The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionMurder on the disoriented express
by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on May. 27, 2010
New missal translation kills off mystery
You need not be Hercule Poirot to understand that murder is about to be committed on the Disoriented Express. Having taken on coal at the mossy Vatican I station, it is now thundering toward its final destination at Trent, the Grand Central gathering place for "Reformers of the Reform."
The assassins' plan is to kill off Vatican II but they are really murdering religious Mystery itself, that defining core of religious experience that sings in the church's sacramental symbolism and in the mytho-poetic language of its scriptures and prayer life.
Ordinary believers are the innocent victims of the New Translation's manslaughter of Mystery and of numerous terrorist attacks on the vision and theology of Vatican II. Like ancient crusaders, the present legions believe that as the true believers only they have a right to ransom the True Cross.
Like all terrorists, these campaigners believe that Heavenly mansions await them for the earthly damage they do in restoring religion to the slavery of obsessive masters from whom Jesus liberated it. Not for them the church that respects conscience and other religions, that understands and waits for all us limping humans to catch up with it, that celebrates life and embraces and forgives sinners.
Vatican II makes faith too easy, in their judgment; they reject a faith that elevates people for spiritual growth and propose a regime that puts them down to keep them in their place. Espousing a "tough" religion doesn't do much for anybody else but it certainly makes them feel good about themselves.
Everything, including the New Translation, squeezes the spirit out of familiar liturgical readings and replaces it with hot air. These efforts flow from the sweeping campaign initiated by Pope John Paul II (Calling him Pope John the Great is part of their program too) to restore the hierarchical church.
The hierarchical church's outdated structure, whose origins were secular rather than sacred, was not a victim of Vatican II but of history itself and the best thing to do is stand clear as it settles into clouds of dust. With his combination of Teutonic rigor and a shopkeeper's smile, Pope Benedict XVI now charges the bishops, as if they didn't have enough trouble, with refurbishing the split-level palace that places the pope alone on top, monsignors and assorted officials on the skybox level and lay men and women on the bottom.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The failure to understand that Vatican II restored the authentic tradition of collegiality to the church has led to a record level of canonizations on the principle that the more saints the better to buttress the multi-level ecclesiastical dormitory. The little murders of these reformers of the reform of Vatican II include the comedy of telling priests who don't know the language that they can say Mass in Latin and the tragedy of making nice with the Lefebvre heretics who are the Confederate money in the church's collection plate.
The New Translation is a big murder, however, because it represents an assault on the language that bears the Mystery of belief. The translation now in use reveals the purity of theologically based phrases. The New Translation now slays that graceful Mystery by throwing out the baby with the baptismal water.
For example, the familiar penitential phrase, "I have sinned through my own fault" is buried in the debris of the antiquated "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault." The Gloria has been touched up with so much 19th century gilt paint that it resembles an aging countess camouflaging herself for amours that will never be. When the priest says "The Lord be with you" the clean clear response, "And also with you" is replaced with the literal "And with your spirit." The same Proustian longing for a vanished past is found at the Agnus Dei. Catholics must now replace "…but only say the word and I shall be healed" with "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."
This can only lead to further literalization and deadening of the Word of God that, as in the parables of Jesus, is metaphorical. In a metaphor, the connotation is the significant element, that cloud of witnesses to its fuller meaning that hovers around it that are scattered when somebody insists on using the denotation, that flat utilitarian meaning, such as STOP on a traffic sign.
Choosing denotation rather than connotation in religious language has led to bloody consequences. Those who accepted the literal meaning of Holy Land have been making war over its boundary lines for centuries. Jesus speaks directly to us in Holy Land as a metaphor for a spiritual place we can enter at any time.
As this Disoriented Express rocks along toward the rockslide of Trent, these zealots look mystified when Poirot asks them if they know who the murderer is. They look mystified because they don't have a clue about the nature of religious Mystery and of how its supple metaphorical language must be respected and, indeed, guarded. Ordinary people do understand religious Mystery in their depths and that is why, without being able to explain it rationally, they are reluctant to drink of the cup of the New Translation that is now being forced on them.
[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Kennedy's column, Bulletins from the Human Side," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Kennedy to your list.
Please actually read the
Please actually read the documents of Vatican II before you write another article. There is absolutely nothing in the new translation that goes against anything Vatican II said. If there was, I am sure one person at the NCR would have responded to the dozens of requests to name something specific.
Please actually read this
Please actually read this article before you write anonymously another such comment.
This excellent article cites several such examples and compellingly commentates the violations.
This one person at NCR HAS named something specific, yet there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Perhaps the literary metaphor to Dame Agatha wore thin or rather too thick for you, and you could not see the citations you hereby require?
YOU ARE SO WRONG!!! Re-READ
YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!
Re-READ Sacrosanctum Concilium #21:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents...
The PROCESS -not the PRODUCT- is in complete and total ABROGATION, USURPATION, HIJACKING and downright DIRTY #$%&*#ing POOL of Vatican II.
But don't take my irate word for it, get educated and learn some history:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/
cf. also:
http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=DhnbGGkNvwwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=...
especially pages 157-160.
cf. also:
http://www.amazon.com/Reforming-Liturgy-Response-Critics-Pueblo/dp/08146...
Please actually do some homework before YOU write another ANONYMOUS blog, you cowardly member of the VOX CLARA.
Lol! Your post is
Lol! Your post is hilarious!
No, I am not making fun of it. Well Anonymous, as a supporter of your position, permit me to welcome you to NCR! Here at NCR Vatican II is a slogan used to drown out the words of your enemies. I have been viewing and posting here a while and have been demanding citations from VII documents for a while. Not one person has ever provided anythning!
