Does Pope Francis Like the Lectionary-Based Collects?

The Pope ended the Angelus today with a quote from the Sunday collect – not the translated collect of the Roman Missal, but the Lectionary-based collect from the 2nd edition of the Italian Messale Romano (1983) for the First Sunday of Lent, Year A. Vatican radio references it as such:

Francis said:

Dear brothers and sisters, Lent is a favorable opportunity for all of us to make a journey of conversion, sincerely confronting ourselves with this page of the Gospel. We renew the promises of our Baptism: we renounce Satan and all his works and seductions — because he is a seducer, right? — in order to walk the paths of God and “to arrive at Easter in the joy of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Collect of the First Sunday of Lent, Year A).

I’m told that these original Italian collects were composed, or at least edited, by the Benedictines of Santa Giustina’s Liturgical Institute in Padua. The line above, “arrive at Easter in the joy of the Holy Spirit,” is a quote from the Rule of Benedict!

Sources tell me that that the new Italian Missal of 1983 had already gone to press when the president of the Italian bishops’ conference found out that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had ordered the printing to stop the press because the Pope supposedly didn’t want all the original Italian texts in it. There was an urgent meeting with John Paul II, who had no idea what they were talking about – until they read him some of the original texts. Nice idea, he said – they’re based on the Gospel reading! And the alternate greetings and introductions to the Lord’s Prayer? Also a good idea, JP2 thought – since priests are always adlibbing there.

One can only wonder who at the CDF didn’t want these texts…

So the Italian missal went forward, but the original texts had to be asterisked to indicate that they weren’t translations, and the lectionary-based collects had to be put in the back of the book rather than with the Sunday proper texts.

And then some of the Italian stuff starting showing up in subsequent Polish and Spanish missals. Someone I know spotted some of them in the French Liturgy of the Hours of the Cistercians and Benedictines.

All of this is interesting, of course, because back in the 80s and 90s the former ICEL created a three-year cycle of original collects to match the Lectionary readings. Though the 2001 Roman document Liturgiam authenticam allows for original texts, word from Rome was that such would not be considered for the forthcoming missal.

Here is the collect for today (Lent IA) that ICEL had proposed, and all the English-speaking bishops had approved, before Rome threw the 1998 sacramentary in the wastebasket:

Lord our God,
in every age you call a people
to hear you word
and to do your will.

Renew us in these Lenten days:
washed clean of sin,
sealed with the Spirit,
and sustained byyour living bread,
may we remain true to our calling
and, with the elect, serve you alone.

Grant this through Christ, our liberator from sin,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
holy and mighty God for ever and ever.

Here is the collect for today in the 2011 English missal, a translation of the Latin:

Grant, almighty God,
through the yearly observances of holy Lent,
that we may grow in understanding
of the riches hidden in Christ
and by worthy conduct pursue their effects.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

The bishops had approved this translation from the 1998 Sacramentary:

Grant us, almighty God,
that through this yearly observance of Lent
we may enter more deeply in the mystery of Christ
and draw upon its power in the conduct of our lives.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

awr

 

 

 

 

Anthony Ruff, OSB

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

Please leave a reply.

Comments

39 responses to “Does Pope Francis Like the Lectionary-Based Collects?”

  1. Carl R. Opat

    Thank God for Wiki leaks. That is where I downloaded the entire 1998 Sacramentary. We are using it now for the collects, prayers of the gifts and the prayer after communion. Were looking at the rest to maybe start using that also. We gave the 2011 Missal a try, but when people, clergy, and kids have no idea what you are praying for, why use it.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Carl R. Opat – comment #1:
      Indeed. I use the collects on occasion for liturgies outside of Mass–form II reconciliation, Liturgy of the Hours, here and there. Maybe I should press my clergy to use it more often.

      Reply
  2. Fr. Jim Chepponis

    If I remember correctly, the “Sourcebook” published by Liturgy Training Publications (LTP) provided English translations of these Italian collects for a few years during the 1980s, I think.

