” translation over the years; many of them have experienced conversion, and found the liturgy to be a powerful celebration and expression of their faith with this “terrible” translation. Our professional exchanges and debate about this, really does not concern them. The overwhelming majority of people do not seem to be angry about how the liturgy is now… they do seem, in many cases as I travel around and listen, very angry that the church has seemed to treat them like children. They do seem angry this is happening when they believe the church should be spending their energy on more important matters.

    I am not asking at all for an end of the debate and discussion on the matters that we do. I LOVE PrayTell… but I am hoping that we also have similar discussions about what are we going to do pastorally to allow people to grieve and vent their feelings about all of this, as well as how we can make a case for these new changes, beyond “well, it is more true to the Latin.” Because, friends, that will not be adequate.

    Reply
    1. C Henry Edwards

      Mr. Haas,

      It seems to me what you’re saying is simply that, of course, no one should be told how “bad” the current translation is. In whatever sense anyone might use such a word, this is inside baseball for liturgy wonks, and it is (probably poor) code for much more nuanced discussion.

      But the current liturgy has surely been good for many ordinary worshipers in whom it has inspired good and deep faith (even if not as good for many whose needs it has not fully satisfied). Surely the only reason anyone favors a more accurate translation is to make better and more complete what is already good in that sense. People who are familiar with linguistic issues in the liturgy can debate whether or to what extent the new translation achieves its goal, but people should be assured that their “leaders” hope is to make Catholic worship even more powerful and enriching than is has already been, not to change it but to enhance it. [As in my previous reply, however valid “well, it is more true to the Latin” may be, this by itself is a cop-out that’s not really pertinent to most folks in the pews, so any presenter should come with a better answer.]

      Reply
    2. RP Burke

      And, to add to what David has said here, there is an elephant in the room, something that the powers that be refuse to recognize: the poor quality of the translation, as English.

      Reply
    3. George Andrews

      [David Haas]>>, as well as how we can make a case for these new changes, beyond “well, it is more true to the Latin.”<<

      Mr. Haas,

      The case can be made. But the people who run things don't want to state the simple fact that the current text is defective. It's not only untrue to 'the Latin', it's untrue to Catholic doctrine in English! Our previous discussion about the deemphasis of the word/doctrine 'incarnate' is a good illustration.

      The problem is, once the USSCB says 'that'. People might get mad and ask why they were given a defective text to begin with. or why it has taken 40 years, or longer, to correct.

      And so we hear.. 'it's just truer to the Latin'. You're right, that is a cowardly, lame, condescending and unsatisfactory explanation!

      Reply
  35. C Henry Edwards

    (3) [ “continued below” got lost ] That said, I doubt that many people are seriously suggesting liturgy in Latin for most people. Even to a lover of Latin—in both forms of the Roman rite—like me, it’s entirely obvious that the liturgy in English (largely or entirely) is better for most people in English-speaking countries. So the reason I myself am so excited about a rich and full translation of the Mass that it will reach the post-Vatican II Mass to reach its full potential. And I so believe an English translation can be just a powerful as Latin, just as a German production of Hamlet that I recently read about sounded just as powerful as any English production.

    Reply
  36. David Haas

    C Henry – everything you say has merit… but I think you may have missed what was intended in my “rant,” and that is – most of the people in the pews just do not care about most of many of these things that we go back and forth on. Your excitement (and the excitement of others) about a fuller and more faithful translation as you say it is, I believe will fall on deaf ears for many, many people.

    I am not a Latin scholar or even an expert as many here are in the dynamics of excellent English. All I know is, that the present translation has been just fine for many people, and they are wondering why we need to change it. I am just trying to communicate some of the plain-spoken reactions that are out there, and that I believe will continue to rise up. Again, to answer them with the fact that the Latin is the original language of our modern Roman Missal – for many, this will mean absolutely nothing.

    I also work with young people, high school and college age, as for whom our present translation is the only one they have ever known. They have grown up in this translation, been formed by it, and for better or for worse, the overwhelming majority of them have no sense as Latin as its basis. Even their parents (my age and younger), many of them have no sense of it. I teach in a Catholic High School, and I certainly can – and will – teach and try to explain to them the Latin is the basis for our translation that we are now going to use. But will this satisfy them? Hello…

    Reply
  37. Ken Ray

    Again, lively and interesting discussion; but the objective is the restoration of the Liturgy in the venacular, Latin, or as was mentioned in late Greek.