To the author:
Your article is a joke. Its filled with more information than a Richard Dawkin' polemical piece. I won't even bother to deem it worthy of being refuted. However, here are some pointers for you:
1) Read the VII documents. They say nothing about the banning of the EF mass, destruction of sacred architecture (high altars, choir lofts, communion rails), the cutting out of numerous prayers like the Asperges Mei, or any of the other liturgical changes you speak of.
2) Learn what the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is before you make fun of those of us who worship God at it.
3) Show some charity. Sneering at us as "terrorists" makes your article appear to be more of a joke than it already is.
Asperges mei? Oh, wait, do
Asperges mei?
Oh, wait, do you mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwuCSvXtPvw
Gosh, was this videotaped before the great Second Vatican Council you claim did NOT forbid it?
Or when I was regularly happily chanting along in Solesmes during my canonical year in the mid-seventies?
Behind your "sacred" communion rail, securely ensconced within your "sacred" choir loft?
Around your "sacred" high altar?
Gosh, when you make architecture "Sacred" you really might want to check your actual Roman Catholic theology, dude.
I mean, WWJS?
What would Jesus say?
What DID Jesus say?
Is God Love
or cutely cut stone?
What are you, Druid, dude?
they were pre-Vat II, too . . .
Loved their dolmens, too, like you . . .
Do we "worship God at it?"
This Saxon tongue is so confusing to me. Is that the proper preposition to express the spiritual reality?
Dude, plenty of citations woven through this interesting and witty article, but none so blind as those who will not see. Read the article. While you haughtily claim you "won't even bother to deem it worthy of being refuted" your attempt to do so anyway holds no water.
Kennedy give plenty. Read the article closely, beyond the metaphor.
A sinner on May. 30,
A sinner on May. 30, 2010.
You stated:
"Lol! Your post is hilarious!
No, I am not making fun of it. Well Anonymous, as a supporter of your position, permit me to welcome you to NCR! Here at NCR Vatican II is a slogan used to drown out the words of your enemies. I have been viewing and posting here a while and have been demanding citations from VII documents for a while. Not one person has ever provided anythning!
To the author:
Your article is a joke. Its filled with more information than a Richard Dawkin' polemical piece. I won't even bother to deem it worthy of being refuted. However, here are some pointers for you:
1) Read the VII documents. They say nothing about the banning of the EF mass, destruction of sacred architecture (high altars, choir lofts, communion rails), the cutting out of numerous prayers like the Asperges Mei, or any of the other liturgical changes you speak of.
2) Learn what the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is before you make fun of those of us who worship God at it.
3) Show some charity. Sneering at us as "terrorists" makes your article appear to be more of a joke than it already is."
--------------------------------------------
Dear "A Sinner"
Now you really need to go to confession---because you are telling fibs! A good number of people over the years have tried to answer your insinuations---with quotes, websites, etc. to respond to them. But you turn a blind eye to what is being said. So, as a result---you have "seen nothing."
Secondly, you refuse to study what changes were put in place by John Paul II in the very early years of his papacy. Rather than refute what WAS WRITTEN by the Council Fathers, JP II wrote HIS personal interpretation of what was done---and he paraphrased it. Perhaps you, A Sinner, should read John Paul's "Sources of Renewal: the Implementation of Vatican II" written in 1979.
You would see how many of the 'by-lines' that neo-cons use came from it.
One area that he expounded upon (and it has been picked up by conservatives as though it was Gospel-truth) was that, Vatican Council II recapitualiated all the councils that went before it, and that all the councils before it led up to Vatican II. And that simply is not true. John Paul II hijacked Vatican Council II's language to re-introduct Vatican I and Trent's theology. And he insisted that Thomistic philosophy is the only solid philosophy in the Church.
And that did not come from Vatican Council II.
And "A Sinner" unlike centuries back, when people really did not understand what happend at Councils---we have enough information as to WHAT DID HAPPEN at Vatican Council II. We know all about the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who even gave Pope John XXIII---headaches in trying to bring about changes in the Church. We have the speech that John XXIII gave where he denounced the forces of doom and gloom who view any changes as the 'death of the Church."
And we know how the conservatives worked day and night (even as the Council Fathers were packing their bags to go home), to diminish what Vatican Council II was encouraging.
And, "A Sinner" you do not know or have not read the steps that were taken in each country to implement the changes of Vatican II in the Liturgy. Your commentary about communion rails going out (thank God)---they should have----they treated the laity as interlopers who had no right to enter the sacred spaces of the sanctuary. That did not come from Jesus---who sat at a table with his Apostles. Nor was that a part of the early Christian heritage, either. People celebrated "THE MEAL" (and that is what it was called---consult The Acts of the Apostles) around a table---no communion rails---and (it was not called the HOLY SACRIFICE of the MASS---that came centuries later).
Finally, you should read what is written before you criticize. If it is too difficult to understand---then that suggests that you should not comment upon it---since you really don't understand what was written.
Anonymous on May. 27,
Anonymous on May. 27, 2010.
You stated:
"Please actually read the documents of Vatican II before you write another article. There is absolutely nothing in the new translation that goes against anything Vatican II said. If there was, I am sure one person at the NCR would have responded to the dozens of requests to name something specific."
--------------------------------------
I can not only tell you what the documents of Vatican II stated about the Sacred Liturgy, I can tell you about the background at Vatican II concerning that document.
On October 22, 1962, the schema (draft document) on the liturgy was introduced for debate. The debate was wide-ranging---including concepts for the use of the vernacular, more varied use of Scripture, communion under both forms, and concelebration. The discussion on the Liturgy lasted through 15 general session and ended on November 13, 1962.
On November 14, 1962, the schema on Liturgy underwent its first major vote to determing whether, in substance, it adequately represented what the council fathers wanted. It passed with a mere forth-six negative votes (coming primarly from the members of Curia led by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani--head of the Holy Office).
