The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
The power of prayer
by Nicole Sotelo on Aug. 06, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionIt is estimated that by 2011, parishes around the English-speaking world will be rolling out a new way of praying Mass that more closely resembles the former Tridentine rite. This summer, the U.S. bishops announced their approval of another section of these re-translated liturgical texts. While I believe in the power of liturgical prayer to lead us closer to God and am open to new ways of praying, what happens when that prayer is shaped by human power plays over pastoral concerns?
One would think that as a church we should not squabble over the words of new liturgical texts since we have more pressing concerns that warrant our attention: concerns over abuse, war and disease to name a few. But the machinations over the liturgical text translations reveal a larger battle in our church’s leadership ranks that affects the important pastoral concerns referenced above.
To understand the power struggles, one must look at the history of liturgical translations over the last 50 years. The Second Vatican Council approved the document Sacrosanctum Concilium that opened the liturgy to vernacular translation, since the Tridentine rite of the day, dating from 1570, was solely in Latin.
The first liturgical translations from Latin to English began in the years following Vatican II. It was decided that the bishops would support the translation of the Latin into the vernacular of the communities they served. Ostensibly, bishops would know the pastoral needs and linguistic nuances of local communities better than a Rome-appointed commission.
The bishops of English-speaking countries combined their efforts by in the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, known as ICEL, which created the texts we now pray during Sunday Mass and other liturgical occasions.
But under Pope John Paul II, things changed. The Vatican changed the staff of ICEL and created a new Rome-approved commission called “Vox Clara.” The commission is appointed to review the re-translation of the liturgical texts so that they will conform more closely to the Latin texts and their syntax. As a result, certain additions that were not originally part of the Latin texts will be removed, such as the opening prayers of the Mass that were created by ICEL.
The name being placed on the new edition of liturgical texts speaks volumes about the power shift that has occurred since the creation of the Vox Clara commission. No longer will parishes use the “Sacramentary” on Sundays. It will now be called the “Roman Missal.” How true.
Bishop Donald Trautman of the Erie, Pa., diocese is former chairman of the Committee on Liturgy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. For years he and other bishops have raised strong concerns about the translation process.
Some of the bishops’ concerns center around the pastoral consequences of prioritizing the Latin syntax over the vernacular syntax of the people. For example, the phrase “I have sinned through my own fault” will now read, “I have sinned greatly ... through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” As someone who works with abused Christian women, I agree with the bishops’ concerns over the pastoral implications of the new translations. How will the abused and suffering people in our churches, who may already feel unwarranted shame or blame, hear this and other phrases in the new translation?
Trautman has not only expressed concerns about the new translations of the liturgy, but also his concerns over the fate of some prayers that ICEL created for the pastoral needs of parishioners.
Trautman reminds us in an article in America magazine that ICEL had composed prayers in English to meet the challenging pastoral concerns of our times: “prayers for a stillborn baby, the prayers for a person who committed suicide and the prayers for a person who has died after a long illness. These respond to pastoral needs that are not addressed in the Latin editions of liturgical books.”
He worries that these prayers from the Order of Christian Funerals, like some of those in the missal, may be lost once they and other texts are translated. He goes on to share his concern: “How liturgically impoverished we would be if ICEL had not composed [these] prayers. ... The shepherds of the church need to be counted on this issue of pastoral sensitivity to God’s people.”
And yet can we count on the current shepherds? Those who are leading the newest flock of translations are following the trail of the Latin texts, but are they following the needs of the people for prayers that are clear and speak pastorally to their experience?
In the end, Vox Clara may have more faithfully translated the Latin texts into English, but I worry it has been less faithful to the people of God, who count on the church to speak to them in their hour of need. It is at times of suffering that we need the power of prayer the most, but right now I fear that the power to shape our prayers has been ceded to a small group at the Vatican, and not to the needs of the people.
Nicole Sotelo is the author of Women Healing from Abuse: Meditations for Finding Peace, published by Paulist Press, and coordinates www.WomenHealing.com. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, she currently works at Call To Action.
