Paul Vallely is a journalist best known for his writing on Africa and development issues. He is also an associate editor of the UK newspaper The Independent where he writes about ethical, cultural and political issues, and a columnist for the Church Times and Third Way magazine.
In this piece, he shares his experience of the new missal translation. –ed.
H/T: Rita Ferrone
That 11 year old is worthy of Hans Christian Andersen — “Daddy, the Emperor has no clothes!”
Last weekend we taught the refrain of the Storington Mass by Haugen. The people sang it well, but I was not the only one who noticed the clunkiness of the first two stanzas. As one person putit: too many words.
We also gave the people a chance to indicate which form of the profession of faith they preferred. Heretofore we had almost exclusively used the nicene creed which all have committed to memory. But we have been using the apostle’s creed for many months (new version). Yesterday we used the new nicene creed for the second time. Here are the results of the straw poll: 15-20% for nicene; 15-20% for both or no choice; and the rest requested the apostle’s creed.
Next weekend comes the catechesis on the Eucharistic prayer changes. Not looking forward to it.
As far as I am aware the Nicene and Apostles Creed are not interchangeable. My understanding is that the Nicene Creed should be said throughout the year, the Apostles Creed (because of its association with Baptism) during the Easter Season
In fact they are interchangeable. What you write is a good suggestion and many follow it. But the rubrics clearly permit either Creed to be used anytime.
awr
From the Missal: Loco symboli nicaeno-constantinopolitani, praesertim tempore Quadragesimae et tempore paschali, adhiberi potest symbolum baptismale Ecclesiae Romanae sic dictum Apostolorum.
In place of the Niceno-Constantinipolitan Creed, especially during the seasons of Lent and Easter, the baptismal (Apostles’) creed of the Roman Church, may be used.
I must say that this is one of the changes in the tertio editio that I much lament: substituting a local Roman Creed for a (more or less) ecumenical Creed.
FB, any port in a storm, the storm being the new and less ecumenical translation of the Nicene Creed.
I agree with Fritz. I fear that the new English missal will succeed in killing the Nicene Creed for most parishes. Talk about unintended consequences. I wish they had revised MR3 to say that Apostle’s Creed may be used during Lent and Easter seasons.
awr
I think the Penitential Rite( Confiteor) Form A will likewise suffer the same fate. There are just too many mea culpa’s. Form B will be used more often.
The beginning story with the 11-yr. old (because children and grandparents are always all-knowing and insightful), reminded me of when I had a parish children’s choir … the rule was that we didn’t express an opinion about a piece of music until it had been learned and sung at Mass at least once. In a similar way, I think the polling of adults should be done no more than one year from now. The viewpoint that our initial reaction will be the best one is probably better as a marketing device than as a gauge of liturgical merits.
I’m also in the school of opinion that wishes the rubric about the Apostles’ Creed limited it to Lent and Easter. There seems to be no particular problem using “I” in the Apostle’s Creed or responding “I do” to the baptismal promises on Easter; so it would seem the “I” of the revised translation of the Nicene Creed can also move it into the realm of the ongoing affirmation of an individual baptismal belief. It’s my understanding that, in Greek, this is what happened when the Creed changed roles from Conciliar expression (we) to liturgical expression (I).
I’m curious. What kind of language do you suppose Jesus Himself used? Somehow i think it was closer to that of the living room than that of the Temple.
try aramaic – per Crossan, probably the language of the Palestinian peasant rather than the language used in Jerusalem or the temple.
Jesus spoke Aramaic in everyday usage and he would have said the prayers during the Last Supper in Ancient Hebrew. If we’re really trying to be true to the original, our priests should be trying to get the blessings over the bread and wine back to their original Hebrew roots, not Latin.
Why is the language of our liturgy supposed to be the daily language that Yeshua bar Yussef used? I think there’s as little basis for that as there is for it to be the language of a centuries-gone European throne room.
I agree with Alan. We’re not reproducing the 1st century as a theatrical presentation. Our worship language should be in a different register, probably, than Jesus’s, because we’re talking about ritual (which brings in lots of anthropological, cultural, aesthetic etc. concerns) and sacrament. The range of concerns to be brought in must be quite wide when talking about ritual language.
awr
Alan, referring to Latin as “the language of a centuries-gone European throne room” is a smack in the face to people who have devoted their entire lives to studying Latin.
Would you walk up to a Vedic scholar and say that Sanskrit is “the language of silly fairy-tales such as the Mahabharata“?
It’s statements such as these which push me farther and farther away from worship in the reformed rite, or even Catholicism in general.
Jordan, maybe Alan himself wants to clarify what he meant above, but what I took the reference to “centuries gone throne room” to mean is baroque conventions of courtly address and not the Latin language per se. As you of course know, liturgical Latin because of its history contains quite a mixture of influences: Biblical and patristic Latin as well as classical and late medieval Latin all have some role in the shaping of liturgical Latin, do they not? Not all of these would bear the description “throne room style.” It seems to me that Alan has thrown up TWO straw men with the intention of dismissing them both.
I am a little unsatisfied with this myself, but from another angle. Here is how I would describe it. From the earliest times, what was important to the Christian community was the real presence of the living, risen Lord Jesus mediated by the Holy Spirit, and known in the breaking of the bread. Next to that shining presence, other means, if you will, for “getting in touch with” the real Jesus (if I may allude to Luke Timothy Johnson’s wonderful book) were secondary. After the apostolic age and indeed with the rapid expansion of Christianity after the peace of Constantine, it became more difficult to feel close to him, and many means were sought including pilgrimage, and eventually drama, to assuage the longing to know him, to walk where he walked, to be with the Lord. His daily language would be dear to us, if we knew it, simply because it was his. I do not despise that longing. But herein lies the whole challenge of Christianity, which is to believe and dwell in the mystery of Christ’s presence as Spirit and life and sacrament and mission, not as the vanished past but as the present and coming reign of God. And, as I am sure you would agree, the reign of God is not to be confused with that of earthly rulers.
