The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionReform of the reform secularizes the sacred
by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on Aug. 26, 2010
Even their advocates make the new liturgical translations sound like medicine for -- instead of the symptoms of -- a disorder that demeans the sacramental nature of Catholicism. Swallow this they urge -- like mothers forcing a spoon aquiver with spring tonic on their young -- it will be good for you. Thus Our Sunday Visitor reassures readers that responding "and with your spirit" is superior to "and also with you" because it literally mimics the original Latin, which, of course, is exactly what is wrong with it.
This minor footnote to the impending transition is also a fever reading of this affliction that, as with many illnesses, makes people feel sick before anybody has a name for it. The problem is illustrated by, but extends well beyond the new liturgical translations that are currently being packaged with as little concern for their contents or effects as the patent medicines that were hawked off the backs of 19th century wagons.
These new translations are signals of a widespread spiritual malaise that is a function of shorting out the connection between people’s experience of life and its spiritual, or sacramental, symbolization in their religion. They are thereby denied the energy of a sacramental system to ground them in and guide them through the mysterium tremendum et fascinans (the overwhelming and enthralling mystery) of existence. While religious leaders like to blame this on secularization -- as Pope Benedict does of a Europe that leaves religion out of its official declarations -- the responsibility may lie with the same religious leaders who, out of touch or unacquainted with the mythic depth of sacramental life, cannot keep their people in touch with this vital source of their spiritual lives.
Joseph Campbell termed this massive tear in the fabric of life as "Mythic Dissociation." When this occurs we find ourselves in what poet T.S. Eliot describes as The Waste Land. This basic estrangement from any feeling for the mystical energy of the church as the Sacramentum Mundi, the mystical mirror in which the beleaguered world can see a reflection of its profound longings and strivings, can be observed in the way the sacraments are almost exclusively discussed. They are spoken of as static objects to be regulated rather than living symbols to be celebrated. Those in charge are uncomfortable speaking of sacramental depths but are endlessly preoccupied with their surfaces. How much have you heard about the Eucharist as a Mystery that symbolizes the life-death-resurrection rhythm of human existence compared to the Eucharist that must be controlled -- celebrated only by unmarried males, denied, even though it is food, to hungry Christians who are not Catholics, and, in steamy geysers of words more regular than Old Faithful, never, even if all male priests have been carried away in a heavenly chariot, to be entrusted to the ministry of women?
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
That the sacraments are being made static entities is also evident in the widespread rush to make, as I heard a pastor put it, "Eucharistic adoration the source of all parish life." The Kingdom of God and Jesus are not so much among you as He is there, all alone waiting for the "adorers" to keep Him company in the long drear vigils of the night. The same pastor recently rejoiced that his church had received the title, as if he were a franchisee, of "Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Chapel." Private devotions have a revered place in church history but this theological distortion of Jesus’ being in a chapel in need of visitors is a classic example of the "Mythic Dissociation" that, like the dire effects of medicines rattled off on television ads so that you can barely hear them, is a principal side-effect of the misguided movement to find the real Jesus hiding back in the 19th century when He is everywhere in the 21st.
The Reform of the Reform is, in fact, the Waste Land in which, as Campbell observes, "the myth," -- for us, the sacramental system -- "is patterned by authority, not emergent from life, where there is no poet’s eye to see, no adventure to be lived, where all is set for all and forever." The new texts, in effect, split our everyday experience of struggling to work and to love from their sacramental symbolization in the renewed liturgy of Vatican II. This "new" translation turns us back to another world in which the sacraments were dry remedies for shut-ins rather than dynamic sources of spiritual strength to participate in the world’s bittersweet love affair with life in all its hazards and joys. These new texts, drafted by men more interested in controlling their circumstances than giving them away as the loaves and fishes to the hungry crowds, are the real sources of the secularism that remain largely unrecognized by the pope who is so appalled by it.
[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.
All this new "Reform of the
All this new "Reform of the Reform to counter Secularism" reminds me of the Prophet who talked about the Isrealites as being like dry old bones good for nothing at all...
If the diagnosis is not correct, then all the medicine in the world will do no good, since the intended cure starts with failure & ignorance of what is actually the situation...
Mr. Kennedy, you have hit the
Mr. Kennedy, you have hit the nail right on the head. The people who insist on these new "Literal" translations from the Latin would have us believe we are getting the real words Christ spoke. Instead of giving the liturgy new life, they are sucking the life out of it.
Cashelguy2, I owe you an
Cashelguy2,
I owe you an apology...in a previous blog I did misinterpret your remark
you didn't imply anything...sorry!
