The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSeattle pastor begins effort to review new missal translations
Says he would fail as pastor were he not to do all he can to slow down the move
Dec. 10, 2009
Fr. Michael Ryan
Saying he woefully aware of how difficult it is going to be to ‘sell’ faithful Catholics on the new translations of the Catholic missal, a Seattle pastor has begun a nationwide campaign to slowdown the program.
"For some time I’ve followed the bishops’ debates, read many of the new texts, discussed them with brother priests, and visited about them with Catholics in the pews, and I’ve become aware of how difficult it’s going to be to ‘sell’ ordinary, faithful, good Catholics on the new, Latinized translations of the Missal," said Father Michael G. Ryan, pastor of St. James Cathedral for more than two decades.
“And with good reason, because some of them, in my opinion, are very poor and the principles underlying the translations are highly questionable.”
Ryan said he is “troubled” when he realizes that it’s “almost exclusively the overburdened pastors of this country who will be saddled with the task of getting people to understand why they are getting new translations and why the translations will be better than what they’re used to.”
“To put it as succinctly as possible, if I haven’t been able to sell myself on this, how will I ever successfully sell it to the people I serve!”
So, said Ryan, he decided to start the “What If We Said ‘Wait’? campaign, the case for what he calls a grass-roots review of the new Roman missal. To this end he has set up a web site and has written an article in the Dec. 14 issue of America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of the Current and New Missal Translations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spoke with Ryan this week to find out more his campaign. This question and answer grew out of that conversation.
Fox: Why did you start this campaign?
Ryan: For months I’ve been talking with priest-friends and associates whose reaction to the coming new translations was the same as mine. They lived in dread of them. They felt they were inferior, clumsy, and altogether unworthy of our greatest prayer. And, like me, they knew that the “selling” of the translations to the people would rest on their shoulders and on the shoulders of pastors all over the world. How would they convince their people of the value of making such significant changes if they themselves were not only unconvinced of their value but actually convinced that the translations were a disaster-in-the-making?
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.
The more I thought about this the more I became convinced that something needed to be done, but everyone I talked with told me it was pointless. It was either too late because the translations were all but a fait accompli, or it was futile because no one in authority would pay attention. I suspected they were right but to me that didn’t seem reason enough to remain silent. I kept thinking of our people whose prayer life this is and of my responsibility to them as a pastor. If I didn’t speak up on their behalf – and if no one else did – how would I ever live with myself? So I sat down one day and put my thoughts down on paper. My first couple of drafts were pretty incendiary. My theme was not “What if we just said ‘wait?’” but “What if we just said ‘no?’” It was a call to my brother priests to stand up on behalf of our people and draw a line in the sand.
Over time, I realized that a more reasoned approach that invited the response not just of brother priests but of our people as well would be more constructive and in the spirit of what the church is all about. The church I have served as a priest for nearly 45 years, the church of the Second Vatican Council, is one that values dialogue and honors the fact that the Spirit speaks through all the people, not just the hierarchy. Why not, then, involve them by inviting their response? Why not take the time to test the new translations in a careful and methodical way? Didn’t something of this importance deserve something better than a mandate from on high and a potentially manipulative catechetical program for introducing the new translations?
Are there other reasons?
Like many people, I care about good liturgy and I also care about good English. Good liturgy demands the best we have and will be compromised by texts that are awkward, arcane, clumsy, and in many cases far removed from the way people speak. That is not to say that our texts should be ‘down home’ and colloquial. Far from it. They should be dignified, elegant, poetic, traditional in the best sense of that word, and easily understandable. And in the case of texts that are meant to be set to music, they should also lend themselves to a metrical form.
Bishop Donald Trautman, who has given more effort to this matter than any of the bishops in this country, has also pointed out that many of the texts that will be proclaimed by the presiding priest will be difficult and even impossible to proclaim in an intelligible way. Some of them violate English grammar and syntax by not even being complete sentences! Add to that a comment of one of my priest friends recently made with regard to foreign-born priests - of which we have a growing number - who for the last several years have labored mightily to preside intelligently and intelligibly at Mass. He expressed the thought that many of them will find these new texts to be a great stumbling block. The same will likely be true for the people with whom they celebrate.
You mentioned the Second Vatican Council. What does all this have to do with it?
