The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe New Roman Missal
by Richard McBrien on Feb. 22, 2010
Fr. Michael Ryan has been pastor of St. James Cathedral in Seattle since 1988. His recent article in America magazine, "What If We Said, 'Wait'?: The case for a grass-roots review of the new Roman Missal" (December 14, 2009), has evoked a heavy and largely positive response. By the latter part of January, well over 12,000 people had submitted signatures in support of Ryan's efforts.
In a letter dated Dec. 3, Ryan shared some of the background and motivation for his America article.
"For some time, as I've followed ... the bishops' debates, read many of the new texts, discussed them with brother priests, and visited about them with people in the pews, I've become aware of how difficult it's going to be to 'sell' ordinary, faithful, good Catholics on the new, Latinized translations of the Missal. And with good reason because some of them are so bad and the principles underlying the translations are so questionable.
"And that's not all. I'm more than troubled when I realize that it's almost exclusively the pastors of this country who will be saddled with the task of getting people to understand why they are getting new translations and why the translations will be better than what they're used to: better for their prayer life and better for the church. To put it as succinctly as possible, if I haven't been able to sell myself on this, how will I ever successfully sell it to the people I served!"
At the beginning of his article Ryan recalls, as a seminarian at the North American College in Rome, that he was in St. Peter's Square in early December 1963 when Pope Paul VI and his brother bishops presented the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which the Second Vatican Council had just approved and which the pope officially promulgated.
The constitution had passed overwhelmingly: 2,147 to 4. It was not the product of a small group of "hijackers" who had somehow won over a bare majority of unsuspecting council fathers. On the contrary, the constitution had virtually unanimous support.
"Not in my wildest dreams," Ryan writes, "would it have occurred to me then that I would live to witness what seems more and more like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council's decree. But I have. We Catholics have."
He thinks that the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has "raised rubricism to an art form." He also references the so-called Tridentine Mass, recently reinstated in spite of the fact that Pope Paul VI explicitly mandated that there not be two separate liturgies in the Roman Rite.
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.
Ryan sees the present moment as "one more assault on the council and, sadly, one more blow to episcopal collegiality." He reminds his readers that Vatican II had given to each conference of bishops the authority to produce its own translations of the Mass texts.
To be sure, these translations were to be approved by the Holy See, "but not, presumably, to be initiated, nitpicked and controlled by it."
"It is true that the church could gain some credibility by giving us more beautiful translations, but clumsy is not beautiful, and precious is not prayerful."
The reactions of both small and large groups of Catholics, when actually presented with samples of the new translations, run the gamut from laughter to outrage. Ryan predicts that, when and if these new translations are eventually imposed upon parishes throughout the English-speaking world, there will be "an almost certain fiasco."
What to do, therefore? Ryan urges pastors to mobilize and ask their bishops to hold off on the implementation of the new translations until they can be carefully road-tested. As of now, however, the bishops seem to be weary of the whole matter.
If the bishops have nearly given up, what about the priests? Does obedience to the bishops mean that priests must be complicit in something they are convinced is pastorally wrongheaded?
Ryan urges pastors, pastoral councils, liturgical commissions, and presbyteral councils to appeal to the bishops for a time of reflection and consultation, including some careful market-testing of the new translations in selected parishes and regions. Only after that should we move forward.
Ryan also asks those who agree with him to log on to the Web site www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org. "If our bishops know the depth of our concern," he writes, "perhaps they will not feel so alone."
One hopes that he is right.
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
As I've noted before, the
As I've noted before, the upcoming changes to the liturgy have nothing to do with prayerfulness or reverence, and everything to do with power. The hierarchy knows that they have no power over us in the bedroom and the voting booth, so to make their power felt they will lord their power over us by making us say awkward things at Mass. The problem here is with dwindling congregations, is it really the opportune time to get people more upset so the exodus out becomes even faster?
"[I]s it really the opportune
"[I]s it really the opportune time to get people more upset so the exodus out becomes even faster?"
Apparently "Yes" if B16's behaviors and pronouncements to date are any indication.
"And Jesus wept."
Sad, indeed.
First of all, there is no
First of all, there is no exodus. In fact, as reported elsewhere on this very website, the number of Catholics globally is increasing, the number of priests and seminarians is growing as well. In the United States, the number of Catholics grew by 1.5 percent between 2008 and 2009, to 68 million, the largest Christian denomination in the nation by far. The Archdiocese of Atlanta had so many people who are in the RCIA process that they had to hold the Rite of Election at the city's convention center, since no church was big enough to accommodate them all!
So, to paraphrase Mark Twain, it seems the reports of the death of the Catholic Church are greatly exaggerated.
Secondly, this translation is not a top-down exercise, it is not being imposed on us by the Holy See. Just a little history:
In the 1990s, the US bishops began a process to revise the translations of the Mass, they realized even then that there were serious problems with the current translations. That translation was finished in 1998, and submitted to the Holy See for approval.
In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II, the Great, promulgated a new edition of the Roman Missal, the third typical edition, which was published in 2002. He wanted to commemorate the Third Millennium of Salvation by the promulgation of a new Missal. This had the unfortunate side-effect of rendering the 1998 translations submitted by the English-speaking bishops moot.
In the year 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued "Liturgiam Authenticam" which revised the manner in which translations are to be carried out in the Church, changing from dynamic equivalence, which permitted paraphrase, so long as the original meaning was carried out, to formal equivalence, which calls for more literal, though not "slavish" translations. This document applies to the Universal Church, not just to English-speaking, nor even just the US Church.