Dot I'm not sure which of my
Dot
I'm not sure which of my posts you are refering too, but apology accepted.
Cashelguy
I was at a workshop this past
I was at a workshop this past week in which the out-of-town Monsignor and liturgical expert dutifully appealed to us that "since this is what Rome has given us" we need to do our best to persuade the people that "we will get through this." I was nearly sick to my stomach. I asked him afterward if in all the years of this talk of more Latin-like prayers if he had ever heard anyone observe that none of the Latin prayers were ever composed with proclamation in mind, but for whispering to God? Knowing exactly the point I was making, he averred, "oh, a few bishops made comments like that at their meetings" and then his voice trailed off. In all likelihood this guy will become a bishop for carrying the water for this fool's errand.
I will not be throwing away the present texts despite their shortcomings. Along with the people I have served they have become our prayer language and have served us well. They may end up saying "and with your spirit", but not because I insisted it was more accurate. I hear the Pope thinks we may be better off as a smaller church. He's obviously doing his best to bring that about. Agnus Dei, miserere nobis.
The intent of the law is lost
The intent of the law is lost as we immerse ourselves in the letter of the law... By focusing on the shallow, literal translation of mere words, we lose the deep, beautiful, richness of the faith and will only attract and retain people of the same depth.
The "Reform of the Reform"
The "Reform of the Reform" (of which the new translation if just part of the beginning) is led by the true Holy Ghost, not the false spirit of Vatican II which nearly destroyed the Church. Why not stop all of the whining and embrace the truth of our great Pope Benedict?
If what you say is true, why
If what you say is true, why doesn't the Holy "Ghost" know English grammar? And I guess we're going to have to respond, "...and with your ghost" since the "Spirit" is false.
God save Holy Mother Church from Benedict and his minions.
Dear Uncas, you speak of a
Dear Uncas, you speak of a "true Holy Ghost". Does that mean there's a "false Holy Ghost?"
In addition, you assume a few things I have problems with: 1)a "false spirit of Vatican II" 2)(Vatican II) "nearly destroyed the Church." 3)It appears you put "true Holy Ghost" on the same step as "false spirit of Vatican II" Did you really mean to equate them in this manner?
Because you state it so definitively it seems you're convinced the new translation is part of the beginning of a movement to return the institutional church to pre-Vatican II. Is this the "truth" of Pope Benedict we're supposed to embrace? I thought he proposed "Truth in Charity" (Encyclical of Summer, 2009).
By "false spirit" it is most
By "false spirit" it is most certainly meant all of the quasi-hippy nonsense which has become a Mass staple since the Second Vatican Council. These are "reforms" which are to be found nowhere in the texts of the Council and many of which were expressly prohibited by the Council. IE moving the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary, receiving Christ on the hand, celebrating Mass facing the congregation, changing sacred music etc. What Benedict is doing is showing us what an actual post-Conciliar Mass looks like.
Anonymous on Aug. 29,
Anonymous on Aug. 29, 2010.
You stated:
(By "false spirit" it is most certainly meant all of the quasi-hippy nonsense which has become a Mass staple since the Second Vatican Council. These are "reforms" which are to be found nowhere in the texts of the Council and many of which were expressly prohibited by the Council. IE moving the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary, receiving Christ on the hand, celebrating Mass facing the congregation, changing sacred music etc. What Benedict is doing is showing us what an actual post-Conciliar Mass looks like.)
----------------------------------------------------
Hate to say it, but you are quite wrong about the Liturgy coming out of Vatican II. It was not 'quasi-hippy nonsense.'
It was not the task of the Documents to list HOW the Liturgy was to be celebrated. Rather it sought:
1) to give vigor to the Christian life of the faithful
2) to adapt what is changeable to the needs of today
3) to promote union among all who believe in Christ and
4) to strengthen the Church's mission to all humankind.
The constitution declares that the Mass (the Liturgy) is the source and summit of the Christian life. Various commissions were developed to oversee, implement, and develop the procedures to enact the Constitutions and Decrees coming out of Vatican II (including the one on the Liturgy). And apparently, you missed that part in reading the Constitutions and Documents.
Therefore, for the Liturgy to be effective, the faithful must:
1) be well disposed (and most will NOT be with the Roman Missal coming out in
Advent 2011.
2) know what they are doing (again, people will be confused with the wording
of the new Roman Missal
3) and participte in the Liturgy (people will be so confused with the new
wording---they'll just clam up or leave).
