The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBattle lines in the liturgy wars
Mar. 01, 2010
Massgoers receive Communion at the Church of the Annuciation in Washington, D.C. (Dreamstime)
Analysis
Editor’s note: This is the first part of a series exploring the long-standing “liturgy wars” and how they shape today’s understanding of the Second Vatican Council.
It would be difficult to find two more incongruous words to utter in the same phrase than “liturgy” and “war.” Yet those are the terms that have been widely used in the English-speaking world to discuss a struggle that has dominated much of the Catholic community’s life since the Second Vatican Council, that remarkable series of meetings of the world’s bishops that occurred 1962 through 1965.
With recent decisions on translations of the prayers we pray during Mass, with Vatican officials openly urging a “reform of the reform,” and with a pope who has made significant overtures to groups within the church who are eager to restore Latin as well as some of the more elaborate manifestations of episcopal office, the question becomes: Are the liturgy wars at an end stage?
Arguably, no other single issue has occupied as much of our time and energy, nor caused deeper divisions, than the liturgy wars. And with good reason.
Liturgy, the central act of worship, embodies the genetic code of the community. It holds the key to what we think about God; about Christ’s action in human history; about our relationship to the Trinity; about our relationship to each other; about the relationship between ordained and lay, between the community and the wider world. In the big picture, a lot hinges on the way we approach liturgy.
The council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is so important, said Jesuit historian Fr. John O’Malley, because liturgy “is at the heart of what we do.” He considers the recent attempts to change the sense of the liturgical renewal from the top down a serious matter. “In 1985,” he said in a phone interview with NCR, “the synod of bishops said of those four constitutions [of the Second Vatican Council], those are the standards against which all the other documents are to be interpreted. Once you start to play with one of those, you’re playing with everything.”
The state of the liturgy debate can also be a leading indicator of which view is prevailing in the equally long and divisive battle over how to interpret Vatican II a half century after Pope John XXIII first conceived the idea of the council and 45 years after it ended.
How the changes in liturgy were arrived at in the four decades since the council is significant, because the process speaks a great deal about whose articulation of the elusive “spirit of the council” is in ascendancy. By most indications, the way the liturgy has been changed in recent years would suggest that those who hoped that the pervasive themes of collegiality and dialogue evident in the Vatican II documents would lead to a change in the style of church governance have been on the defensive for a long time and may now be in full retreat.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Altar servers process from Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago following a Mass in August 2008. (CNS/Catholic New World/Karen Callaway)The story of the liturgy battles, while often conducted in rigorous intellectual theological terms, is also a story of ecclesiastical politics played out on an international stage. It is telling to note, also, that the lines of battle are not joined solely along liberal-conservative or pro- and anti-reform boundaries. While that may be the case generally, one of the earliest giants of the modern liturgical movement also voiced, 30 years after the reforms were enacted, some of the same criticisms leveled today by those who opposed the reforms from the beginning.
Liturgy set the tone
When the assembled bishops of the world ratified the first document of the Second Vatican Council on Nov. 22, 1963, the groundbreaking Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the tone and direction of the rest of the council’s session was irrevocably set. It is not overstatement to say that with that document, the church as the modern world knew it was changed forever.
For even with the “reform of the reform” in motion, history has amply recorded what followed the council:
- Altars were turned so the priest faces the people;
- Communion rails disappeared;
- The Eucharist was distributed to standing, rather than kneeling, communicants;
- Latin was replaced the world over by languages spoken by the people;
- The liturgy was seen as intimately connected to what takes place outside the sanctuary walls, particularly regarding issues of social justice;
- In a deeper change, an understanding of Christ’s humanity took its place in a profound way in the Mass alongside reverence for the divinity of Christ, and there was a shift in emphasis from a vertical relationship with God to a more horizontal relationship to God in the community;
- Perhaps most important for average churchgoers, everyone became participants, and not simply passive observers, in the eucharistic celebration.
As described by the late Benedictine Fr. Godfrey Diekmann of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minn., one of 55 international liturgists who helped write the document, “It was a Magna Carta of the laity.”
It might be reasonable to presume that with the world’s bishops and the pope signing off on liturgical reform, all would be set for the foreseeable future. But the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, a solemn pronouncement of the council, was also a political document. Its implications went far beyond what prayers people would say and when they would stand and kneel, or what motions a priest would make during the ritual.
The further-reaching implications had to do with ecclesiology, what kind of church we were becoming. It was clear in 1963 to then-Fr. Joseph Ratzinger what was at stake with the newly affirmed document. In what appear approving tones, Ratzinger wrote of the “decentralization of liturgical decision-making.”
“The first chapter of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy contains a statement that represents for the Latin church a fundamental innovation,” he wrote, and that innovation was a new independent authority for national conferences of bishops.
“Perhaps one could say that this small paragraph, which for the first time assigns to the conferences of bishops their own canonical authority, has more significance for the theology of the episcopacy and for the long-desired strengthening of episcopal power than anything in the Constitution on the Church itself,” wrote Ratzinger, who would become Pope Benedict XVI. It was a pronouncement of decentralized church authority on steroids.
Pulling back
If strengthening of episcopal power was much desired then, time has changed that opinion. During the quarter of a century of John Paul II’s papacy and continuing into Benedict’s, quite the opposite has been true. John Paul, often using the congregations on doctrine and liturgy, especially clipped the wings and authority of national conferences, and a favorite target was the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. One of the mechanisms for trimming its authority was rejection of liturgical texts previously approved by the conference.
Gladys Rodriguez distributes Communion during Mass at Transfiguration Church in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, N.Y., in February 2008. (CNS/Gregory A. Shemitz)U.S. resistance to Rome’s interference abated over time as John Paul continued to appoint bishops of unquestioning loyalty to his wishes and point of view.
It is difficult to measure the accumulated anger and disappointment among many liturgical experts who had enthusiastically embraced the changes brought by the council over what one Vatican official recently termed “the renewal of the renewal.” The new translations being imposed on the English-speaking Catholic world have recently drawn a lot of attention because of objections to awkward phrasing and ungrammatical construction aimed at restoring reverence and awe in the liturgy.
