From the archdiocese of Denver, by Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley:
“‘A Universe Brimming with Fruitful Spiritual Life’: Reflecting Transcendence in the Liturgy“
‘A Universe Brimming with Fruitful Spiritual Life’: Reflecting Transcendence in the Liturgy
Comments
74 responses to “‘A Universe Brimming with Fruitful Spiritual Life’: Reflecting Transcendence in the Liturgy”
-
True or False?
Archbishop Coleridge, by the way, is a translator by training. He headed the committee of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) that produced the new translation we will begin using in Advent.-
Probably means that he translated Luke 1-2 as part of his biblical researches?
Meanwhile another blog has take up the battle: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/04/what-kind-god-do-new-mass-texts-imagine
-
That’s precisely what we are going to be faced with when the new texts hit the road. A huge debate about whether 6th-7th century spirituality is ours today. About whether grovelling before the emperor is how we relate to God today. About whether those responsible for the texts coming our way have confused “mystery” with “mysteriousness”.
-
I was actually remarking on the audacity of still claiming that ICEL produced VC2010
-
-
-
True or False?
The oldest of our Eucharistic Prayers, the Roman CanonIs not the basis of EP II older than the basis of EP I?
-
EPII is in a sense based on the Apostolic Tradition, which may date from the third century. But most of the material from the AT that made it into EPII is in the preface, and the part of EPII that is most often used, the part after the Sanctus, bears almost no relation to the AT, except for the sentence, “In memory of his death and resurrection. . . we thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.”
Certainly as a complete Eucharistic Prayer the Roman Canon is the oldest.
-
-
Do people like this bishop KNOW what Vox Clara did to the translation they approved? Does he know what the Archbishop he quoted had to say about some of the Vox Clara people when he saw the final (we think) version (pre the seven sets of “Errata” sent out so far?).
I think some of them don’t know.
I think some of them know but don’t care or dare to speak up against the likes of Cardinal Pell (whom one UK bishop referred to as “a bullxxxxr and a bully” – yes, a direct quote).
And I think some of them know and don’t care.
Notice: almost all the defense is of the Ordinary of the Mass-some of these guys are in for a big surprise when they see the Vox Clara-ized Propers.
-
I think most of the defense is of the Ordinary because most of the complaints are about the ordinary.
I think the new Proper, from what I’ve seen of them, are beautiful. I thrilled that Vox Clara reinstated the biblical allusions and the weaving of our history back into the english texts of the propers. The outgoing propers were dull and sounded generic. They could have said the same ones every Sunday and it wouldn’t have made any difference because most of them were devoid of any content whatsoever.
-
-
the Catechism, which contains numerous references to the heavenly liturgy.
Because its production was controlled by the same sort of people as Bp Conley who want to return the liturgy to heavenliness with clerical adoring angels instead of a banquet of with full, conscious, and active participation of the people of God.
The entire speech does this sort of misrepresentation by selection and omission. Only those things supportive of heavenly reverential liturgy are cited, so he can not be said to be wrong, but he certainly can be said to be incomplete in his explanation of liturgy.
e.g. The essential matter of our Eucharist is its participation in the liturgy of heaven. In other words: that’s what the Eucharist is all about. The Eucharist we celebrate on earth has its source in the heavenly liturgy. And the heavenly liturgy is the summit to which our Eucharistic celebration looks.
An essential element of liturgy is to be the source of nourishment for living the way of Jesus. Conley has reduced nourishment to the dreaded didactic, thus misrepresenting what liturgy truly is. Liturgy is much more a source of God’s gifts [grace] to the Christians in the Scripture and the sharing in oneness with Jesus and each other. This application of Apocalyptic imagery is a later development from a time of clerics doing and laity watching. It is exactly this sort of misunderstanding which V2 was correcting.
What is the literature term for ascribing to a whole what is accurate for a part of it? That is what Conley is doing here.
We also must not forget that 80% of the prayers in the Roman Missal date before the 9th century. We have a duty to hand these treasures on faithfully and accurately.
Why, other than in a library? Would we work in buildings so old and maintain any more than the facade? The HVAC, wiring, all communication means would be brought up to date.
-
That means that the words we pray in the liturgy are “performative.” They are not words alone, but words that have the power to do great deeds. They are words that can accomplish what they speak of.
As priests, when we speak Christ’s words in the Eucharist — or in any of the sacraments — these words possess divine power to change and transfigure. “This is my Body … This is the chalice of my Blood.” When we speak these words by the power of the Spirit, bread and wine are marvelously changed.Awfully close to magical thinking.