Oh, yes, the Document also stated that people participate BEST in their native language (not in Latin). The people were given the freedom to receive Communion either on their tongues or on their hands (Jesus didn't place hosts on the Apostles' tongues) and to also receive the Precious Blood of Jesus from the Cup.
The church enacts itself in its eucharistic celebrations, with everyone playing a role: greeters, readers, ushers, singers, presider, extraordinary ministers of the eucharist, active participants all ('Sacrosanctum Concilium'
148).
No one there is to be there as a stranger or mere spectator. However, it is healthy to recall that, as with any human activity, these celebrations are often flawed.
LittleBear, Let's be fair
LittleBear, Let's be fair here. I agree with your defense of Vatican II and what it proposed for a reinvigorated liturgical life with the Mass as the summit. Unfortunately, there is a serious disconnect between decrees and what has happened since then. The Roman Missal is an improvement is some respects and some musicians prefer some of the wording for setting the mass to music. The syntax, whether it adheres to the original latin or not. really does stink in many areas.
What I'm getting at is simply this: 95% of most Catholics will not be phased by the Roman Missal one bit. It will go right over their heads. They will leave Sunday mass sensing something was different in the wording (Duh!! Mom it sounds different, duh!!!) , but they won't be so steaming mad, brandishing weapons when they go to church again. They're not ready to go to war with the USCCB, the pope, or anyone else over this very disappointing product.
Let's just hope there will be enough parishes that will simply continue to use what they have now, or, better yet, start using, especially for Sundays and more solemn occasions masses in the hieratic English.
The Doui-Rheims editions of the 1950s are still printable and there is always the Anglican missal, or translations used in the western rite of the Orthodox Church. They're all far superior for composing English mass music than the Roman Missal (3rd ed.) could ever hope to be.
There is no Sacrosanctum
There is no Sacrosanctum Concilium 148...You refer to other "documents" but fail to cite them.
Where is the pride of place of Gregorian chant in today's masses?
1. If the liturgy is the
1. If the liturgy is the source and summit of Catholic life, then participation must be defined with that in mind. Participation is both external and internal, no. 19.
Thus, true liturgical participation goes beyond what happens during mass. Just because everyone repeats together various responses doesn't mean that there's greater participation. Greater participation, therefore, is measured by Catholics following the Church's moral teaching, vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and solid marriages. That those are lagging indicates that only by a superficial understanding of participation (not found in SC) can it said to be greater.
2. SC ends at no. 130. There is no 148.
3. I find nothing in SC to indicate that people participate best in their native language.
4. Neither can I find any mention of "greeters, readers, ushers, singers, presider, extraordinary ministers of the eucharist" or Communion in the hand.
Because to do so they would
Because to do so they would have to admit that they were wrong. Professor Kennedy would have to admit the truth, that his efforts over the last several years, and the efforts of others like him, were all in vain. To embrace the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit means that they would have to admit that since 1965 they have been laboring to preserve a lie.
Finally, to embrace the truth means that they would lose their position of authority (as diminished as it might be). Professor Kennedy, for example, would cease to be a voice crying out in public dissent, and thus he would cease to be a figure of interest for anyone. When one spends an entire career having one's ego stroked by admirers in the academic world, the secular world, and the press because of one's "principled stand" against a repressive Church, one is not likely to give all that up simply to embrace the truth.
Brother Joseph, You might
Brother Joseph,
You might give some thought to how your last paragraph fits the hierarchy of the church to a T.
As a cradle Catholic I was raised to believe "father is always right." Then as I grew in wisdom, age and grace, I realized "father - my earthly father" sometimes made mistakes. I still held on to "father - the father in my parish" was somehow more right because he was ordained by the Catholic Church.
Now in my old age, I have seen more clearly that every human being is subject to mistakes, errors - simply because no one other than Our Heavenly Father is without error.
I further learned more about growing in wisdom, age and grace through using the 12-Step program - that examining my behavior, promptly admitting my errors and making amends to those I have harmed would make living my life simpler and more honest.
It is amazing that a bunch of "drunks" found a way to improve their life and that of those they loved - but have also harmed - so they would not have to continue living a life of lies. Admitting their mistakes, made them more human and closer to God.
It would appear that the higher the Catholic hierarchy reaches, the less human they are - and the more they believe they are above humaniity. Likewise, the less likely they are to admit the truth that they have made mistakes - mistakes that have hurt people - and mistakes that have hurt the Church.
It is not secularism that has caused so many to leave the Catholic Church - it is the clericalism of the hierarchy.