Yet it must be noted that even Diekmann, as early as 1993, voiced concern that “in the liturgical movement, we have lost the sense of mystery, of the sacred.” While rejecting such “false props” as Latin, he said that the prior 30 years had seen an overemphasis on God as immanent and loving, creating at times a “feel-good” religion. He recommended restoration of “kneeling, genuflecting, bowing or even lying prostrate on the floor” as gestures that express “making ourselves small before God.”
Those are concerns identical in many ways to the objections voiced by many who opposed the reforms from the start. The question remains how to find common cause and make change. It would appear that the manner in which change has occurred is cause for perhaps even a deeper divide, and in some minds, an even deeper betrayal of Vatican II, than the changes themselves.
Historian O’Malley referred to a canon law principle that essentially says, “An abuse doesn’t mean you change what you’re doing. You try to correct those who are abusing things.”
More to the point, he said the papacy should be a mediating force among different points of view. Instead, he said, “the professional liturgists have been elbowed out. This is your research branch. Management should listen to the research branch.”
O’Malley’s contribution to the recent book Vatican II: Did Anything Happen? makes a detailed case for how dramatically different the council was in its language, purpose, and particularly its attention to collegiality and dialogue. It was the first council that did not address a crisis; it also did not issue anathemas. And it paid unusual attention to the laity.
The Georgetown University professor termed the way the “reform of the reform” is being conducted a “partisan” attempt. “They don’t listen to liturgists and they don’t listen to local communities,” he said in an interview.
Indeed, while the council set up a process for doing translations of sacred texts and prayers for worship, a widely consultative process that went on under the guidance of English-speaking bishops from around the world and liturgical and scriptural experts for more than 30 years, the reform of the reform began in earnest in a secret Vatican meeting in 1997. That year, as NCR’s John L. Allen Jr. reported at the time, 11 men met in secret in the Vatican “to overhaul the American lectionary, the collection of scripture readings authorized for use in the Mass. Short-circuiting a six-year debate over ‘inclusive language’ by retaining many of the most controversial uses of masculine vocabulary, and revamping texts approved by the U.S. bishops, this group decided how the Bible will sound in the American church.
“Powers in Rome handpicked a small group of men who in two weeks undid work that had taken dozens of years,” Allen continued.
In ensuing years the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, known as ICEL, which was created at the Second Vatican Council as a joint project of 11 English-speaking bishops’ conferences and not under control of the Vatican, has essentially been supplanted by a Vatican-controlled agency, the Vox Clara Committee, with a mandate to advise the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on English translations.
ICEL, meanwhile, under great pressure from the Vatican, has revised its statutes and overhauled personnel to be more in line with Vatican wishes and a 2001 Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam.
In late January, Vox Clara released a statement saying its work on a new English translation of the Roman Missal, the book of prayers used at Mass, is nearly complete. When it goes into use, as expected, in Advent 2011, a major battle, at least, in the liturgy wars will have been won.
Can the factions that fought, sometimes bitterly, come together in the future in the kind of unity the liturgy begs? Benedictine Sr. Mary Collins, a liturgist and professor emeritus at The Catholic University of America in Washington, said, “I do think there needs to be a change of heart running through the whole ecclesial body.” A reality in the church today, she said, “is that we are still in the winners-and-losers game. I think unless the church can get beyond that, we can’t tell ourselves we’re responding to the call of the Holy Spirit.”
[Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address is troberts@ncronline.org.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this week, NCRonline.org focuses on liturgy. Every day a new article and lots of discussion.
Monday: Battle lines in the liturgy wars
Tuesday: The new spin on Vatican II
Wednesday: Pope aims to 'propose' practices, says liturgist
Thursday: Our brains are wired for liturgy
Friday: The hermeneutic of dysfunction, an NCR editorial
Yo me the whole issue hinges
Yo me the whole issue hinges on the balance of the vertical dimension of the liturgy or the horizontal. Do I stand at the altar, as a priest, as the other Christ offering the sacrifice of Jesus at the cross, or do I stand there as presider of a community, leading the prayer of the church. To me it all comes down to the Creed. Should it be Credo, I believe or We believe. I have always been thought that the liturgy is the most important prayer of the Church. I think that comes down because of Lumen Gentium, The church is the people of God. Thank you for confirming that the form of the reform is not just about liturgy, but it also effects our views on Ecclesiology.
There is no "We believe"
There is no "We believe" without "I believe." That's how we get "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" today.
Mark, your statement seems to
Mark, your statement seems to be so centered on the ego and so arrogant. It seems so in view of the fact that we are ALL the manifestation of God within this universe; and we are so because of what we ARE and not because of what we DO.
YOU ARE NOT GOD!
YOU ARE NOT GOD!
How dare you say that? What
How dare you say that? What a hateful thing to say to someone! Don't you care about this person's feelings? How do you know that he is not God? Indeed, isn't that what secularism is all about, we are all our own gods?
The root of secularism is
The root of secularism is selfishness and materialism. The liturgy advocated by the so-called progressives is totally secular and focused on selfish entertainment rather than on pleasing God.
The Mass is the continuation and completion of the elaborate Jewish temple sacrifice rituals. It is not a meal, nor is it an entertainment service.
This pope has place a priority on unity with the Eastern Orthodox who view the modern liturgy as a departure from apostolic tradition. And liturgical reform is an important way to achieve this.
If secularized and Protestantized Catholics do not like this direction, that is their problem. They have two choices learn their faith or become Protestants.
"I believe" in personal
"I believe" in personal prayer.
"We believe" in communal prayer.
The sacred liturgy is a communal act, not a personal one.
Actually it has both personal
Actually it has both personal and communal aspects and they need to be in balance. The liturgy turns, for instance, from the communal WE to the personal I when we receive the Eucharist. We worship as a community. We must form a personal relationship with Jesus Christ before we can be transformed by him and spread the "good news" to others.
While the liturgy has, as
While the liturgy has, as you've noted, a personal aspect, the word 'liturgy' itself means "act/duty/work/service (of the community)". It is first and foremost a communal activity, i.e., when Christians come together as priests, led in worship by their presider (the ordained presbyter), to give thanks to God through Jesus the one and only High Priest. The liturgy is not a mere collection of individuals.