On December 6, 1962,Pope John XXIII orders that, between sessions, all the schemata (on all documents, including the one on the Liturgy) be reworked by various commission and sent to the bishops of the world for their comment. To coordinate this effort, he created a central commission, which included Cardinals Lienart, Urbani, Spellman (of the United States), Confalonieri, Dopfner, and Suenens. The pope ordered the commission to consult theological experts on a wide scale.
Meanwhile, before, during and after Vatican Council II, the conservatives engaged in stonewalling tactics, and in an insistance that only the Curia is authorized to propose changes(those congregations and offices that assist the pope in the worldwide administration of the Church). This group was opposed to any reforms in the Church, because they believed that the demands of the Gospel were met in its pre-Vatican II form. And they did not want any changes in the Sacred Liturgy.
In fact, Cardinal Ottaviani did not even consider the speeches (given by various cardinals and bishops) as having any legislative force. He dragged the schema on (The Church---Lumen Gentium) for weeks upon weeks---by not holding meetings of his commisssion---but that's another story.
Pope John XXIII dies on June 3, 1963
Pope Paul VI is elected on June 21, 1963---and on June 22, 1963, he announces his intention to continue the ecumenical council.
On October 28, 1962---an important event occured after the 8:30 A.M. Mass was celebrated, with Pope Paul IV presiding. The Curialists had been stalling the progress of the Council with every tactic that they knew to use. Cardinal Suenens (Belgium), a special friend of Pope Paul VI, approached the pulpit, and spoke in French (all speeches were conducted in Latin during the Council). He had, prior to his speaking, distributed his speech on flyers in different languages, as well. Cardinal Suenens, with the clear permission of the Pope, called upon all members of the Council, to continue the task of making the Gospel understandable in the modern world---and not to be obstructing it.
On December 4, 1963, by a vote of 2,147 to 4---the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was approved. This had the most influence in the emergence of the laity after the council because it updated the Mass, including the role of the laity as ministers in the Litugy. The document sought to 1) give vigor to the Christian life of the faithful, 2) to adapt what was changeable to the needs of the times, 3) to promote union among all who believe in Christ, and 4) to strengthen the Church's mission to all humankind. This constitution established the vernacular in worship.
The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy stated that for the Liturgy to be effective, the faithful must:
1)"Be well disposed." Will the people be more disposed with all the re-insertions of sin, guilt coming into the prayers that they recite. During the liturgy, we are to be celebrating the fact that Jesus died and rose for our salvation, and that we have died and risen through Baptism to new life in him---why, then, all references to sin.
2)"Know what they are doing." Our life in Christ is expressed in the liturgy. It is nourished through scripture and the Eucharist and prayer. We don't need Latin---nor an English translation adhearing strictly to Latin for that.
3)"The people are to participate." With these reversions back to a pre-Vatican II liturgy---will the people join in the vocal prayers, if they have to learn or re-learn a stuffy version of their language?
Early in his pontificate, John Paul II canvassed the Catholic bishops concerning the desire for the pre-Vatican II liturgy. Less than 1.5 percent of the bishops said that their priests and people were in favor of it---and there was no great outcry for its return. The rest of the episcopate stated to leave the liturgy as it was (1979-80).
But John Paul decided to permit the continued use of the old rite, and Benedict has extended it to win back the so-called "traditionalists." And now, all the English-speaking world will have the old rite, translated into English, foisted upon them.
And that, dear Anonymous, was not the INTENT of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
Little Bear it seems
Little Bear it seems pointless to try to argue with someone who worships AT the Mass. Some people want Mass to be a well defined noun. Something to be kept at arms length--although they use the adjective transcendant to describe the arms length thing.
The Fathers of Vatican II preferred that people understand the Mass as a verb, an action of the people. To that end they made participation in the Mass with the priest more accessible.
These are totally different world views. Unfortunately the noun folks once again have the upper hand.
I can not only tell you what
I can not only tell you what the documents of Vatican II stated about the Sacred Liturgy, I can tell you about the background at Vatican II concerning that document.
Exactly! Most people here who keep saying "Vatican II Vatican II!" have never read one of the documents!
Are you saying that what the Council actually said does not matter? Are you saying that some bishops are more important than others? Are you saying that we just ignore the Council and go by what some bishops, and not the body as a whole, wanted to put into the document? LittleBear--we in the Church must and can only go by what the Council actually promulgated--not what it could have done, or might have done, or even should have done--but by what it actually did!
A common question I'm hearing
A common question I'm hearing these days is "how will you implement (or guide the implementation of) the new Missal?"
As a parish music/worship director, I usually respond: after we finish implementing that which is not yet done from the current Missal. Most people don't get it.
Another possible
Another possible response:
"This too shall pass."
or:
Come to the Spanish Mass . . .
Rick Reed on May. 27,
Rick Reed on May. 27, 2010.
You stated:
"A common question I'm hearing these days is "how will you implement (or guide the implementation of) the new Missal?"
As a parish music/worship director, I usually respond: after we finish implementing that which is not yet done from the current Missal. Most people don't get it."
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Rick,
If there is any group that I most sympathize with in these changes, it is the parish music/worship directors--and also the composers of liturgical music.
Your task is mammoth---and often thankless. And the final changes are still being tinkered with---and you weren't even done with implementing the current Missal. Your ministry is an ever on-going one---with musicians singing, playing and trying to keep up.
Is this an example of what
Is this an example of what Sister Joan Chittister calls "the Middle Ground" in public discourse? Or does NCR play by the same rules as FOX News?
In the latest, wonderful,
In the latest, wonderful, well-received writing from the Reverend Sister Joan Chittister OSB (formerly and frequently and memorably head of the US Benedictine Prioresses), I cannot find find your phrase "middle ground."
She does ask in its title "Whatever happened to the middle?" but no ground is mentioned, and it could be anything, and everything. Nevertheless I cannot uncover where she calls it ground, as your citation would indicate.