"The Emperor Has No Clothes"
yo, bro, why leave the sem?
yo, bro, why leave the sem?
you chuck (or frere, or
you chuck (or frere, or charles, or palomas, or...), none of your business.
I think next week he'll be
I think next week he'll be Holy Roman Emperor...at the Spanish Mass, of course.
Bro Joe, I assume by "they"
Bro Joe, I assume by "they" you refer to the whiners mentioned by Uncas. Your certainty that you're in possession of "the truth" is simply amazing. Although unsaid I get the impression that "the truth" is and should be known in exactly the same way by each and every one of us at each and every moment of history. How dull! How very unhuman. It's only when we engage each other in charitable, honest, respectful listening, conversation, dialogue, communication that we can come to a version of truth we can live with. That's one thing I understood in Benedict's 2009 encyclical, TRUTH IN CHARITY. I also learned the same thing from a friend who silenced me one time when we disagreed on some point. She said, and I'll never forget (she was so right!), "Joan, your truth is not my truth!" I, for one, hopes Professor Kennedy (and yourself also) never give in to something in which you do not have faith. In addition though I hope you can respect each other for the integrity this kind of resistance takes. I hope none of us resorts to ad hominem arguments or as I prefer to phrase it, the argument of ridicule.
Joan, thank you for your
Joan, thank you for your post. Clearly I am in agreement with you. I see spiritual partisans always insisting that the Holy Spirit only operates as they have experience him/her or as they agree is appropriate. This is, in essence, substituting ones ego for that of God's. And it is a danger that is real on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide. It may give one a sense of certainty, but this is a false and a spiritually dangerous comfort. Anyone who is willing to do the hard work of being on an honest spiritual journey, ultimately, is confronted with the question of why so many good, honest, open and prayerful people have different experiences of God and come to so many different conclusions. Let's have the humility to appreciate, even celebrate, the many mansions of which Jesus speaks.
John and Joan, you've both
John and Joan, you've both put into words where the Spirit has been dragging me (kicking and screaming) as well. Thanks.
I'd rather embrace the truth
I'd rather embrace the truth of Jesus Christ! By the way, by what authority or charism do you discern the will of the Holy Spirit for the whole Church?
The "false spirit of Vatican
The "false spirit of Vatican II? Oh, so you're saying that the Church CAN be wrong and make mistakes. Do you also believe that the Holy Spirit was not with the Church at Vatican II? Must not have been if anything "false" went on there.
What Brother Joseph means is
What Brother Joseph means is the "Pan Roman Synod" which is passed off as an Ecumenical Council. Amazing what people will call a council, e.g the "false spirit of Vatican II", when it doesn't legislate in areas agreeable to them.
Infallible or not infallible, there's just no pleasing some people. Being a pope has to be one of the most thankless jobs in the world.
I would prefer to "stop
I would prefer to "stop whining" and get on to embracing the truth of our Lord, Jesus Christ, rather than "embrace the truth of our great Pope Benedict."
Uncas, The new missal is a
Uncas, The new missal is a story about control from Rome and increasing Church oversight of what the pharisees in the Vatican see as "heterodoxy", and ritual impurity. The neo-Puritans want to excise all forms of what they perceive to be heresy wherever they can find it.
Of course, this is a terrible indictment of this pope's three immediate predecessors.Did they permit heresy and unorthodox teachings to creep into the Church?
The Roman Missal (3rd edition) has nothing to do with giving us an improved English translation. At least with hieratic (Douai-Reims), or Cranmerian English you receive an authentic piece of pure art. A sacral tongue used for beautiful and uplifting purposes. This is why Benedict XVI needs to make amends by permitting his precious Tridentine Liturgy to be put into Cranmerian or hieratic English. The Church needs a fresh infusion of great art and inspiring language. This new missal is a complete dud.
Look at some of the Mass collects and secret prayers in this missal. The syntax is abominable. Better if the Church had adopted the canon of St. Basil, or The Twelve Apostles and translated them from the Greek or Aramaic. Greek is the true original liturgical language of the Church with much more accurate shades of interpretation and meaning than latin has.
Again, this is another failed product from Church run by people who don't speak English as their native tongue telling us how to pray.15
For many of us, I include
For many of us, I include myself, when life "in all its hazards and joys" shattered my religious beliefs, I had to struggle mightily to find God/Jesus/Holy Spirit that I could believe in. For me the shattering had to do with war. In the process of that struggle my faith evolved quite differently than that which the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy is dispensing. I can so relate to what Kennedy writes here about Joseph Campbell's "Mythic Dissociation". As Jesus said, you can't put new wine in old wineskins. At least that has been my experience. Try as I might, I don't find my hunger satisfied in this institutional church.