In the year 2002, the third typical edition of the Roman MIssal was published. At that time, the new General Instruction to the Roman Missal was implemented globally, including here in the US. At this time, ICEL began its work on the new translations of the third edition of the Roman Missal in keeping with "Liturgiam Authenticam".
ICEL then produced the "green book" of translations, which is then presented to the eleven national conferences of bishops which make up the English-speaking Church. The bishops suggested improvements and comments and ICEL then revised based on those comments, issuing a second draft called the "Gray Book". Once the "Gray Book" is completed, ICEL's work is done.
The various bishops' conferences approved the translations submitted by ICEL (the Gray Book) and forwarded them to the Holy See for its recognitio. The Congregation for Divine Worship, after examining the texts, and after consulting the bishops and other English-speaking experts who make up the committee known as Vox Clara, will either grant the recognitio and permission to use the texts, or send them back for further revisions. The Holy See has approved so far the Order of Mass, but has yet to approve the proper prayers, prefaces, and other related texts. They should do so in the coming months (Vox Clara meets in either March or April). After the recognitio is granted, the publishing community will need about a year to implement the changes, during which time (and actually, it is going on now) the bishops and local pastors will offer catechesis on the translations in an effort to help the people prepare for their implementation, which will likely happen in Advent of 2011.
As you can see, contrary to what some, including Fathers McBrien and Ryan, would have you believe, this is NOT a rush job, but the result of nearly 20 years of effort on the part of the English-speaking bishops and ICEL, commencing in the 90s and then re-commencing with the publication of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal in 2002. Further, this translation is not being "imposed" from above, but rather is the work of consultative bodies, ICEL, the various national bishops' conferences, Vox Clara and the Congregation for Divine Worship.
If the Holy See wished to impose a translation, they would do so without having to go through the process of consultation that I outlined above. That the process has been followed completely, as the bishops themselves will tell you, proves that the perception that this is "imposed" on the Church is utterly false.
Clint, It sound like you've
Clint,
It sound like you've read up on this. I remember vaguely a lot of it. Do you think ICEL was obstinate during the late 80's to 2000 in sticking to a very Dynamic Translation philosophy and unwilling to compromise and adjust for more faithful translation as well?
That's more or less the way I remember it, but I only followed as an amateur. I though ICEL was eventually reorganized because they stubbornly refused to make any effort to accommodate those who wanted more accuracy.
How do you mean, faithful? To
How do you mean, faithful?
To what?
To whom?
How?
Faithful: 1. To the Holy See
Faithful:
1. To the Holy See and its requirements relating to translations, particularly the document Liturgiam Authenticam.
2. To the bishops of the eleven conferences that make up ICEL.
3. To the Latin typical edition of the Roman Missal, from which all translations are to be taken.
4. To the original meaning and intent of the Latin prayers and the Church teachings they are based upon and impart.
That is to who/what ICEL was supposed to be faithful.
So, not to, like, you
So,
not to,
like,
you know,
the Good News of Jesus Christ?
I fail to find it mentioned in your listing here; forgive me, please.
Maybe if you would reread
Maybe if you would reread Lumen Gentium, frère charles, you would find in paragraph 20 (referring to Luke 10:16):
"Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.(149)(16*)"
So,
like,
you know,
listening to the bishops,
listening to the Pope,
listening to the teachings of the Church,
IS
listening to the Good News of Jesus Christ.
By the way, Luke 10:16 (in the NAB) reads:
"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whowever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."
And who sent Him? God. Who is
And who sent Him?
God.
Who is God?
"God is Love."
Why do you reject Love?
And tell me pray tell, how is
And tell me
pray tell,
how is it
I've rejected
love.
You overreach,
dear Charles
to claim that
I have rejected
love.
If you love,
you will accept
God.
If you accept
God,
You will accept
the one he sent:
Jesus Christ.
If you accept
Jesus Christ,
you will accept
those he sent:
the Pope and the bishops.
It works both ways.
If you love,
you will accept his bishops.
If you accept his bishops,
you will love.
DO YOU accept his bishops?
Oh Dear! Have you ever read
Oh Dear! Have you ever read a book of Church History? If we always follow the word of priests/ bishops/ popes/ we surely would be on our way to hell.
I repeat..... have you ever read ANY Church history? Has abuse and heresy been purged from our contemporary church, once and for all?
My oh my,, pray for the Spirit to visit you, sir.
I am praying that an end will
I am praying that an end will come to this theological arm-twisting, where one is forced through this kind of hemeneutic to violate conscience, betray the Spirit within, and force onself to be something one is not. In other words, I pray for and end to the Church as cult. It is evil, mentally and emotionally coercive, and if I may be so bold the work of the devil.
Hilarious! Thanks, frère
Hilarious! Thanks, frère charles!
frere charles To the Church,
frere charles To the Church, To the Pope, Through obedience
Not through Love? God is
Not through Love?
God is Love.
Communal, collegial, Love, infinite and unquestioning, merciful and forgiving, all-accepting and all compassionate.
Where is God?
In truth expressed
In truth expressed eloquently.
In love which shows people mystery unveiled.
In beauty as worthy and as noble and as sober as we fallible men can make it.
Faithful to the Latin Typical
Faithful to the Latin Typical Edition.
