New priests’ organization in UK

In response to the recent state visit to Britain of Pope Benedict XVI and his beatification of Blessed John Henry Newman, the Confraternity of Catholic clergy, British Province of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, has been founded for the sanctification and support of priests, and in promotion of priestly life, holiness and mission. The new organization professes “fidelity to Sacred Scripture, the magisterium, the Councils and Catechism of the Catholic Church, and to the inspirations, initiatives, and examples of the Holy Father.”

Should Pray Tell ask whether they support the new missal translation or will be resisting it?

H/T The Tablet.

Editor

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., edits the blog, Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

43 responses to “New priests’ organization in UK”

  1. George Lynch

    I am seriously beginning to think we could be heading for another reformation such are the divisions that are emerging and being driven by errors of leadership e.g. the abuse cover ups and the new missal.

    Reply
  2. Paul Inwood

    I have to confess that when I read this in The Tablet I did wonder if it was an April Fool story.

    Reply
  3. RIchard Benson

    I don’t think there is anything foolish about good priests setting up a confraternity to support their priestly ministry in the Church. This is an endeavour to be supported and welcomed by all Catholics of good will.

    Reply
  4. George Lynch

    I’m for Paul, I’m for Apollos, i’m for the Confraternity, I’m for … etc etc etc. We have lost sight of the Good News of Jesus. We are for Jesus, not right or left. Losing faith rapidly in all Church structures and leaders.

    Reply
  5. RIchard Benson

    George, where do you suggest the unity comes from? It comes from Jesus, and the Church He established. If folks dissent from the Magisterium, there can be no unity. Unity can only come from the one faith in the one Christ Who established the one Church to teach the one truth. You can call that fundamentalism if you like. The alternative is to divide and split into 40,000 different varieties.

    Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.

    Reply
    1. George Lynch

      I thank you for your reply. I am no expert by any means but where is this Magisterium to be found? Surely not in the internal power struggles, and according to one commentator, ‘score settling’ , of ousting people e.g. ICEL and then rejecting what Bishops’ Conferences had decided re this new missal and then another group with yet another grandiose Latin Title making decisions that they may or may not have proper authority to make.
      Forgive me if I am confused by all of this but I see no witness to unity in a Church or ‘Magisterium’ that acts in this fashion and I see nothing of what Jesus has preached.
      Can one accept this without dissent? Did Jesus not do exactly that, dissent, with the religious authority of his day when they did not live out their message but bound it up in rules and laws and the rubrics of Temple worship.
      In my own country, Ireland, sadly people did not dissent and for far too long accepted the status quo without question and very sadly this help allow abuse of minors to continue in our Church.
      I am struggling with all of this but at present see no light. Maybe I need to stop checking sites like this for guidance, I seem to be getting further confused!

      Reply
      1. Richard Benson

        I understand that Vox Clara got their authority from the Pope. He has universal authority over the whole Church.

        As regards a translation of Mass, the Magisterium ensures that it is sacramentally valid, but, as we saw with the woeful 1973 version, there is no guarantee that it will be ‘good’ or particularly faithful to the original Latin base text.

        The prevention of the gates of hell from prevailing leaves a lot of scope for a lot of things to go very wrong, as we saw with the rotten priests who abused boys. The divine protection of the Church only means that the Church of Christ will endure, and that the faithful will be taught the truth concerning faith and morals.

        If your faith is in men rather than Christ, then yes, you will be confused. The Magisterium is not based on one man or men, it is the teaching office of the Church guaranteed by Christ so we know we cannot err in following the faith and moral teaching of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a summary of Catholic doctrine – the faith of the universal Church. If you are confused, then I would wonder if this site would help you. Try CatholicCulture website instead maybe.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Collegiality? The college of bishops? Each bishop as vicar of Christ in his diocese? The wide variety of ways authority has been exercised and shared in the history of the Church? Past changes in official Church teachings (slavery, usery, religious freedom, etc.)?