    The language is only a vehicle for the adoration of the trancedent. The current translation and the 2010 translations are poor vessels for worship.

    How do we/does one refocus the discussion?

    Reply
  38. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    “Adoration of the transcendent” is surely a good thing and one aspect of Christian worship. But it’s not central, I don’t think. How about sharing in the paschal mystery as we offer ourselves with Christ? How about building the Kingdom which Christ proclaimed? How about growing closer in loving community as the Body of Christ? These all, I think, are specifically Christian and the very reason Our Savior came. Adoration – good as it is – can be found in most any world religion.
    awr

    Reply
    1. Leo Connor

      “Adoration – good as it is – can be found in most any world religion.”

      John 4:23

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        “…any world religion” – including Christianity, as I believe I wrote.

        But it’s worth asking – what is in the Synoptics, which are universally held to be more historically accurate by intent than John, which of course is more symbolic? (Yes, I believe all four Gospels are canonical Scripture; no, I’m not saying John is less important to our faith.)

        awr

  39. Ken Ray

    I agree adoraton is not central to being a Catholic, but it is central, essential, and necessary to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Without this focus the Liturgy is a fellowship meal of thanksgiving. This idea is the great failure of VII in the American Church; and, it must be corrected.

    I disagree. All the points you make are available in other religions, but only in the Catholic Church is the Lord G-d physically present. Recognition of this Presence must be the focus of the Liturgy. The behaviour of the faithful, lay and religious, before, during, and after Mass is sufficient evidence of this failure.

    Reply
    1. Michael Podrebarac

      “…but only in the Catholic Church is the Lord G-d physically present…”

      Maybe the term “bodily present” would work better here, as it is the substance of the Lord’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity which is really and truly present.

      And you still have not explained exactly how this new translation will in itself change any current deficiencies of behaviour or focus.

      Reply
  40. George Andrews

    [Father Ruff]>>>To attribute timelessness to anything but God is simply idolatry. A major problem in some resurgent conservative thought is the tendency to do theology and ecclesiology and liturgy as if culture and history do not exist, as if sacred things somehow stand outside of culture and history. They don’t. They never have. They never will.<<<

    Father, is it also idolatry to believe heaven to be timeless? Is not the Church heaven's outpost here?

    Maybe I've tripped over the 'continental divide' between conservatives and non-conservatives. But you are going to have to do a little more than charge me with idolatry to get me to recant!

    Reply
  41. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    Excellent point! You’re right, in heaven we do share, in some mysterious way, in God’s timelessness. I stand corrected.

    As for your auto da fe and recantation… I’m not the Inquisition, despite my deepest desires. 🙂

    However, your post was not about heaven, but about the Church on earth and her liturgy. These are most definitely within time, even though in some mysterious way we share in God’s timelessness because we do get a real dose of the divine life.

    I think you’re right on the money with “continental divide.” For now I’ll just say one thing, and leave it at that: I think the tendency to emphasize the timeless aspect of church-faith-liturgy is wrongheaded and dangerous in the extreme. And potentially escapist toward contemporary culture. (Whoops, guess I said two things.)

    awr

    Reply
  42. Jack Wayne

    I tend to interpret “timeless” in reference to liturgy not so much as a theological statement, but more in the sense that something deemed “timeless” is a form that is constantly returned to and doesn’t really “belong” to a specific age. People will say that colonial style houses and black dresses have “timeless elegance” even though they obviously exist within time and are influenced by surrounding culture (a 1950’s colonial house isn’t really the same thing as a 1600’s colonial house). They are timeless because people constantly return to those forms and don’t see them as being inherently attached to a very narrow window of time. Classical architecture is “timeless” because it’s been revived so many times that you can’t really say it is only a throwback to the classical world. That isn’t to say that a classical building built in ancient Greece is going to be indistinguishable from the local post office, but they share form with one another and are obviously connected – there’s a strong continuity between the two despite the differences.

    IMO, liturgy should be “timeless” in the sense that people feel a connection to Christianity through the ages (not just the early church, but their grandparent’s church).

    Reply
    1. David Pedersen

      Timelessness is probably a subjective estimation of value dependent on the particular cultural lenses of time and place through which ritual is experienced by the individual. A person may experience a mode of worship as timeless and another may experience the same as dated or irrelevant.

      Reply
  43. Joe O'Leary

    “Not just the early church” — why not? Current Catholic theology has much more a sense of connection with the Fathers and with Scripture than with medieval scholasticism and post Trent manuals, and that is generally regarded as a good and healthy renovation of the theological landscape.