Forgive me, and assist me in this, please, Robert.
Our beloved, ancient and honorable National Catholic Reporter does not receive heavy and substantial subsidy from the militarists and their manufacturers, and so our playing field is not level with Fauxnews.
Our beloved and valiant and courageous and truthful and faithful NCR relies always upon the kindness of strangers, and of subscribers, and I urge you check your renewal status, please, Mr. Christopher, that the light may ever shine in this darkness, a darkness which cannot comprehend.
Dear Robert, does your
Dear Robert, does your comment mean you accept Sr. Joan's concept of middle ground as opposed to FOX News' "balance"?
I'm truly confused as to your intent when you attempt to put NCR and FOX News in the same box by using Joan's article as a measure. Let me see. We have apples (middle ground), oranges (rules by which FOX News operates) and NCR. Your question based on Professor Kennedy's blog written under the same banner (NCR)as Joan Chittister's article seems to fault NCR as being slanted or one-sided. I'm at a loss to appreciate the logic in your attempted putdown.
While I respect Dr. Kennedy,
While I respect Dr. Kennedy, his opinions here seem neither logical nor rational.
1. He assumes the supremacy of Vatican II over Vatican I and Trent. However, all three were validly convened ecumenical councils. Also, the actual documents of Vatican II, such as sacrosanctum concilium, explicitly state the value of the Latin language and Gregorian Chant as a patrimony that every single Catholic has a right to. Finally, the Holy Father, as Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the Universal Church, has the prerogative of interpretting all Councils.
2. Dr. Kennedy uses "mystery" nebulously. He uses examples of the more literal translation of the "non sum dignus" (Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof), however, this is directly from the Gospels. If this phraseology is detrimental to one's religious experience, I suggest one take it up with the Evangelists. Also, since the more accurate translation of the liturgy allows more active participation, for it allows one to more clearly see the connection between Divine Revelation in the scriptures to the lived faith of the Liturgy. This and his other examples fail to live up to the imfamy he attributes them.
3. He assumes those who disagree with him are self-righteous, unintelligent, or even terrorists. I would remind him off our Lord's command not to judge, and if one must judge, to base those judgments on fact and reason, rather than your revulsion of their beliefs.
4. Dr. Kennedy's logical leap from more accurate translation to the Crusades seems more an appeal to emotion than reason, a reductio ad absurdum argument gone wrong, and rendered absurd itself, by its faulty logic.
5. Dr. Kennedy wrongly uses the term "connotation" and "denotation" which refer more to interpretation of words, rather than the translation itself. His elevation of the metaphoric fails to grasp that only by understanding the literal meaning of words can one proceed from literal to the mystical. One cannot understand the metaphor of the Good Shepherd if one does not know what a shepherd is.
Truth and Charity in all things. COntinued prayers for our Holy Father and for Dr. Kennedy. Peace.
Reading the histories, one
Reading the histories, one must wonder whether Vatican I was validly dismissed, or merely canceled once the Pope got what he wanted, a declaration of infallibility without the promised follow-up clarifications and inclusion of the whole People of God, which made the Second Vatican Council inevitable and necessary (justum et dignum est), and whose inclusion of the whole People of God has since been nullified by the terrorist clericalists, as so poetically and metaphorically expressed in this wonderful article.
Pax tecum
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Please instruct me in these
Please instruct me in these histories, and please clarify your reference to
"terrorist clericalists." Do these terrorists have names? How many people have they killed? Have they damned any souls to hell? For what reason do you judge them to be terrorists. Also, are there any quibbles with Trent? And do any of your points invalidate my assessment.
Pax et bonum,
and continued prayers for our Holy Father, for Dr. Kennedy, and for you, frere
AS a "child of Vatican II", I
AS a "child of Vatican II", I see nothing mysterious or sacred in the current language we use at Mass. I am not necessarily for the translation but to defend our current language and practices as being what we should keep is something I can't support. I also never understand when people in the newspaper say that people aren't consulted etc. Yes, one side won the arguments - but there were ten years of arguments. In reading this newspaper for many years now, I can only think that the idea of an "American" Catholic Church as preeminant over the Roman Catholic is not something to be supported-and that is the theme of most columnists whether expressed or not. Since much of the language expressed in the translations have been said in other countries in their languages for many years, to call it "murder" is a real stretch. I doubt Americans will suffer except for the inconvenience change brings.
Dear Mary, we must realize
Dear Mary, we must realize something about the new translation. It is not just for we of the USA. It is THE English translation for us, those in the UK, Australia, South Africa(?), Canada - in short wherever on the planet English is the first or majority language. The question has nothing to do w/U.S.A. catholic church vs. the RC church. It has everything to do with a much more interrelated reality. It has everything to do with a true vulgate rather than a tortured Latinized vulgate that doesn't respect ordinary people's perceptions of reality.
Mary, I could not disagree
Mary, I could not disagree with you more. As a cantor, catechist and active member of my church family, I can practically guarantee you that parishes will suffer for these changes.
By putting ridiculously extended versions of ideas clearly expressed in the current form, the bishops run the risk of losing large numbers of the faithful. If one cannot understand the words being used in the Mass, how can one be expected to feel any spiritual benefit? I have looked over some of the translations with my liturgist, and they are simply appalling shows of verbosity, example upon example of sentences, clearly intended to sound sacred, which utilized comma after comma, and in the end barely say anything at all. How did you like that sentence? All that fluff to say the sentences are needlessly wordy. This is the imminent future of our Church. I seem to recall a scripture passage stating that we are NOT to pray with overly elegant words, as more words do not equal better prayers. I'm not sure when you received YOUR survey regarding the proposed changes, asking for your input, but mine never came. Yes, this has been debated for a long time, but that in no way means that the people, THE BODY OF CHRIST, were consulted. Once in Rome, it seems, officials forget the voice they have is to be a voice for their people, not a ventriloquist act perpetuated by the highest in power.