Everything. One of the great breakthroughs of the council had to do with the collegiality of bishops. The process followed in bringing about the new translations was, to my way of thinking – and I am far from alone -- a clear violation of that great conciliar teaching. When it came to the matter of translation liturgical texts, the council’s document on liturgy made it clear that conferences of bishops should appoint their own liturgists and translators who would begin and oversee the work and then submit it to the entire conference for approval. It is true that, under pressure, Pope Paul VI added that the Roman Congregation would then have to give its recognitio to translations, but the clear intent was that the initiative would come from local conferences and the translations would be done by people of their own choosing.
All that was bypassed in the development of the new translations. Not only did the Roman Congregation completely negate the work done by the experts of International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) over a period of 15 years, they also overturned the very manner by which translations were to be done. Since the council, translations had been done according to the principal of “dynamic equivalency” which allowed for translating according to meaning. Now they were to be done according to the principal of “formal equivalency” which involves pretty much a literalist approach, slavishly tied to the original Latin texts. And, not surprisingly, for the drafting of the new translations they appointed their own hand-picked people who were of like mind.
Other thoughts?
Only that this campaign seemed to be a good way to allow the people to have a voice and speak their mind. The What If We Just Said Wait? website is not meant to be a referendum but it does give people a chance to weigh in on a very important matter. When people are feeling powerless, it gives them a chance to do something, however small, to express themselves, to find a voice. And they are doing so in quite large numbers—across the country, certainly, and even around the English-speaking world. The internet makes this possible. Why not make use of technology like this when it is available? (The Holy Father himself said in May of this year, on the 43rd World Day of Communications, “These new technologies are truly a gift to humanity. They respond to a fundamental desire of people to communicate and to relate to each other,” and he urged Catholics to “bring the witness of their faith to the digital world.”)
But I would observe that there’s a rather sad aspect to this: many people (priests and lay ministers, especially) have chosen to sign on as “anonymous.” We provided that option, knowing how many in the church today would fear for their positions were they to sign on. That seems regrettable to me, and I think it says something about the atmosphere of fear in our Church today. I am happy I personally didn’t have to deal with that. I had no trouble whatever putting my name to the piece I wrote for America. I have an archbishop who respects people’s rights to express their opinion. And I think we have a church where it is still possible to ask questions; where it is still our responsibility to ask questions.
And this man is not a
And this man is not a bishop....why?
Many of us have asked this
Many of us have asked this question for years.
And some of us just say: DEO
And some of us just say: DEO GRATIAS!
Can you imagine? I can't believe he's actually the pastor of the Mother Church of Seattle!
As a pastor, he is acting as
As a pastor, he is acting as a shepherd looking after his fold, and not merely a sheep blindly following the flock. It's not insubordination, but healthy questioning; and before anyone jumps to make a quick judgment, it may benefit us all if one did the same and truthfully asked oneself, "what if we did wait?"
To the person who posted,
To the person who posted, "And some of us say: DEO", that is a ridiculous remark, not shared by most in our Archdiocese. Most Catholics in the Archdiocese of Seattle can imagine Fr. Mike Ryan being a bishop, because he is one of the most saintly priests we have ever known. Because of his leadership, our numbers are growing, vocations are increasing, and more and more people are being served on First Hill who would not be. I happen to be a parishioner at St. James, so when you attack our pastor, you attack my community and you attack me - and I do take that personally.
You remind me very much of a person on the highway who commits road rage - and yes, you have invoked my anger plenty - and if you were to stand before me, I'd tell you straight to your face, but since Jesus asks us to show mercy on those who are our enemies, I will obey His command and pray for you. It is obvious you are not a happy person. Instead of bitching about Fr. Ryan, why don't you join us, roll up your sleeves, and help us serve God's people in the ministries of that parish. It would do good for your soul. But then, you have to let go of your pride in order to embrace such an invitation. You stike me as someone who likes to complain without knowing the facts, because you do not have a life. Well get off your behind, and get a life. And come join us at the Cathedral, and make a difference in other people's lives.