    “Anyone who has the ability to compare the Latin originals with the current English translations surely must agree that the latter certainly are “pedestrian” in that they are so much flatter and thinner in content and expression.”

    Eucharistic Prayers II-IV are flat in the Latin as well, I think.

    “the opinion that Latin is completely useless and should be ignored and downplayed at all costs. I think the Church and her liturgy would be much healthier today had that view not taken hold so strongly in the years after the council.”

    True enough — one can now hear more Latin in traditional Anglican churches — I envy Jonathan Day’s experience of decent Latin liturgies in Farm St. But reviving Latin is only a tiny part of the liturgical pluralism and inculturation that is required. We need more Eucharistic Prayers, reflecting our cultures and recent theological insight. We cannot go on being frozen in a medieval frame. The huge advances in biblical scholarship should have radically transformed and reformed our way of celebrating the Eucharist and we should have studied with much greater attention the Eucharistic culture of the Protestant and Orthodox churches. More…

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      ““Not just the early church” — why not? Current Catholic theology has much more a sense of connection with the Fathers and with Scripture than with medieval scholasticism and post Trent manuals, and that is generally regarded as a good and healthy renovation of the theological landscape.”

      I wasn’t speaking of theology, but rather of liturgy. Also, I don’t consider it a good thing to constantly chase after some magical “early Church” liturgy that can never be re-created.

      I don’t find it useful to constantly refer to expensive cappa magnas (as you do in a later post) – they aren’t inherent to more traditionally styled liturgies, nor are they a common occurrence at them. Some of the most “nobly simple” Masses I have ever been to have been Latin High Masses.

      Reply
  44. George Andrews

    [Father O’Leary]>>We cannot go on being frozen in a medieval frame.<<

    Fathers O and R,

    I don't understand this animosity towards the medieval Church. [Father O, do you really think the average American Catholic is celebrating medievally….???] And… If you believe 'advances in biblical scholarship' have uncovered that the protestants were right and we were wrong, then out with it! If that is truly the case, then Truth demands: we all need to leave and perhaps join a masonic lodge! or atheist society! or the Unitarians!

    "In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors, all the ancient bishops and kings"

    Reply
  45. Joe O'Leary

    Personally, I love the medieval church and especially the great scholastics. But you must admit that theology has been renewed in the last sixty years primarily from scriptural and patristic culture, and that the current effort at pseudo-medievalism in those expensive church garmnents (it costs $30,000 to clad Archbishop Burke for High Mass, and will cost more for Cardinal Burke) is occluding the simplicity and sobriety of Scripture and the Fathers as embraced by Vatican II.

    Your Protestant vs. Catholic thought sounds dismally sectarian. Have you read any great Protestant theologian, or witnessed how beautifully the Eucharist is celebrated in Anglican and Protestant Churches? Do you not know that the recovery of Scripture and Patristics has created a great ecumenical platform that risks being lost by the effort to restore Medieval Christendom?

    Of course it is nice to celebrate ancient kings, but not as models for governance today; democracy has triumphed over monarchy (except in the Vatican) and you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. The beautiful discovery of Vatican II was that Scripture and the Fathers arm us to embrace the modern world better than our long diet of medievalism could; whatever the merits of the middle ages, the bedrock on which they are built is Scripture and the Fathers. Faced with the challenge of modernity, the Church at Vatican II tried to go back to that bedrock (which indeed brought us into fraternal relationship with other…

    Reply
  46. Joe O'Leary

    While it is nice to quote Edmund Campion or Thomas More, let us not forget that they were martyrs for a view of papal authority that the Church no longer holds, whereas Thomas Cranmer was a martyr for freedom of religion, which the Church does uphold since Vatican II. We celebrate the heroism and piety of both sides, “united in the strife that divided them”, but the way forward for Christians today is dictated by neither.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      I think it’s a huge stretch to say Cranmer died for freedom of religion. Let us not forget Cranmer, no less than More, also approved the persecution of others for their religion, and was in the Edwardian Reformation heading towards even greater stridency against forms of which he did not approve.

      Reply
      1. George Andrews

        thank you Karl! it is more than a stretch…as Yul Brynner in ‘the King and I’ would say …’It is a FALSE!’