I was in the seminary
I was in the seminary (college days) from 1993-1997, right during the middle of ICEL's work on the new translations. I also had a class with an outstanding Jesuit priest (Historical Theology from the Apostles to the so-called Protestant Reformation) who once spent one week comparing the literal translation of the Collects and the current translation. He was pointing out the removal of all the Augustinian theological references from the prayers that was done as a result of the dynamic translations of the English prayers (I looked everywhere, but could not find the notes I took for that class, which I regret very much). Finally, my Latin professor, another outstanding Jesuit, had produced a book called "Oremus" in which he had translated the prayers of the Mass into English literally (it was like a sacramentary, but of course, was not usable for Mass). After reading that, I, and, indeed, about 2/3 of the seminarians, recognized that many of the prayers, particularly the Collects and the Eucharistic Prayers, had been stripped of much of their beautiful language and imagery, and much theological meaning.
I say all of that to give some indication of how long I have studied this particular issue and how excited I am by the revised translations that I have seen. I believe that this is a long time in coming and I also believe that these translations will result in the very renewal of the liturgy that the Council intended, and that began immediately following the Council, but was taken to an extreme in the years since. The Council intended the aggiornamento, the bringing up to date, of the Mass to be done in a way that was consistent with tradition and that authentically taught Catholic belief. The Novus Ordo has accomplished some of that, and some more remains to be done.
Finally, to your point about ICEL. I think, yes, you are absolutely correct in your comments. The 1998 translations had some merit to them, but they were not any more literal or accurate than the current prayers. ICEL was stubbornly refusing to accommodate the repeated requests of the Congregation for Divine Worship to render a more faithful translation of the Latin.
I recall distinctly watching an intervention at a NCCB conference when, I believe, either Bishop Chaput or Cardinal Bevilacqua (I cannot remember which of the two), criticized ICEL's decision to render the Greek word "presbyteros" (priest) as "presbyter" in the Calendar of Saints. The criticism was that it was inconsistent, given ICEL's decision to render "diaknonos" (the Greek word "deacon") as "deacon" and "episkopos" (Greek for "bishop") as "bishop". The point that they were making is that this would make the calendar difficult for people to understand, given the fact that we never use the word "presbyter" in reference to priests, and the bishop wondered if there was an ulterior motive involved. It was just this type of inconsistent and possibly politically motivated decision that led many bishops to question ICEL in the first place.
Their refusal to do adapt to the requirements of the bishops and the Holy See to produce more accurate translations, as well as a change in episcopal leadership in the various conferences making up ICEL, led to the reorganization of ICEL. The current commission known as ICEL is made up for first-rank linguists and liturgical specialists who are more adept at conforming to the translation requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam.
This revision of the translation is quite lovely and richly symbolic, much more so than the current translations (which, I have to admit, have served us for nearly 40 years). One of my favorite examples of that comes in Eucharistic Prayer III. The current prayer reads, in part,
"From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name".
The revised translation will read: "and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name".
As you can see, just from that example, the current translation seems to be talking about directions or geographic areas, whereas the Latin, and the revised translation, speak about God's action, not geographically, but throughout all time. So, in this instance (and in many others), the original 1970's era translation not only changed the words, but also changed the meaning of the prayer. This is the kind of stuff that the new translations will address and correct.
Mr. Green, your comments
Mr. Green, your comments about the words 'presbyter' and 'priest' require elaboration --- and correction.
In the primitive Christian communities, i.e., those followers closest to Jesus and his disciples in time and place, the liturgical leader was known (depending on particular community usage) as the "presbyteros" or the "episkopos". Their liturgical leadership was based on their community leadership. They were not ordained to Christian ministry. Every baptized man and woman was a true "priest" who offered sacrifice to God through Jesus the one and only High Priest. The presbyteros/episkopos chaired the assembly by maintaining order and calling forth the gifts of the people. It was only after several hundred years that the presbyteros became the ordained priest that we know today.
Vatican II called for ecclesial renewal, i.e., "to make new again." A vital part of this process is to revisit the history of ordained ministry in the church. Doing so, we learn it is erroneous to refer to "priestly ordination" since this concept was unknown in the primitive churches where baptism conferred genuine priesthood. The accurate reference today (if history is to be our guide) is "presbyteral ordination". It is at this ceremony that a baptized priest becomes an ordained presbyter, i.e., a formal/official leader of Catholic worship. The presbyter, therefore, is authorized to lead his/her fellow priests in the sacred liturgy. The presbyter continues the role of his ancient counterpart. The presbyter is the "lead priest". This retrieval of primitive understanding is vital to making the church "new again".
For a good overview of the history of ordained Christian ministry, please see my comments posted August 2 & 5, 2009, at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876 .
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
Don't let "pure doctrine" lead you in the wrong direction, Mr. Green.
Your post is simply
Your post is simply mendacious, Mr. Jaglowicz. St. Paul clearly refers to ordination in 1 Timothy 4:14, where he writes:
"Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
And even if you are so rash as to claim that Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, it is nonetheless a clear indication of ordination in the "primitive church".
I wonder how primitive you'd like the Church to become, Mr. Jaglowicz? Shall we go back to before the Council of Jerusalem and redebate that? Would that be primitive enough?
And your post reflects
And your post reflects ignorance of historical fact.
If you haven't already done so, please click my COMMONWEAL link above, scroll down to my comments posted August 5, scroll down to my paragraph f., and see my comments addressing this "laying on of hands" stuff.
Assuming, of course, you're willing to accept history.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
Yeah, okay, but that was the
Yeah, okay, but that was the 1966 Joe Ratzinger, when he was still buddies with the Reverend Father Edward Schillebeeckx over at Concilium and still grateful to the Reverend Father Hans Kung for his academic job, you know.