        Your view ignores too much history and theology and Church teaching to be credible. It is borderline fundamentalism.

        awr

  6. Samuel J. Howard

    Should Pray Tell ask whether they support the new missal translation or will be resisting it?

    Probably. Or you could just snark!

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady

      As could you (as indeed you have).

      Reply
  7. Richard Benson

    Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    Collegiality? The college of bishops? Each bishop as vicar of Christ in his diocese? The wide variety of ways authority has been exercised and shared in the history of the Church? Past changes in official Church teachings (slavery, usery, religious freedom, etc.)?
    Your view ignores too much history and theology and Church teaching to be credible. It is borderline fundamentalism.
    awr

    Fr Ruff, what have I said that is problematic? I don’t see what slavery or ursury has to do with the translation. Those issues you cite are essentially social concerns, not part of the Deposit of Faith as such, more prudent considerations according to circumstances.

    The bishops are happy with the translation. It’s not perfect. It won’t be the last English translation. But it is good. I am happy with it, even with the odd little awkward bits. Vox Clara were appointed by the Pope, who enjoys universal authority and jurisdiction. VC was comprised of many bishops.

    It is not unknown to me that there are many on this blog who are also unhappy with the Church teaching on sexuality, and would use the same sorts of arguments.

    I genuinely believe that the objection to the new translation on your blog is based on ideology, rather than objections to any flaws in the translation itself. Without the 2010 changes, the complaints would still be coming in. The 2010 changes provide an excuse for complaining about a translation that is simply too Catholic, too reverent and exalted, for some people. That is the issue.

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Stevens

      You obviously have not read the articles by Xavier Rhindflisch which were published on this blog and only here, outlining how Vox Clara and their advisors have obviously betrayed the trust the Holy Father placed in them by taking the ACCURATE 2008 translation approved by the bishops and serving up mistranslations, out and out violations of Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis, and messing up the English in the process. Besides all that, some of the other posters on here KNOW some of Vox Clara’s advisors and pointed out all the little political machinations of people evening up scores and getting back at people for past slights.

      Your Pollyanna version makes it alot easier to deal with though doesn’t it?

      But to say that the articles posted to or linked to on here don’t care about or deal with real flaws in the 2010 translation is just a flat out lie. And of course you know what they say about people who bring up other people’s problems with sexuality …..

      Reply
    2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      No, they’re not just social concerns, they are moral teachings of the magisterium. I believe it shows deeper faith, not less, to face up to the facts of history.

      No, according to Vatican II, the Pope doesn’t have universal authority and jurisdiction over everything. SC explicitly gives authority over vernacular translations to territorial bodies of bishops.

      No, it’s not ideology, it’s theology. It may be theology you disagree with, but it’s still theology. Namely, ecclesiology and how best to live out collegiality and a good balance between center and local churches. There are very good theological reasons (though not persuasive to you) for critiquing the imbalance of centralism and the rolling back of the collegiality affirmed by Vatican II.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Richard Benson

        Fr. Ruff, Vatican II defined no new doctrine. The Pope is the Pope, and that did not change with Vat II.

        I don’t know why VC made the changes to the texts. I don’t know why it happened, and I don’t think anybody on this blog knows either. I have my theories, but I don’t know, so I’ll keep them to myself before I cast aspersions on the motivations of others.

        The Holy See has the final decision on any liturgical texts – the Holy See must approve them, including making changes where necessary. Again,we don’t know why the changes were made. There might be very good reasons for that.

        I suggest we wait and see. There is a conference on the texts with Card. Pell in Cork this year. I am sure the truth will come out and it may surprise everyone, in a good way even.

        Jeremy:
        Love does not keep track of offenses, it does not keep records of offenses to be used later. You have no evidence to make the accusations you’ve made. How about you presume the good faith of those who signed off on the final texts?