Thank God for Fr. Ryan
Thank God for Fr. Ryan speaking up. I briefly followed Trautman's role in leading the cause for a sensible approach to these new translations with the hope that his fellow bishops would act wisely and with the realization of what they would be saddling their flocks with for years to come. I was very discouraged when I heard they had responded otherwise. I had even written to our bishop stating my concerns, yet never heard back from him. I am hopeful that he was willing to stand with Trautman. My concern is for my children and their children if this insanity comes to fruition. As early 20-somethings, they already struggle with the need to stay involved with the Church. And now the hierarchy intends to implement grammatically incorrect language? What are they THINKING!?! Elementary school children are taught how to use nouns and verbs properly. What on earth are they supposed to think when "educated" men aren't able to do the same? And who in the pews do they think uses, much less understands, words such as 'consubstantial,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' ineffable,' 'ignominy,' 'suffused,' and 'unvanquished'? Thank you, Fr. Ryan, for your willingness and courage to give the faithful a voice in a Church that SHOULD be every bit ours as it is the hierarchy's. You have given me hope and encouragement to continue to speak out.
Why is Father Ryan not a
Why is Father Ryan not a bishop? Because he was a close associate (chancellor and vicar general) of Archbishop Hunthausen during the latter's tumultuous tenure in Seattle. That connection is enough to deny him any advancement (as well-deserved as it certainly would be) in today's Catholic Church. Too bad - for Seattle and for the Church as a whole....
I don't know a whole lot
I don't know a whole lot about that era personally, but I hear tell that to say it was "interesting" would be an understatement. When the Pope has to invent a legal structure ad hoc to keep the crazy locked up tight, you know you are probably off the deep end. When the afore-alluded-to super-auxiliary has to climb in in a rectory window to stop a brother bishop from publishing heresy, there is something wrong. When an archdiocese has a severe shortage of deacons because the Archbishop refuses to ordain any as a protest against the teaching on male clergy, one is not living in Shangrala. With all due respect for his Excellency, he is a bishop after all, I have some rather large disagreements with how wise many of the decisions Archbishop Hunthausen made.
I am a little surprised to hear Fr Ryan was a confidant of Archbishop Hunthausen, but whatever, people change over time.
Not every good priest is made a bishop, it is not a commentary on the man. Fr Ryan is not evil or out-of-bounds, he is just wrong on this position.
My understanding is that he
My understanding is that he prefers being "in [our] midst as one who serves," and the day-to-day interaction with the people of our parish is a profoundly important part of his Priest experience. ;) It would be an honor, certainly, but I think he'd be called away from what he loves most about his vocation.
Obviously he is too sensible,
Obviously he is too sensible, too pastoral, too rooted in Vatican II to make the cut.
Since he is so rooted in
Since he is so rooted in Vatican II I assume his liturgies contain Latin and that Gregorian Chant has maintained pride of place.
Actually, the liturgies at
Actually, the liturgies at St. James Cathedral do use lots of latin and chant. One of the things that makes Fr Ryan argument worthy of serious attention, is that he is not the slave of any ideological camp and takes his role pastor seriously and with humility.
Because God has heard and
Because God has heard and answered my prayers.
Because he doesn't play the
Because he doesn't play the game that The Boyz want it played, that's why.
Goin' along to get along is the way to brighter colored clothing.
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR FATHER
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR FATHER RYAN NOT BECOMING BISHOP;
1 Smarts and initiative are not desired prerequisits for ordination as bishop.
2 Curial members do not want someone able to challenge their reasoning.
3 Father Ryan may not want to be in a position requiring association with current bishops.
not a bishop because he's
not a bishop because he's intelligent enough to not say yes every time Rome sneezes.
Why not a bishop? Probably
Why not a bishop? Probably because as Seattle chancellor and vicar general he stood up for Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen in the 1980s when the Vatican, through the instrumentality of an apostolic visitation headed by Cardinal James A. Hickey of Washington, painted Hunthausen as an ineffective administrator because of the archbishop's pastoral outreach to gay Catholics and other groups of the type that caused scandal among Jewish religious leaders 2,000 years ago when Jesus associated with them. From other contacts as well, over many years as a religion reporter, I know Father Michael G. Ryan as a man of tremendous pastoral and personal integrity, committed to the church and to the people he serves.
Sacred Secret Bishop A to
Sacred Secret
Bishop A to Bishop B,
"I Know 'Liturgy' means work of the people,
but if we use language they understand,
they'll discover they can do Liturgy
without us!"
They can, but not any liturgy
They can, but not any liturgy that requires a cleric. Lay people can celebrate the Office together, for example, and indeed are encouraged to since the breviary is the official daily prayer of the Church. But, of course, there are only 2 sacraments that do not absolutely require a priest or bishop. That is why we need them, they are here to serve us.