All in all, Conley has an entirely spiritualized view of liturgy. No element of community building or of nourishment for practical Christian living is mentioned. The nourishment is all internal and personal, an offering up rather than a building up, “disconnected, mysterious, remote”.
That is the great promise of this new … Missal. The promise of a people nourished and transformed by the sacred mysteries they celebrate. The promise of a people who are able to offer themselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. A people who experience Christ living in them, as they are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another.
I want to leave you with one last image. I hope it will inspire you … with passionate intensity and a keen awareness of the liturgy of heaven.
…
For [St. Josemaría], the liturgy was not a formal act but a transcendent one. Each word held a profound meaning and was uttered in a heartfelt tone of voice. He savored the concepts. … Josemaría seemed detached from his human surrounding and, as it were, tied by invisible cords to the divine. This phenomenon peaked at the moment of consecration. … Josemaría seemed to be disconnected from the physical things around him … and to be catching sight of mysterious and remote heavenly horizons.-
How do we nourish a Christian community without nourishing them spiritually first? And in what way do bland prayers that ignore God’s majesty build community?
Additionally, remember that this is a translation from the Roman Missal. In your comment above, you claim that the new texts reinstate errors that Vatican II was called to correct. Do you think that those who put together the Novus Ordo Mass were in rebellion against Vatican II? Has VII failed to take affect in the non-anglophone countries of the world where they’ve been using faithful translations?
-
I did not state anything about errors. I do not make those kinds of judgments. I did not state anything about the new text. All my comments were about the statement at hand.
-
Tom, I thought it was a reasonable inference from what you said since Bp. Conley was describing the Mass in terms that seem more representative of the new translation. Re-reading, you didn’t actually say that, though, so I apologize if I put words into your mouth.
I stand by the point (which seemed more relevant when I thought you were connecting your analysis of Bp. Conley’s statements and the new texts), though, that the new texts are a fairly accurate translation of the Latin texts, and so the theology they express is fairly solidly in line with the theology the Church sought to put forth in the aftermath of VII.
-
The new translation is more literal, not more accurate.
-
Jonathan @ 5.20 says “It’s more literal…”
Jonathan, you are right. But I wonder if you too might finding yourself growing slightly uncomfortable with saying the new translation is literal, as I am. The more I live with this, the more I feel the meme is overstated. More literal, yes. Literal, no. Selectively literal. Also, selectively interested in traditional texts. Also, selectively concerned about similarities among modern translations.
-
-
-
“The essential matter of our Eucharist is its participation in the liturgy of heaven. In other words: that’s what the Eucharist is all about. The Eucharist we celebrate on earth has its source in the heavenly liturgy. And the heavenly liturgy is the summit to which our Eucharistic celebration looks.”
How long can such crass idiocy be sustained before it implodes? Looking at the tottering dictatorships in Libya, Egypt, Syria, I am tempted to say: not much longer.
-
Opus Dei and Evelyn Waugh — a toxic combination.
-
Toxic enough individually!
-
-
Tom and Joe…
I’m sorry, but- Really?
Is Mass a banquet? A community-building event? An edifying, educational, and (dare I say) fun experience?
I would say, of course it is.But it is also transcendent, and heavenly, and supernatural.
If it is not those things, than what’s point? We might as well join a secular-humanist’s dinner club.
For goodness sakes.
I can understand, perhaps, taking issue with a complete denial of the meal/community aspect of liturgy. But that doesn’t sound at all like what’s going on here. What it really sounds like (especially Joe) is a complete denial of the divine.How is it “crass idiocy” to describe the the Church’s liturgy as having “its source in the divine liturgy?” Of course it has it’s source in the divine liturgy of heaven. The Orthodox understand that. Visit Trinity Episcopal in Boston: the architecture of that building is specifically designed to mimic the description of heaven in the divine liturgy in John’s Revelation. Why else would we sing, “Holy, Holy, Holy” along “with angels, and archangels, and the whole company of heaven?”
Crass idiocy? What?!The unique thing about Jesus (compared to any other real or imagined figure in the history of religious belief) is that he is both FULLY GOD and FULLY HUMAN. He is not just a wise teacher who dines with us and enacts social change. He is not just a powerful god who grants us mystical boons when we say the right words the right way.
The Liturgy reflects that, by being BOTH/AND.
It may be true that the good Bishop is over emphasizing one at the expense of the other, but I think he’s reacting to 50 years of human centered worship. Can’t blame the guy for trying to swing too hard in the other direction.