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Umm, your response responded to nothing of what I wrote.

        To take one example: Vatican II gave authority to approve vernacular translations to bishops, not Rome.

        And to offer one correction: Lume gentium solemnly defined the doctrine of the sacramentality of episcopal ordination. This was previously an open question, with theologians in the Middle Ages divided on it.

        awr

  8. Richard Benson

    Fr. – the Holy See has the final say on translations. The bishops may approve them, but definitive approval rests at the Holy See, and they can make any changes as they see fit. I understand that is what VC did. VC had authority to do what they did. I’d say the Pope gave them that authority.

    Are the bishops complaining about VC? Are they content with what has been produced? If they are happy enough, then none of us should be complaining either.

    Like I said, there will have been reasons for the changes. Let’s wait and see what the explanations are before being quick to presume the worst and judge our fellow Catholics.

    The changes that were made are not substantial and they don’t really make any significant difference to the final product.

    I’m happy with the translation. I think any fixation on the issue is not really a good idea at this very late stage.

    ”God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.”

    Reply
  9. Richard Benson

    Perhaps I can pose one simple question: If it weren’t for these changes made to the 2008 text, would there be a happy reception of the new texts on this blog?

    I’ll make my guess: No. There would be something else to complain about. The changes are an excuse to do what would be done anyway: complain about a new text which is more faithful, more exalted, and more conducive to the worship of Almighty God as opposed to a cult of man – a closed circle where we worship ourselves, oblivious to our need of redemption, with no mention of grace, the immortal soul, sin, evil, or any of those other ‘inconvenient’ truths that modern man likes to ignore

    You could say, ”Ah, but you are presuming to judge the hidden motivations of others.”

    Not quite. The same characters who propose, publicly, a new sexual morality are also the most vehemently against the new translation. Co-incidence?

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Stevens

      What a scream! You tell me I’m making rash accusations, yet it’s clearly your stock-in-trade.

      And you’re really big on that sex thing, eh?

      Reply
      1. Richard Benson

        Jeremy, the sex thing is more a fixation of liberals who desire the Church to condone their immoral behaviour. Me, I’m happy with the Church’s beautiful teachings on the human person. I’m not agitating for change!

        (You didn’t answer my question!)

      2. Jeremy Stevens

        You come lately to the discussion, Richard, which is why you’ve rashed judged me (a venial sin, I guess). I’ve been a strong supporter of the 2008 translation, right back to the “Who’s” in Advent Preface I. And I know personally some of the persons who post on here who DO know the WHOLE background of several leading Vox Clara “personalities” with “issues.”‘ But again, uncomfortable and inconvenient. And if you think the Pope, scholar and lover of tradition that he is, would be pleased with mistranslations, violations of the official directives on translations, and mistakes with English grammar, I don’t know what to say.

  10. Richard Benson

    Jeremy Stevens :

    You come lately to the discussion, Richard, which is why you’ve rashed judged me (a venial sin, I guess). I’ve been a strong supporter of the 2008 translation, right back to the “Who’s” in Advent Preface I. And I know personally some of the persons who post on here who DO know the WHOLE background of several leading Vox Clara “personalities” with “issues.”‘ But again, uncomfortable and inconvenient. And if you think the Pope, scholar and lover of tradition that he is, would be pleased with mistranslations, violations of the official directives on translations, and mistakes with English grammar, I don’t know what to say.

    I’ve been monitoring this blog for some time. I’ve seen no evidence for any of the claims you just made. None whatsoever. Until I see evidence, I can safely assume it is part of a false narrative which ought to be debunked.

    The changes that were made in 2010, as far as I can see, make no sense, and I cannot fathom why anybody would have made them, but I’ve seen no explanation from anyone, nor even one theory to account for them, never mind proving or even hinting at a nefarious motivation for doing so.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Richard, Jeremy is in favor of the 2008 texts, as am I, as is “Xavier Rindfleisch.” None of us is a contributor (writing articles) to this blog, though; I do not know offhand who among the contributors supports the 2008 text.