And yet, the leaders of the
And yet, the leaders of the church are willing to have hundreds of congregations without regular Eucharist because they are unwilling to consider why so few are choosing priesthood as a vocation. What do they need to look at? Celibacy as a requirement for ordination. Apparently celibacy is more important, more essential to the life of the Church than Eucharist. Would Jesus agree with this? Oh! Sorry! His apostles were a group of largely married men.
This is same reason why Rome
This is same reason why Rome will not allow the Ordination of Women--Job Security!
...just like our primitive
...just like our primitive ancestors in the faith who did not have ordained ministry --- and who had a voice in the selection (or retention) of their community leaders who presided at their liturgies!
History can present us such inconvenient truths.
In light of the sick and dysfunctional mess in the Church of Rome today, "those who don't learn the lessons of history..."
O Please, hasten the day. VF
O Please, hasten the day.
VF
I share your concerns and
I share your concerns and applaud your efforts.
The clunky prayers for the
The clunky prayers for the day (the opening prayer, the secret, the preface and the prayer after Communion) will probably not be noticed much, since most of the faithful don't listen to them anyway beyond waiting for their cue to say Amen or start the Sanctus (although the changes here and to the Creed will take some adjustment).
Going back to the older form of the Nicean Creed is probably better than the current version and the faithful will quickly learn to say "and with your spirit" and "it is right and just" at the appropriate times. The prayer for pardon before Communion may be a little harder to swallow, but at least it is ancient and scripturally based rather than being simply a bow to the Latin.
I doubt that Fr. Ryan's efforts will stop the translation from happening, although if I am wrong about the faithful going along with the changes, they may be in the vanguard of an movement to a separate English speaking Great Church with its own Patriarch (or Matriarch) as a kind of reconstitution of the Church of Galatia (which was a celtic colony in Asia minor). This may be the Holy Spirit's way of bringing about Christian Unity in the English speaking world (by edging out the Vatican). I also can't help but think that the Spanish speaking world will have similar heartburn to chunky language.
We shall see in God's time, not ours.
The current Spanish
The current Spanish translation used in the United States if significantly closer to the Latin than the English is, so I will bet that the heartburn will be limited.
So. . . The Holy Spirit wants
So. . . The Holy Spirit wants to bring about unity by leading English speakers AWAY from the Bishop of Rome, and therefore threatening communion with non- English-speaking Catholics, all so that we don't have to memorize a new translation of the Nicene Creed. Does anyone see a potential problem with this?
What is your point? You talk
What is your point? You talk in circles, and you make no sense. Maybe that is your point - your pointless remark is equal to the pointless new translation. Just like I don't understand your jibberish - likewise, most Catholics are not going to understand the jibberish of the new translation. No need to reply back. I've answered my own question.
I'm afraid that, if they did
I'm afraid that, if they did not listen to Donald Trautman, they might not listen to anyone. His observations and warnings to his fellow bishops were both eloquent and wise. What we have here, as I perceive it, is an exercise of power, the power of conservative voices within the Vatican that have little sensitivity to pastoral needs. I blame the Conference of Bishops for not showing more courage in resisting this power-play.
The wisdom exhibited by
The wisdom exhibited by Bishop Trautman was ignored by the bisops--as usual they cannot see the forest for the trees!
The language of the liturgy has to be able to be understood by those of all educational levels. Jesus spoke in simple parables, never employing words like consubstatiation.
Let us hope that this sensible Seattle priest's ideas spread far and wide.
I do believe that a large
I do believe that a large percentage of the USCCB was *against* this new, Back to the Past Latinate version of The Mass. However, these bishops are also 'under the papal gun.' Can you imagine how many heads would roll if the USCCB did not return a very large affirmative percentage?
This is the kind of church we are experiencing currently. The chief pastors know what they want and exactly how to get it. It will take some time, but there will be retaliation for both Trautman and Ryan -- similar to the punishments that came down on those that questioned the Iran election.
Associate on Dec. 11, 2009
Associate on Dec. 11, 2009
You stated:
I do believe that a large percentage of the USCCB was *against* this new, Back to the Past Latinate version of The Mass. However, these bishops are also 'under the papal gun.' Can you imagine how many heads would roll if the USCCB did not return a very large affirmative percentage?
