Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley of Denver explains how the new Mass translation “reaches up to heaven.”
New Mass translation “reaches up to heaven”
by
Tags:
Comments
114 responses to “New Mass translation “reaches up to heaven””
-
“Our new Mass translation replaces the mundane affirmation –’Happy are those who are called to (Christ’s) supper’– with a confession of faith … ‘Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb’.”
The parenthesized antecedent for the pronoun “his” is wrong here. It’s actually “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Happy are those who are called to (the Lamb’s) supper. Despite the bishop’s assertion, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t see much difference between that and “Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb.”
-
+JMJ+
The “(Christ’s)” was the insertion of the editor or author of the CNA article, not the bishop. In his article, he just uses “his”:
—
To drive this point home, our new Mass translation replaces the mundane affirmation — “Happy are those who are called to his supper” — with a confession of faith worthy of the cosmic character of our celebration.
We are not “happy.” We are blessed. We have not been called to any ordinary meal. No, we have been invited to the great banquet of our heavenly King, the wedding feast of His Son, our Redeemer.
Accordingly, we will now pray: “Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb.” Again, the prayer has been there all along in the Latin. The language is an almost literal quotation from the revelation of the heavenly liturgy given to St. John in the Book of Revelation.
In the holy Mass, heaven reaches down to earth and earth reaches up to heaven. We are worshipping not only in our local church, but in the precincts of Mount Zion, “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and [with] innumerable angels in festal gathering, and [with] the Church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven.”
—
His article can be read in its entirety here.
-
“To drive this point home, our new Mass translation replaces the mundane affirmation — ‘Happy are those who are called to his supper’ — with a confession of faith worthy of the cosmic character of our celebration.”
Again, I’ll insist that I don’t see any significant difference in the two texts. I, too, prefer “blessed” to “happy,” for reasons of tone, I guess, but the simple fact is that we are “makarioi,” which means both, perfectly well. You might object that we’re translating the Latin, not the Greek, but that doesn’t go very far when you highlight the importance of the text as a direct quotation of the New Testament.
Everything you say about what happens in the liturgy is absolutely true, and it’s exactly what I hear when the current text is proclaimed. The reference to the eschatological banquet of the Lamb is there, and it is obvious, regardless of which two translations, identical in meaning, are used.
-
+JMJ+
Chris, I agree that there is not as much of a difference between the two phrases as Bishop Conley suggests. But there is a difference in their clarity.
Saying merely “his supper” (or, as I have heard some priests say, “this supper”) does not evoke the imagery of the (marriage) supper of the Lamb. I doesn’t connect our earthly participation in the Eucharist with the heavenly marriage banquet between the Lamb and His Bride. This connection is further obscured by the “inclusive” variation “this supper”, which instead of being inclusive is actually exclusive, drawing our attention from participation in the eternal supper of the Lamb to participation in “our” supper, “this” supper, the temporal happening at this particular Mass. I don’t think it evokes the same eternal and heavenly imagery.
On the other hand, the “supper of the Lamb” — and I really wish the Ordinary Form used the full biblical phrase, the “marriage supper of the Lamb” — evokes a heavenly and eschatological image.
-
-
-
My response to Bishop Conley: nice try.
I’ve heard the coffee cup story before. But I’m not convinced it illustrates the worst of liturgical mishaps. I tend to doubt a liturgically-trained priest would use a coffee cup, unless he arrived at the Worker House without his Mass kit, and absolutely nothing else was available.
More of a concern to me would be wealthy parishes that do not employ people to serve in liturgy or music, the suburban emphasis on buildings schools before building churches, the random pink-slipping of good musicians, a lack of investment in suitable musical instruments, the lack of music at early Sunday or holy day Masses. And the list goes on and on.
By the way, language might speak to heaven, but if we’re looking for human involvement that “reaches” to God, we might consider our gestures instead: a suitable generosity put into the parish celebration of liturgy, and an extraordinary living out of the Gospel call once Mass is ended. Actions, so they say, speak louder …
-
So true, Todd.
The Mass mean nothing ultimately if we do not carry Christ with us in our daily lives – whatever the rite. -
What is left out of the story of the coffee cup, it that it was inspired by the actual use of a coffee cup to clandestinely celebrate Mass in a Soviet prison. Obviously the people who repeated that event here were carried away by attempting to identify and express their solidarity with that situation. Dorothy was more centered and grounded than to be influenced by such superficiality.
-
-
Todd, what’s unbelievable about the story? I’ve personally seen a priest celebrate Mass seated on the floor and with the corporal placed directly on the carpet.
-
Samuel, I didn’t say I disbelieved that a priest would do such a thing. What I wrote: I don’t think a liturgically-sensitive priest would. The distinction is in our expectations of the clergy, and real-world realities.
Even today, many priests lack a liturgical sensitivity. This was more true in the years before and after the Council, so it’s not surprising to me that weird things happened, and still happen.
-
New Mass translation “reaches up to heaven”
He’s seen the absolutely and utterly final version? Must be.