In one of his speeches regarding the implementation of the Novus Ordo, Paul VI, as I recall, noted that this new rite would not be conducive to the lethargy and personal/private devotion characteristic of the Tridentine mass.
Therefore, the communal aspect far outweighs (as it was intended to do) the personal aspect. If by "balance" you are suggesting equality of the personal and communal aspects, history and intent would strongly suggest otherwise.
Wrong. Prior to the sixth
Wrong.
Prior to the sixth century when Pope Gregory reformed the Mass and added "Credo", 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...
First Council of Constantinople (381 AD): We believe in one God, the Father Almighty......
THE NICENE CREED VERSION OF VATICAN II IS THE MORE ACCURATE VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL.
You are correct, the "we
You are correct, the "we believe..." is the original. Yet, the Creed in its original context is not a liturgical statement, but a conciliar statement, so the language is accordingly the first-person plural: "we believe." They were trying to come to a dogmatic agreement.
The change to the "I believe..." by Gregory in the sixth century represents a adaptation toward the liturgy and a liturgical form of the creed. For example, the baptismal liturgy ask the questions about personal belief: do you believe? "I do."
This "I" cannot ultimately be made definitive for anyone else other than ourselves. Even in the baptism of infants the parents "I do" is always provisional until the child's can be made on his or her own. The "I" must be a personal "I." This personal "I do," this "Yes," is what is asked for and aimed for in the liturgy of the Latin West. Asking for a person to say "I believe," is asking for a personal yes to the profession of faith. This close connection to the "I do" of the baptismal liturgy is expressed in the U.S. when we substitute the baptismal promises for the Creed on Easter Sunday.
Also, this is why the Apostles Creed is from its earliest form a personal profession, beginning with "Credo," "I believe..."
The "we" comes into play when we say it together, in unison. The "we" is enacted by doing it, saying it together.
I think saying both the "I" and the "We" are indispensible and both have their place in theology and liturgy. As I like to say, there is no "We believe" unless there is first an "I believe." Yet, it is and can never be just about me and God. Faith is always communal. Though, this carries a danger with it that the "we" simply carries the "I" until there is a lack of personal faith.
Lastly, a question: So, as I understand it, the "We believe..." translation of the creed is not "THE VERSION OF VATICAN II," but the version of ICEL - e.g. the Spanish version reads, "Creo en un solo Dios...", retaining the first-person plural of the Mass text. Were you saying that it's the "Version of Vatican II" in the sense that it's in the spirit of the Council?
Dr. Dal THE NICENE CREED
Dr. Dal THE NICENE CREED VERSION OF VATICAN II IS THE MORE ACCURATE VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL
....
Dr. Dal, the VII version is "Credo", which means "I believe".
It is rendered into Polish as wierze, I believe
Into the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as "I believe"
Into Spanish as Creo, I believe
Into French as Je croix, I believe
Into Italian as Io Credi, I believe
So in fact, the ICEL version is not in line w/ the VII 'more accurate version", that is, Credo (I believe).
Sheesh; we're not stupid. We're the most educated laity ever.
The only place in the West
The only place in the West where the plural "We Believe" was translated in the Latin as Credimus, the plural form was in the Mozarabic rite of Spain.
The trouble is Vatican II did not order a new Latin translation of the Roman version of the creed.
If you want to split hairs over the creed, why not drop "and the Son" like the Byzantine Catholics have done?
The new proposed translation
The new proposed translation of the prayer of the church is exactly that. Since Vatican II or sometimes referred to as the Catholic Revolt, made the Mass the prayer of the Church by the people. To make the new changes will require the people to say prayers and participate in the liturgy with new words and meanings that will definitely have to be catechized to keep them in the church.
Shouldn't it be a different
Shouldn't it be a different three letter word beginning with O. Our Lord, our faith, our Baptism. One is not a Church, a body of Christ, nor a congregation assembled for a liturgy. .
Take your complaint up with
Take your complaint up with the author--St. Paul
It seems to me that you are
It seems to me that you are both an "other Christ" and the presider of the community which itself is the Body of Christ assembled.
Frank, I think you have
Frank, I think you have perfectly understood the crux of the issue. This really has nothing to do with translations, ritualistic movements, liturgical flourishes, or Jesus Christ. This is insanity; the Roman Catholic Church is going down in flames and the so-called leaders argue about whether to wear white vestments or red vestments to the crash site! This type of "war" is so dysfunctional as to indicate either severe denial or delusion: a psychiatrist would have a field day over this. Nearly everyone else has just walked away!
What Jesus was trying to tell us has NOTHING to do with rituals! It has everything to do with a personal relationship with the Divinity through him. This is how Christians relate; individuals of other faiths and belief systems relate to Divinity in other ways. But the Way Jesus tells us about has ZERO to do with ANY ritual---------relationship is not a product of dogma, doctrine, law or ritual. It has to be the real thing and not some sort of formality. Quit relying on words, props, and costumes; be brave, make a friend of Jesus.
Amen!!!!!!
Amen!!!!!!
AMEN! ALLELUIA!!!! (even if
AMEN! ALLELUIA!!!! (even if it is Lent!!)
Amen and thank you.
Amen and thank you.
Amen, Amen, Amen and A-M-E-N.
Amen, Amen, Amen and A-M-E-N.
Very well said. This is just so much involutional convolutionalisms wrought by people who have nothing better to do and are consumed by their obsessive parsings and hair splittings. They better get beyond their Ph.Ds in Theology and out of their bubbles. The Church is totally involved in politics and eschews the laws of God(Ten Commandments) and the teachings of Jesus Christ(peace., love, tolerance, and "Do unto others...). The Vatican is splitting liturgical hairs and all the while Rome, the Faithful and the world are burning.
Dear God, in Heaven, PLEASE forgive us these clerics who are totally consumed by the institution of the Church and the shallow or at least very secondary trappings of what ever is left of our faith, or should I say their faith. The liturgical wars and the affected Culture Wars(cf. Bill O'Reilly, the self-proclaimed Culture Wars expert) are destroying everyone who is different, or dares to think differently. And all the while true Christianity---peace, love, tolerance and "Do unto others is DEAD. killed by hate, viciousness and the endless spewing of vitriol.