    Would it be possible for the USCCB to approve the publication of a supplement to the Roman Missal that would contain the original Scripture-based collects from the proposed 1998 Sacramentary for use as an alternative to the ones in the current Roman Missal? Perhaps this could be a realistic compromise for those who have issues with the collects we now have.

    A small booklet of these prayers could be produced rather inexpensively, and perhaps inserted into the back of the Roman Missal, much like a hymnal supplement can fit in the back of hymnals using the adhesive plastic pockets offered by music publishers.

    Might this be a realistic project that the BCDW could propose to the USCCB at this time?

    Reply
    1. Allen Corrigan

      @Fr. Jim Chepponis – comment #2:

      Great idea, Jim!

      Reply
  3. Fritz Bauerschmidt

    What does it mean to “pursue” the effects of the riches of Christ (or is it the effects of our yearly observances of holy Lent)?

    Reply
  4. Lee Bacchi

    The original collects in both the Italian and the ignored 1998 ICEL sacramentary are terrific prayers. Another reason why episcopal conferences should have the last word in liturgical texts for the celebration of the liturgy.

    Reply
  5. Lee Bacchi

    Fr. Jim Chepponis : If I remember correctly, the “Sourcebook” published by Liturgy Training Publications (LTP) provided English translations of these Italian collects for a few years during the 1980s, I think. Would it be possible for the USCCB to approve the publication of a supplement to the Roman Missal that would contain the original Scripture-based collects from the proposed 1998 Sacramentary for use as an alternative to the ones in the current Roman Missal? Perhaps this could be a realistic compromise for those who have issues with the collects we now have. A small booklet of these prayers could be produced rather inexpensively, and perhaps inserted into the back of the Roman Missal, much like a hymnal supplement can fit in the back of hymnals using the adhesive plastic pockets offered by music publishers. Might this be a realistic project that the BCDW could propose to the USCCB at this time?

    Jim — I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you!

    Reply
  6. Brian Culley

    If it’s good enough for the Italians it should be good enough for us. I think LTP stopped publishing the translated Italian prayers after Cardinal George was enthroned in Chicago. Alas.

    Reply
  7. Christian McConnell

    In Canada, we have the ICEL collects in an official liturgical book, “Sunday Celebrations of the Word and Hours,” our version of “Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest.” Suffice it to say their use at Sunday Mass has not been unheard of. 🙂

    Reply
  8. Christian McConnell

    I find it entertaining that the Curia works a bit like an average parish, where people say “Father wants …” or “Father doesn’t want …” when Father is unaware of his opinion.

    Reply
  9. Chris Grady

    Well look at this!

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/310894442000

    Reply
    1. Jim Sheil

      Also available on Amazon.

      Reply
  10. Fr. Jim Chepponis

    Re: Comment #10:

    What a coincidence! This is exactly the kind of publication I envisioned in my previous comment (#2). Although I’m not holding my breath, hope springs eternal!

    These prayers are so beautiful.

    Reply
  11. Jim McKay

    Amazon sells the book of Opening Prayers that Chris cites.

    Reply
    1. Brian Culley

      @Jim McKay – comment #13:
      Thanks for the info Jim.
      I should have my copy in 2 days!

      Reply
  12. Fr. Jim Chepponis

    Re: Comment #12:

    Thanks, Jim. I just might order a copy from Amazon… for “study purposes only” of course! ; )

    Reply
    1. Jim Sheil

      @Fr. Jim Chepponis – comment #14:

      That’s what I did. I have some prayers from a while back when I typed up prayers, etc, for use at the chair. Only for study purposes, of course. They are in English. Not sure what language the current prayers are.

      Reply
  13. David Wesson

    When Richard Giles was dean at the Philadelphia (Episcopal) Cathedral, he used the ICEL collects for the opening prayers of the Sunday Eucharistic Liturgies, although they were not approved as substitutes for the ones in the BCP. One can only wonder how many RC priests would be so daring.