The proper response to said overemphasis is, “Yes, yes! And also…” rather than, “No. It’s not really about heaven, you’re an idiot, and Catholicism is really about friends eating together.”-
The temptation to reduce Christian discipleship from theosis to mere moralism is strong, and found all over the spectrum. Whether it’s of the purity-piety-and-obedience school or the be-good-to-other-people school.
-
Theosis in a Greek elitist hang-up, not what the liturgy is about at all. True we give it a nod at the moment when the water is added to the wine, but that is a very secondary moment.
-
Theosis is a Gk hang-up, I meant. In Athanasius theosis really means just the restoration of our corrupted nature through the redemption and the repristination of the image in the soul that enables us to enjoy knowledge of God. In short, Redemption.
-
-
The gospel vision of the Kingdom of God is of a Kingdom that comes into this world, to transform and elevate it. The bishop is latching onto the last chapters of Revelation to distort the shape of the New Testament economy, which is far more faithfully represented in the liturgy of the last 50 years than in the dreamworld of Evelyn Waugh.
-
The source of the Mass is in the Last Supper which had nothing to do with the human comparison of the Mass to the divine liturgy of heaven. That is even an incorrect use of the word liturgy, unless you are going to define liturgy so broadly as to include all worship.
The Mass is not entirely a matter of worship. As I said above, Bp. Conley is misleading by omission. The Mass includes all the varieties of prayer.
I see nothing in RCC documents which indicates that we have been engaged in human centered worship. I think Vatican II was interested in getting back to the both/and balance of the both divine and human natures of Jesus and liturgy.
I did not say it is really about something else entirely. I pointed out that Bp Conley had overemphasized and thereby misdirected.
So far, two responses to me citing things I did not actually say.
-
“Of course it has it’s source in the divine liturgy of heaven.”
Adam, your statement above suggests that you take the language concerning “the divine liturgy in heaven” as a literal description of what goes on in the presence of God, rather than as a figurative and poetic expression taking something known (the liturgy) and comparing it with the unknown (heaven). Attempts to suggest that we, of course, know all about heaven and have made the liturgy conform to it strike me as impossibly naive.
We need to be much more sophisticated in our approach to such things as the use of biblical imagery and traditional metaphors. Consistency in the use of metaphor is hardly the same as insistence on the literal truth of the metaphor. It’s the same with the metaphor of the heavenly court, and the monarchical imagery which has served in Christian history to depict God as having the supreme authority and power to do as he wills. But you would not imagine that God wears a crown of gold and jewels, would you? These are metaphors, and when the earthly referent of a metaphor runs us into trouble, we learn that what is sacred is not the metaphor but God himself, no?
The relationship of earthly powers (the Byzantine empire, specifically) to the reinforcement of certain favored images of God and of what happens in heaven, is something to be looked at carefully and, I daresay, as critically as you look at the Elks Club dinner.
-
There’s an intermediate place between literality and metaphor: analogy. That this idea has been lost seems to be at the root of much of the difficulties of contemporary theology.
The difference between “unknown” and “imperfectly known” is also of critical importance.
-
I don’t know what I think about what ACTUALLY goes on in heaven. We’d be a bit arrogant to claim we knew.
What we have in the Revelation to John, though, is a Holy-Spirit-inspired vision of the Heavenly worship, interpreted by it’s writer (under the direction of the Holy Spirit) into language which is almost (but not quite) human-understandable.
It seems to me that one of the things we do in liturgy (one of) is re-creating (interpreting, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working through the traditional and creative urges of the Church) that heavenly liturgy.
Is what we do at Mass the same, or even analagous, to what LITERALLY goes on in heaven? Um… well…. Probably not. But there surely is some kind of dynamic equivalence between there and here (on Earth, as it is in Heaven).
Again… this is neither new, nor unique. The Orthodox are very clear about it, in their architecture and music. The Anglicans (yes, even the cool progressive ones) seem also to get it. -
We’d be a bit arrogant to claim we knew.
It would be arrogant to claim we knew everything, but given that we have revelation about the divine liturgy, it’d also be arrogant to interpret that revelation into meaninglessness and claim we know nothing.
-
-
-
“the good bishop”
Good grief.
-
Heaven forbid we be anachronistically polite to members of an anachronistic organization.
-
-
The idiocy lies in the word “essential”. The Lord’s Supper was not presented by Jesus as essentially participation in a heavenly liturgy.
-
It’s a seder transformed by later generations of Christians.
The Mass has always been what the Church wanted it to be
when it wanted it to be.From a Jewish seder to eucharistia, to mystery, to oblation, to to commemoration of Christ’s unbloody sacrifice transfixed to the crucifix, and now the universal Church in communion with the mystical supper in heaven, via Urs von Balthasar and Pope Benedict. What’s next?