One again, Kennedy's
One again, Kennedy's assessment is spot on. In my lifetime, I've never seen so many of the Titanic's deck hands frantically scrambling to rearrange all the deck chairs. "Just tell the riffraff we've only stopped for ice."
Here's hoping that Eugene
Here's hoping that Eugene Kennedy never tires of offering us the gift of his spiritual sustenance, so lacking in the official magisterium of today's church.
The prophets have always been the harbinger of truth and good news.....
Thanks, again, Eugene.
God bless your ministry.
Comment, if you will, please,
Comment, if you will, please, Gene, on things like:
"I believe", once stated at the beginning of the Creed, is supposedly superior to 4 "We believe"s, stated throughout the Creed as in the present translation; &
in the words of institution, "for you & for many" in the new version, is supposedly superior to "for you & for all." 'many' may, indeed, be a literal translation of the Latin '(pro) multis' which Scripture scholars tell us is in contrast to (for) the few. How many times will presiders have to explain this, rather than to let the translation be self-explanatory?
Why aren't we 'just waiting,' using the new version in a few selected parishes, to see how it goes? This was suggested by the Seattle Cathedral pastor & has tens of thousands of supporters around the world!
& why was the translation submitted by the US Bishops discarded in favor of what some Romans (for whom English is NOT their mother tongue) decided was somehow superior?
Eugene and others who keep
Eugene and others who keep shrieking about how terrible all this is reminds me of the perpetually angry SSPXers: They have the same 'me against the man' attitude and the same hot headed rage against an issue that has been totally blown out of proportion.
Must be a slow news day.
Perhaps they are both angry for the same reason: They both realize that their time and influence is coming to an end.
I await the new missal with 'ineffable' joy. ;-)
why, and how ineffable? I
why, and how ineffable?
I hear no shriek here
perhaps a repressed anguish for our much abused Church
but no shriek
wisdom and truth, yes, but anguish?
anger?
only true, real love for our Church
pray off script, dude and come to true prayer
and know ineffable joy
"why, and how ineffable?" -
"why, and how ineffable?"
- how? In the way of being 'incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible'. (you missed the joke. again.)
The rage many people on this blog have over this is very real. Just read the comments they put here attacking the Holy Father for giving the go ahead on this.
This will end up being accepted by everyone in the end. Sure there will be people who mutter the old responses (heck, my elderly aunt sometimes mutters 'Gloria tibi Domine' instead of the English out of pure habit, since she spent most of her early life under the Latin mass.)
I think I'll start a new group on the web. We'll call ourselves: "What if We Just Said: 'Let it go. The New Translation Will Be Used. Move on.'"
Well good for you Pete the
Well good for you Pete the Greek...I for one will just keep saying what we have been responding for many years now. I think as a Church we should let those who love the Vatican II follow that and those who want to follow Vatican I, let them.
If not,I for one, suggest we just say NO to it. When are the lay people going to get a backbone and say we are not doing it Benedict? We act like we are children and this guy has all the answers and has become our parent.The heirachy does not have any better pipeline to Our Lord than we have. And as a matter of fact, they, through the sexual pedophile cover up, have shown to us who they really are and I think Jesus stated it quite well, when he called their forefathers vipers. They just want control of how we pray, and how we live every day of our lives and especially how OUR money is distributed. I do not trust any of these men in the heirachy. I will remain Catholic but I will not follow these goofy "men" in the Vatican!
Trusting the Vatican
Trusting the Vatican hierarchy is a defining element of being Catholic.If you don't believe they are a divinely ordained institution whose teachings one must obey to attain salvation,there's no point in claiming the label.
Louis E. on Aug. 30,
Louis E. on Aug. 30, 2010.
You stated:
"Trusting the Vatican hierarchy is a defining element of being Catholic.If you don't believe they are a divinely ordained institution whose teachings one must obey to attain salvation,there's no point in claiming the label."
---------------------------------------------
Trusting Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the defining element of being Christian (Catholic). Our Lord Jesus Christ, won salvation for us, not the Vatican hierarchy. Only in speaking in matters of faith and doctrine, and in a restricted sense, the Pope speaks infallibly----not the rest of the members of the Curia, nor the bishops.
There is more to being Catholic than following every burp and blip coming from the Vatican.
Louis, Putting your faith in
Louis, Putting your faith in "defining elements" for Catholics tells you more about belief in sociology than theology.