    Reply
  14. Alan Griffiths

    The ICEL Original Opening Prayers were first published by the Canterbury Press in the UK in 1999 with a second impression in 2001. A second impression means that the first one sold out.

    I use them regularly on Sunday, as the collect at the end of the General Intercessions. By this time people have had a chance to hear the Scripture and the homily arising from it, so the ICEL prayer will fit at that point in the Mass very well.

    As with anything new, I find the quality of this collection varies, though the majority seem to me to be good pieces. I use what I judge to be the best and ignore the poorer ones.

    The idea of having prayers that echo the Liturgy of the Word seems to me to be a healthy one, and certainly when one is faced with opaque expressions like ‘by worthy conduct pursue their effects’ (I think that’s what the oration for Lent I says) these ‘original’ prayers seem to me to offer something that is both clearer and more robust than the sometimes elliptical expressions of the Missal Collect.

    Like the Scriptures on which they are based, the ICEL original OP’s have the strength of employing a varied manner of address to God: ‘God of the Covenant’ (Lent 1 Yr.B), ‘Ever faithful God’ (Lent 2 Yr.B), ‘God rich in mercy’ (Lent 4 Yr.B).

    They display equally scriptural, strong affirmations: ‘Lord God, your care for us surpasses even a mother’s tender love’ (8th of Ordinary Time Yr.A), ‘Wise and gracious God, you spread a table before us and nourish your people with the word of life and the bread from heaven.’ (20th Sunday of Ordinary Time Yr.B) and many others.

    Perhaps Anglo-Saxons like myself respond more positively than others to the clarity and greater specificity of these English-composed texts. Their strong and creative prayer style is what distinguishes the best of them. It is good that they may still find a place in our liturgical celebrations.

    AG

    Reply
  15. Ben Yanke

    Of course the collects should be in the back of the missal: they’re not translations of the proper liturgical texts. Thankfully the 1998 missal wasn’t approved.

    Reply
    1. David Wesson

      @Ben Yanke – comment #18:
      It was approved….. by the legitimate authorities (the episcopal conferences).

      Reply
      1. Richard Novak

        @David Wesson – comment #20:
        Yes!! According to the original intent of the Liturgy Constitution, the episcopal conferences were the “legitimate authorities” for preparing and approving appropriate liturgical translations (either from Latin texts, or original compositions). Rome’s “recognitio” was originally understood to be a kind of “endorsement” or “validation” that the vernacular translations were prepared “legitimately” by the episcopal conferences. What gradually happened, was a type of “usurpation” of the responsibilities of the episcopal conferences by the Curia (CDW&DS), later “justified” by Liturgiam Authenticam and the subsequent “re-chartering” and re-staffing of ICEL along with the prerogatives of Vox Clara. Hence, the disaster of the 2011 English Missal. I concur with – and encourage – the pastoral decisions of many bloggers to use the “Italian prayers” and/or the 1998 sacramentary texts as an exercise of the moral principle of “epikeia” – in the service of fostering “intelligibility” regarding liturgical texts.

    2. Todd Flowerday

      @Ben Yanke – comment #18:
      The Roman Missal as given is a deficient document. A truly Catholic expression of the Mass would include compositions in the vernacular of various languages. My sense is that the 2010 collects could be a supplement for those who wish it, and a Lectionary-based set of presider prayers substituted in MR4. Making an idol of MR3 does not further the goals of beautiful liturgy, nor of the greater effort in widening the scope of Scripture into the daily lives of believers.

      MR2 was certainly approved by English-speaking bishops in sixteen nations. That Roman Rite translation was then sabotaged by the curia.

      Reply
      1. Richard Novak

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #25:
        Well said! I resonate with your assessment and recommendations for MR4.

  16. Jack Feehily

    I’ve been using these prayers for many years, first from Sourcebook then from the British publication. Have been looking for another copy. Thanks, Chris. Does anyone know if the Canadian publication can be obtained in US?