    2. George Andrews

      [Father O]>> While it is nice to quote Edmund Campion or Thomas More, let us not forget that they were martyrs for a view of papal authority that the Church no longer holds, whereas Thomas Cranmer was a martyr for freedom of religion, <<<

      you rewrite history, Father. Did you google the quote? I left the quotation marks to make it easy for you!

      Most certainly you have never read what Campion 's mission to England was nor why he was drawn and quartered or you could not in honesty post such brazenly silly statement!. Calling all Jesuits!, will you allow such calumny to go unanswered?!

      Cranmer an advocate for religious freedom?? He was the Karl Rove for caesaropapism, the divine right of kings, Henry VIII in particular. Thomas More was his victim, not the other way around-specifically for refusing to swear to Cranmer's doctrine that the monarch is supreme head of the Church. Is that what this is all about? You want Cranmer sainted so Barak Obama can be our pope?

      Reply
  47. Jonathan Day

    Many who call for a return to mediaeval values – including hereditary monarchy and papal supremacy over the monarchs – do so through highly individualistic and (shh!) modernist methods: blogs, Facebook and Twitter, mostly under the cloak of anonymity. It’s no accident that there are priest-bloggers who seem to operate outside any structure of authority – diocesan or religious order. Do they seek the nihil obstat or imprimatur for their posts? Submit them to their bishops for approval? No, I didn’t think so.

    Now and then someone will question this. Here’s a comment from a super-traditionalist blog

    Truly there is a protestant and utterly modern spirit among some who style themselves as the purest of pure Catholics. They use the latest communications technology to climb atop a virtual soapbox and lecture the Vicar of Christ in condescending tones. In their intellectual pride they are like Luther, who also thought that he was more Catholic than the Pope. Their traditionalism is a pretense.

    But, for the most part, the traditionalists don’t show this level of self-awareness.

    Are the traditionalists therefore wrong? Should the Tridentine Mass be eliminated? Not at all. The older forms of worship are treasures to be brought out alongside the new (Matt 13.52), not as a return to the past or a roll-back of post-conciliar errors but as part of a richer and more pluralistic tapestry of forms of worship.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      “Do they seek the nihil obstat or imprimatur for their posts? Submit them to their bishops for approval? No, I didn’t think so.”

      Do they do so for their bulletin messages? Homilies? No, I didn’t think so.

      Reply
  48. Tim English

    This is a non discussion as the date for implementation has been set by the USCCB on November 27,2011, the first Sunday of Advent. As a liturgy planner for my parish, I have a poster which is the planning calendar for the implementation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal and the website for my diocesan liturgy office also indicates the same date. One of the associates in my parish heads the committee responsible for determining how all the parishes in our district will catechise the parishioners of the parishes on the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. And yes, all the parishes will use the same catechesis.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      It is absolutely conceivable for the USCCB, which set the Nov. 27, 2011 date, to change that date.

      Reply
  49. C Henry Edwards

    Hey, Tim, don’t be such a killjoy. A dose of reality like this can ruin the all the fun for those who—now that the end of the forty-year silly season of the liturgy is in sight—get their only kicks in echo chambers of discontent like this one.

    Reply
  50. Tim English

    JMJ+

    It is absolutely conceivable for the USCCB, which set the Nov. 27, 2011 date, to change that date

    It might be conceivable for the USCCB to change the Nov.27,2011 date, it’s highly improbable that they will actually do so as the catechetical clock has already begun counting down to the implementation of the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal.

    Reply
  51. Joe O'Leary

    I am sure that neither More nor Cranmer respected religious freedom during their lives, but both were martyrs of conscience, and as such to be honored. Campion was in England as the missionary of a Church whose Pope had deposed the Queen, in line with Boniface VIII’s ideas of papal temporal authority.

    Reply
  52. George Andrews

    Father O,

    Yesterday, you assured us all that Cranmer “was a martyr for freedom of religion” praising his virtue to Thomas More’s detriment. Is that truth de jour out the window now?

    Yet you still insist on slandering St. Edmund Campion, painting him – allying yourself with the false accusers at his trial- as some sort of ‘conspirator’!

    It didn’t work back then and it won’t work now. Are you saying Campion was lying when he said…..

    “I never had any mind, and am strictly forbidden by our Father that sent me, to deal in any respect with matter of State or Policy of this realm, as things which appertain not to my vocation, and from which I gladly restrain and sequester my thoughts.”

    or at his own hanging, drawing and quartering……

    “I have and do pray for her, for Elizabeth, your Queen and my Queen, unto whom I wish a long quiet reign with all prosperity”

    Could you have so prayed for a President Bush? I doubt it.