This is the kind of church we are experiencing currently. The chief pastors know what they want and exactly how to get it. It will take some time, but there will be retaliation for both Trautman and Ryan -- similar to the punishments that came down on those that questioned the Iran election.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid that I agree with too many of your statements. But I just wonder what would have happened if the MAJORITY of the Bishops in the USCCB had just said "NO, we do not wish to go back to the Past Latinate version of the Mass." Because WE are the Shepherds of the American people, and WE do not believe that a Goobledegook English---produced by people who do not speak English as their native language, is the best that we can do, pastorally and liturgically, for our people."
As someone wisely stated on one other blog---it is the Holy Spirit, on Pentecost, who brought diversity from uniformity. The Apostles all spoke in Aramaic (not Latin), and all peoples hearing it----understood in THEIR tongue, the salvation won for us by Jesus, the Christ. And who spoke Latin---that it should be considered a 'sacred' language? Not Jesus, Peter, Paul or the other Apostles. It was the language of Pontius Pilate. Latin became so important only because Rome was where the seat of power was for the Roman Empire.
English is the chief language for many nations. All deserve a well written, thoughtful liturgy in THEIR tongue, not this poor excuse for English that will be foisted upon an unsuspecting people. I pray for Bishop Trautman and Fr. Ryan---because the Vatican, just as power hungry as the Roman Emperors, will retaliate---just as you so very well stated, Anonymous.
At THIS point from what I've
At THIS point from what I've seen of the new translations, I intend to probably just keep using the current translation. Liturgy is for the people. And if they can't understand it comfortably, then why??? I've written the USCCB before their conference and urged them NOT to adopt.... They obviously did not care about the reasons I put forth. Soooo....GO FOR IT Fr.Ryan God's peace, Fr.Bob Wenz
I, too, am storing some extra
I, too, am storing some extra copies of the current sacramentary.
I believe the first edition should be sent to the Bishops for their use "ad experimentum" for the first year or two so they can get a sense of what they're foisting on the rest of us. Perhaps if we'd done that in 1969, we'd have fewer problems today.
As for some who say the 1969 Missal was inflicted on the Church then, and that's why this one should be inflicted on the Church now, when did turnabout become fairplay? Don't we have time and space to learn from our mistakes?
Fr John
And at what denomination will
And at what denomination will you be using translations not prescribed for the Catholic Church?
Great, another disobedient
Great, another disobedient priest. Just what the Church needs. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells his followers to heed and obey what the religious leaders teach them even if they do not agree with what they are doing. Sort of a "Do as they say not as they do" command.
Sign me up. Patricia Smith
Sign me up. Patricia Smith
thank you so much! If we go
thank you so much! If we go back to the early Church, the priest didn't have to read certain prayers made up by others. So, why do we have to make the translations more like the "original"? Did God reveal this to somebody?
Sister, If we go back to
Sister,
If we go back to early church liturgical practices, won't we also open ourselves up again to early church doctrinal difficulties? There have always been nut-jobs in the priesthood on the left and right. Do we really want to subject the laity to bizarre prayers from the fringe? I think it is very likely that the codification of prayes that took place in the 5th-8th centuries was a response to flagrant heresy and abuse of extemporaneous liturgical prayer. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy does state, "[T]he liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change," (21). But there is also an old adage that the law of praying is the law of believing: lex orandi, lex credendi. I think this is behind Sacrosanctum Concilium 33:
"Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church. Thus not only when things are read 'which were written for our instruction' (Rom. 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are raised to God, so that they may offer Him their rational service and more abundantly receive His grace."
Over the centuries, prayers have been composed, reworked, codified that truly are nourishing. To those of us eagerly looking forward to the new translation, it is instructions like this from Sacrosanctum Concilium that motivate us. When one looks at the material in the Latin prayers, the teaching and nourishment is not being conveyed in anything close to an adequate way in the current translation. I admit that there are some phrases in the new translation that are not as elegant as might be desired or as elegant as the Latin and some still not sufficiently literal, but the content must not be sacrificed for the glossiness of beautiful language and the laity have been deprived long enough. Plus, what's wrong with a translation sounding like a translation? We have a beautiful, noble tradition of prayer. Quotations from the liturgy are constantly cited in Church teachings, showing how the Holy Spirit has guided the Church at prayer. Why hide our tradition under a basket or throw it away like garbage? New prayers will always be written for new feasts, new saints. The liturgy must never be static, but its treasures must be celebrated.