Thank you Rita for the insight. I sincerely apologize to Alan as well. I shouldn’t post anything during the planning of midterms.
I agree, Rita, that the Latin language has accumulated different accents, dialects, literary styles, and rhetorical styles. Certainly, the Latin of today’s Missale Romanum is a complex record of the profound influence of Latin-language worship over many centuries. On the eve of his new missal (26 November 1969), Pope Paul VI wisely remarked, “We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance.” (8)
Pope Paul closed the door of the throne room and sent us to find Christ in uncharted expressions. In response to Alan’s remark, I would add that there can be no revival of liturgical Aramaic with its Levant setting. Also, there can be no revival of Tridentine Latin with the semiotics of a triumphant Tridentine Church. A cappa magna might suit a horse and his noble rider well, but looks absolutely ridiculous in any postmodern situation.
It is quite true that the narcissistic dedications of previous Popes sprinkled throughout Rome, as well as the early modern Baroque explosion, for example, encased the Latin language within an aggrandizement far from Christ’s example and desire for us. Yet, if the Mass can be reformed and resignified, why not the Latin language? Has Latin been dragged through politics and wealth to the point where the image of Christ cannot be seen?
No — Latin can and should be spoken outside of the throne room, joined by vernacular voices. Our triumph is cultivating a new understanding of Latin freed from a prison of gilt and cherubs.
There is much talk of echoing the original Latin. Original? So far as we know Jesus never spoke a word of Latin. His tongue was Aramaic. The Old Testament is in Hebrew, and the new in Greek. The much-vaunted Tridentine Latin Mass came only after the Reformation.
Yes, the “original Latin”, referring at least to the Collects, the Prayers over the Offerings, the Prefaces, the Eucharistic Prayers, and the Post-Communion Prayers.
And the Latin Mass at least a millennium older than the Council of Trent.
Of course, everyone knows “original Latin” refers to the source of the translation – the third edition of the Roman Missal – which is indeed in Latin and not any other language. Those who act as if anyone who speaks of the “original Latin” is claiming the entire liturgy was originally composed in Latin centuries ago, or who act as if anyone claims Jesus spoke Latin at the last supper, is either creating straw men or being deliberately obtuse.
It’s like the make-believe traditionalists who supposedly think Jesus held the last supper in a Gothic church wearing a fiddle back chasuble.
It’s like the make-believe traditionalists who supposedly think Jesus held the last supper in a Gothic church wearing a fiddle back chasuble.
And speaking of creating straw men…
SJH – maybe you should re-read my post if you are trying to infer that I’m creating straw men. I was saying that the traditionalists described above are make-believe. They do not exist except in the minds of a few “progressive” commentators I have encountered who wish to broadly portray traditionalists as ignorant.
S.J.H.
A little less knee-jerking and a little more thought would be helpful.
In your dash to condemn you misread the post.
Jack, my apologies, I did misread your comment.
Gerard, I’m not sure what the point of your comment is, posted as it was more than two hours after Jack clarified and pointed out my error.
Your speculation about why I made a mistake is just that and if your concern is to offer me helpful counsel you could do that privately.
No problem. Re-reading my post, I can see how it could be misread – especially since I’ve seen traditionalists described as nostalgics living in a make-believe “alternate universe.”
Plus, I’m not very good at writing.
If you mean Mass employing the Latin language a thousand years before Trent, I’ll buy that. But if you mean to suggest that the Missal promulgated by Pius V was essentially the same a thousand years earlier, can’t buy that. Similar elements, OK. I have met Catholics who insisted that Vatican II did away with the Mass which had always been the same up until then. That is nonsense.
I mean that Mass celebrated in Latin has been around since the time of Ambrose or so. I’m certainly not saying that early Latin Mass was the same as the Pius V missal.
But much of the Latin in the Pius V and Paul VI missals comes from the first millenium, and even some of the more recent Latin texts are based on ancient Latin texts.
This discussion about the “original” Latin reminds me of the scene, in the movie “The hangover”, where the characters, in their Las Vegas hotel, have the following exchange:
Alan Garner: Can I ask you another question?
Lisa: Sure.
Alan Garner: You probably get this a lot. This isn’t the real Caesar’s Palace is it?
Lisa: What do you mean?
Alan Garner: Did, umm… did Caesar live here?
Lisa: No.
Alan Garner: I didn’t think so.
Casablanca keeps coming to my mind.
Mrs. Leuchtag: “At last, the day is came!”
Mr. Leuchtag: “Mareichtag and I are speaking nothing but English now.”
Mrs. Leuchtag: “So we should feel at home when we get to America.”
Carl: “A very nice idea, mm-hmm.”
Mr. Leuchtag: (a toast) “To America!”
Mrs. Leuchtag: “To America!”
Carl: “To America!”
Mr. Leuchtag: “Liebchen, uh…. sweetnessheart, what watch?”
Mrs. Leuchtag: “Ten watch.”
Mr. Leuchtag: “Such much?”
Carl: “Hmmm……….. You will get along beautifully in America.”
Thanks, we’ve so needed this humor.
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.