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        In the interest of full disclosure, I, as an “article writer,” would say that I was not a great fan of the 2008 translation, largely because in my view it was done under the inadequate theory of translation spelled out in Liturgiam Authenticam. I saw it as a mixed bag — the Order of Mass was, with the exception of the Eucharistic Prayers, either an improvement (including “And with your spirit,” “I believe” and even “for you and for many”) or no worse than what we have now. The propers, especially the orations, struck me as no better than the current ones, only bad in a different way. But it was at least a translation that had integrity, following faithfully the principles of LA, flawed as I might judge those principles to be.

        The 2010 is a different beast entirely, having all of 2008’s flaws (ignoring the native genius of the English language) with none of its virtues (fidelity to the Latin). Plus, there is the whole issue of how these changes were made (deeds done in darkness).

        I don’t think my previous problems with 2008 forbid me from having even more problems with 2010. Faced with the choice between 2008 and 2010, 2008 is the clear winner, both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of the process that produced it.

  11. Richard Benson

    double post

    Reply
  12. Richard Benson

    How, pray tell, is making a sentence in a prayer a little bit awkward settling a score? How, exactly? It makes no sense.

    I can only say that I think there must be a good reason for what was done – we just don’t know what it was. As I said, nobody can back up any of the claims that are made.

    Jeremy said:

    ”Besides all that, some of the other posters on here KNOW some of Vox Clara’s advisors and pointed out all the little political machinations of people evening up scores and getting back at people for past slights.”

    What political machinations?

    All we are left with is this: changes were made, and we know not why. None of us, no matter what we claim we ‘know’ actually know WHY the changes were made and we should not presume to know the motivations of those who made changes or why they made them.

    Reply
    1. Tom Poelker

      I find it very interesting that you can say both that the 2010 changes make no sense and that there must be good reasons.

      Yet, you do not seem to be concerned that these senseless changes have been prepared in secret and imposed without consulting the bishops of the countries where they will be used.

      You do realize that the VC process and the actual replacement of texts break all precedents for translations worldwide for four decades? For four centuries prior to that there is no precedent for text changes. For fifteen hundred years before Trent, local dioceses determined liturgical texts, seeing Rome as an example but not legislating texts.

      Why all of a sudden does CDW side step the process which had been previously established and followed? More importantly, why have they done this and not offered either an explanation or issued rules for a new process?

      Why are you content to accept a violation of due process without actual legislation and wait for explanations after the results have been put into effect?

      Does the sequence fire, aim, ready not bother you?

      Is supporting curial bureaucrats more important than following legal tradition or being able to explain the logic, theology, and process? Does every curial element deserve the same respect as a formal, public, statement by the pope himself? I think you fail to make crucial distinctions.

      Reply
      1. Gerard Flynn

        Tom Poelker
        “Does the sequence fire, aim, ready not bother you? ”

        Ha ha ha!

        Very funny!

        🙂

  13. Michael Barnett

    Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    Umm, your response responded to nothing of what I wrote.
    To take one example: Vatican II gave authority to approve vernacular translations to bishops, not Rome.
    And to offer one correction: Lume gentium solemnly defined the doctrine of the sacramentality of episcopal ordination. This was previously an open question, with theologians in the Middle Ages divided on it.
    awr

    I’m sorry Fr Anthony. In a previous post you stated that you did not believe my comments to be helpful, so I have bowed out and avoided further posts. This one, however, I feel compelled to respond to.

    I have never seen any theologian claim that Vatican II “solemnly defined” the sacramentality of episcopal ordination. Can you cite a source that agrees with your position on this matter? I do not doubt the sacramentality of episcopal ordination and consider it a Magisterial teaching, but I cannot agree that it was solemnly defined.