I'm proud of you, Father
I'm proud of you, Father Ryan, for your courage to speak out against the proposed inappropriate translation of the Catholic Missal. I have been reading about this issue in the National Catholic Reporter and it would affect my prayer at the Eucharistic Celebration if the translation is adopted. I empathize with pastors who would have to deal with parishioners' difficulties in accepting the changes.
Me, too!! :)
Me, too!! :)
This movement is so dumb and
This movement is so dumb and so insulting to the laity and the clergy. I've prayed some of the Eucharistic Prayers a few times at Mass and the people loved the new wording as being sacred. I've been telling people for over five years to expect this, I've written article on it and I've directed them to the Bishop's website. Stop stalling and get with the damn program. We don't need any more 1970's stupidity.
Dear 'Fr. Allan
Dear 'Fr. Allan McDonald':
Are you telling us that we should all 'fall in line' while you tell us you have used as-yet unapproved liturgical texts?! Goodness, but if I'm not mistaken, the traditional Catholic Nuns who taught me would have called you a hypocrite!
How doe people 'love the new wording as being sacred' - sounds extremely complicated to me!
Your use of English is so atrocious ('written article on it' ... 'Bishop's website' etc) that you're hardly much of a spokeman for your cause.
I can hear my old trad Nun teachers now . . . 'If there's one thing worse than a hypocrite, it's an illiterate hypocrite' . . .
But you keep on keeping on, won't you now . . .
Are the words "dumb,"
Are the words "dumb," "stupid," and "damn" intended to be examples of elevated language? And how can you defend your illicit use of the new translations at Mass?
Cogito ergo sum. Try it!
Cogito ergo sum. Try it!
Confido, conquiesco. Have a
Confido, conquiesco. Have a go at it, Anonymous!
You must be a gem in the
You must be a gem in the pulpit.
You must be a gem in the
You must be a gem in the pulpit.
Stupidity? Sorry, but I think
Stupidity? Sorry, but I think your hrubis got in the way Fr. McDonald. Being down at St. Joe's in Macon, GA some things might look stupid to you but I'll stand w/Fr. Ryan and St. James in Seattle anyday of the week. Furthermore, Bishop Lynch down in your neck of the woods at the diocese of St. Petersburg in FL recently attended a Mass w/ the new translations and he stated that he couldn't repeat what the parishoners or the priests said about the new translations. I trust Bishop Lynch and believe what he says. But I will agree w/ you, it is indeed a "damn" program.
I have to disagree, Fr.
I have to disagree, Fr. McDonald. The new translations do violence to the notion of a vernacular liturgy. I can appreciate that there are some who have a nostalgia for the old Latin liturgy and am happy they can be accommodated. But I would have gotten failing grades for translating Latin texts literally. I was taught to render their meaning in coherent English. The manner in which these changes are being thrust upon the faithful is woeful. I think that, just as we can ask for the Latin liturgy, we should be entitled to have an indult to celebrate the Eucharist under our present form. Otherwise, many of us may feel more comfortable joining our Episcopalian brethren who have essentially adopted our present liturgy.
Ken Poggenburg
Don't let the door hit you in
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
From the tone of your
From the tone of your comments your parishioners are probably afraid to tell you anything you did not want to hear!
I think it is dumb and
I think it is dumb and insulting to ask people to speak incoherent english
"And in one holy, catholic, and aposolic church." Where's the verb!
"Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault."
How dramatic! And then were supposed to object to same sex marriage?
Come on Father- get real
...and God bless you, too,
...and God bless you, too, "Father."
This man's "shut up and obey"
This man's "shut up and obey" approach to leadership is so contrary to the model that developed within Vatican II. In fact, it was an environment of just such thinking which had a great deal to do with establishing a need for "aggiornamento" in the first place. We need to go forward, building on the accomplishments of the past; not to revisit the sins of the past. To paraphrase Fr. McDonald, "We don't need any more 1940's stupidy."
In my experience that "shut
In my experience that "shut up and obey" mentality was the direct result of Vatican II--or at least that was what happened in the local churches. All of these priests and nuns who had "updated" themselves began to destroy our parish churches, and when we questioned we were basically told to shut up and go along with it. After all, we the people were just too dumb to know what father and sister knew. Some must have been even to dumb to know who father and sister were because they didn't look like father and sister anymore. They were now Bob and Jane--dressed in their finest flannel and polyester. The donations that my parents had made when the church was built were tossed into the trash in the cover of darkness and our beautiful sanctuary now looked like a local vfw hall. I guess I am still not smart enough to know their reasoning--and everytime I asked I was basically told to shut up and obey.