When our universal family should be worrying about the many scandals it has faced, the leaders instead hide their faces behind a diversion and hope that it will distract us from the many more important tasks before us. This will surely backfire, as people who are used to understanding at least most of the language of the Mass will now likely be lost in the unnecessary prattling on of the priests.
I teach 5th grade Religious Education, as well as work with children from our parish school. They regularly ask me the meaning of particular parts of the mass, and after receiving a simple answer, ask why we don't just say the simpler words. I can only imagine the questions which will arise after the New Translation is implemented. In the end, I see the crumbling of previously strong parishes brought on by church officials inability to see past their own noses.
And how do we people in the
And how do we people in the pew let it be known that
we do not wish to pray in the unfamiliar words of the
new translation? What recourse do we have as parishioners
in a parish that does not have a viable Parish Council?
I think I will prefer to stay away from the liturgy
and I hope others will also...maybe the message will
go through that way. (And also give up putting anything
in the collection basket!)
su
Come to the Spanish Mass. Or
Come to the Spanish Mass.
Or French?
TITHING = ENABLING DON'T
TITHING = ENABLING
DON'T ENABLE continued ecclesial dysfunction by paying for these new translations!
A waste of money, if ever.
There is a petition that can
There is a petition that can be signed... "What if We just Said Wait?" http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/ with links to the original article by Fr. Michael Ryan, pastor of the cathedral in Seattle, WA.
Peace & blessings.
frenchblue on May. 27,
frenchblue on May. 27, 2010.
You stated:
"And how do we people in the pew let it be known that
we do not wish to pray in the unfamiliar words of the
new translation? What recourse do we have as parishioners
in a parish that does not have a viable Parish Council?
I think I will prefer to stay away from the liturgy
and I hope others will also...maybe the message will
go through that way. (And also give up putting anything
in the collection basket!)
su"
-------------------------------------------
Dear frenchblue, you have stated a problem very many Catholics will encounter when these 'new/old' changes are to be implemented. There is another change that hasn't been mentioned yet. The Apostles' Creed is also supposed to have some changes in the wording. Don't know what they are, yet. But I can imagine the chagrin that many Seniors will experience (they are usually the ones who lead the Rosary in parishes during October, May and often daily in many parishes). Can you imagine that after learning the Apostles' Creed as little kids, these oldsters in their 70's, 80's (and sometimes 90's) will have to LEARN NEW WORDING. That will go over like a ton of bricks.
To answer your original question---either continue to answer the way you have or else, don't answer at all. Don't penalize your parish by not contributing to it. Many parish priests are not happy about these changes, either. And quite a few are asking "Why is Rome insisting on this NOW? Don't we have enough problems to deal with---and more important than this (like credibility)?"
Too many of the 'princely caste' of bishops don't care a pin about what their priests will be encountering as they try to implement these changes in 2011. All these bishops care about is that the Diocesan Fund-Raising is successful. Give to your parish---don't give to your bishop. Then write him a letter and tell him--"Through his fault, through his fault, through his most grevious fault," in supporting these archaic changes, you can't bring yourself to give him one cent.
I agree with you Su and I
I agree with you Su and I feel strongly that they (the heirarchy) are leading us back to the Latin Mass with the priest back to us. One step at a time. Aren't they the clever ones?
I am so tired of this heirarchy and their Middle Ages way of doing things. They have totally lost their credibility through their incredibly poor handling of the pedophile scandal so if I may ask, what makes them credible to tell us to do anything? I find the Vatican 2 translation personal and part of my life. If God wanted me to live in the "good old days" of the Council of Trent and Vatican 1, I imagine that's where I would have been placed.
When are people going to get that these guys are like the mafia, enforcing their sentiments and likes and dislikes on us? I no longer listen(and if I do it is with laughter and disbelief about how stupid they are)to these big men of the heirarchy. The church heirarchy needs restructuring not our liturgy.
The only way to make them change besides a full blown revolution is to STOP THE MONEY. That is all they understand and care about anyway and I wish the people in the pews would stop keeping their heads in the sand and speak up! It is only through us that Jesus can get the point across!
My husband and I are down to
My husband and I are down to two bucks on Sunday and the rest to Catholic Relief Services or Catholic Medical Mission Board. Our bishop seems OK but our relatively young, 40ish priest never met a piece of lace, a bell, or a candle that he didn't like. Not to mention an excessive number of altar boys only [and nothing more is implied in this] and clumsy processions. The sermons? - laughable - endless meaningless "stories" with a 1950's theology.
Much of the problem, in my view, is that the Church was supposed to go in one direction, but the hierarchy, notably the curia, would not let it. Refused to allow it to happen and bucked the Spirit. So the catechetics did not happen as they should have and helping the people in the pews develop their spiritual lives did not happen either. Also the Cardinals or Bishops sent to be nuncios were mere company men. They recommended drones.
It seems priests and bishops were indoctrinated, but few were educated.
I have no intention of
I have no intention of getting on "the Express". I have already made a booklet with the prayers of the Mass and I intend to use it. I may end up reading it myself, but if we each made our booklets and then just let them prattle on in a silent church, I wonder what would happen...
Yes! That is the loving
Yes! That is the loving spirit of prayer. "My way or no way" is that from Scripture?
Dear 'outsidethebox', Now
Dear 'outsidethebox',
Now this is a very good practical suggestion, and I thank you for it. I will make my own booklet. This is sort of like the complaint that children are not allowed to pray in school. Which they do all of the time silently, particularly just before an exam. We, too, will be able to pray in our own language, silently. And all who read this article and the comments, I beg you to pray for a new Council, call it what you will, to restructure this beloved, but very sick, church of ours.