"what happens when that
"what happens when that prayer is shaped by human power plays over pastoral concerns?"
know what i love about this article? the way it shows her outlook toward the church. from the very first we see how she sees these bishops as enemies, as people to oppose, almost as if by reflex.
"One would think that as a church we should not squabble over the words of new liturgical texts since we have more pressing concerns that warrant our attention: concerns over abuse, war and disease to name a few."
this is curious. if the words really aren't that important, why is she so up in arms over the changes?
Ah, Pete, you have hit the
Ah, Pete, you have hit the nail on the head. This author, like so many others at NCR, indeed sees the bishops and the hierarchy as enemies. When the liturgy is translated to make it more in keeping with the normative Latin text, they bristle because it is a reminder that the Church is not the "American Catholic Church" that so many of them wish, but rather it is the Roman Catholic Church. The Mass does not belong to one person, one parish, one diocese or one nation, but rather to the Universal Church and thus is belongs to the Roman Pontiff and his Curia to legislate the manner and language of the celebration of the Mass. This flies in the face of their much loved and much desired democratization of the Church.
Moreover, it seems that the liturgical translations are so divisive because they represent authentic tradition, something that is antithetical to the "progressives". They want to pick and choose the traditions the Church honors and sustains just as they want to pick and choose the doctrines that they will accept. They also want to oppose anything that reminds us that we are not little gods ourselves. The revised translations will have more emphasis on the sinfulness of man and the redemptive act of God, as well as our utter and complete dependence on the Almighty and His mercy. This flies in the face of the idea that "I'm okay and you're okay".
Further, anything that smacks of holiness and mystery they oppose, since they believe it excludes people. The Tridentine Rite excludes those who cannot speak or understand Latin. The liturgical language excludes people unless we water it down to make said language incomprehensible: Father becomes God, His becomes God's, Jesus, Son of God, becomes Jesus, Child of God, etc. The new translations exclude abused people because they remind us of our sinfulness (which we need to be reminded of!!) and somehow, these women especially will hear "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault" and think that means that they are to blame for their being abused...or some such nonsense. Undoubtedly they will try to find some convoluted and illogical means of connecting this new translation of the liturgy to the issue of the ordination of women.
Why is this author, and so many others like her, up in arms of the corrected translation? In short, because everything about it serves to remind them that their vision of what the Church should be is not valid, it does not apply, and it never did and never will apply. No one likes to have to rethink their core beliefs. For some of these folks, perhaps not the author, but one can never tell, their entire belief system is built on emotion not logic, on feelings not thinking. As such, having to rethink would be an impossible task... made even worse by their being forced to confront the reality that their feelings and emotions are not correct.
C'mon Clint, let's go all the
C'mon Clint, let's go all the way back and have the Mass proclaimed in Aramaic. That's the language most likely used by Jesus. Why stop with Latin?
Then we'd have a Mass that was pared back to it's basics and none of us would have to deal with repeating anything about our 'grevious, most grevious, most sincerely despicably grevious faults. We'd also know that it doesn't matter if we think we're OK because Jesus's sacrifice accomplished that feat for us. Our job would be the same as any other person who Jesus actually interacted with: we can accept what He taught and make those teachings our own, or go our own way. That's simple enough for Benedict's 'simpe' people.
Pete the greek, I don't think
Pete the greek, I don't think that your analysis of the article here does the writer justice at all. You seem to gloat and want to find fault always with those who question and think, and then you go overboard hastily assuming she is seeing these bishops as enemies. The author, if you read it without your own preconceived notions or prejudices you can discern she has outlined her concerns. These are real concerns and she outlines what those concerns are and I hardly believe she is "up in arms over the changes" but is rather pointing out very real concerns.
Why is it that people want to accuse and blame others rather than reading what is actually in front of them? It seems a very bad habit that some have developed and use over and over and all it does is to thwart honest discussion. The finger pointing and blaming and accusing others of seeing the bishops as enemies seems to be a reflex too Pete the greek by those who fail to read what others have said and read into what others have said instead in such a way as to distort the meaning and intention of the author.