    Reply
  17. Fr. Pat Barkey

    Fr. Jim Chepponis : Re: Comment #12: Thanks, Jim. I just might order a copy from Amazon… for “study purposes only” of course! ; )

    Yes, and I’m going to tell Z on you….lol. We’ll both be in trouble.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Jim Chepponis

      @Fr. Pat Barkey – comment #23:

      LOL! Good to see you here at Pray Tell, Pat!

      Reply
  18. Scott Smith

    Why is it that so called progressives seem so uncomfortable with being part of a global church?

    The liturgical texts need to be specifically composed for their own country / language. The ritual needs to be made up anew for each individual parish. Foreign born priests, with accents!, need not apply.

    Enculturation sometimes appears to be used as a cover for a narrow parochialism, if not something darker.

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

      @Scott Smith – comment #26:
      No, Scott, no. You really got it all wrong. Read Sacraosanctum Concilium 37-40 and you’ll see that uniformity is not demanded.

      I’m sure that so-called “progressives” are perfectly comfortable being part of a global church. But that doesn’t mean uniformity, as you seem to assume. Or would you do away with the Ambrosian Rite and all the Eastern rites (and the 1962 missal)?

      There is nothing necessarily narrowly parochial about original texts, and certainly nothing darker. It’s called Catholic teaching on inculturation, as found in SC.

      And note, even the 2001 document Liturgiam authenticam allows for original texts to be submitted by national bishops’ conferences.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Scott Smith

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #27:

        I am not trying to deny the Catholic teaching on inculturation – But it is a “no limits” fallacy so say some inculturation is good, so more must be better.

        This is recognised in SC itself. For example, based on the English translation on the Vatican site, SC notes “rigid” uniformity is not required, and that “legitimate” variations and adaptations are desirable etc.

        Accordingly, while I recognise original texts are not “necessarily” narrowly parochial, they certainly can be.

        And when the overwhelming response on this thread to Italian Lectionary-Based Collects is not “why can’t we have lectionary based collects in the Latin typical edition, so this treasure can be shared with the whole Church”, but “lets have more English specific original texts”, narrow parochialism looms large in my personal opinion.

    2. Todd Flowerday

      @Scott Smith – comment #26:
      Actually, my proposal goes back to a more time-honored and less modernistic way: Rome taking the best of other traditions and unifying them under a universal umbrella.

      It would have been great if the best of the Italian sacramentary, the best of the English MR2, and the best of other languages would have been combined in an MR3. What do Latinists have to fear?

      I’m not terribly impressed with your conspiracy theory on progressives either. The discussion needs to widen considerably before one can assign motives to others in the chat.

      I dropped MR2’s 8th Sunday alternate opening prayer into the leader’s guide for this year’s Lent communal reconciliation. When I get some spare time this summer, I’m gong to extract more of MR2 for use in marriage blessings, baptism liturgies, and other worship. We need to hear more of these.

      Reply
      1. Scott Smith

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #29:

        If your view is that Rome should take “the best of other traditions and unifying them under a universal umbrella”, then why not ask for their inclusion in the Latin typical edition?

        In terms of my “conspiracy theory”, it is not so much based on my experience here, but on conversions in real life.

        Too many times, and in too many parishes, have I heard complaints about overseas priests and support for (presumably locally sourced) married priests, end up being based on shockingly racist views.

        However, I do apologise and retract if anyone felt my comments were targeted at them personally, as I have certainly not had any such experiences here.

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @Scott Smith – comment #31:
        Thanks for the comment, Scott. I believe I have advocated for the inclusion of modern texts in the Roman Missal many times–here and on my own blog. I also believe that an appropriate period of experimentation and testing is advisable. Peter Scagnelli’s translation work with the Italian Sacramentary was well-known and well-regarded in the 80’s, and many parishes used his contributions fruitfully.

        The stopped drain you’re speaking of with simply getting new material into the Roman Missal is an example of the hypocrisy of the reform2/Medina/Arinze crowd. Nothing gets in unless it’s traditional. Therefore nothing new can possibly come from Nazar… I mean Italy, the US, or such. A rather convenient plumbing problem, I’d say.