Before mere facts become much lighter things, and doctrine the weightier, during the darkest days of the Wojtyla project.
So true, frere charles. Sad
So true, frere charles.
Sad but true.
sigh I am quite fond of
sigh
I am quite fond of history and historical fact, dear Joseph, but not the made-up stuff you so often cite. Let's just quote one of your lines at the link above about the primitive Church:
"It may have been Schillebeeckx (sp?) who suggested that this person be presented to the bishop for ordination and that, if the the local ordinary refused ordination, the people could simply acknowledge the de facto presider as worthy for liturgical presidency."
Let's look at this line in detail; consider these two snippets: "this person be presented to the bishop for ordination" and "if the local ordinary refused ordination".
If there were no ordination, why would 'this person' be presented for ordination?
Clearly, there was ordination in the primitive Church, contrary to your claims otherwise. Moreover, if the local ordinary is refusing ordination in some instances, then in the primitive Church, the local ordinary clearly had authority over ordinations.
So when it says "the people could", what they were doing was being disobedient; they were acting improperly. They were rejecting the authority of their bishop given to him by Jesus, so they were rejecting Jesus, so they were rejecting the one who sent Jesus, and so (as fra charles points out, though he didn't seem to understand it) they were rejecting love.
Is that what you want?
That is what you seem to be advocating.
So you accuse me of having
So you accuse me of having presented "made-up stuff" in the past?
I do recall rebutting your rebuttals on past occasions, and I have cited (and could cite again) my historical sources.
Pray tell, inform me and anyone else interested here about the "stuff" I have "made up" in my past blogging at NCROnline.
As for my reference to Schillebeeckx, please do not misportray my remarks. I was referring to his suggestion of awhile back, nothing more, nothing less. Specifically, this good Dominican presbyter was suggesting an approach that combines two elements: (1) have the parish identify its liturgical leadership (based on primitive church history), and (2) ask the local bishop to ordain this person to the presbyterate (modern idea). In other words, I was supporting this idea of meeting eucharistic need by combining primitive practice with 21st-century ordination.
Contrary to your assertion, there is no record of ordination in the primitive churches. The earliest extant ordination rituals are in The Apostolic Tradition, customarily dated ca. 215 AD although recent scholarship suggests that these materials are a "redaction" and may date from as early as 150 to as late as 350 AD. (For those not familiar with the term, 'redaction' in this context refers to written material that has been composed, massaged, and changed over time by various writers in various communities.) In this work, there is a threadbare reference in episcopal ordination to priestly/sacerdotal duty whereas the ordination ritual for presbyter contains no such expectation at all!
Contrary to your assertion, there was no "ordinary" (i.e., "bishop" as we understand this term and function today) in the primitive Christian communities. These local churches used either the term 'presbyter' or the term 'episkopos' to denote their community leader who, as such, was acknowledged --- or selected to serve --- as their liturgical presider. These two terms referred to one and the same role of community and liturgical leadership.
Again, I challenge you to cite any of my comments at NCROnline that you deem historically false or otherwise inaccurate. Please provide link(s) and specific reference(s) therein that you claim are "made up".
Thank you.
So, youngster, tell me
So, youngster, tell me please: Why did you decide to leave the seminary?
Because you did not like doing the communion services?
In your firm appreciation of the Jesuit Society, please let me suggest for your most careful Lenten perusal the latest and most blessed communal fruit of that courageous community, which I too have been reading: Seek God Everywhere: Reflections on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, which was released THIS VERY MONTH by the ancient and honorable Roman Catholic publishing house Image Books, a competitor of this great and beloved NCR, but perhaps in our host's usual generous kindness, they will permit its mention in passing here.
Clint shares: "I also had a
Clint shares: "I also had a class with an outstanding Jesuit priest (Historical Theology from the Apostles to the so-called Protestant Reformation) who once spent one week comparing the literal translation of the Collects and the current translation. He was pointing out the removal of all the Augustinian theological references from the prayers that was done as a result of the dynamic translations of the English prayers (I looked everywhere, but could not find the notes I took for that class, which I regret very much). Finally, my Latin professor, another outstanding Jesuit, had produced a book called "Oremus" in which he had translated the prayers of the Mass into English literally (it was like a sacramentary, but of course, was not usable for Mass)."
So Clint admits being taken under the sway of some disloyal, disobedient, and dissident priests who convinced him like Satan in the desert to abandon his vocation? Is that what I am reading here?
Clint further claims: "I say all of that to give some indication of how long I have studied this particular issue . . ."
Since 1997? What thirteen years? Barely a teenager.
Compare that with this great Doctor of Divinity, the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien (wait a minute; where did he earn that DD again?) who has been studying this for publication for over forty years now?
And yet Clint claims some greater authority?
I think NOT!
yet I remain the worst of all
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
"This had the unfortunate
"This had the unfortunate side-effect of rendering the 1998 translations submitted by the English-speaking bishops moot."
I detect a small flaw in your presentation about all this collegiality and this not being a top down issue.
BRAVO! To which I would add
BRAVO! To which I would add that the poster prior to Mr. Green's comment is probably 100% correct from their own perspective... there is an exodus from certain communities and segments of Catholicism.. an exodus from the "spirit of Vatican II" parishes. I know I am one of those who spent 3 years looking for a parish in my diocese (3rd largest in US) before I found one that is truly in line with Sancrosanctum Concilium... where Christ is still the center of worship... where the music is beautiful, inspiring and not full of sappy hymns where we spend more time singing about ourselves then singing praises to God... and where homilies are not fluff pop psychology or pseudo-political agendas. My biggest surprise has been that in this parish which celebrates both OF and EF liturgies, where Latin is still preserved in parts of the OF and priest and people all face the same direction, where people kneel at a rail to receive Our Lord, where confession is available before every Mass... was the fact that it is packed to the rafters with young people... teens, 20, 30 somethings... and young families. It was such a joyous surprise...