    With regard to Vatican II giving authority to bishops’ conferences, I would respond that the pope has supreme, immediate, universal, ordinary jurisdiction over the unversal Church. (See canons 331 & 333) He can, if he so wishes, change the procedure outlined in Vatican II even tacitly by choosing to approve a translation that was not voted on by the bishops’ conferences.

    I agree that the changes to the 2008 Missal are horrendous, but appealing to Vatican II in this case doesn’t necessarily prove your point as I (mis)understand it.

    Reply
  14. Michael Barnett

    Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    No, according to Vatican II, the Pope doesn’t have universal authority and jurisdiction over everything. SC explicitly gives authority over vernacular translations to territorial bodies of bishops.

    You are wrong. See Lumen gentium 22. “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

    Reply
  15. Joe O'Leary

    I understand that Vatican II put forward episcopal consecration as the fullness of the sacrament of orders, resolving an issue that was debated in previous decades. Also Bp Taylor tells how the V2 bishops fought hard, and successfully, to ensure that the oversight of the vernacular liturgy would be in their hands not those of the Curia. Appealing to papal primacy to argue that the Pope can willfully overrule any principle of church order, even when agreed on by an Ecumenical Council, unwittingly reveals the toxicity of ultramontanism.

    Reply
  16. Richard Benson

    Noody has provided any explanation for why they think the changes represent ‘settling old score’. There is no evidence or support for that at all. All there is are some changes which have been made. It makes no sense to say that changes would be made to adversely affect the translation so as to prove a point. What point? It makes no sense. Therefore, I must conclude that there must be a good reason for them.

    Reply
    1. G. Michael McGuire

      1. There is a good reason for omitting “from the heavenly messenger” (referring to Saint Gabriel the Archangel) from the Vox Clara 2010 version of the Annunciation Preface, even though it is present in the Latin editio typica and in the 2008 translation approved by the bishops’ conferences.

      2. There is a good reason for taking the two imperatives of the Latin original of the Prayer Over the Offerings of Saturday of the Fourth Week of Lent and, contrary to the directives of the Holy See in both Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis, turning part of the second petition into a subordinate clause, while adding to the first part of the petition a phrase not present in the official Latin.

      3. There is also a good reason, in the Vox Clara translation of this same prayer for misusing English grammar (a) by adding “even” to the beginning of the dependent clause made up by Vox Clara and not in the Latin; and (b) by misplacing the adverb after the verb with the object sandwiched in between verb and adverb, thus:

      Oblationibus nostris, quaesumus, Domine,
      placare susceptis,
      et ad te nostras etiam rebelles compelle propitius voluntates.

      ICEL 2008, approved by the bishops’ conferences:
      Be pleased with our offerings and accept them,
      we pray, O Lord,
      and in mercy compel even our defiant wills
      to turn to you.

      VOX CLARA 2010:
      Be pleased, O Lord, we pray,
      with these oblations you receive from our hands,
      and even when our wills are defiant
      constrain them mercifully to turn to you.

      We just have to wait until the General Judgment to find out the reasons for (1) mistranslations; (2) deviations from the Holy See’s directives by a body entrusted with their application; (3) ignorance of English grammar and syntax. Makes sense to me, Robert!

      There’s an alternate explanation: you don’t know what you’re talking about. I know that would require a humility I haven’t seen in any of your postings, but has that possibility ever occurred to you?

      Reply
  17. Samuel J. Howard

    There’s an alternate explanation: you don’t know what you’re talking about. I know that would require a humility I haven’t seen in any of your postings, but has that possibility ever occurred to you?

    Frankly, I don’t understand why the moderators tolerate personal attacks on other commenters (e.g. accusing them of lack of humilty).

    Jeremy Stevens above suggests that the mistranslations result from “the little political machinations of people evening up scores and getting back at people for past slights.”

    But he provides no evidence for this (as you do not) beyond errors in the translation. But errors in the translation can also be explained by incompetence, so to assume that they are the result of a malicious conspiracy requires some higher level of proof.