Shirley Bianchi
in any case true prayer can
in any case true prayer can never be pre-cut, one-size-fits-all READ but from the heart and soul, and often in silence.
Read nothing.
Give all.
IF you must pray, in words, make them the words Our Lord gave us, run hide in your room and pray the Pater Noster.
Either that or get people
Either that or get people together who will still say out loud the translation we have been saying for years...wouldn't that be fun?!
You remind me of the old man
You remind me of the old man who refused to accept the changes from the Missal of Pius V to the Missal of Paul VI and continued to read the old Mass from his Missal while attending the Novus Ordo. It's amazing how those formerly known as "progressives" have now become the reactionaries who resist change! This is quite amusing.
You buy the spurious talking
You buy the spurious talking point that the resistance to the new translations comes from people who are attached to the old by force of habit. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many of the critics of the new translations are Latinists or professors of literature or theologians. Their critique of the new translations has been spelt out in meticulous detail. Do not be satisfied with lazy talking points.
There is always a chance that
There is always a chance that the Holy Spirit is just about to pull a big surprise and make a Vatican III happen. Vatican II was NOT an accident. The current pope wants to return to Trent but will the Holy Spirit allow this? Some say the foundations of the imperial Roman model of Church are so decayed from corruption that a new Church foundation must be built. Come Holy Spirit and bring us Vatican III. Eugene Kennedy is spot on with his reading of the current hierarchy.
We now no longer have an
We now no longer have an active Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Kung, Hesburgh or those who were to follow such the Reverend Father Gustavo Gutierrez, Reverend Father Ignacio Ellacuria, Boff, etc., etc., to lead this Pilgrim Church with the whole People of God.
A generation of purposeful annihilation transformed our Church into much reduced clericalist triumphalists, Opus Dei, Legionnaires, Francoists and other fascists, incapable of the great and loving scope which you call for so hopefully, so faithfully.
It would take at least another century, and much conversion.
Ergo
Come to the desert, to a place apart, and read the Rule for Monks from Our Holy Father Saint Benedict.
A surprise Vatican III is not
A surprise Vatican III is not going to happen -- now now, anyway. To pull one off there must be HEALTHY leadership. I see no evidence of healthy leadership in any of the recently appointed hierarchy. The un-great John Paul II put the worst possible candidates into the offices of bishop, archbishop and cardinal -- yes, even pope! (Check out Olmsted from Phoenix, Law from Boston, etc).
Your idea has merit. But, alas! no decent hierarchy to bring a Vatican III about. The best Benedict et al can do is a "Surprise New(?) Roman Missal," a few surprise excommunications and investigations and the new Catholic version of Mein Kampf: 'The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of John XXIII and the followers of Vatican II.'
I feel exactly the same way!
I feel exactly the same way! The Holy Spirit has a BIG surprise up her sleeve.
I share Dr. Kennedy's
I share Dr. Kennedy's revulsion at what is really the deform of the reform.There is,however,a note of hope. When Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, he was assuring us that the church's leadership cannot screw it up permanently. So let's keep the flicker of hope alive.
What is the traditional
What is the traditional priest in the new liturgical mess to do when some little homeless kid pipes up, "I don't HAVE a roof over my head, so my soul can't BE HEALED!"
AMEN! Thank you, Eugene
AMEN! Thank you, Eugene Cullen Kennedy.
Thank you for helping me
Thank you for helping me crystallise my own ideas. I find all this totally logical.
Ex-Catholics are now the
Ex-Catholics are now the second largest religious group in the US, 30 million in number. The new "latinized" Mass, imposed from above after 40 years, will increase their numbers by many thousands. Not that the bishops care. As long as they please Rome their career paths are secure.
Woe to the shepherds who
Woe to the shepherds who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture, says the LORD.
Therefore, thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, against the shepherds who shepherd my people: You have scattered my sheep and driven them away. You have not cared for them, but I will take care to punish your evil deeds.
I myself will gather the remnant of my flock from all the lands to which I have driven them and bring them back to their meadow; there they shall increase and multiply.
I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them so that they need no longer fear and tremble; and none shall be missing, says the LORD.
Although John, what if this
Although John, what if this 30 million got together (the web would come in handy) and just stood up and told them no! We will not be part of this travesty! No more Money people and they will begin to listen!
BRAVO, Eugene Kennedy!
BRAVO, Eugene Kennedy! Poirot is proud of you.
If the St. Pius X Society (and other John Paul & Benedict groups) could get permission to have Latin Masses, why can't those who wish to celebrate the Mass using the Vatican II language also obtain permission?
It seems like it should be easy to get. Here's your next Mystery case, Poirot!
I am with you especially concerning those ‘mea culpas.’ That was always so stupid to stand there and say and do the actions. Now, they want it back - WITH THE ACTIONS. STUPID STUPID STUPID S T U P I D !!!!!!!!!!!!
Benedict seems obsessed with injecting a lot of “sin” content in the prayers. I wonder why . . .?
"Everything, including the New Translation, squeezes the spirit out of familiar liturgical readings and replaces it with hot air."
You got that right!!
And the people said, "AMEN!"
(And also with you!!!!!!!!!)
Pretty soon our 'temples'
Pretty soon our 'temples' (churches) will only be populated by the Pharisees and Sadduccees (priests and bishops) whose only job is to place even heavier burdens on the ordinary people that are trying to eke out a way to take care of their families. They come to church because they rely on God to be their source of strength to live in a world that is not supported by their generous donations like the 'higher-arcs'. Christ was appalled at such hubris when he walked the earth and I suspect he is just as appalled at what has become of his gospel today. I believe the Spirit is alive but am at a loss to understand when I see evil winning. "How long, oh Lord? How long?"
Good insights worth reading
Good insights worth reading by all who care about the church.