Thanks almost exclusively to the Republican Party and it's endless totally self-absorbed consumerist attitudes toward all of life and its worship of the basest of human values, greed for money and its endless lust for ever more political power, the entire world has been trashed. GWB is a sociopath, megalomaniac and has messianic ideation, yet he is revered as the "Second Coming of Jesus Christ", just because he said so. Not one Religious leader challenged him in any way, including the pope(s).
Something is wrong; very wrong. If the world and the USA survives this GOP impending Fascist Theocracy it will be another miracle, all due entirely to God's mercy and the resilience of people including the Faithful; NOT to the insights or the intervention of the Vatican.
Something is wrong; very, very wrong! I hope the Vatican and especially this Pope gets his desired Armageddon scenario (Regensburg) because the rest of us are surely paying a huge price for all of the time and efforts spent in proforma, "institution and ritual".
Somebody should be telling the Vatican that it is sleeping while the world is burning.
fr frank "Should it be Credo,
fr frank "Should it be Credo, I believe or We believe"
Well, if it's credo then it should be "I believe". D'uh!
D'uh on you Scrantonian. see
D'uh on you Scrantonian.
see comment by Dr. Dal above.
Anonymous D'uh on you
Anonymous D'uh on you Scrantonian.
see comment by Dr. Dal above
....
Appears that Dr Dal's point is irrelevant. It states that the 6th c. reforms explicitly changed "we" to "I".
And ICEL illegitimately changed it to 'we'.
When it's "credo" it's "I believe". When it's "credimus" it's "we believe"
D'uh.
ICEL most definitely did not
ICEL most definitely did not illegitimately change "I" to "We". The change was legitimate within the dynamic equivalence rules laid down by the Holy See at the time. The change was authorised by all the English-speaking conferences and approved by the Holy See.
Gray Perhaps you have never
Gray Perhaps you have never translated. Dynamic equivalency in fact attempts to maintain the sense of a phrase when a literal translation does not work well.
ICEL's translation is illegitimate b/c the meaning of "Credo" or "Pro Multis" is quite clear in both Latin and English: I believe and For Many
Fortunately, we have moved past the ICEL crowd, who let us down. The language is clear, the theology of the original was clear.
But you don't
But you don't understand.
This NCR crowd DOES NOT CARE about translating the prayers of the Mass!
Does. Not. Care.
Who cares what the prayers actually say? We don't like them! We want prayers that say what we like! We want a "translation" that actually substitutes prayers we like, for the prayers of the Mass.
That is what Mr. Roberts and the folks in this thread want. One example of many. "Credo" = *I* believe. NCR readers: so, who cares; we prefer "WE believe"--to blazes with what the prayers of the Mass actually say; we want what we want.
This would be amusing,
This would be amusing, Father, if it were not, sadly, true.
The new translations are not
The new translations are not literal either. They do not allow the angels to "stand" before God, but instead have an awkward "are" -- it is said because they feared a literal translation would encourage the laity to stand instead of kneeling. Also they blanch at "by whom immolation you willed to be placated" in EP III and follow the current paraphrase with a slight modification.
Sr. Mary Collins said, “I do
Sr. Mary Collins said, “I do think there needs to be a change of heart running through the whole ecclesial body [regarding our attitude and outlook toward being either winners or losers and] unless the church can get beyond that, we can’t tell ourselves we’re responding to the call of the Holy Spirit.”
I would like to add that we are only guided by the Holy Spirit if we are people of prayer. St. Augustine further adds that we have as much of the Holy Spirit as our love for the Church. He was referring to the established Church under St. Peter. If this is the case, I suggest that we will accept the Liturgical changes with a trusting attitude while knowing that the Church has our best interests in mind.
Oh yes, mother knows best!!!
Oh yes, mother knows best!!! Your theology is flawed. You are saying that the Holy Spirit cannot guide people who do not pray. I guess you wrote out the Spirit's job description.
I'm in total agreeance. I
I'm in total agreeance. I often wondered why there has to be winner and losers. In my mind, it's because we, as a culture (and sometimes as a species), too easily revert to a militaristic analogy or metaphor when discussing opposing viewpoints or groups. For example, phrases like "rally the troops" and "time to bring out the big guns" are woefully woven into our vernaculars (at least here in the states) and it's rather depressing for a Catholic that has strong reservations against violence and armed conflict.
I would like to add that there is no reason to reinforce this behavior by invoking violent phrases during casual discourse. Think of something more creative :)
Best,
Lisa Caponigri
225 + or - years ago, there
225 + or - years ago, there was no question among faithful Roman Catholics that one does not "buck" God or rock his boat; therefore the Church (belonging to Jesus) was not a democracy. Governments were products of men...therefore the realm of politics and thus required and needed republican reforms. There needed to be a clear distinction between what God wishes and the means to civily live within [and govern] man-made States. The Napoleanic Code examplifies this, beautifully....
Now, in the "modern 21st Century", it no longer is possible to question our governments...so called "Republican"! For to question our "elected political leaders" and their decisions made for us, their constituents, mounts to "TREASON": So, we keep our mouths shut and accept all that is thrown upon us...We seem to have no other "choice"!
And remarkably, where once we knew God is Ultimately right, we are acting like Adam and Eve, constantly disobeying, objecting to, and prefering "our own way and interpretations" OVER GOD's directives. For the religious hierarchy there is no longer any respect or "awe"...Rome (THE VATICAN STATE) is no longer stemming from God in "modern" man's eyes. In "modern man" 's eyes, man is Supreme and All powerful...Therefore the Holy Roman Church is now being openly questioned...and no one is objecting! Those majority (anti-Romana)"Questioners" are not considered PROTESTANTS; and voice their anger, filthy-mouths and disgust in all priorly "private" and public arenas, media, correspondence and schools...even "paroichial".....They are lauded, unashamed and proud of their "power" !...their so-called "DEMOCRATIC-CHURCH!
Seems to me...something has gone badly haywire.
Seems as though the writer
Seems as though the writer has forgotten what Jesus taught us, saying, Render unto Caesar that what is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. When you start throwing political beliefs around and trying to decide what is a Republican mantra and what is Democratic, you are missing the entire point of why Christ died on the Cross. I suggest a return to the basics.