-
Why must that be? It hasn’t been released yet in the final version with propers. We’re still wondering whether it will be the Received Text with a few changes or a lot of changes. I just posted that the Irish got the Order of Mass, but they didn’t get anything else, just last Friday. Obviously it’s not ready yet.
awr-
Why “must be”? Well, you don’t think that any Received Text version yet seen could be described as “reaches up to heaven”. Do you?
Ergo, if it “reaches up to heaven” then it must be something not yet released to us folks. Nicht wahr?
Of course, I didn’t really think he’d seen anything new. Just a mild attempt at mild humor.
-
I don’t see the connection between two issues: whether or not we have the final version is distinct from whether or not the outdated final version, the Received Text, reaches up to heaven. I expect that the really final text will probably be quite similar to the Received Text, but I hope the worst gaffes in it will be corrected.
Personally, I don’t think the new text will quite reach to heaven. Even if they were to fix the Received Text and change it back to what ICEL prepared in 2008, which would be way better than the 2010 Received Text, it still doesn’t quite work.
My complaint is aesthetic. The way LA was applied works against really good, beautiful English. The new text doesn’t flow well or proclaim well. I think perhaps the people who drafted LA were so angry at the problems with 1973, and also 1997 in their minds, that they overreacted. They also didn’t consult with experts in all the various areas, or with conferences, or even with all the cardinals in the Congregation for Divine Worship. A few people pushed an agenda, and then just fired away without prayerful reflection or a good model of how Christ’s followers work together to build up the Church.
I think the result of all this is that the new texts basically won’t work. I can’t predict the timeline, but within 1 year or 10 years or 15 years, experience will show that we need a better set of translation principles which better bring together Latin meaning and English proclaimability.
awr
-
-
-
It seems to me that once again a core issue is the inability to understand or live out the earth/heaven dynamic as being both/and. It’s just as problematic to base everything on heaven being only “up” and “not here” as it is to understand heaven as being only “here” and “among” – vertical/horizontal, if you will.
Yes, the liturgy reaches up to join us with the angels and saints; but it also reaches out to the saints around us who celebrate with us, in the already but not yet Supper of the Lamb. -
Anthony Ruff, OSB :
My complaint is aesthetic. The way LA was applied works against really good, beautiful English. The new text doesn’t flow well or proclaim well….
I think the result of all this is that the new texts basically won’t work. I can’t predict the timeline, but within 1 year or 10 years or 15 years, experience will show that we need a better set of translation principles which better bring together Latin meaning and English proclaimability.
awrYour complaint is not really aesthetic though, is it? Your complaint is about the prioritization of aesthetics in translations, which is not really a complaint about aesthetics (taking proclamability to be a subset of aesthetics, which if it is not, is also evidence that aesthetics are not really the complaint.)
-
As I wrote, my complaint is aesthetic. This includes proclaimability for me.
awr-
Think about this though Fr. Anthony- proclaimability here in the US is different than proclaimabilibility in the other English speaking parts of the world. The principle of dynamic equavalence that the 1969 instruction advocated is no more. I forget the name of the concept that LA introduced, but we must now follow those directives as LA supercedes the 1969 instruction on translation that the 1973 Roman Missal was based on. Even Fr. Pecklers acknowledged in the Genius of the Roman Rite that the 1973 translation was incorrect, but he is resigned
But would you not agree that if faith is a mystery, meaning not EVERYTHING has to be understood? Then we don’t have to understand the meaning of EVERY word, as long as we understand the concept or the image those words are trying to convey?????
Since our new translation will have a scriptural basis, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon members to read the Scripture passages these translations are based on??? I did that when the study version of the translation was on the USCCB website, and I understood the basis for some of these translations better, and Im more comfortable with them.
Even if the English speaking countries, territories and regions have different cultures and traditions, we all still belong to the same Apostolic Tradition of our faith, and we all express the same basic ideas in our prayers, and we all perform the same postures and gestures during Mass, so why not have a universal English language Roman Missal that binds us together with our fellow English speaking brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of what our cultural differences are? The same holds true for other regions that speak similar languages such as Spanish speaking territories. -
would you not agree that if faith is a mystery, meaning not EVERYTHING has to be understood? Then we don’t have to understand the meaning of EVERY word, as long as we understand the concept or the image those words are trying to convey?????
Tim,
I think you are misunderstanding something essential about “mystery,” as that term is used theologically. A theological mystery is not generated by unfamiliar words; rather it is a matter of ordinary words that express a concept that exceeds our capacity to grasp. In other words, it is a matter of incomprehensible concepts (like the Trinity) expressed in perfectly comprehensible words (like Father, Son and Spirit).
So the relationship of God the Father and God the Son is neither more nor less mysterious whether we use a word like “consubstantial” or a phrase like “one in being.” In fact, use of obscure words might convey mystery less adequately, since we will be misled into thinking the problem is simply a verbal one (I could understand the Trinity if only I could figure out what this word “consubstantial” means) rather than a matter of a concept that exceeds human comprehension. Everything about the Gospel becomes more mysterious, not less, when you can grasp the meaning of the words being used.