Obeying the divinely ordained teachings of Jesus will earn you salvation. Not the decrees of prelatical apologists for a perverted clerical culture.
Better you know how to distinguish essential Christianity from these false prophets-- the modern-day Sanhedrin. Strutting about with inflated egos while luxuriating in their medieval trappings. Now desperately trying to keep their legions of unquestioning sheep firmly in their camp.
Bang on Louise E. The
Bang on Louise E. The hierarchy ie: the Pope is entrusted with the teachings and the traditions of the Church through the Good Lord himself when he left dear Saint Peter in charge of things some 2,000 years ago. I would bet my life that no one at that time doubted to whom the keys were passed and entrusted.
It would be so interesting to see how these people would react if the Good Lord himself one day appeared and asked them why they are defying His own representative on earth. I think about that at times myself when I am at Mass and He is present on that altar or in that tabernacle. How would I answer Him? It helps me remember that someday I will have to answer to Him, for everything.
Sadly, for the most part, I
Sadly, for the most part, I think Eugene Kennedy is once again spot-on. However, I do think there is room for exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in the church of the 21st century. We need not call it adoration; rather, just an opportunity to rest in quiet before the mysterium tremendum et fascinans existent in the sacrament as well as everything else in the world. The times we live in call us to a more contemplative spirit. Any time and / or place, that invites our spirits away from the ubiquitous cacophony in which most of us are engulfed, to an opportunity for silence and/or quiet reflection, should be most welcome. I don't know whether Eugene Kennedy would agree with me on this but I, for one, am grateful for quiet time before the Blessed Sacrament.
Pax
Bill
Kennedy writes: That the
Kennedy writes: That the sacraments are being made static entities is also evident in the widespread rush to make, as I heard a pastor put it, "Eucharistic adoration the source of all parish life."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But surely this Source is the Holy Eucharist being celebrated in community (not to exclude particular devotions). A drive to make Adoration the principal focus of parish worship prepares the way for parishes without priests and removes the need to think hard about extending priestly ordination beyond celibate males.
I very much agree with you,
I very much agree with you, "Anonymous" Bill. There is a real need, always has been and always will be, for contemplative moments in our spiritual lives (and who does it better than Catholics?). And let's keep in mind that the theology that advises against too much of it is based in the radical notion that we are called to celebrate the Living Christ and share Him with one another in community. You put it all so well. Thank you for your contribution.
This article reads like a
This article reads like a poem! Like a poem, its language evokes so many deep and rich images of what this change in translations really means. A waste land indeed!
amen, Brother Don!
amen, Brother Don!
This new translation is just
This new translation is just another piece of what has been going on since Vatican II. The neocons and the scribes and Pharisees keep on rolling back the progress of the council. Thankfully it is easily seen for what it is.
It is amazing to me that the
It is amazing to me that the Church has survived 2000 years, given spiritual support and succor to countless saints, canonized and unknown, been a bastion of moral clarity in a world increasingly gone over the edge, and given rise to such institutions as universities, hospitals, orphanages, Catholic Charities, etc., without having had the amazing spiritual wisdom and insight of Eugene Kennedy and those like him. How on earth did the Martyrs ever have the strength to accept even death in the days when the "sacraments were dry remedies"? How did St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Teresa of Avila have the spiritual wisdom and insight to write some of the most profound spiritual works in the history of the world when they were "denied the energy of a sacramental system to ground them"? How did the Church even exist before Vatican Council II? All it had was "static" sacraments, how did it ever avoid spiritual malaise? How did the saints avoid that?
Thank God we have Professor Kennedy to offer his clear insights and astounding sacramental understanding. Thank God we have Professor Kennedy to tell us, like Father McBrien, that Eucharistic Adoration, spending time with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, is a waste of time, an effort to find Jesus back in the 19th century. Thank God we have Professor Kennedy to advocate for admitting all Christians, even those who disagre with the Church's teachings, to Holy Communion (hmmm, does he advocate that so that he can receive without having to believe what the Church teaches himself?). Thank God for Professor Kennedy, a man who truly symbolizes all that the "Spirit of Vatican II" has to offer.
Well the heirachy wasn't the
Well the heirachy wasn't the ones who built all those things that you speak of because the guidance of the Holy Spirit is what drove all the positive changes and works of the Catholic Church. I think Fr. McBrien and Mr. Kennedy do a superb job of showing us and teaching us how the Church(people of God)need to go forth in spreading the message of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. The heirachy will implode eventually and the Spirit of God will guide us to a more inclusive, collegial and accountable Church! Thank God!