-
Are you suggesting any of those understandings is incorrect?
-
-
-
He repeats that “essential” claim three times (shades of Peter); he intends to quash all the eucharistic emphases of Vatican II and since. “This is my body given for you” is NOT a heavenly liturgy; it is redemption entering into the heart of our world. That is what Teilhard and others talk about the Mass of the universe. And of course heavenly banquet enthusiasts are incapable of thinking that the Eucharist has an intrinsic, unbreakable link with “merely earthly” concerns of justice and peace. Certainly the snobbish Waugh, who noticed the poor by their distasteful smell, never made that connection.
-
Could not the Mass be both redemption entering into the heart of the world as Eucharist and a Holy Sacrifice for sin-forgiveness and the perpetual presence of Christ’s salvitic act in the world?
The Sacrament is a bidirectional mirror. It reflects both the Lord given to us in the Eucharist for our redemption and also our reliance on the Holy Sacrifice for sin-forgiveness. Here is complementarity, not contradiction.
-
Jordan, I think I pointed out exactly this.
Bp. Conley has an entirely vertical and upward directed description of liturgy.
I think it is primarily vertical but downward directed and that it is also horizontal among the worshiping community and leastwise vertical and upward directed. -
Bishop Conley specifically says that this transcendence is a “dimension of the liturgy” and that his topic is limited. You distort his plain meaning when you write that he has an entirely vertical description of the liturgy, because this is a talk discussing the vertical dimension, but it’s a dimension, not the complete measurements.
-
You did mention this earlier, Tom, at #21. I overlooked that. Yes, there is no Mass without the vertical and horizontal aspects. Every person is drawn differently to the Mass, but no one should exclude an aspect of the Mass because of a negative association with the very fallible practice of liturgy.
Later in the summer I will have the opportunity to spend some time in Rome. Sure, I’ll be eager to hear EF Solemn Mass and overdose on Baroque triumphalism. This time I will also have the opportunity to worship at a suburban Roman parish. It will be a good experience to see the liturgy of Rome practiced in the city of Rome, in all its diversity, transcendence, and immanence. I won’t even bring my rosary to church.
-
-
-
Interesting article – some questions, thoughts, and comments:
– Conley biography – convert during college (end of 1975) – BA in Literature; studied philosophy but received his MDiv from Emmitsburg; native American roots like Chaput; ordained in ’85 served as asst.pastor/Respect Life coordinator for 4 years. Lateran for 4 yrs with STL in moral theology; campus minister at WSU 5 yrs and then served in Rome – Congr. of Bishops for ten years. Made Mgsr in that period. 2006 – named a pastor – served two years and became bishop.Comment – little pastoral experience in the US; fast tracked to Rome where he has spent 15 years. Promoted quickly? No expertise in liturgy – he came long after VII – wonder if he questionned VII during his seminary time which so many appear to do today (it is the clerical cultural thing to do)
From documentation:
– he corrected Pelosi during the last election
– he stated that the healthcare reform bill was “fatally flawed”
– picketed CO capitol with grade school kids kneeling and saying the rosary against recognizing gay civil unions
-condemned ND for Obama invitation
– supporter of TLM & FSSP
-frequently said EF/TLM with altar rails in Wichita
– his article on abuse in First Things – http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/04/in-defense-of-the-pope
standard and discredited informationSorry -this article is a nice description of his spirituality – not sure that his framing does justice to the theology of eucharist (reminds me of the dust up between EWTN Mother and Cardinal Mahoney on his eucharist pastoral). This appears to be the typical “rah-rah”; an apologia that ignores history of liturgy; ignores or misunderstands Vatican II documents (Ecumenism, Religious Freedom, SC, Paul VI’s liturgical directives in the 1960’s/70’s.
Bishops are “signs of unity” – is this apologia a “sign of unity” or reinforcing the liturgy wars; polarizations; and one-sided interpretations.
The best bishops are “both/and”
-
The best bishops are “both/and”
Sorry, Bill, I disagree.
The best bishops are dead/retired.
-
A-H.
-
A-H . . . ok, it has something to do with the Hierarchy . . . . .
-
This comment from Chris seems unnecessary and uncharitable. I thought we were trying to get away from that sort of thing on PT. I seem to remember Chris criticizing others for such zingers.
-
-
-
cont…..