    Reply
    1. Richard Benson

      I don’t really care about personal attacks. Yes I lack humility! Tell me something I don’t know!

      What I want is some reasonable explanation for why changes were made if they seem to make no sense. I don’t see why any sane person would deliberately do something to reduce the quality of a translation of a text to ‘get back’ at somebody. No, I think there must be a reasonable explanation. So how about we wait for that before assuming the worst of others.

      To be really honest (and this applies to Fr. Ruff and to Jeremy), I think there is something amiss about anybody who would talk about internal machinations, settling scores, and dirty politics, and yet provide not one rational explanation for any changes that were made and how, exactly, pray tell, these amount to a settling of scores. Could it be you don’t know? Could it be there is a good reason which you are not privy to? Could it be a simple mistake? Why does it have to be about settling scores?

      One should be very careful about making groundless accusations against other people.

      Here’s my theory: changes were made. We don’t know why. And then there are some people who are unhappy and attribute those changes to a lack of good will on the part of those who made them.

      If there is stuff that is known by Fr. Ruff or others, yet they can’t divulge it publicly, then why feed the curiosity and conspiracy theorizing tendencies of ordinary lay folk on this blog? Why make accusations and suggestions if you have no way to substantiate them? To me, that is a lack of charity and is really not the way to conduct oneself.

      Fr Ruff – if you cannot substantiate your claims of dirty politics, you ought not to throw out accusations. It’s easy to do, but is it right?

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

        Just to restate and clarify: I said that the history of the saga “makes it likely” that payback was involved, but it is “very hard to know.” I don’t claim to know for sure, so I only say that it seems likely.

        Part of the reason I suspect this is because I see no other rational reason why such incompetent changes would have been made at the last stage. But you are correct, it is an unsubstantiated suspicion.

        If only the whole thing were done in the open, and fully reported on to the church (as happens in other denominations)! That would clear up the whole thing. But I don’t expect we’ll ever get that.

        awr

  18. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    I encourage everyone on all side to show respect for others’ comments, and not to attack others’ character or lack of humility.

    Those close to the translation process are aware that dirty politics are certainly a part of it. (In general, the commenters making this accusation are closer to the process, or closer to people close to the process, than are the commenters disputing the accusation.) The history of this long saga makes it likely that personal motives, including settling personal scores, are involved. But it’s very hard to know or prove others’ motivations. We’ll likely never know how much the 2010 (2011) text comes from vindictiveness and how much it comes from incompetence.

    Here’s the problem: our Church lacks transparency.

    Since Rome took over ICEL and the entire translation process (contrary, I believe, to the doctrine of collegiality taught at Vatican II), ICEL no longer publishes progress reports. Since Vox Clara was created (contrary, I believe, to Vatican II collegiality) and since the CDW was given the right to change texts and even impose texts on conferences (contrary, I believe, to Vatican II collegiality), there are no progress reports published by Vox Clara or the CDW. Clearly, since Rome has begun to micromanage vernacular texts, Rome does not want to give us any information about their procedures or principles or policies or decisions. It is part of their new policy to keep us in the dark as much as possible.

    Let us hope and pray that this current way of doing business does not last. It is no way for Christ’s followers to treat one another or make decisions affecting the entire body of believers.

    awr

    Reply
  19. Gerard Flynn

    Well said, Father Anthony!

    I hope we are in a situation similar to the 1950s where the centralising and policing tendencies of the curia in condemning great theologians to silence and exile was followed by Pope John XXIII and Vatican II, but not before it had created many casualties.