The reason, I believe, for the exodus from the pews is that the liturgy in so many parishes has become so watered down and protestantized that people are uninspired and see no purpose to attend... If 70% or better of Catholics no longer believe that Christ is truly present on our altars why should they go? And yes--- the way the liturgy is celebrated has a 100% effect on the faith of the people. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi... this is LONG overdue.
gee, skilli, so why do you
gee, skilli, so why do you not say where this is so we can all confirm your findings? Or is it all within that great cathedral of your own mind?
By the way exodus indicates a mass movement from enslavement unto liberation, and liberation was openly stopped dead in its tracks some thirty years ago.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Time Magazine
Time Magazine article
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1558292,00.html
LA Times article
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-940221nunpoll,1,5141985....
Pictures are sometimes better than words and arguments
Nashville Dominicans
http://romancatholicvocations.blogspot.com/2009/09/nashville-dominicans-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDcC5NaKnAY
Dominican Sisters of Mary
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominicansistersofmary/sets/721576232403652...
http://www.sistersofmary.org/index.php
Franciscan Friars of the Renewal
http://www.franciscanfriars.com/photo_gallery_actual/Gallery1.htm
http://www.franciscanfriars.com/welcome/index.htm
Carmelite Monks of Wyoming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXhaE-CTWJ4
http://www.carmelitemonks.org/index.html
Miles Christi
http://www.mileschristi.org/?id=1
http://www.mileschristi.org/en/gallery/?f=9
Canons Regular St John Cantius
http://www.canons-regular.org/go/gallery/
http://www.canons-regular.org/
Now compare:
http://www.adriandominicans.org/BecomeaSister/VowedReligiousLife.aspx
http://www.benedictinesisters.org/monastery/gallery.php#
http://www.duluthbenedictines.org/life_communal.php
http://sbm.osb.org/our_community/meet_the_sisters/
The point of this is to look and see where the young faces and growth in vocations are--- if you see a dying church it is because you are looking for it in the wrong places--- it is alive and well--- where the young people are--- they are the future
Don't confuse exodus with
Don't confuse exodus with increase.
Based on longitudinal studies by Dean Hoge et al, we do know that the laity, both old and young, continue to move in one direction while the JPII priests and bishops move in the other direction.
At some point, we can expect to see the "greatest expectation gap" between the laity and these ordained.
Not a good prognosis.
Mr. Green wrote in relevant
Mr. Green wrote in relevant part, "Just a little history: In the 1990s..."
That's right, just ignore all the history before then.
For a good overview of the
For a good overview of the Vatican's takeover of the liturgical translation process, I recommend John Wilkins' "Lost in Translation: The Bishops, the Vatican & the English Liturgy" published in COMMONWEAL (Dec. 2, 2005).
If you don't have a paid subscription, you may want to check your local public or college/university library.
I also touch this historical
I also touch this historical background of the Roman Missal in my recently published book on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. It is now available for sale online:
www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=64873
The title of my book: The Lord's Supper, Eucharist, Mass … What's In A Name?:The Names of the Eucharist in the 2002 GIRM
It is also available in Amazon.
Offered as a resource for catechesis, it will contribute to a deeper understanding and appreciation of what is being prayed, sung, and performed in the celebration of the Mass.
Amen Mr. Green! In our area
Amen Mr. Green!
In our area of the country (Midwest) and at our son's Catholic College that adheres to the Magesterium (Benedictine College in KS) - - - I have heard an overwhelmingly POSITIVE response to the new Missal. Where are these people coming from? For me, with young, faithful Catholics I have witnessed a desire for a more traditional/orthodox Liturgy. Thanks again for going against the grain, as I have also. God Bless!
Clint! Which are the main
Clint! Which are the main points of consideration in bringing into place the new missal?
Yes for CHANGE! Remember we
Yes for CHANGE! Remember we all love change people! Ha! I'm over 50 years old and a life long Catholic. I say bring us the new translation! Thank you Pope Benedict! Thank you for treating us like adults instead of children as these aging hippies do! Finally our ability to read and understand is being respected. Move aside you protesters from the 60's. Your days are numbered. The Real Vatican II is coming through and tearing down the lie that you have been teaching for decades. Thank you Pope Benedict!
" . . .aging hippies?"
" . . .aging hippies?"
Who?
The Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien??
I do recall a slight lengthening of his sideburns in the photos in his book from the early seventies, but "aging hippy?"
then again, you and your over half century, could you be the aging hippy? a "protester from the 60's?"
If not, why not?
It's funny how your
It's funny how your generation did not share the same regard for us simple folk when you forced the changes in the liturgy on us after Vatican II. Fortunately with the help of the internet we have ready access to the documents showing the true abuse of power foisted upon us, an opportunity denied to our parents who had to blindly except the false declartions that this was all part of the changes mandated by the Council. As to the mass exodus you profess it is only from those who continue to reject the teachings of the Church. Those who are loyal servants of the Faith see their Churches growing and a just released study shows the Catholic Church is growing in America.