I appreciate the author's time and thought, prayers and concern that she has put into this article. I tend to agree with her on the change in wording which seems to overemphasize that we are sinful or have sinned, rather than on a focus on healing and forgiveness which is central to the message of Jesus Christ which seems buried in the new translation and repetition that we are sinful, rather than redeemed in Christ. I also believe if we are going to translate text that we probably should go to the Aramaic translation.
I share the same concerns as
I share the same concerns as I minister to women who find the prayers at Mass to exacerbate shame and guilt rather than healing.
Its a fine balance, but I
Its a fine balance, but I think that the new wording is closest to sacred scripture and the Tradition. I think that the revised wording will be a spur to further Catechesis...
Translations, like language,
Translations, like language, constantly change to express similar ideas -- and sometimes new ideas that express the profundity of our current experience. The Roman model does not take account of that and thereby further impoverishes the faithful who continue to attend the Eucharist when it is available, that is -- because of other Roman policies that limit who may celebrate the liturgy.
If Bishops like Trautman
If Bishops like Trautman can't get changes made, I don't feel very optimistic except to encourage everyone to use the translations that are most meaningful to them and their communities. We need a little local revolution here!
I think this certainly need
I think this certainly need to be said Nicole and I'm glad that you did so in such an eloquent and honest way. At first I didn't get what all the hubub was about with the new translations, I thought if they were in greater conformity to the Latin texts that should be a benefit to the Church. But in some intstances in the new translation, there are grave abnormalities in the way the text has been construed to fit the Latin, so much so that normal, everyday Mass goers might not understand some of the wordings or the concepts illustrated in them. Perhaps it will restore a sense of reverence to the celebration of the Holy Mass to have the texts greater reflect the Latin translations, but for the sake of reverence are we risking alienating the majority of the flock of the People of God?
It would be nice if there was some sort of option that would reflect a middle ground approach that might be more pastorally sensitive to the needs of individuals who have grown up with this Mass translation their whole lives.
I agree completely with
I agree completely with Nicole Sotelo's ideas and share her concern over the needs of the people of God being forgotten for an adherence to a language no longer appropriate for our prayers in this century. Also the printing houses will have a bonanza happy to print new missals, making a lot of money on new missalettes which will also require millions of trees being cut to give them the paper. And our planet???
With so many important issues in our world calling for our attention and compassionate response, why use so much energy with these details? Did it not take 3 years of discussion for the bishops to permit communion in the hand? How many needs of the church community could have been served in these 3 years? May the Holy Spirit lead us into the future concentrating on the real needs of our times.
After reading the proposed
After reading the proposed translations, I agree with Nicole. I had two reactions to the translations: one that of laughter since they were so awkward, and two anger since the people of God who would have to hear these translations were not consulted. People, life has changed since the 1950's. We can walk if it the mass doesn't speak to us...(and join what is becoming the majority), or we can text and read the internet during mass when the words speak to the bishops but not the people and continue to receive the Eucharist. With mass attendance plummeting, do we really want to chance this?
"It is estimated that by
"It is estimated that by 2011, parishes around the English-speaking world will be rolling out a new way of praying Mass that more closely resembles the former Tridentine rite." Really?!?!?! Accurately translating the Pauline Missal of 1969-70 makes it resemble the Mass of Pius V?!?!?!
There's an easy fix for all the whiners who complain about 'Roman oppression' and the wicked 'bishops' not listening to the People of God and the Spirit. Follow the logical next step and become Episcopalian....all sorts of touchy-feely heterodoxy are welcome there.
There is wisdom in the phrase "Lex orandi, lex credenti..." Whoops, my bad...that's LATIN. Sorry for the pastoral insensitivity.
""There is wisdom in the
""There is wisdom in the phrase...."
Thank you for your gentle and irenic comment. But if one is going to essay Latin, how about getting it right! And so: "lex orandi, lex credendi." And perhaps as our examen for today, we could all take as the theme for reflection:"Caritas Christi urget nos."
"There is wisdom...." Thank
"There is wisdom...."
Thank you for your gentle and irenic comment. But if one is going to essay Latin, how about getting it right. And so: "lex orandi, lex credendi." Perhaps as a theme for our examen today, we could all spend a moment reflecting on the words "Caritas Christi urget nos."