I am neither an historian nor
I am neither an historian nor a liturgy specialist. I am a catholic, who believes in Jesus entering us by means of the Holy Spirit . The Consecration Of the Eucharist is the single most important part of our mass.
It is simply not possible to write a "perfect" translation of liturgy. No matter the words or language chosen, some will be pleased, others disappointed. The "wars", have no place where Christ Jesus lives. Healthy respectful and loving dialogue does.
Please let us not reduce our Lord Jesus, His faithful church(that would be us), and our rich tradition, to political babble.
Respectfully, in Christ Jesus,
Alexsondra
Thanks Alexsondra. There are
Thanks Alexsondra. There are many gifts but the same Spirit. I came of age with the "Folk Mass" and I know that was a large part of staying with the Catholic Church. Jesus worked with the norms and traditions that existed when he did. He had no experience with Gregorian Chant. The Sprit gave the gift of tongues so Jesus could be preached to all nations; nothing was said about teaching Latin so we all could praise God in the same tongue. If the Church truly wants to proclaim the Word of God to all, it must be humble and allow that Word to flow easily from many musical traditions in many languages. The faith is lost to many who cannot relate to a stilted, formal, didactic liturgy. Jesus recognized the imperfections of each apostle that he sent out but trusted that His word would be spread because of their knowledge of Him and their belief in Him. Rome should be as trusting as Jesus.
We all owe Tom Roberts a
We all owe Tom Roberts a great thanks for this article. Since most (all?) Catholic papers in most dioceses are controlled by the local bishop the local bishop decides what he wants the people to know and nothing more. So it is doubtful we'll be hearing anything like this in the local Catholic press. But questions remain. The article mentions 11 secret men who met in secrecy to change the liturgy. Who are these men? What is their expertise? Why hide? But of course our church has always operated in secret, the second Vatican Council was a rare partial exception. But secrets have a way of producing results totally unanticipated--witness the secrecy of clerical sexual abuse. The secrecy produced far greater scandals than the scandals it was supposed to contain.
How these 11 men must chuckle among themselves when they read articles like this one; they know they are the fixers and no matter the intelligence of people like Tom Roberts or John O'Malley they will be the ones who prescribe what's good liturgy for millions of Catholics. They will tell us how to worship no matter the linguistic, theological or philosophical astuteness of lay Catholics. They have their secrets; their real intentions to bring us all to heel.
My mistake The published
My mistake
The published committee is not "secret"
"The Vox Clara Committee is chaired by Cardinal George Pell, Sydney (Australia). The participants in the meeting were Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, Mobile (USA), who serves as First Vice-Chairman; Archbishop Oswald Gracias, Bombay (India), who serves as Second Vice-Chairman; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Westminster (England), who serves as Secretary; Cardinal Justin Rigali, Philadelphia (USA), who serves as Treasurer; Cardinal Francis George, OMI, Chicago (USA); Archbishop Alfred Hughes, New Orleans (USA); Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, SJ, Ottawa (Canada); Archbishop Peter Kwasi Sarpong, Kumasi (Ghana); and Archbishop Kelvin Felix, Castries (Saint Lucia). Also a member of the Committee, though not able to be present at this meeting, is Bishop Philip Boyce, OCD, Raphoe (Ireland).
The members were assisted in their work by the following Advisors: Abbot Cuthbert Johnson, OSB (England), The Reverend Jeremy Driscoll, OSB (USA), The Reverend Dennis McManus (USA), and Monsignor James P. Moroney (USA). The customary support and assistance of officials of the Congregation was also appreciated."
"They will tell us how to
"They will tell us how to worship..."
Then we need to tell these guys "NO"!!!
"We all owe Tom Roberts a
"We all owe Tom Roberts a great thanks for this article. Since most (all?) Catholic papers in most dioceses are controlled by the local bishop the local bishop decides what he wants the people to know and nothing more. So it is doubtful we'll be hearing anything like this in the local Catholic press."
This is certainly true, "Northcountry 1." Part of the problem, perhaps most of it, is that the laity are not well informed. They are making decisions based on the minute bits of information that the local bishop wants them to have, without realizing that there is a great ocean of truth that has not found its way into their minds and hearts. Most of the comments I read here by people who cannot wait until the day they can say, "And with your spirit," are operating on the emotional level. In other words, these individuals long for the 'feeling' that they got when thinking about the Latin Masses they attended several years ago. Had these persons studied liturgy (or anything relating to church since the 1960s) they might understand that the emphasis is on the *communal* nature of the Sunday assembly. Saying "We believe" in the Creed awakens believers to the fact that there are others involved in this act of worship and that we are in this together.
I have to say that all the Latin masses I attended (not celebrated) left me completely devoid of any sense that I had done something other than avoided a mortal sin if I had not attended. Had it not been for the devoted Sisters who did their best in spite of a disgruntled, autocratic, loud, controlling pastor, I would have had no sense of community at all.
I am convinced that some of the people who are glad to see the Pope spin Vatican II away, did not wish to embrace the responsibility that came with viewing the group assembled for the Sunday Celebration as their brothers and sisters in Christ. A portion resisted the Sign of Peace tooth and nail not because it caused them to 'talk in church,' but because it signaled that they might have to be concerned about the welfare of those whose hands they shook.
Why "Ratzinger's Eleven" (Vox Obscurus?) chose to give false hope that the pre-Vatican II form of worship can ever be brought back, is a crime and a shame. It simply cannot. Just saying the same old words in a third millennium context won't do it. The People of God that are on a conscious spiritual journey will be drawn to liturgies that continue the Dream of John XXIII, where they will allow the Holy Spirit to transform and empower them and send them out to make a difference in family, society and church.
and some resist the current
and some resist the current sign of peace because it is theologically and historically unsound
Being a baby-boomer and
Being a baby-boomer and having been raised in both pre- and trained and educated in post-Vatican II theologies, even now on a masters level, I find this very distressing. I was taught to believe the Holy Spirit (a very definite person of the Trinity) lived within the souls of all the baptized. We were all given charisms (see St. Paul's letters) that we are to use to promote the Good News that God loves all creation, and wants us all to be reconciled. If this is warm and fuzzy, I'm immensely grateful. I also know that when I do something wrong I sorely disappoint this loving Parent of mine, and my brothers and sisters, and ought to make reparations and atone for the sin I've committed. I believe I'm a very well-balanced Roman Catholic because of Vatican II. One cynical question - Knowing that Jesus chose 12 apostles, why did the Vatican only appoint 11? No chance for a deadlock on any decision-making...or need for consensus? Even the earliest history based in Scripture had the apostles looking for a 12th since 11 was incomplete.