Yes, I think there's no time
Yes, I think there's no time like the present "to get people more upset so the exodus out becomes even faster." The faster the better. I've been waiting for years for the shape of the new Church to define itself clearly. Right now we worship along side people with whom we don't really share a common faith. Whatever can be done to identify and render intellectually honest those with whom I don't share a common faith is fine with me. I want the schism to be explicit. Right now, it's intellectually dishonest. Whatever emerges, I want to be able to make a clear choice and act of faith. In the current climate, it's difficult to make honest choices. Currently there's only one Catholic Church. We need more, so I can choose where and with whom I'd like to worship. I'm inclined to think I will land, after the dust settles, in whatever Catholic Church still responds to the Pope as if he matters. It's hard to find a Catholic setting any more where you can can that doctrinal position for granted. I want that to be possible. So, yes, go faster! Help me find out which parishes will still be Catholic. Or not.
Terry Carroll on Feb. 24,
Terry Carroll on Feb. 24, 2010.
You stated:
"Yes, I think there's no time like the present "to get people more upset so the exodus out becomes even faster." The faster the better. I've been waiting for years for the shape of the new Church to define itself clearly. Right now we worship along side people with whom we don't really share a common faith. Whatever can be done to identify and render intellectually honest those with whom I don't share a common faith is fine with me. I want the schism to be explicit. Right now, it's intellectually dishonest. Whatever emerges, I want to be able to make a clear choice and act of faith. In the current climate, it's difficult to make honest choices. Currently there's only one Catholic Church. We need more, so I can choose where and with whom I'd like to worship. I'm inclined to think I will land, after the dust settles, in whatever Catholic Church still responds to the Pope as if he matters. It's hard to find a Catholic setting any more where you can can that doctrinal position for granted. I want that to be possible. So, yes, go faster! Help me find out which parishes will still be Catholic. Or not."
------------------------------------------------
And in your "Catholic Church" there will be a huge picture of the Pope---and you can all kneel down and worship.
Your commentary fails to indicate that the Church is measured by its following the Gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus told his Apostles to go out and baptize all nations. He did not speak of 'categories' of peoples, nor did Jesus speak of doctrinal purity. And he said nothing about papal infallibility (which St. Peter obviously did not have, nor did Pope Benedict IX {1033-45} who was just 12 years old when he became Pope)nor did many other Popes.
Your idea of "clear choices" indicates that you would rather be 'safe and secure' with 'doctrines'to hold onto, than in placing your trust in God---who leads us on a journey to places we have never been. Just like Abraham in today's first reading---we must be willing to give up the secure---for a response in faith to God---who is not always handing us a GPS to guide us on our way.
Thank God we have people like
Thank God we have people like you to judge the intentions of others(sarcasm). Just because we may not agree with the views of others does not mean that we can accurately judge the hearts or consciences of others. We lose our intellects and begin to sound like a bunch of loose cannons when we become dogmatic idealogues on either end of the liturgical spectrum. The New Translation will be implemented and it will be received warmly by the faithful. To dogmatically state that "the upcoming changes have nothing to do with prayerfulness" is fox-news-style rubbish. I wonder if you're really one of the enthusiasts for the new translation posing as an opponent to make it look like the opponents have nothing intellectually valuable to offer, only knee-jerk reactions that border cheap liturgical-partisan slogans and talking points to convey brainlessness.
AMEN to the inference that
AMEN to the inference that the church is instituting this purely for power's sake. That's ALL it is. I will NEVER say the responses, and I fear that I am heading toward a different faith.
My heart goes out to my Roman
My heart goes out to my Roman Catholic friends, and I am saddened that the new Missel, they will be expected to use in the near future, is unworthy of use by faithful English speaking Roman Catholics. In this day and age, I would have thought that the texts for the new missel would have been "road tested" and adjusted prior to its final form, not after. I shall keep you in my prayers, but I can't help wondering how many will be so spiritually incensed by the new Missel that they will leave the Roman Catholic Church.
The best solution for this as
The best solution for this as for many things wrong in our anglo Roman Catholic Church?
go to the Spanish Mass.
Weep no more.
Rejoice.
So then you would know,
So then you would know, Charles, that the new translations are much closer to the Spanish than the current English translations. Thanks for your support of the new translations.
not at all. If only . .
not at all.
If only . . .
Yet, unfortunately, anonymous, you consistently fail to back up your assertions with examples.
but good luck with all of that!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
let's start from the
let's start from the beginning. In Spanish: y con tu espiritu--not y tu
Compare the Gloria in the
Compare the Gloria in the Latin to both the Spanish and current English. The English is missing a lot of phrases, isn't it? Compare the confiteor--same thing. Then move on to the Eucharistic Prayers. The ecce angus dei, etc etc etc. In every circumstance, Charles, the new English translation is much closer to the Spanish and Latin than the current English.
Anonymously compare Dignum
Anonymously compare
Dignum et justum est.
In Spanish we say
Es justo y necesario.
Why is that?
frere charles I have the
frere charles I have the ability to understand Mass in Polish, Spanish and Portuguese
You make an informed recommendation; those languages are faithful to the Latin where the English is not. That is, for a more Roman Catholic experience attend a Spanish Mass.
Does credo mean 'I' or 'we' believe? Does et cum SPIRIT tu tuo mean 'with your spirit' or 'with you'?
We all know which it is; what other liturgican time bombs are hidden in the banal English we use in our liturgy?
Not quite right. The latin
Not quite right. The latin Credo means I believe but Credo is a Latin term and the word was added in the sixth century by Pope Gregory when he reformed the Mass.