        The main objections I hear about some overseas priests is that they have no depth in American culture, their command of the language is poor, they do not relate to the people. It has nothing to do with their race. I hear the same complaints about some of the JP2/B16 priests. They lack the smell of sheep. But brandy, cigars, and starch–no problem.

        And the truth is that the viri probati solution has been summarily dismissed for even weaker reasons.

        The primary sin of progressives that I’ve seen is meanness and casual dismissal. But rather fewer of them are hypocrites and close-minded.

      3. Scott Smith

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #32:

        Todd,

        Thank you for the clarification. I had not picked up on your advocacy on changing the Latin typical edition in this regard, but I will keep it in mind going forward. I apologise for being unfair to you.

        However, I will have to take issue with you regarding the objections raised against overseas priests, noting you are merely reporting rather endorsing them in your comment here.

        They sit precisely within the problem I initially identified – Being uncomfortable with being part of a global church.

        Instead of celebrating the cultural diversity within the Church, and the opportunity to learn from and participate in that richness, many demand that their priest sound, think (and look?) like them. Even if it means changing who can be a priest.

        From my Australian perspective, a nation with many immigrants and a partly multi-cultural outlook, this feels a lot like a mild strain of xenophobia.

        And I will call it out and object to it where ever it arises in the Church, because it is not worthy of Christ’s Church or his people.

  19. Jim Blue

    Did anyone else think the orations this morning (Tuesday of Week I, Lent) were particularly grotesque?

    Reply
  20. Fr. Jack Feehily

    It should be regarded as absurd that only people in the Roman curia know best how to compose prayers employed in the various languages. That is no doubt why SC imparted to episcopal conferences the task of translating and composing prayers in their respected regions and language groups. Latin orations as found in the various editions of the Roman Missal certainly provide a good reference point, but the faith of the church must be expressed in languages that people speak and understand. Priests given good training in liturgy, theology, ecclesiology, and scripture are perfectly capable of composing authentic catholic prayer. But the work of poets and writers who are also fervent believers should be involved in the process as well.

    Reply
  21. Timothy O'Brien

    Leaving aside questions of translation style, is it not the case that both the 1998 and current translations of the prayer mentioned at the top of this post mistranslate the most important concept in the prayer. The latin is as follows:

    Concede nobis, omnipotens Deus, ut, per annua quadragesimaIis exercitia sacramenti, et ad intellegendum Christi proficiamus arcanum, et effectus eius digna conversatione sectemur.

    Both translations indicate that it is the “riches hidden in Christ” or alternately “the mystery of Christ” that is the ‘effects’ we are to pursue or to give us power in the conduct of our lives. However – and the summer of my latin translating capacity is long distant so I may be wrong – it appears that it should be the effects of our understanding (of the mystery) that we are to pursue, not the effects of the mystery itself. I think this is important as the mystery is a fact: however our growing understanding is a dynamic process particularly suited to our recollection in the time of Lent.

    The current translation could thus be fixed by changing “their effects” to ‘its effects” and the 1998 perhaps by changing to ‘…our entering more deeply into the mystery … may empower the conduct of our lives’ – though realistically the 1998 would have to change more elegantly than that to retain its current flow.

    The previous translation seems to support my contention:
    Father through our observance of Lent, help us to understand the meaning of your Son’s death and resurrection, and teach us to reflect it in our lives.
    It seems there that it is the understanding of the meaning we are being asked to reflect, rather than the death and resurrection itself.

    Reply
  22. fr. Gerald Ragis

    I am happy to have learned the booklet *Opening Prayers* is available from Amazon.com. So ordered, it arrived today. What beautiful prayers! Good to have prayers in intelligent and simple translation, with verbal images which are clear and can easily become “prayers from the heart”. I suspect these orations will bless the hearers when prayed of a Sunday.
    ~~~ gr

    Reply
  23. Brian Culley

    Mine came today too! It’s also good for private prayer AND to reflect on for ideas for a homily….

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from Home

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

Continue reading