A little clerical
A little clerical competitiveness, me thinketh, Father. It's not about you.
Fr, Sounds like you're the
Fr,
Sounds like you're the one not with the **** program. Using these unapproved, unauthorized prayers before their "good after" date. I hope someone reported you to your chancery, for your use of spiritually unpleasing language if nothing else.
THANK YOU FATHER FOR SOME
THANK YOU FATHER FOR SOME INTELLIGENT INPUT!
Rubbish, Fr McDonald.
Rubbish, Fr McDonald. Schoolboy translations and gobbledygook renderings of the Latin aren't "sacred". They are just bad English. This is not a question of dumbing things down, but of praying in translations that convey the sense of the Latin originals and some of their nobility. And the current ICEL translations. It is comments like your "1970s stupidity" line (did you read that one on Fr Zuhlsford's blog?) that are dumb and insulting to the laity and clergy.
You've used the prayers at
You've used the prayers at mass even though they have not yet been authorized? Sounds like you might need to get with the damn program and do what the church asks you to do.
You've used some of the new
You've used some of the new Prayers during liturgy even though they have not yet been authorized? Sounds like you might be the one that needs to get with the damn program and do what the church asks.
Fr. McDonald --- YOUR
Fr. McDonald --- YOUR language? What religion of respect and holiness did YOU grow up in? What religion of reverence do YOU practice? Your rants of anger and rage are sinful. If you're going to comment and share in the dialog, at least have the human decency of being respectful. How can you be a credible 'vessel of the holy / divine' when you're not even practicing 'human' kindness?
Fr McDonald you'll notice all
Fr McDonald you'll notice all the ad hominem attacks on you. Standard fare for liberals. Oh you said a bad word or two, only liberals can do that. Come on Father stop acting like a man with *******. Ooops did I say a bad word?
You spelled it wrong.
You spelled it wrong. (Freudian slip.)
"Ooops did I say a bad word?"
"Ooops did I say a bad word?" What do the other priest's ***** have to do with this discussion Fr James Holland? This is where you want the focus of the discussion to go?
If you are an example of a Catholic Priest, you are a very poor example. The Church is apparently scraping the bottom of the barrel of humans with testicles to keep you on as a Priest!!! Good Grief, I'd rather there were 10,000 women priest than hear from the likes of you!!! And you claim you are in persona Christi? I don't recall Jesus being fixated on balls as the criteria for being a follower of His. Nor do I recall Jesus putting anyone down except for the Scribes and Pharisees, the priesthood of hypocrites with cajones who were blind and deaf and crucified Him on a cross and let Barabbas free.
Is this language from you now the standard fare for Catholic Priests toward anyone who does not agree with you? Ad hominem attacks, you say on the Priest, but yours is not an attack on anyone, not vulgar at its very core and message?
Interesting you speak quite
Interesting you speak quite boldly behind your anonymity you coward. In my post, I'm complimenting Fr. McDonald you moron, this what this thread is all about. Your vulgarity exceeds any of my expectations and so does delaying the implementation of the new Sacramentary. Oh, one more thing moron, Saint Paul gets pretty vulgar in his Epistle to the Galatians Chapter 5.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Father Holland is a prime
Father Holland is a prime example of the "abomination of the priest-ass".
He thinks he can intimiate and name call his way to success. He can't.
A female-priest any day is far and away superior to viscious bottom feeders (like FJH) the church seems to be ordaining these days.
Excellent idea. The most used
Excellent idea.
The most used prayers, the 'Our Father,' and the 'Hail Mary,' shold also be examined. The first identifies us as children of God, by appropriately using the term, 'Our Father;' while the second identifies us as sinners. There is no doubt that we sin, but our essence is as children of God.
Suggestion:
'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Holy Mary, Mother of the Savior, take care of us, your children in faith, now and always. Amen.' This is a starting point, and several variations are possible.
Some of what's in the Liturgy of the Hours needs examination, too: "We go joyfully to war."
Bravo, Fr. Ryan!!!!
Bravo, Fr. Ryan!!!!
Thanks for being one of the first to publicly stand up to this nonsense. I hope you get every priest in the country to "just wait" -- to wait until the Second Coming!
Post new comment