Thank you for your kind and
Thank you for your kind and irenic comment. But if one is going to essay Latin, how about getting it right. And so,"lex orandi, lex credendi." Perhaps we could all take as the reflection for our examen today: "Caritas Christi urget nos."
Thank you for your gentle and
Thank you for your gentle and irenic comment. But if one is going to essay Latin, how about getting it right. And so, "lex orandi, lex credendi." Perhaps at the conclusion of our examen today we could all pray for a few moments over the words, "Caritas Christi urget nos."
I very much recommend a
I very much recommend a pamphlet by Dr. Paul Collins, who outlines in detail some of the proposed changes. It underscores the liturgical gymnastics that will be required of us, rather than encouraging an endeavour in prayer: http://members.westnet.com.au/sheltie/page48.html
As Paul says, this entire exercise is going to be a pastoral disaster, and no matter what the grassroots might have to say, I fear those in Rome and all its emissaries will go ahead in determined silence - a posture I fear will eventually resonate in the rapidly thinning ranks of local parish communities!
The sordid genesis of the NEW
The sordid genesis of the NEW ICEL translations is outlined by former editor of The Tablet, John Wilkins in his "Lost in Translation? The Bishops, the Vatican and the English Liturgy," (Commonweal, Dec. 2, 2005).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/pg_12...
Bishop Trautman's analysis of the new translations may be found at:
www.eriercd.org/pdf/translations.pdf
I would love to see the 1998 Missal which was torpedoed and shelved by this so-called "new and improved" ICEL.
p.s. It reminds me of baby brother HUGO Rahner's off-the-cuff quip that he plans to spend his time in eternity translating brother Karl's work into GERMAN!
So now Rome has rewritten the
So now Rome has rewritten the vernacular mass to be the Latin mass... the Latin mass is from 1570, it is not "traditional" Did Jesus live in 1570? That is medieval, and not original or traditional. Now turning off all of us who only know the modern language mass that got started in what, the 1960's. I was born in 1980's and now the only mass my family knows is going to be redone and made into a Latin translation with awkward, insensitive to women passages, making little sense too much of the time. Turning off more laity. Like the church needs that! Empty pews is the goal! Crazy!
It is an English translation
It is an English translation from the Missal of Paul XVI. It is NOT a translation from the Missal of Pius V or even the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. If you can't enter the conversation with the adults, please remain at the kiddie table.
It is an English translation
It is an English translation from the Missal of Paul XVI. It is NOT a translation from the Missal of Pius V or even the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. If you can't enter the conversation with the adults, please remain at the kiddie table.
I often make the wry joke
I often make the wry joke that after rising from the dead, Jesus donned some elaborate vestments, headed off to the nearest Gothic cathedral and then began to preside at eucharist, ala Trent. Sadly, many think that this is close to the truth.
If anything, from early eucharists, home churches, Trent, Vatican II and beyond, we should know deeply that it is all evolving into being, organically and with great love. If we but let it, that is.
I apologize. I am new to this
I apologize. I am new to this site, and clearly my technical inadequacies aren't up to the task.
Dear John Sahagan Please
Dear John Sahagan Please what are the latin words you wrote? Can you translate them as I do not read latin. Lots of people do not know latin so it would be helpful if people put the english translation up near the latin. My parents do not read latin either, and neither do my friends. Glad the mass is no longer just in latin like it was during my great-grandmother's time. Would be great to provide the english for the latin words.
Were any of these
Were any of these revisionists experts in linguistics or recognized authors in English prose???
English grammer has changed & expanded so much just between the 1950s, when I first learned all about diagramming, to the 1980s, when the traditional classification of "parts of speech" only accounted for about 2/3 of the common sentences used in everyday newspapers or books.
I had to completely update my understanding of English, via formal classes, in order to teach ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) classes, so that my students could function in the daily life.
King James also put his stamp on the Holy Scriptures, but his version is no longer prominent in actual use, since his form of language is no longer used by moderns.
I wonder if this early 21st century revision will suffer the same fate far sooner???