Prior to the sixth century the Nicene Creed began with "WE Believe (Πιστεύομεν)"
The Coptic Orthodox Church still uses the older version: "We believe in one God, God the Father, the Pantocrator..."
The first council of Nicaea (325 AD): " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.."
First Council of Constantinople (381 AD): We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
The Nicene Creed of Vatican II Mass is the more accurate version of the original.
Scrantonian, the Mass is more
Scrantonian, the Mass is more than language. It is an interaction with, a praise of, a listening to, and an understanding of what mission God is sending us on. Why should the Mass be a translation of Latin to English? Anyone who has studied translation from one language to another realizes that some phrases do not translate well when the translator (usually inexperienced) tries to literally bring meaning from one language to another.) Example: "I haven't seen you in a month of Sundays." In French it becomes, "I haven't seen you in a week with three Thursdays." And so on. Experienced translators know how to do this. Inexperienced translators such as the Italian and German hierarchy -- do not.
Trying to do a literal translation of words instead of concepts results in a very stilted, often laughable text. I was teaching a class of French students in Quebec and I said, "The priest goes into the sacristy and vests." Immediately the room broke into laughter. I found out later that I used a word that meant something to them in French. I told them that the priest goes into the sacristy and farts!
That might well be a good image for some of the New(?) Roman Missal texts. When is the last time you said, "And with your spirit?" to someone. Why when we speak to God should we sound like idiots?
The original language of the Mass was Greek, not Latin. The Last Supper was celebrated in Hebrew. We speak English. Why can't the English language stand on its own?
I think that God understands and speaks English fluently. I think that the Vatican does not.
well better by far than going
well better by far than going into the sanctuary to vest, especially with the echo in those cold granite Canadian churches.
Wasn't the Last Supper celebrated in Aramiac?
how does un mois des dimanches become "une semaine avec trois jeudis?"
doing that from distant memory, sorry . . .
God speaks through the love and with the voice of the people
Let each local people write their own liturgy, and choose their own bishop.
Revisit Solentiname!
Is the point to be "faithful
Is the point to be "faithful to the Latin" or to pronounce the Good News to the Poor in a way we can all understand, and real Liberation to the captive (even those we still hold upon Guantanamo), and above all else loving our enemy, loving those with whom we find lesser love, with a love which can be perceived, and touched, and tasted?
Which is the essence of our Faith: Latin or Love?
hey
just asking, ok, anon. scranton.?
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Anon. Scranton. (and how very
Anon. Scranton. (and how very delightful to hear from you once more, I am certain, and so mercifully generous with your time and your thought) I read you write: "We all know which it is; what other liturgican time bombs are hidden in the banal English we use in our liturgy?"
While not certain of the meaning of your term here "liturgican" I must say it has been very many years since I have heard "the banal English we use in our liturgy" and urge you to continue to consistently attend one small Spanish Mass, consistently.
English has ever been war cries and thus the discord we hear here and now.
Like putting a tuxedo on a baited bear.
Thank you for your prayers,
Thank you for your prayers, and please know that I will keep you in my prayers during this most holy season of Lent. I wonder if you have actually read the new translations of the Roman Missal? If so, you should be able to see that they are far more Biblically grounded, and more lyrical than the current translations that we have labored under for the last forty years. If you have not had the chance to review the new Order of Mass, you can do so easily at the USCCB's website (usccb.org/romanmissal).
The new translations will give us all the opportunity to reflect more deeply on what has the danger of becoming a rote exercise, that is the celebration of the Mass. Many times, in my own prayer life, I find that I can recite the prayers of the Mass without thinking about it. Now, with the new translations, I will have to seriously consider the words I am saying. In addition, the revisions will help me, help all of us, to gain a deeper insight into the meaning of the words we say. For example, currently, in the Nicene Creed, we pray, "Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father". The revised translation will read "Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father". There is a definite difference in meaning between "one in being" and "consubstantial". "Consubstantial" means of the same substance, whereas "one in being" speaks less about substance and more about unity of Christ and the Heavenly Father. "Consubstantial" has a deeper philosophical, theological, and sacramental meaning to it, and it is good to return to the use of such words.
It is insulting to assume (or presume as the case may be) that the laity will not be able to understand the words of the Mass. It presumes that the laity lack basic theological knowledge, and/or are incapable of achieving that knowledge. It also presumes that the laity are lazy, and so are unwilling to take time to learn what the new translations mean.
In addition, there are many who are concerned with the phenomena of "inclusive language". We will find that simply be adhering to the Latin more closely, we will solve much of the inclusive language problem. For example, most of the Collects (so-called "Opening Prayer") begin with the word "Father" in our current translation. The Latin, however, almost always begins "Deus" or "God". So we will be replacing the term "Father" with the term "God"; this is an happy side-effect of more closely following the Latin translations.
It is important to note, finally, that only the Order of Mass has been approved. The Holy See has yet to rule on the rest of the Mass prayers. It has taken quite some time to get these translations completed properly and we will still have more than a year before they are in use, more than enough time to catechize the faithful properly.
This is not a time for sadness or sorrow, but a time of great joy and opportunity. The Liturgy, as so many have told us after Vatican II, is alive and growing, and it is about more than just one generation, or one place. The Liturgy is about all people in all places, in all times and as such must be considered in that way.
Yet the Church is more than
Yet the Church is more than Liturgy.
It is a place of God's infinite, unrequited, compassionate and ever merciful Love.
To put this whole liturgical thing in perspective, consider this moral dilemma:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/02/23/Pregnant-woman-deni...
Consider our fellow Catholics in Haiti.