    Let it go Father! Bias is causing you to blithely slander the wrong saint. Shame on you.

    Reply
  53. Joe O'Leary

    “Yesterday, you assured us all that Cranmer “was a martyr for freedom of religion” praising his virtue to Thomas More’s detriment. Is that truth de jour out the window now?”

    Not to the detriment of More; I claim he is a martyr just as authentically as More. That he was a martyr for freedom of religion is shown in his last moments, just as that Kolbe was a martyr for charity was shown in his last days. You are familiar with the circumstances of his martyrdom?

    “Yet you still insist on slandering St. Edmund Campion, painting him – allying yourself with the false accusers at his trial- as some sort of ‘conspirator’!”

    I never said anything of the sort. I merely pointed out the well-known fact that he represented a Church that had “deposed” the Queen as a heretic and that set itself up as having authority to do so. The Pope put him in this position, however he may have felt about it himself. So we should be careful in using the “did More and Campion die in vain?” argument, which is usually invoked in a sectarian context.

    Reply
  54. Joe O'Leary

    For the context of Campion’s statements, see Evelyn Waugh: http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/EdmundCampion.htm

    Reply
  55. George Andrews

    [Father O]>>>The Pope put him in this position, however he may have felt about it himself.<<<

    Father O! so you still harbor doubts about whether Edmund Campion was loyal to Elizabeth as queen? You might be coming around. Yesterday you wrote off both he and More as
    'martyrs for a view of papal authority that the Church no longer holds'.

    That is and was a false statement. I think everyone now sees they were both killed for resisting a tyrannical state's pretending to be Christ's Vicar. Most Catholics are still against that! Since you were fully informed making that swipe, it is hard not to conclude it was not a deception.

    Reply
  56. Joe O'Leary

    Are you saying the Edmund Campion did not uphold the teaching of Pius V in 1570? Or are you saying that that teaching was correct, even though no Catholic today would uphold it, much less die for it? To say that More and Campion were also resisters to a tyrannical state is true as well, and it is true of Cranmer also. My point is simply that there is no theological mileage to be got out of these martyrs for sectarian purposes. We can agree that all of them were heroic in their resistance to tyranny, but their blood proves nothing at all about the rightness or wrongness of Catholic or Protestant claims.

    Reply
  57. Angela Ackley

    Clocks are easily reset.

    Reply
  58. George Andrews

    Angela, welcome to the ‘back page!’

    Father O!

    I’m getting embarrassed for you! The longer you cling to this Campion = Cranmer thing! …. You need a new lifesaver.

    Maybe your wiki article neglected to mention that Campion’s scaffold prayer for the QE1 WAS his response to someone flinging the taunting question that you ask me now. >>Do you not uphold Elizabeth’s excommunication by Pius V in 1570? <<–asked and answered by Saint Edmund himself!! I know you’re trying to cause me consternation by blurring ‘excommunications’ into ex cathedra teaching. Perhaps in your mind they are equivalents. In mine, they are not.

    In contrast to Edmund’s holy passion, your hero Cranmer sang like a little bird….Four recantations! No, wait! Five er.. uh Six! It was only when he discovered craven deception would not save his life that he manned up. Martyrs are only martyrs if they have the opportunity to save their lives by denying their faith. He did not have that option. Oh, and it helps if you die for a true faith. Here is the faith Cranmer died for:

    "And as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy, and Antichrist with all his false doctrine!"

    (I’d be surprised if his eyes didn’t shoot out sparks and his voice didn’t descend into one of those canine barks you hear in horror movies as he pronounced the future KKK’s credo!)

    I’m mystified! Do you really equate Thomas Cranmer’s character and holiness with Edmund…

    Reply
  59. George Andrews

    Father 0>> We can agree that all of them were heroic in their resistance to tyranny, but their blood proves nothing at all about the rightness or wrongness of Catholic or Protestant claims<<

    No, I can’t lump them altogether as you do. Cranmer transformed Henry and Edward’s Church into an tattling arm for the state, yet you lionize him?!!! Beliefs matter. Cranmers’ were not ours.

    My original quote of Campion was only to marshal forces against the people that run things. Their condescending and/or hatefilled attitude towards the medieval Church has left all of us impoverished and ignorant. Your original negative characterization of Campion's martydom….then only reluctantly giving More and Campion promotions to be almost equals with your hero Cranmer shows it is not just we laity who have been impoverished.

    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