I don't think the past 2000
I don't think the past 2000 years will be as amazing as the next 200 if the Church is unwilling to embrace change and insists instead on looking backward towards its first 2000. While I believe a religious institution needs to be an influence to slow social changes, it can never stop them. Therefore the Church needs to change and adapt to society - as it is and is becoming - not as it was.
For instance: In the far distant past, the parish priest was one of the best educated - if not the only educated - person in the parish community. It was a different Church back then. That is no longer the case, except perhaps in third world mission churches. Modern parish communities are more a community of learners than they have ever been in the past.
If the Church is successful in undoing the progress of Vatican II, it will be truly amazing if it is viable in 200 years.
Religions can never change
Religions can never change without forfeiting their credibility.Their sole competence is in areas that humans have no right or ability to change.If eternal divine law does not require what they say it does,why listen to them?To "change with the times" is to admit they do not speak for God.
I definitely agree that the
I definitely agree that the Church needs to embrace change. And the most important change will be from vernacular liturgy with mass said facing the people (versus populum) to Latin liturgy with the entire congregation facing the same direction (ad orientem).
Those who don't want that simply are afraid of change.
Pray tell, how DID the early
Pray tell, how DID the early martyrs and Christians propagate the faith without bishops and celibate male ordained priests directing their worship of Jesus?
Yeah, I wonder that
Yeah, I wonder that too......oh, no, wait, I don't wonder that at all. It is inconceivable to me how individuals such as Mr. Kennedy can give us the impression that after the past 40 years of nightmarish pseudo-protestantism we have somehow "arrived" in the liturgical promised land. What have we seen in the past 40 years? Have the "reforms" that parishes made (most incorrectly) after the council invigorated the Church, increased vocations, or made the Church more applicable to "this day and age"? No......no, no, no, instead we see tear-rendering Mass attendance, no vocations, and parishioners who still don't pay attention.
A Mass, which is focused on humility and sacrifice, not on a broken sense of "Christian community" is what fueled the saints and what will fuel us now. The saints could suffer martyrdom because they knew and exalted God, not because they were so pleased at how very pleasant the person sitting next to them was or because the priest was a real people-person.
Again I was blown away by an
Again I was blown away by an incisive and life-giving analysis that reveals how the new translations are symptoms of a spiritual malaise. I was particularly struck by an image of "the misguided movement to find the real Jesus hiding in the 19th century when he is everywhere in the 21st." In my opinion that's a most cogent argument denying secularism. If Jesus is everywhere then there is nowhere he is not. What is, is sacred if I don't deny it. I don't need an adoration chapel; I don't need an adoration time.
I'd also like to reply to the final comment by anonymous above: "I don't find my hunger satisfied in this institutional church." Not many of us do. Our spiritual hungers are satisfied by the church which is we People of God. We need to find each other, support each other - both privately and publicly. Our Baptism unites us.
I applaud that Seattle
I applaud that Seattle priest's suggestion that we ought to consider this new translation as an experiment for a couple of months. If anything needs input from the people, this does! As an old retired priest happily I think I will never have to use this new translation. I certainly would do everything possible to avoid doing so.
It is seems more like a destruction of the reform than a reform of it. What is so "sacred" about the old Latin, anyway.
I think your critique is
I think your critique is right on. So, what's the solution, if there is one? Education? Formation? What can be done when those needing the remedy refuse to recognize they are the sick?
As I have written on another
As I have written on another blog, this past weekend my husband and I were visiting some or our children in Boston. At Mass,in a church associated with a major university (you can guess) the priest, a young German man, probably a student at said university, was positively ecstatic about the new translation, esp, how "Jesus came to save the many, instead of "all". He tied this in with the reading of the day from Hebrews about the narrow gate. He seemed so excited that there would be more people to exclude from the kingdom of God. Language is important. It defines what and how we think about reality. All very depressing. This small-minded, cramped, ugly version of Jesus' saving grace is not the church I have given my allegiance to for all these many years. This version will not stand the test of time.
“There are many people which
“There are many people which the church has but God does not have; and there are many people which God has which the Church does not have.”
St. Augustine (paraphrased) ca 4th century.
I'm begining to think that the latter part of that statement is much truer than the former.
Perhaps the best response to
Perhaps the best response to Rome's staticity in all things sacramental is to ignore the changes. Rarely has there been any spiritual depth coming from Roman hierarchical, legalistic functionaries. What poor theologians they are, what poor spiritual men they appear to be as well.