This article is a perfect
This article is a perfect example of writing without all the facts. Regardless, the new translations are coming, like it or not, and thank God for them. I find it quite amusing that the "liturgical police" is reacting so violently to these changes. This will be fun to watch.
To TNCath: Why will it be
To TNCath: Why will it be "fun to watch"? This sort of authoritarian triumphalism is unbecoming in human values and more so in Christian charity.
It is "fun to watch" because
It is "fun to watch" because now, after having endured years and years of those who forced unnecessary and unauthorized liturgical innovations, all in the "spirit" of Vatican II, are finally realizing that their games are over. This is not "authoritarian triumphalism," this is "Liturgicam Authenticam."
As for that which is "unbecoming in human values and more so in Christian charity," I agree. The venom spewed by bloggers against the hierarchy and the Pope, which is the only legitimate authority regarding this issue of liturgy, is reprehensible.
How awful TNC that you should
How awful TNC that you should find a thrill in other's struggles. But that is the clear intention of so much of what you do here. You have no respect for others and all of your rantings only serve to betray the anger that consumes you.
Well said, TNCath. The
Well said, TNCath. The "liturgical police" as you call them (and as we called them in the seminary as well!) are going nuts over the proposed translations, claiming that they are being "imposed" or "forced" on the English-speaking Church by the Evil Vatican. However, as is often the case, they are making those claims without any facts to support them; but are, rather, allowing their feelings to guide them.
The facts would demonstrate something entirely different from what the claims by NCR and others are. For example, were we to cite history as the starting point, we would find that the English-speaking Church is the only language group to have such radically different translations from the original Latin. It is possibly this dramatic example of disunity in the Church that has spawned a need for a commission such as Vox Clara. But, setting that aside, one would find that the procedures have been following in every step of the way on these translations. ICEL did its work, proposing drafts to the 11 episcopal conferences; the conferences then either approved the translations, or suggested alterations and additions. Once the ICEL translations are completed and approved by the bishops, they have been sent to Rome for its "recognitio", or approval for publication. Then, after a space of time for catechesis and preparation, the revised, authentic, translations will be implemented at the parish level. Again, seems to me that all the procedures were followed and all the forms obeyed.
None of this was done in secret. It has been common knowledge since the 1990s that ICEL was working on a new set of liturgical translations. Since the promulgation and publication of a third edition of the Roman Missal in 2000/2002 to commemorate the Third Millennium of Salvation, ICEL has been working on translations of that document in accord with the document "Liturgiam Authenticam" (which, by the way, applies to the entire Universal Church, not just the USA). This process has been ongoing for 8 years now (more if you consider the attempts in the 90s). So, this should not be seen as an imposition, but rather as a natural result of the process.
It seems to me that much of this carping is not about the translations (which I suspect a great many people have not even bothered to read as yet, but that does not stop them from complaining), nor is it about the process. It is about the fact that they feel "left out" of a process that was never designed, nor intended, to include them. I suspect it is about their deep-seated suspicion of everything that the bishops and the Holy See does (in other words, if the Pope says it, it must be wrong!). I suspect it is about them feeling as if their particular viewpoint about THEIR Church and what they want THEIR Church to be (never mind what Christ wants HIS Church to be) is not the direction that Mother Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is moving. It is the sour grapes of those who feel that they have lost a "war" that was never being fought in the first place.
Finally, I suspect that the reaction from NCR and its assorted followers would be substantially different if the new translations began something like this: "In the Name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier. Amen.", regardless of the doctrinal, theological, liturgical and historical problems and errors contained therein. I suspect that translation would be greeted with applause and hurrahs by NCR, even if that translation was written by the Pope himself.
As a trained linguist, it is
As a trained linguist, it is the guiding principles of Liturgiam Authenticam that concern me. I firmly believe that the previous translation could be improved. But even first year language students learn the concept of "idiomatic expression." Certain phrases in one language can simply not be rendered into a different language using a "word for word" approach. Even single words, although linguistically related, carry different meanings to different cultures.
"Multis," for example, was used in Classical Latin to refer to the many different tribes that made up the civilised world. The use is "inclusive," not "exclusive." It's closest English rendition is "many," which carries the meaning "some, but not all." The "pro vobis et pro multis" of the consecration in Latin signify that the sacrifice is made, not for believers of one tribe living in present day Israel, but for believers from all the known world. Rendering this in English as "for you and for the many" does not convey the same meaning.
Thank you for this
Thank you for this intelligent and insightful comment. Indeed, you make a good point regarding the difficulty of translation of Latin into English. Indeed, every attempt at translation is, in some way, a diminishing of the original. Nonetheless, since Sacrosanctum Concilium expects that parts of the Mass be in the vernacular, some attempt to translate must be made. Personally, and I stand in good company on this, I would much prefer a translation that is as close as possible to the original, rather than a paraphrase, no matter how lovely it may be.
Having said that, there is a theological component, not just a linguistic one, to the example that you cite. Christ did indeed offer his sacrifice for the salvation of all, but not all will be saved, because not all will choose to accept that sacrifice. Thus, when the translation reads "for you and for many", it is true. The salvific sacrifice of Christ is efficacious to those who choose to accept Christ and His faith. Thus, though God wills all to be saved, He does not force all to accept faith in Him and in His Son and so, Christ's sacrifice can truly be said to be offered for "the many" who choose to accept Him.
But it is not "offered for
But it is not "offered for many." It IS offered for all. Some reject it. The focus of a sentence is the verb, not the predicate.
This whole process, the
This whole process, the secrecy, the command, echoes of W whooping "I'm the decider"
Thanks Tom and NCR as always.