No need to worry everyone.
No need to worry everyone. There will be an uproar as happened in Africa this past year when they used the new tranlation. Benedict will be humiliated(again)and he'll write another "woe is me" letter to the bishops explaining why he will have to table the implementation of this translation "for review" a la Williamson affair. By the time all this eventually happens he will be gone and the newly elected pope will probably be an ultra liberal (everyone tired of the mea culpa rubric worshipers and their attempts to please their Jew hating SSPX friends) and the whole thing will be permanently shelved. The SSPX will be jettisoned, Serratelli will take a ride and Trautman will get a prestigious diocese.
Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat!
Such charity displayed
Such charity displayed towards the Pope and the Church. I keep coming back to NCR to try to sort the good out from the bad, because there is some good here. I always leave disappointed by the dumb comments I see. Maybe I should just stop reading the comments sections. So you would have the Pope "jettison" the SSPX, throw them out of the Church, because you don't agree with them? What happened to the "big tent" model of Church I see trumpeted here so often? As far as wishing humiliation on the Pope, I'm sure he's able to handle it. If you were really as wise as your latin catchphrase you tacked onto the end implies, you'd realize that NCR doesn't represent todays Church. Most young people I know who are Catholic are glad to belong the the Church and actually listen to the Pope and the Bishops. That's a small number of people, mind you, because almost nobody belongs to the Church anymore, at least in Canada where I'm writing from.
"Most young people I know who
"Most young people I know who are Catholic are glad to belong the the Church and actually listen to the Pope and the Bishops" Really? Is that why 94 % of Catholics use artificial contraception?
Furthermore, it is Benedict that humiliates himself, I only point it out. "So you would have the Pope "jettison" the SSPX, throw them out of the Church, because you don't agree with them?" Yes, because they are schismatics and refuse to accept the teachings of Vatican II and that's why I disagree w/ them and so should you, unless of course you support schismatics? Furthermore, their views on Jews, the French Revolution, their support for far right wing fanatics including Nazis should make any Christian recoil. Just surf the internet (which Pope Benedict forgot to do) and you will see for yourself. Any YOU talk about other's dumb comments? Open your eyes.
I can only speak from my own
I can only speak from my own experience. Yes most of the tiny number of young Catholics I know who take their faith at all seriously listen to the Pope and Bishops. It's hard to believe, I know, but it's true. There are still a few people who are willing to listen and be taught instead of teaching the Church how to run itself. I haven't actually seen an instance where Pope Benedict embarrassed himself. I've seen a man who was trying to work for Christian unity and uphold Church teachings who was advised by inept and possibly malicious advisors who will use any situation to push their agenda. As far as the SSPX, I don't know if you've been following what happened in the last six months but the excommunication on the bishops was lifted, they are not technically in Schism anymore. And the question about whether I support schismatics? I support schismatics coming back into full communion with Rome. Don't you? The views of individual SSPX members, even bishops, on the holocaust, French revolution, etc. while they may be distasteful, are not matters of dogma. They have no bearing on the reconciliation. If you had ever met a member of the SSPX instead of just reading about them on the internet, you might have a different impression of them. Why is it that people on the liberal side can dispense with every Church teaching from birth control to papal infallibility but the minute the SSPX criticize Vatican II they're not Catholics anymore? I daresay many SSPXers are more loyal to the Roman Catholic Church than many NCR readers.
Paddy says: "I haven't
Paddy says: "I haven't actually seen an instance where Pope Benedict embarrassed himself." Really? Where have you been? The entire Williamson affair was an embarassment to B16 and the entire church. Calls from the chancellor of Germany, not even catholic, to remind B16 of the nature of the controversy isn't an embarassment? An unpredecent letter to the bishops to explain his reasoning wasn't done because he didn't have anything to do but rather he needed to tamp down the controversy. Funny, when he messes up others are to blame, when he succeeds he alone is credited. We are not talking about the faithful here but rather the SSPX clergy. All clergymen are held to a higher standard. If they are so Roman Catholic why then have they separated themselves from us? Furthermore, Christ said that you shall know they are mine by the fruit of their labor. Jew hating, holocaust denying, Nazi sympathies etc are NOT the fruit of Christ. And YOU say their personal views (poison)have no bearing on this reconciliation! Furthermore, just because they call themselves Catholic doensn't mean they are. They have NO canonical jurisdiction anymore than womenpriests do.