The changes in liturgical language are needed by the disoriented to excercise their power. The hierarchy is dismayed and baffled by the fact that healthy people no longer look to them for direction, or to follow their every order. The bishops realize that most people don't listen to them when it comes to matters of politics and the bedroom. So these hierarchs, who value power above all else, have a need to exert their power in an area over which they still have control. Perhaps our call as disciples is to take away that control. Refuse to participate in this sham. Our church is falling apart and we need to further alienate people, why?
I find this very enlightening
I find this very enlightening - and distressing. What can we do about it? I see this as a perfect example of Lord Acton's (I think it was)comment that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I agree with so much of this
I agree with so much of this article, but I feel the need to address my problem with it. The overarching premise, that all the "ordinary believers" are against the translation, is just not true. Anyone on the internet can find this same purple prose defending the translation, rejoicing in it and decrying the horrid and lifeless liturgies they've prayed and lived through for oh so long now. The comments sections are full of the grateful, the excited, the impatiently waiting and ready. Those are the ordinary faithful, too.
So what do we make of this? I think it is important to see the strength of the conservative faith as the backlash to the implementation of Vatican II. All of a sudden, many people growing and loving an unchanging faith were told that it was time for a major change. They were (politely) called troglodytes when they protested. I remember a lecture from a wonderful and learned priest in the early 80"s talking about such people. He asked us to pray for them, because they were defending a church that is dying. So much for predicting the future, although the selfless prayer is right on.
Let me try to predict the future now. I don't think the liberal backlash from this "sweeping campaign" (is "pogrom" too strong a word?) will die out either. I think the argument over right and left as right and wrong will continue, balkanizing us even further if we let it. We continue to replay the apostles' argument of who is the greater, the one Jesus wouldn't answer. Instead he asked them to become like children and like servants. I know by now that my faith won't leave me, just like our conservative brethren can't shake the way they've come to know the Lord.
I believe the true way out of this, the most radical element of Vatican II, the thing the controllers want tamped down and stored away, is the sensus fidelii. How often we hear that the Church is not a democracy, and then we watch as popes are elected just as they always have been. If we get back to participation in our faith, including the direction of our clergy-servants..... if we get back to praying in whatever language takes us to God, but respecting that the Spirit may call others just as strongly to do it a different way..... if we invite the stranger in rather than looking for our differences and pretending that love means to correct them at all costs until they leave or capitulate...... if we remember that those who say they see remain blind, but those who admit their blindness can see.... if we listen first and foremost.... we will start becoming the shining city on the hill, looking outward to help rather than inward to squabble.
Although I agree with this article with all my prayerful heart, let's stop bashing those led in another direction. Let's focus on dialogue rather than winning the argument (and yes, I know, when we dialogue against holy Church we are only in disagreement with holy Pope who channels the holy Word perfectly. That ain't right and they know it. Ask a whole bunch of our saints.) I hate to see these proper criticisms added to the improper war of words.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to many of us to know whether or not Dr. Kennedy has ever used the term "murderer" to refer to those "reformed minded" Catholics who have continued to declare that we can participate in the Sacred Liturgy and, at the same time, promote abortion, homosexual activity and all kinds of murderous activities that no Catholic has a right to ever consider. Also, has Dr. Kennedy employed the tern "terrorist" to describe all those dissenting Catholics (supremely represented by NCR) who have terrorized parish after parish with liturgical abuses and doctrinal heresies? Like many unhistorical historians, Dr. Kennedy can never admit the fact that in the early Church, those of his ilk would have been banned from the Eucharist and labeled enemies of the People of God.
If we could all just time machine ourselves back to those first few centuries of Christianity, Dr. Kennedy would be greatly shocked to see how hierarchical the church really was in Her formative years. I'm not saying that the early Christians would have burned him at the stake, but they would have staked their lives on dissuading him of his obstinate disobedience and keeping him from harming the Faithful.
No, in those days, it was clear what the content and practice of the Faith truly is, and what it truly is not. Dr. Kennedy is an example of why Jesus Christ instituted the basic hierarchical structure of the Church. We must have a living breaching authority to protect the Faithful from those like him who would destroy the Church from the inside out.
Dr. Kennedy and all his fellow graying baby boomers (spoiled rotten by the world) were not the ones who conceived, wrote or faithfully implemented the eternal truths of Trent, Vatican II or the next council to come. They are the ones who have tried unsuccessfully to murder the Church. Thank God indeed that their most grievous faults cannot prevail. Like the dust of the earth to which the false doctrines of all heretics return, Dr. Kennedy will not prevail either.
God bless our People, Bishops, Deacons, religious brothers and sisters, and all the laity!
The Sabbath was made for us,
The Sabbath was made for us, not us for the Sabbath . . .
who said that anyway . . .
come to the desert
to the Spanish Mass.
let this be our New Translation . . .
excellent article here from a great Catholic.
Dear Dr. Kennedy, I
Dear Dr. Kennedy, I absolutely revel in your colorful, strong and apt metaphors. Thank you once more for a brave and forthright statement of the problem we baptized catholics are facing ---- together.
I agree with the point. I'm
I agree with the point. I'm bored and tired of the Kennedy's fractured and strained metaphors and what I think is goofy wordplay. His insights are often yet sharp but his writing has taken a weird turn over the recent years. Just tell us what you think. We don't need Hercule Poirot for this mystery.
"The assassins' plan is to
"The assassins' plan is to kill off Vatican II"
You realise that Vatican II called for latin to be retained in the liturgy
The Faithful have been
The Faithful have been suffering from the false spirit of the "Second Vatican Disaster" long enough. The Holy Ghost is finally leading us to the promised land. Remain in the desert of ignorance if you want to, Mr. Kennedy. The reform of the reform marches on. Thanks be to God!
yeah, come to this desert, to
yeah, come to this desert, to this place apart.
and come to this Spanish Mass
Gracias a Dios!