Note his article’s foot notes:
most are from CCC – is this really a good primary source? That is sort of like referencing google
other footnotes are from Opus Dei – not exactly objective or balanced (again, his spirituality)
Contrast to Ratzinger’s comments about VII and SC:
“a more active participation of the laity, the inclusion of the whole table-fellowship of God in the holy action”
“the decentralization of liturgical legislation,” which represents “a fundamental innovation.” Conferences of bishops now will have responsibility for liturgical laws in their own regions and this, “not by delegation from the Holy See, but by virtue of their own independent authority.” This is to introduce “a new element in the Church’s structure, … a kind of quasi-synodal agency between individual bishops and the pope. This decision may even have “more significance fore the theology of the episcopacy and for the long desired strengthening of episcopal power than anything in the ‘Constitution on the Church.’”
“…the question of the liturgy, which represented a “profound crisis in the life of the Church.” Its roots lay back in the late Middle Ages, when “awareness of the real essence of Christian worship increasingly vanished. Great importance was attached to externals, and these choked out the whole.” Trent’s reaction to Reformation challenges was inadequate, even if it eliminated a number of abuses. It did not sufficiently deal with Reformation difficulties with the notions of adoration and sacrifice. It did cut back the medieval overgrowth and took measures to prevent it in the future. But the main measure was to centralize liturgical authority in the Congregation of Rites. New overgrowths were in fact prevented, but the fate of liturgy in the West was now in the hands of a strictly centralized and purely bureaucratic authority. This authority completely lacked historical perspective; it viewed the…
-
You’re not entitled to your own facts.
Note his article’s foot notes:
most are from CCC – is this really a good primary source? That is sort of like referencing google
This is simply false. There are 21 footnotes. Two reference the Catechism.
-
Sorry, Mr. Howard – you are correct. In my haste I failed to highlight what I wanted – he quotes from the CCC more than he does from any VII document.
Compare his article to Paul VI’s Instruction on the Liturgy of Vatican II and Mysterium Fidei:
-
-
What exactly is the issue with citing the Catechism?
Perhaps for the intended/typical audience of his essay, it is easier to locate the material in the Catechism than it is to locate the PL or PG or ANF, etc.
-
Here is a better response to your question, Jeffrey:
“Pope John Paul II devised the Catholic Catechism as the summation meant to settle complex questions with a statement supported by the bishops. While the catechism addresses theological questions, it is not theology, the discipline where the wrestling with truth takes place. At Theology on Tap, the priest began with the Catholic Catechism, a sure-fire approach that stifles discussion. Would it not have been better to start with contemporary questions and finish with the Catholic Catechism?
In my opinion, both the bishops and our young curate follow in the same route to an intellectual dead-end. You reduce the faith to memorized slogans once you substitute catechism for theology. After all, most Catholics trust Church leadership to use both catechism and theology appropriately. But apparently, the distinction between the two is not being taught in seminaries – perfectly understandable if the bishops in charge don’t observe the distinction between the two disciplines.
Unfortunately for Catholic America, a laity eager for the red meat of theological discussion is being fed the pabulum of catechism answers”
-
-
Bill, How about some source information on these quotes?
-
Sorry Tom – copied/pasted from a file folder. Here is the article by Rev. J. Komonchak in Commonweal quoting from Ratzinger’s “Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 1966.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=935
BTW – as a child, Ratzinger collected German missals like some of us collected baseball cards. These German missals were the Schott missals in vernacular German of the latin he was hearing at mass. So, it was through German that he was introduced to the latin at mass (innovative but not sanctioned liturgical movement – interesting point given the blog).
-
-
-
cont….
“….liturgy solely in terms of ceremonial rubrics, treating it as a kind of problem of proper court etiquette for sacred matters. This resulted in the complete archaizing of the liturgy, which now passed from the stage of living history, became embalmed in the status quo and was ultimately doomed to internal decay. The liturgy had become a rigid, fixed and firmly encrusted system; the more out of touch with genuine piety the more attention was paid to its prescribed forms. We can see this if we remember that none of the saints of the Catholic Reformation drew their spirituality from the liturgy”
“…it was clear that the efforts of the Congregation of Rites had resulted in the total impoverishment of the liturgy. If the Church’s worship was once again to become the worship of the Church in the fullest sense-i.e., of all the faithful-then it had to become something in movement again. The wall of Latinity had to be breached if the liturgy were again to function either as proclamation or as invitation to prayer… It was now clear that behind the protective skin of Latin lay hidden something that even Trent’s cutting away of late medieval ornamentations had failed to remove. The simplicity of the liturgy was still overgrown with superfluous accretions of purely historical value. It was now clear, for example, that the selection of biblical texts had frozen at a certain point and hardly met the needs of preaching. The next step was to recognize that the necessary revamping could not take place simply through purely stylistic modifications, but also required a new theology of divine worship. Otherwise the renewal would be no more than superficial”
He ends: “Will it be possible to bring contemporary man into new contact with the Church, and through the Church into new contact with God? Will it be possible to minimize centralism without losing unity? Will it be possible to make divine worship the starting point for a new understanding among…
-
Who would have thought that Ratzinger would provide the sane antidote to such ravings!