You also state "the minute the SSPX criticize Vatican II they're not Catholics anymore?" Criticize? They illegally ordained bishops without the pope's authority and have flaunted it for over a decade!
Until they completely accept Vatican II they can join the more than 100 autocephalous Catholic churches that Benedict doesn't have a problem excluding.
The Ordination of bishops
The Ordination of bishops without papal authority does not constitute excommunication... In Archbishop Lefebvres mind he was doing it for the good of the church and not to start a new church. But more importantly for the salvation of souls. So his motive was to help the church not hurt it. He was able to continue the work he started and the SPPX was approved by Rome and the local bishops in Econe. The fruits of the SPPX have been very well noted by the faithfull all over the world.
Baloney! The Lutherans,
Baloney!
The Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists etc all have ordained because they were doing it for the salvation of souls. You also state "the SPPX was approved by Rome" Wrong, the excommunications were lifted but they are not approved for anything, they have no canonical status. Despite this they ordained more priests in June! But I do agree with you that the fruits of the sspx have been very well noted, the fruits of dissention, schism and holocaust denying that is! It's a free world, you like the sspx then join them and leave the Vatican II church alone.
Dr. Dale, Have you read the
Dr. Dale,
Have you read the Vatican II documents? The reason why I ask, is that there seems to be misunderstandings of what is actually in the documents, which makes arguments rather spurious.
From the SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM :
Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
Unfortunately, it would seem that on more than one occasion since Vatican II, the rites were not revised carefully nor in light of sound tradition, and that they certainly gave more vigor *in getting people out the door.*
I think it's high time the liturgy and the rites be revisited. Perhaps we'll get it right, this time.
Dear Red: When did I say the
Dear Red: When did I say the church doesn't have the right to update her rites? Who says we got it wrong the first time? My beef is that it is one thing to update rites but it's another thing to update something that most people (clergy included) don't feel needs updating to satisfy the yearnings of the lunatic right, which is just as crazy as the lunatic left (I'm not talking about you Red). "One in being with the Father" is in my opinion, more understood and to the point that "consubstantial to the Father". If it needed changing then "one in substance with the Father" would do just fine. Consubstantial sounds too much like the protestant consubstantiation. The Credo is changing from We to I. However, the ORIGINAL started with We but was changed after Pope Gregory to "I". Vatican II changed it back to We believe in line w/ the original early church. Even the Orthodox (autocephalous)admit that the original version was "We Believe", not "I believe" etc. Now, we're back to pre Vatican II verbiage to satisfy the naysayers. That won't fly. See what happened in the diocese of St. Petersburg when the new version was used. And that diocese is conservative, I know, I attended St. Jude's cathedral for many years (beautiful cathedral and the Pauline Mass done beautifully). In my opinion, nothing will be carved in stone. There will be complaints and there will be "revisions" done ( remember the "hybrid masses" and those revisions?). Afterall, misallettes can be rewritten, again. But it will be another mess on our hands, even John Allen alludes to it.
The new translations cannot
The new translations cannot come soon enough!
The true Reform of the Reform is moving along under our wonderful Holy Father.
Pope Benedict XVI has been a blessing for those concerned with the dreadful state of the liturgy.
As was reportedly proclaimed
As was reportedly proclaimed during JFK's Presidential Campaign, if English was good enough for Jesus when he wrote the Bible, it's good enough for me.
Mozart's music had too many notes; we have too many words.
this is not a comment,im
this is not a comment,im leabing prayers for my sons at church and when i get to the church ill remeber and pray for them my self so if you cant spare the time Gob Bless you anyway.so if could exept this prayer for me i would appreciate that ,so private.for jose,daniel,esteban,ismael,gloria,diaz,solorzano,family.for salvation from all ,thank you and God bless you in the name of jesus of nazareth amen.
Post new comment