    Reply
  20. Richard Benson

    Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    Just to restate and clarify: I said that the history of the saga “makes it likely” that payback was involved, but it is “very hard to know.” I don’t claim to know for sure, so I only say that it seems likely.
    Part of the reason I suspect this is because I see no other rational reason why such incompetent changes would have been made at the last stage. But you are correct, it is an unsubstantiated suspicion.
    If only the whole thing were done in the open, and fully reported on to the church (as happens in other denominations)! That would clear up the whole thing. But I don’t expect we’ll ever get that.
    awr

    Bear with me Fr. Ruff.

    Let me get this straight: A translation was produced. It was pretty good. Some members of VC want to get even with some other people (maybe the 1998 folks?). So… they introduce flaws into the English translation… so… *throw my hands up in the air* so what? So what exactly does that achieve? Nothing?

    The VC want to make a good translation. That was their aim.

    Now, I have my own far out theories for why the changes might have been made. I’d hazard a guess and say they are no more far out that your reasons Father, or anything Jeremy has said. Which is why I am not going to make public my inner thoughts. I have zero evidence. Only my own paranoid thoughts.

    I still come back to one point: if you have no proof of what you say, you should not say it. It is uncharitable to cast aspersions on the work of others who love the Church just. as much as we do, I am confident of that. To even suggest that people would make a…

    Reply
  21. Richard Benson

    …. plaything out of the translation of Holy Mass is a very serious allegation and one that should not be made, even hinted at, without solid proof. And even then, is a public blog the place to do it?

    Reply
  22. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    Richard,

    You ask fair questions.

    It is a fact that several of the people involved in the re-write have reasons, based on events of the (remote) past, to harbor ill will toward ICEL. Not because ICEL treated them unfairly, but because they were overruled, or their contributions were rejected. But there is no evidence that this is the motive for their actions. Only God sees into the heart.

    I think that the history of the Church, and the history of each person including myself, shows that even good people are capable of doing sinful and downright evil deeds – even in connection with the very holiest realities. I have been scandalized many times, and disappointed in myself, at what humans (and believers) are capable of. I encourage you and everyone not to have a naïve view of Church politics. I once did, and it has been very painful to have my assumptions shattered time and again. I guess that experience is a grace, though, and it tells us something about just how God keeps working with us weak humans.

    Pax,

    awr

    Reply
    1. Richard Benson

      Father: If they wanted revenge against the old ICEL team, then surely the best ‘revenge’ would be a holy, exalted, and accurate translation of the Mass, contrary (imho) to what we got in 1973. Indeed, contrary to what was produced and rejected in 1998 imho.

      No, I think there must be a good honest reason for the changes (which to be fair, make precious little difference to the final product anyhow) to the texts.

      Let us remember too, that the good work of good men (e.g. Fr. STRAVINSKAS for e.g. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0143.htm ) was rejected by the old guard ICEL back in the day. What comes around goes around, I guess. By that I mean, a bad translation had its day back then. Now, a good translation has prevailed at last. And that is not to imply any skullduggery on the part of VC. I don’t believe that accusation at all.

      There are plenty of accusations and counter-accusations that could be made, I am sure, by both sides of the liturgy wars over the last 40 years. Somewhere in the midst of everything, is the truth. Meanwhile, we have a good translation and I welcome it and I think all the members of the Church should unite around the Holy Mass and the new translation this Advent. All the bickering is not producing any good fruits for God.

      Reply
    2. Jeremy Stevens

      Father,
      Keep on talking! You are a good and patient teacher. Let me know if the wall ever answers you back with something that could not have been written before you even began to speak/write. I’m guessing not.

      Nothing to see here folks. What looks likens train wreck? Well, I’m sure the men who threw the switches and caused the derailment had a good reason for crashing those trains, otherwise they wouldn’t have been in the control tower in the first place.

      Anyhow, it’s none of our business. We’ve got our role: show up, shut up, pay up. Amen.

      Reply
  23. Michael Barnett

    Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    Umm, your response responded to nothing of what I wrote.

    .

    Fr Ruff,

    I’m still waiting for a response to two very legitimate theological questions that I asked above

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Editor

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

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

Continue reading