-
Well, as off as alot of that is, I have no problem with him objecting to Our Lady’s University giving an honorary doctorate (of laws, was it?) to a President who, while Senator, voted (three times?) against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
In fact, his objection is kind of a nice contrast to, say, Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley who couldn’t quite make Msgr Fred McManus’ funeral (see the other thread) and sent the current Bp of Cleveland (then Aux of Boston), but made sure he changed his schedule all around to make it to Senator Ted Kennedy’s canonization (almost every text of the Funeral Rite rewritten to proclaim the deceased’s greatness; and the General Intercessions read by the grandchildren a series of Democrat talking points on policy) where, according to his blog, he “challenged” President Obama on abortion – odd, since abortion on demand at every stage was one of the Sainted Senator’s most cherished policies. Let’s just say the Cardinal’s bows, smiles and both-handshakes as he met the President didnt exactly look like Leo the Great confronting Attila the Hun.
Anyhow, seems to me with the way our bishops are made, we’ve got about the level of health (in all dimensions) you’d expect from any organism that self-reproduces itself.
-
“Our Lady’s University”
She went to university?!
-
Our Lady has the highest honorary degrees afforded to any mortal: Theotokos, Queen of Heaven. All the degrees in the world could never match these impeccable credentials. Best yet, Mary’s dissertation needs no defense. Who could critique the All-Powerful Creator in His creation?
I do often pray that Our Lady intercedes on behalf of my horrible Greek. She’s probably too busy praying for the holy souls — no helping me then! 🙁
-
-
You’ve mistaken the genitive of possession for the genitive of former residentiary designation (cf Bennett, A Latin Grammar).
Are you Jim Moroney?
-
Anthony, defend me mightily!
-
-
I’ve long suspected you were Cardinal Pell, but he is a superb Latinist, besides his gifts for organization and diplomacy, so I’m sure he would have recognized that obscure Latin construction in my literal (true to Liturgiam Authenticam) translation.
Moroney, not so much.
-
-
There is a banal, pedestrian quality to much of the language in our current liturgy. The weakness in the language gets in the way and prevents us from experiencing the sublime spiritual and doctrinal ideas woven into the fabric of the liturgy.
The translators had well-meaning pastoral intentions. They wanted to make the liturgy intelligible and relevant to modern Catholics. To that end, they employed a translation principle they called “dynamic equivalence.”
In practice, this led them to produce an English translation that in many places is essentially a didactic paraphrase of the Latin. In the process, the language of our Eucharistic worship — so rich in scriptural allusion, poetic metaphor and rhythmic repetition — came to be flattened out and dumbed down.
I think the root problem with the translations we have now is that the translators seriously misunderstood the nature of the divine liturgy.
Our current translations treat the liturgy basically as a tool for doing catechesis. That’s why our prayers so often sound utilitarian and didactic; often they have a kind of lowest-common-denominator type of feel. That’s because the translators were trying to make the “message” of the Mass accessible to the widest possible audience.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of what those translators were trying to do, and maligns their memory. Dynamic equivalence has nothing to do with making the liturgy accessible and everything to do with the basic principles of translation without which you end up with Babelfish/schoolboy translations, which is what we are currently awaiting. The translators were well aware that one cannot and must not use the liturgy as a didactic or catechizing tool. Liturgy is about celebrating, not about teaching.
(ctd)
-
The 1973 translations were spare, sinewy, devoid of superfluous and artificial excresences. They were not didactic and I believe they were not dumbing down. They attempted to provide a canvas on which the listener could erect a beautiful image.
I do not believe that these texts are nearly as bad as they are depicted to be. Anyone who has heard, as I have, a pastor bring these texts to life, making them into heartfelt prayers for their communities, will know what a revelation it is.
And the way this is done is precisely what we are going to have to do with the new texts: these pastors take their time, go slowly, split the text up into units of meaning, not rushing on from one to the next. They use their voice as if they mean what they are saying; they use their voice to sound as is they are actually praying these texts. Not rattling them off as just another set of words.