Increasingly Catholics are leaving the church in search of real MEANING because they aren't finding it in their own tradition. Where our prophets and spiritual leaders are is where to go.
Reform of the Reforms will be
Reform of the Reforms will be a short lived phenomenon. The Holy Spirit opened the floodgates for a REFORMATION of the Catholic Church. This process was abruptly stopped by right wingers who seized control in 1978. The Holy Spirit will find a way to continue the work begun at Vatican II and bring the Church into dialogue with the modern world. The right wing elements in the Catholic Church are losing their ability to control the reforms that began with the Council. I fully expect the right wing elements to leave the Roman Catholic Church and start their own "true" Church as they have done so many times.
Hate to break it to you, but
Hate to break it to you, but I think that the right wing elements are regaining control over the VII reforms from the left wing elements who tried to hijack them even before the council ended. The good news is that these radicals are starting to die off and all the Church has to do is wait them out then return to the correct path. My guess is that once Kung finally dies, the leaderless movement will be demoralized to the point that it will simply fade away.
I think you underestimate the
I think you underestimate the true meaning of Vatican II for the average
Catholic. The 'right wing elements' push for something that even folks back in the 1950's started to be quite tired off is not as 'powerful' of a concept as some seem to believe. The average catholic is not willing to grant Priests and Bishops the kind of influence and stature as the middle man between God and the congregation required to make this IMHO dated model of church work.
In the long run the church is for example not well served pretending that the changed role of women in our society does not have any influence on future developments.
Sure it seems desirable to push church towards once own narrow minded ideal - in reality the sheer diversity of Catholics will ensure that such a narrow minded backwards orthodox worship model will not succeed.
Just pretending it is 1950 all over again is a pretty thin concept and will not go far. Just look no further than the hubris of the leaders of this backwards push here in American webspace - they are mostly pretty unpleasant blowhards - folks that think calling for example this site 'national catholic fishwrap' is funny and the proper catholic thing to do.
The average catholic is pretty astute sniffing out such 'scheinheilige'
Does the contorted logic and
Does the contorted logic and language of Mr. Kennedy's commentary above remind anyone else of Orwell's famous book, "1984"?
all true and soaring art goes
all true and soaring art goes off script
all true prayer flows from within
and cannot be scripted
only the deadly keep to the script
pray always
for peace
So Jesus was wrong when he
So Jesus was wrong when he taught us to pray the Lord's Prayer? As I recall, he called "going off script" the "sheer multiplication of words." Good thing he has you to tell him he's "deadly" for keeping to a script.
Of course the people pushing
Of course the people pushing the new translations for the Liturgy want to get back to the Latin they believe Christ used at the Last Supper. He would never be so irreverant as to use the vernacular which His Apostles could understand. Of course they would understand later after Pentecost when they received the gifts of the Holy Spirit including the gift of interpretation. But since not everyone has the gift of interpretation, that means they would need a minister of interpretation for the general congregation. I presume we will have a similar ministry provided for the new Liturgy when it is said in a language unintelligible to the ordinary yokels in the pews.
Brilliant. My thoughts
Brilliant. My thoughts exactly.
Neil NZ
The Kingdom of God and Jesus
The Kingdom of God and Jesus are not so much among you as He is there, all alone waiting for the "adorers" to keep Him company in the long dreary vigils of the night
...
Wow; this poor fellow is missing out on a lot. I had the privelege of being a chaperone at a Eucharistic Congress for inner city Catholic youth a few years back. Seeing the students 'watching one hour' was inspiring, not dreary
I took a retreat at the Cistercian Abbey in Massachusetts, St. Mary's. Most of us retreatants spent at least one hour vigil during the night.
Go to churches in NYC who expose the sacrament during the working day. It's anything but dreary.
It's really hard to understand why erudite folks like Fr McBrien or Mr Cullen denigrate Eucharistic Adoration. It is a devotion that is a) voluntary and b) for those who like spending time w/ the Lord, very comforting. Most of us are like that French peasant who told his priest "I sit here and look at him and he looks at me'.
Better to spend time holding
Better to spend time holding the hand of a sexually abused child, or the dying. There you will see more of Jesus than in any monstrance amidst glowing candles in New York City.
What makes you think that the
What makes you think that the two are mutually exclusive?
The new translation is not
The new translation is not really "reform of the reform". It is simply getting the old reform right in the first place. The real reform of the reform, in the sense used by the pope, is begin worked on now quietly. When it is put in place after those of a certain age have gotten used to the new status quo (if they are still around), there will be the same kinds of comments and complaining. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Post new comment