Ssmurphy, there seems to be
Ssmurphy, there seems to be some confusion in your statements. The new translation is all about having an accurate translation of the universal Mass from the Latin. It's not about imposing a new Mass but giving us a better translation of the one we have now. Why do you have to make this about politics? If you knew what was left out of the present translation you might be surprised. Give the new translation a chance to surprise you.
Come let us pray- God our
Come let us pray-
God our Father protect us from ourselves, let us not disgrace your word and body with our pride.
Amen
What is the real issue, are the words being used not correct, is recieving the most holy body of our Christ in our hands wrong, is the physical position of the body the most important issue?
Are is it what we have in our hearts?
I am not knowledgeable enough to say what is the "most corect", but I believe in the protection of the Holy Spirit, simple faith, at the end of the day that is all we have.
God Bless!
It is amazing how the entire
It is amazing how the entire article never actually cites anything from SC. The bulleted list of changes after the council captures the deficiency perfectly. Nothing in SC called for turning altars around or removing communion rails. Having the entire Mass in the vernacular actually runs counter to what the council called for. Those who defend "the spirit of Vatican II" have to do so by avoiding the actual words of Vatican II.
Given your interpretation,
Given your interpretation, the second Vatican II pontiff didn't know what he was doing or saying and had no authority to approve the instructions of the Consilium, etc.
How does Christ wish to be
How does Christ wish to be "met", "encountered"? Is that not what our Catholic liturgy is in its essence? First of all liturgy in the form sense, is not the only of encounter with Christ, it is the celebratory encounter as distinct from the everywhere, always encounter that is life and living itself.
Where do we look to find the "form" of celebratory encounter? Is it to ecclesiastical politics and esoteric theology, particularly of a non-accountable, authoritarian, paternalistic cabal with a self-serving agenda?
Is it to the rabble of the masses who are defined more by disinterest and dissent than by a clear sense of either the divine or the human?
Or maybe one looks to the life of Christ and see the continuity of His life with the Father who first looked at what He had done and "saw that it was good" and continued to love us after our "sin" so much so that He sent His only-begotten Son. Liturgy is neither "horizontal" nor "vertical", it is relational and celebratory and intimately and essentially human as Jesus was human, as we are. Only Jesus can look after the "Godly" dimension. And yes, we need to be reminded of that.
Regardless of the artistic beauty of various historical forms, liturgy without "me", "us" and what it means to be human here and now is not an encounter with the Christ of incarnation. It is an encounter with a construct persona that does not adequately reveal the Person or persons present or their relationship. Go to a "Cecil B. DeMille" epic today and admire its scope, for its time, but "dated" is just that, contemporaniously irrelevant.
"How does Christ wish to be
"How does Christ wish to be "met", "encountered"?"
It would seem that Jesus of Nazareth had no concept of this encounter being in the form of words, gestures, song or outward ceremony; but one the heart, of interior spirituality, felt from the very marrow of the bones. Liturgy came with the appearance of a formal priesthood, and the exterior became the norm.
I am bilingual, have a foot
I am bilingual, have a foot in each of two cultures and as an immigrant child adjusting to my new country, the U. S., I terribly missed the way Mass was celebrated in Germany. After WWII, my hometown Catholic church used to vibrate with the heartfelt singing of the laity. I also understand just how difficult it is to translate one language into another and believe it is best left in the hands of the people who understand their native language and have an expertise in Latin, or whatever language is being translated. I think 11 men meeting in secret speaks volumes.
As for kneeling, lying prostrate as a way of expressing our awe of the mystery of God is not something I can easily do in my old age. In my old age I have also discovered that it is the experience of God that produces the awe and wonder not the genuflecting or lying prostrate. I think the calling of Vatican II was a response to the movement of the Spirit, and what seems to be almost always the case, the Vatican is the reactionary force that tries to maintain the status quo. The one thing that the movement of the Spirit inspires is change.
"Liturgy, the central act of
"Liturgy, the central act of worship, embodies the genetic code of the community. It holds the key to what we think about God; about Christ’s action in human history; about our relationship to the Trinity; about our relationship to each other; about the relationship between ordained and lay, between the community and the wider world. In the big picture, a lot hinges on the way we approach liturgy."
My relationship with God, my understanding of who the ordained are and who I am is so deepley embedded in me that no changing of language will change that. I will continue to look to Scripture and the example of Jesus to teach me about how God expects us to relate to each other. I am always struck by the fact that Jesus loved and shared himself in Eucharist with Judas, and that he took the job of a slave in washing the feet of the disciples - including Judas. Long, convoluted sentences will not conceal those facts nor their clear directives.
The more I learn about the unimaginable size and wonders and mysteries of our universe, the more I get a glimpse of the "bigness" and "otherness" of God. That will teach me so much more than a change of language. I think God has provided us with what we need to learn both the transcendence of God and the nearness of God.
I have actually read the new
I have actually read the new translation of the mass and it is a sad document. While some of the changes clearly seem to be changes for the sake of change ("all honor and glory to you almighty father" instead of "all glory and honor") other changes are not so benign. The penitential rite is reintroduced (the beating of the breast and all), the creed is rewritten including the awkward "on earth peace" and the inclusion of a new word into the English language "consubstantial" as in "begotten, not made, constubstantial with the Father," rather than "one in being with the Father." The institution of the Eucharist has changed to limit the cup of salvation to be for "you and for many" and we now say "Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof " instead of "I am not worthy to receive you," before receiving Eucharist. (There are more changes, I just remembered these as the most egregious.) I doubt there was a native English speaker among the translators and their agenda can clearly be seen: let's go back to the "good old days before Vatican II when the Mass changed in the first place." I didn't feel God's transcendence as I read these awkward and forced sentences. I doubt I will feel the flow of the Holy Spirit when I am forced to memorize them come Advent of 2011.
Many of these "changes" are
Many of these "changes" are not changes. Rather, they are reversions to the English translations of the Latin missal before V2.
Wait until they reintroduce/reimpose:
"What has passed our lips as food, O Lord, may we accept in a purity of heart, and may what we have given to us in time be our healing for all eternity."