This is to me a most
This is to me a most insightful expression by Dr. K.
"They reject a faith that elevates people for spiritual growth and propose a regime that puts them down to keep them in their place." We should be asking why the upper hierarchy does not seem to have a nurturing care for us. A parent wants their child to grow strong, become fully developed, become a unique individual with the ability to think clearly and independently, to feel empowered by faith and knowledge. Why does the church not want this for us?
"Jesus speaks directly to us in Holy Land as a metaphor for a spiritual place we can enter at any time." Certainly we realize now that the life of religion resides in our being able to interpret and play with its metaphorical expression. Yet the church is acting as if that is deviant. The church puts down our imagination and thinking ability. It puts down our poetic talent. (I am reminded here of the great poet such G. M. Hopkins (who was also a Jesuit priest) creating immortal poems filled with inscape (as he called it), and being told that they're too strange and difficult. All faith is a work of art, not a grocery list.
Wow and I thought they just
Wow and I thought they just wanted to make the translation more accurate. How was I to know that this was in fact a deep rooted Vatican plot to do something terrible, what that terrible thing is may not be clear but if it's from the Vatican Kennedy is sure it is nefarious.
As an old altar boy from the 50's I often wondered what happened to mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Now I realize it was all part of a plot.
I have occasionally harbored the thought that the least emotionally stable people come from the world of psychology. This trip down paranoia lane only cements that perception of mine.
Eugene Kennedy's insights are
Eugene Kennedy's insights are usually helpful based on his theological perspectives, psychological insights, and plain human common sense. But his penchant for these stretched images and metaphors ("disoriented express") detract from their power rather than enhance it. They sound contrived and "cute" rather than expressive of a more expansive imagery and deeper meaning.
I value Dr./Fr.Kennedy's work
I value Dr./Fr.Kennedy's work and have benefitted from his insights and point of view ever since "The People are the Church" and "Comfort my People" written in the 1970's. But I agree that sometimes those "stretched images" make me wish for direct, clear expressions that don't require translation... (reference "sub tectum meum"?)
Hoping he will continue to guide us all to a more mature and loving faith.
WOW!!! We can always count on
WOW!!! We can always count on Kennedy to stir the pot with the post Vatican II
rants of dissidency...the usual ones...if only we could get rid of the Pope, the hierarchy, the dogmas, the pomp of Tridentine ritual,etc. etc. THEN we would have
the Church of and for and by the people!!! Well, Dr Kennedy, let me introduce you
to THAT church just down the street..it's called Protestantism! You would fit
right in...and it's there for just the reasons mentioned in your article..go for it and let the faithful take the Church back that you and yours hijacked in the name of the "spirit" of Vatican II. and while you are at it...get a job writing for Chick Publications...you seem to have ALL the qualifications including hatred for the Truth and the Church where for 2000 years it has
been promulgated inspite of heresy and dissendency like your's.
I'm fine with getting as
I'm fine with getting as close to the original texts as possible....but the original texts weren't in Latin.
Scripture texts--no. The
Scripture texts--no. The overwhelming majority of our ancient collects and Mass prayers--absolutely. 100 percent of the Missal being translated--of course!
"Ancient crusaders",
"Ancient crusaders", "terrorists", another fine example of the tolerant, loving writing of the NCR and the liberal left. Well done Eugene! You've confirmed what some many of us in favor of the new translation already believe.
This is what happens when uninformed people write on a subject.
It is interesting that with
It is interesting that with this "new" translation, it really isn't new. If you look at Mass settings published just after the Council in the vernacular, what we are seeing now is what we saw after the Council concluded. So what is not in the spirit of Vatican II? And there was a comment about our soul being healed....is the soul no longer accepted theologically? Funny we use the term "soul" food or "comfort" food, yet does our Eucharist not heal the soul? It seems like there are some bitter people who are jealous of the control they cannot have. I am sure for these people Gregorian Chant is too out of style as well, but then again it is stressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Oh well, Church was never a democracy and never will be. So let those trying to make a democracy, wake up and smell the coffee!
Come what may with the new
Come what may with the new translations, I'm going to keep on saying the responses the way I do now. (not too loud so as to distract others). As I understand it, these are not changes recommended by the English language translators, but changes foisted upon us by the Vatican whose official language is still Latin. We Catholics have had too many upheavals in our church in recent years to be bothered with such petty changes. The hierarchy needs to concern itself with its real problems:
pedophilia by priests,
coverup by bishops,
investigations of our good religious sisters,
poorly thought-out statements by Benedict,
aliention of those not of the Roman tradition--especially our Eastern brothers and sisters,
excommunications (did Jesus ever do this?),
strictures and oaths of loyalty on theologians teaching in Catholic colleges and universities, and on parish priests as they assume leadership of a parish.
lack of equality for women in all areas of Church
homophobia (would Jesus call homosexuals "disordered" when they are of God's creation,
prohibiting children of homosexual couples from attending Catholic schools
..ad nauseaum.........
Someone asked for a specific
Someone asked for a specific example of where the new translations deviaite from what Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy mandated. Very basically, Vatican II, The Const. on the Liturgy, and its implementation documents in the Vatican gave authority to episcopal conferences to prepare translations and the Vatican was only to confirm them. That fundamental authority has been overridden by the Vatican curia. Peace,
And now that the new
And now that the new translations are found to be full of mistakes even after episcopal and Vatican ratification the final rewrite will be in the hands of an American monsignor. Will the results be sent back to the bishops -- who will not read them but just rubberstamp them. Only 5 US bishops bothered to send written comments on the new missal before the last meeting that ratified it. Obviously the bishops do not believe in these new translations at all -- they see them as a Vatican nonsense and they resort to their usual tactic of humoring the Vatican bureaucrats.
Post new comment