And yet, the Sacred Liturgy
And yet, the Sacred Liturgy is the supreme act of the Church. The Sacred Liturgy is, as Vatican II said, the "source and summit of the Christian life". It is from the Mass that we receive the grace to go into the world and minister to our brothers and sisters, and, even more to bring the Good News, to evangelize the world. And, it is to that Mass that we return each week, and the Mass is to be the ultimate goal (since the Mass is a foretaste of the Heavenly banquet) of all that we do. It is the most important and central thing that we as Catholics do.
Further, the Church believes in the adage of "lex orandi, lex credendi" -- the law of praying is the law of believing. In other words, how we pray demonstrates what we believe, and the way in which we pray helps to define what we believe.
Finally, I am not entirely certain what your statement about the woman in the Philippines has to do with the issue of the Sacred Liturgy, since it is not the Church that is stopping the woman from receiving treatment, but rather the Philippine government. And, as far as Haiti, the Catholic Church through its various agencies, and through very generous and compassionate volunteers, is helping the people of Haiti. But, where do we think that these folks who are doing the helping, and the people they are helping, get the strength to carry on? The Sacred Liturgy, of course.
There is always the danger to get our priorities mixed up. We spend all our time "doing" and forget that, at least as important, if not more so, is the "being". We must take time to refresh ourselves and remind ourselves Who it really is that we serve when we clothe the naked, instruct the ignorant, feed the hungry, etc. and to remember that, though we work to make the lives of those who are less fortunate than us better, we also know that this world is not the final goal. The final goal is to be perfectly happy with God forever in Heaven, and to be reasonably happy in this life. The Sacred Liturgy, the "source and summit" of our lives, reminds us of this central truth.
so I guess that means you did
so I guess that means you did not consider the posited dilemma in moral theology?
It's all about your personal preferences in robes and chants instead?
What does MAtt 25 say to you?
Charles, you are the one
Charles, you are the one worrying about the "robes and chants" while the rest of the Church moves on with the updated translation. Maybe you should worry about Matthew 25 and less about a few word changes.
BElieve it; I do, and I am
BElieve it; I do, and I am the worst of all, yet remain ever, by the grace of our generous and merciful God, your littlest
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Yes, I did consider the
Yes, I did consider the dilemma presented, and see it as a tragic situation, but one in which the Church has little influence. As a Catholic, I deplore abortion for any reason, since it is nothing more or less than the willful taking of innocent human life. As a Catholic, I deplore the denial of medical treatment to a woman with cancer on the grounds that the treatment may lead to the death of the unborn child. It is a difficult position, but how it applies to the issue of the Sacred Liturgy is beyond me. I would be supportive of a move to repeal the ban, since I find it to be violating the first principle that all human life is sacred; the death of the unborn child, if it happened, while tragic and deplorable, would be an unintended consequence of the treatment.
Personal preference in robes and chants? Please. It is about the CHURCH's instructions and rubrics and has nothing to do with personal preference. That is the very core of the problem! It seems that many believe in error that this is about personal preference. Personal preference has no place in the Sacred Liturgy, and has no place in Church teaching, for that matter.
Finally, Matthew 25 is a warning call to be ready, for we know not the day nor the hour when our lives will be demanded of us, and we will stand before the Throne of God for judgment. It reminds me that God has given me certain talents and abilities and that He expects me to utilize those talents and abilities for His glory and for the coming of the Kingdom. I believe that He has given me a talent for teaching, and I use that talent daily, always, I hope and pray, for His glory and the service of my students. It also reminds me to care for those in need, and I do so. But, as you are no doubt aware, there are different gifts and callings, not everyone is called to spend all their time instructing the ignorant; in the same way, not everyone is called to spend all their time feeding the hungry. Each to his call and his talents first, we do the rest as we are able.
Again, of course, what that has to do with the Sacred Liturgy is beyond me, since serving the poor, teaching the young, and worshiping the Lord properly are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Liturgy is our collective
Liturgy is our collective duty/work/act/service.
It is "doing", not "being".
Eucharist is "act of (communal) thanksgiving."
Again, it is "doing", not "being".
We can find other opportunities for "being".
But the eucharistic liturgy is not such an occasion.
Liturgy is our collective
Liturgy is our collective Love
where two or more are gathered . . .
It is not duty.
It is not work
It is Love.
It is Being
Love.
or it is nothing at all.
I'm basing my use of the word
I'm basing my use of the word 'liturgy' on its etymological background, i.e., public service, etc., which does not deny the truth of your comments.
If "the Sacred Liturgy is the
If "the Sacred Liturgy is the supreme act of the Church" then this is no longer the Church of Jesus Christ, who commands us to announce the Good News to the Poor, and Liberation to the Captive, to Love our enemy and do good to those who harm us. to heal the sick, to comfort the afflicted, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to relieve the thirsty, etc.
Or did I miss the evangelical chapter and verse which sets forty foot hemlines?
Brother, regarding the
Brother, regarding the link...
The law in that country (which admittedly is influenced by Catholic morality) actually is more stringent than the Church's moral judgments. The Church would have allowed treatment for the cancer even if it forseeably would endanger her baby (so long as the baby was not an intended target or the baby's demise was the cause of the mom's recovery). You are a smart man, you know that.
What happened in
What happened in Brazil?
Compare and contrast the draconian law in Nicaragua.
How very odd to find you folks now finding wiggle room in this!
B. writes:
"You are a smart man, you know that."
I am not smart enough to understand this at all, nor to what it relates. Forgive me, please.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Post new comment