And those brave first translators did want accessibility: the way that the Brooklyn taxi-driver prays is not the same as the professor at the Greg in Rome, nor the same as the paesano in the fields of S. America, nor the office worker in Delhi. The translators wanted to embrace all of these. A translation which does not reach out to its intended audience is doomed to ultimate failure. Transendence is certainly what we all want, but a high-falutin’ sacral language is not the way to achieve it.
-
-
Wonder – did he go to the same school as Fr. Z – he seems to parrot much of the same dross?
Paul – that is what I was referring to in my comments about his knowledge or understanding (?) of Vatican II – he makes statements that reveal either a lack of knowledge or an ideological approach to the documents and activity of Vatican II.
-
“There is a banal, pedestrian quality to much of the language in our current liturgy.”
From my American Merriam Webster Dictionary the definition of banal is “lacking originality, freshness or novelty.” For the definition of pedestrian it is “Commonplace, unimaginative.” Both words seem to define the Bishop’s talk.
I don’t think that the Bishop’s talk has really contributed anything useful (other than continued polemics) to the on-going conversation of the “reform of the reform” or the Second Vatican Council. Now if he had chose a topic, more in the area of his expertise, i.e. Moral Theology and perhaps about Gaudium et Spes and the Dignity of the Human Person, it would have been a better talk.
-
Bishop Conley specifically says that this transcendence is a “dimension of the liturgy” and that his topic is limited. You distort his plain meaning when you write that he has an entirely vertical description of the liturgy, because this is a talk discussing the vertical dimension, but it’s a dimension, not the complete measurements.
Actually, I have not distorted as much as you have, because its a talk discussing a translation and he is supporting the translation by narrowing the focus to the vertically upward way he sees liturgy.
-
Sorry Tom – copied/pasted from a file folder. Here is the article by Rev. J. Komonchak in Commonweal quoting from Ratzinger’s “Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 1966.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=935
Seeking Sources
This article about Ratzinger’s opinions as a peritus with its comments on accretions to the original Roman Canon has raised my interest in early versions of the Roman Canon. Can anyone point me to a source for very early versions of the RC before it began its organic growth?In turn, this reminds me that I have been seeking digital versions of the Abbot [?] and Flannery [?] early translations of SC and the rest of the documents of V2. Are these available? I would like to compare them to the English supplied by the Vatican and see if they disagree at very many other points besides full/fully conscious and active participation.
-
Tom – your best source would be a book considered the “work” on liturgical development of the Roman Rite.
The Mass Of The Roman Rite : Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia) (2 Volume Set) (Vols 1&2) [Paperback]
Joseph A. Jungmann (Author), Francis A. Brunner (Translator)OR
Source and Summit: Commemorating Josef A. Jungmann, S.J. [Paperback]
Joanne M. Pierce (Editor), Michael Downey (Editor)esp. Jungmann’s Influence on Vatican II by Kathleen Hughes, RSCJ or History of Eucharist by John Baldovin,SJ or Liturgy & Culture by Regis Duffy, OFM
Tom – not sure if you have access to Worship but Jungmann has many articles there in the late 1950’s and 1960’s.
-
Bill, Thanks, I have Jungmann. I am looking for examples of the straight text at various points. I do not recall JAJ having that, just running commentary, so to speak. I’ll have to pull it down and look at opening and appendices again.
How about the earlier translations of SC on line somewhere?
-
Don’t have that, Tom. There are a few sometimes posters on this blog who might have that type of information.
-
Tom and others – interesting letter from Paul VI in 1969 introducing the “reformed” liturgy…..compare to Bishop Conley’s memo:
Address of Pope Paul VI to a General Audience, November 19, 1969
Before the introduction of the new Mass in 1969 Pope Paul VI gave two addresses in which he made some startling admissions about the new liturgy – this is the first of those addresses.
________________________________________Our Dear Sons and Daughters:
1. We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. It will become obligatory in Italian dioceses from the First Sunday of Advent, which this year falls on November 30. from the reign of St. Pius VI, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.
2. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made? What effect will it have on those who attend Holy Mass? Answers will be given to these questions, and to others like them, arising from this innovation. You will hear the answers in all the Churches. They will be amply repeated there and in all religious publications, in all schools where Christian doctrine is taught. We exhort you to pay attention to them. In that way you will be able to get a clearer and deeper idea of the stupendous and mysterious notion of the Mass.
3. But in this brief and simple discourse We will try only to relieve your minds of the first, spontaneous difficulties which this change arouses. We will do so in relation to the first three questions which immediately occur to mind because of it. -
cont….
4. How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: “The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.
5. “For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance. Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers” (Sacrosanctum Concilium #50).
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.
7. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment.