And there was this little ditty that just rolled off the tongue:
My thy body O Lord which I have eaten and the blood which I have drunk, cleave onto my very soul and grant that no trace of sin be found in me which these pure and holy mysteries have renewed."
Which? Why wasn't it Who(m)?
"...when I am forced to
"...when I am forced to memorize them..."
Only if you go along with this fundamentalist/reactionary stuff.
It's called 'enabling'.
Don't memorize. Don't use. Don't enable continued ecclesial dysfunction.
Please give the new
Please give the new translation another chance. It's not as sad as you may think:
1. We have always had the Penitential Rite in Masses without the Sprinkling Rite (Asperges). There are three options in the current translation: Confiteor, "Lord, we have sinned against you...", or Troped Kyrie ("You were sent to heal the contrite, Lord have mercy."). The current translation of the Confiteor even calls for the faithful to strike the breast as well. The only thing changing in the new translation is wording more faithful to the Latin, which came directly from Vatican II.
2. Consubstantial is not a new word in the English language. It was used in many translations of the 1962 Missal for the laity. When simply broken down, it means "of the same substance," which is a more accurate expression—the Father and the Son are literally of the same substance and thus one by virtue of their nature, not simply one by virtue of their unity (which is slightly recursive, anyway).
3. The Latin expression "pro multis" (literally, "for many," as opposed to "pro omnibus," which means "for all") came straight from Vatican II. If anything, this part of the new translation is being more faithful to the Council than the previous one. Not to mention the fact that Our Lord Himself used "for many" and "on behalf of many," not "for all" (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24 NAB).
4. Again, the new translation is more faithful to both the Latin we've had since the Council (and before)—"ut intres sub tectum meum"—and the scriptures (Lk 7:6).
As I said above, these changes are simply an attempt to portray the Latin given to us in Vatican II more accurately, something that should have been done in the first place. This is correcting a mistake, not making one.
Please give the new
Please give the new translation another chance. It's not as sad as you may think:
1. We have always had the Penitential Rite in Masses without the Sprinkling Rite (Asperges). There are three options in the current translation: Confiteor, "Lord, we have sinned against you...", or Troped Kyrie ("You were sent to heal the contrite, Lord have mercy."). The current translation of the Confiteor even calls for the faithful to strike the breast as well. The only thing changing in the new translation is wording more faithful to the Latin, which came directly from Vatican II.
2. Consubstantial is not a new word in the English language. It was used in many translations of the 1962 Missal for the laity. When simply broken down, it means "of the same substance," which is a more accurate expression—the Father and the Son are literally of the same substance and thus one by virtue of their nature, not simply one by virtue of their unity (which is slightly recursive, anyway).
3. The Latin expression "pro multis" (literally, "for many," as opposed to "pro omnibus," which means "for all") came straight from Vatican II. If anything, this part of the new translation is being more faithful to the Council than the previous one. Not to mention the fact that Our Lord Himself used "for many" and "on behalf of many," not "for all" (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24 NAB).
4. Again, the new translation is more faithful to both the Latin we've had since the Council (and before)—"ut intres sub tectum meum"—and the scriptures (Lk 7:6).
As I said above, these changes are simply an attempt to portray the Latin given to us in Vatican II more accurately, something that should have been done in the first place. This is correcting a mistake, not making one.
I have actually read the new
I have actually read the new translation of the mass and it is a sad document. While some of the changes clearly seem to be changes for the sake of change ("all honor and glory to you almighty father" instead of "all glory and honor") other changes are not so benign. The penitential rite is reintroduced (the beating of the breast and all), the creed is rewritten including the awkward "on earth peace" and the inclusion of a new word into the English language "consubstantial" as in "begotten, not made, constubstantial with the Father," rather than "one in being with the Father." The institution of the Eucharist has changed to limit the cup of salvation to be for "you and for many" and we now say "Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof " instead of "I am not worthy to receive you," before receiving Eucharist. (There are more changes, I just remembered these as the most egregious.) I doubt there was a native English speaker among the translators and their agenda can clearly be seen: let's go back to the "good old days before Vatican II when the Mass changed in the first place." I didn't feel God's transcendence as I read these awkward and forced sentences. I doubt I will feel the flow of the Holy Spirit when I am forced to memorize them come Advent of 2011.
Suzie "The institution of
Suzie "The institution of the Eucharist has changed to limit the cup of salvation to be for "you and for many"'
...
Um, Suzie, the new translation brings our English into line w/ the rest of the universal Church, since the translation of "Pro multis" is "for many", not "for all".
Pretty simple concept, translation. Key is to ensure that your preferences do not affect the text that is being translated.
Considering the lessoning of
Considering the lessoning of attendance at Mass, do we really believe that Latin is the magic key that will make used-to –be- parishioners more observant?
As for forms of worship, please realize church attendance is really quite elderly, and kneeling, much less prostration, is often difficult except for younger ages. Bowing is respectful and a simple way to show adoration and could be employed more in worship.
One change in Liturgy that could be greatly improved, is the Homily. There’s the key to building understanding in spiritual relationships, purposeful living, and Faith practice. How often is the homily directed to the children sitting next to their parents, or to the everyday problems families and young adults endure, or the unemployed worker or the ill? It seems that “application” between the Word we have heard, and what happens outside the church doors could be better related.
Amen! Deal with the clergy
Amen! Deal with the clergy who pride themselves on using old homilies rather than praying and preparing a homily that the people can relate to. How about putting a little enthusiasm into celebrating this great Gift rather than acting as if it is a "job" to celebrate Mass. Amazing that we have any people sitting in the pews. Don't punish the people with new rules. The problem is not the language but we don't want to face the REAL problem. With so few going to Mass except for Christmas and Easter, can you imagine the chaos at Christmas with two sets of prayers being said because the majority was not instructed? That will upset more people! I PRAY THAT FOR ONCE THE MEN WILL STAND UP AND SAY NO TO THE CHANGES and refuse to implement them. For the sake of the faithful have guts you guys!
Marie M "Considering the
Marie M "Considering the lessoning of attendance at Mass"
....
Your comment begs teh questions a) what happened as we put the 'spirit' of VII into action and b) why the heck wouldn't we change what we're doing, it's not working...
Post new comment