8. This reform puts an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses. It calls us back to that uniformity of rites and feeling proper to the Catholic Church, the heir and continuation of that first Christian community, which was all “one single heart and a single soul” (Acts 4:32). The choral character of the Church’s prayer is one of the strengths of her unity and her…
-
cont…..
9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?
10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it.
11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action–experienced and living–of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.
12. The unity of the Lord’s Supper, of the Sacrifice on the cross of the re-presentation and the renewal of both in the Mass, is inviolably affirmed and celebrated in the new rite just as they were in the old. At that Supper the Lord changed the bread and wine into His Body and His Blood (sorry, Fr. Ruff – have no link)
-
I’m an Anglican – the Episcopal Church – and I’m a both/and guy.
The things cherished by the different “sides” need not be mutually exclusive.
It was nice to see the good bishop speak of the relationship betwen the sacrifice “we” offer, conntected the one Christ eternally offerrs. I.e. “we” is one church one body, not the preisthood as separated from the laity.
I hope that wasn’t a mistake on his part.
-
Let us face it. The New Mass has by and large failed to capture a new generation of Catholic Christians. Where is this not evident? It appears uninspired, dry, lifeless, without colour- lacking both, and at once, the innovations and energy that *momentarily* snag the youth of the Evangelical and Non- Denominational bodies and yet also the antiquity and venerability of the Faith inherited and passed down from generation to generation. All in all, how sadly short sighted. Had I not faith, I would call contemporary Catholicism pathetic, really. Like the “Buddy Jesus” of Smith’s “Dogma”, the Crucifix of tradition was eschewed for a flashy contemporary “with it” rewrite of the Faith that failed to be either radical or enduring.
I am in the smallest minority of my peers practicing the faith. We are ambivalent or confused about the meaning of Vatican II and the meaning of Catholic identity. I know of no proudly confessed Liberal Catholic under forty.
I was raised in the 90’s. I am no “rad-trad”. I continue in the Novus Ordo that I was raised in today. I am unsure of the new translation. But I welcome this emerging awareness of the crimes against the treasures of our faith.
-
From Bp Conley’s article:
“Guardini says, the liturgy aims to create a new world for believers to dwell in. A sanctified world where the dividing lines between the human and the divine are erased. Guardini’s vision is beautiful: “The liturgy creates a universe brimming with fruitful spiritual life.”
The new translation of the Mass restores this sense of the liturgy as transcendent and transformative. It restores the sacramentality to our liturgical language. The new translation reflects the reality that our worship here joins in the worship of heaven.”
My problem is with the presumption that the liturgy’s “universe brimming with fruitful spiritual life” is presumed to be heavenly and transcendent. Why do we think that liturgy needs to take us “up,” when the profound christological act was to come “down” to us, and to call us likewise to go “down” to the messiness of our human condition, and join with Christ there? While the catechism may have many references to the heavenly liturgies, the NT accounts of Christ’s breaking bread with his disciples do not. The world into which the liturgy needs to usher us is the narrative world of what *this* world should be like, to be more like the Kingdom of God.
What happened to the kenotic dimension of liturgy, of the resurrected Lord, still bearing the marks of his sufferings, who was simply in the midst of his disciples? Liturgy for the true Kingdom should be at least as much about the embrace of the sufferings of the world, as it is about the eschatological fullness in glory.
The “real” Latin masses, before the Council, were almost never transcendent and heavenly; they were mechanical and pedantic. There is nothing automatically mystical about Latin. I prefer Pentecost — to hear the Good News proclaimed in my own tongue.-
While the catechism may have many references to the heavenly liturgies, the NT accounts of Christ’s breaking bread with his disciples do not.
There are other books in the New Testament than the Gospels and Acts, which is a large part of the point of the talk (look at the footnotes.)
The world into which the liturgy needs to usher us is the narrative world of what *this* world should be like, to be more like the Kingdom of God.
What happened to the kenotic dimension of liturgy, of the resurrected Lord, still bearing the marks of his sufferings, who was simply in the midst of his disciples? Liturgy for the true Kingdom should be at least as much about the embrace of the sufferings of the world, as it is about the eschatological fullness in glory.
There’s more than one aspect to liturgy. This talk is about another aspect. That doesn’t mean the aspect you refer to doesn’t exist.
The “real” Latin masses, before the Council, were almost never transcendent and heavenly; they were mechanical and pedantic. There is nothing automatically mystical about Latin.
How the Latin Masses were before the Council is pretty much moot at this point. (I don’t agree with your argument, but it’s largely not worth fighting over for either side, because we’re not living before the Council.)
-
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.