-
-
-
Recently I was on a cruise ship sailing from Baltimore. On Sunday we were in the port of Charleston, and the ship’s staff arranged a Mass for us. The cinema was packed, the Mass was said with great reverence by a young Nigerian priest, we sang some old familiar hymns. Even though we used the 1973 translation, it’s fair to say we did our best to “reach up to heaven.”
The young priest could not contain his joy that so many folks had come to be part of the Mass. Afterward he was thanked profusely, and hugged warmly by a whole congregation of grateful travelers who had no other opportunity that day to receive the Eucharist. I’m sure the result would have been the same regardless of the translation used. -
Mr. MacDonald,
Probably true, but did you notice that your story proves that even the much-maligned 1973 translation can in fact be done reverently and well? Much depends on the people participating in the event, and maybe that’s what has some of the very traditionalist-minded folk so upset about all of this. Of course, attention to the ‘stagecraft’ of it all will always improve the experience of the mass. Doesn’t affect the validity of anything, but it sure has an impact on the sensibilities of folks, which in turn affects a host of other things, like attendance….
-
Lynn, is that a kangaroo?! Like it!
-
Rita,
No, it’s a bunny that I photographed in my yard. Glad you enjoyed!
-
-
-
Reaches up to heaven, eh? Probably because those of us in the pews will probably figure that God only knows what the text means.
-
“even the much-maligned 1973 translation can in fact be done reverently and well?”
Indeed, and thankfully I’m one of the rare folks who is regularly able to experience the vernacular OF celebrated with great dignity and reverence. However, I cannot help recalling an incisive observation of Martin Mosebach in “The Heresy of Formlessness”. As I recall it:
“The statement that … with sufficient effort, the OF can be celebrated well … reveals its principal weakness. The statement that … with sufficient effort, the EF can be celebrated poorly … reveals its principal strength.”
-
Mosebach’s liturgical “expertise” notwithstanding: the principal strength of the EF is that it is much easier to celebrate because only the clergy (and ministers) have to get their parts right and it “works.” The problem is that a liturgy of this sort does not reflect what we believe the nature of the Church is. And as the last ecumenical council taught, liturgy is to reflect the nature of the true church.
awr-
“The problem is that a liturgy of this sort does not reflect what we believe the nature of the Church is.” Really? Not at all? That’s quite a statement, Fr. Ruff.
-
Father, I am sure you do not mean that. I am sure you do not mean that the Mass doesn’t “work” unless everyone present engages in some outward expression or activity. I am sure you do not mean that a venerable form of liturgy that grew organically for 1,500 years, and formed much of the most sublime expressions of culture ever achieved, has nothing to say about the nature of the Church.
Moreover: do not be so sure that the faithful at an EF Mass are merely passive spectators. I venture to say I attend more such liturgies than you, and am quite attuned to the level of outward participation — which I have consistently noticed to be at least as pronounced as what I see at OF celebrations. It is really past time that narrative was retired, Father.
-
The EF does not adequately express the nature of the True Church. I mean what I wrote. Yes, quite a statement. There are many such “quite a statement” passages in Vatican II.
I don’t mean many of the things RBR attributes to me, which is why I did not write them. I did not write, for example, that that Mass only “works” if everyone is engaged in some external activity. I wrote that the EF “works” even if no one in the congregation is engaged in this. I wrote nothing about whether or not the people at EF are engaged.
We see that RBR has so many agendas that he keeps firing them off – even when they’re not in response to what someone actually wrote.
awr
-
Thank you for the clarification, Father. Am I then to infer that, contra, the OF does not work if the faithful do not “get their parts right”? Would you help me understand what you mean by “working” in this sense? I am sure you do not mean sacramental validity (I am not being ironic). But I’m not at all sure what you do mean.
You appear to be saying that the EF stifles the participation called for by SC: “acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times…a reverent silence.” I do not know where you attend the EF, Father. I have done so in at least three European cities and seven American cities. I can report a healthy level of all the actions called for in SC. Moreover, I can report a welcoming sense of community and eagerness to engage the stranger outside of Mass. I repeat myself: the narrative of formalistic, disconnected, anonymous gatherings is obsolete.
For the record, I attend about as many OF masses as EF — including every Sunday.
As for agendas — well, I suppose we both have those. Let’s not flatter ourselves that we have each other’s nuances and complexities figured out, shall we?
-
An approved, still contemporary yet venerable liturgy of the Catholic Church does not reflect what we believe the nature of the Church is? Wasn’t this the universal form in the Roman rite until only forty years ago? Where did V2 promulgate a new doctrine about the nature of the Church anyway? Is this only a charge for the EF or is also addressed to similarly venerable rites making use of highly formal rituals and ancient languages like the Geez rite or whereever a screen separates the clergy and
the people? -
A study done a few years ago by one of our contributors, Fr. Michael Wurtz, CSC, highlighted the fact that the “doctrine of the church,” or ecclesiology, that receives expression in the EF is qualitatively different than that expressed by the OF.
I assume that the point Fr. Ruff is trying to make is along those lines: since the ecclesiology of Vatican II is the doctrine espoused by the Roman Catholic Church at present, the use of a liturgy that expresses another ecclesiology, apparently ruled out by the council, is at best suspect.
-
To Robert Ramirez’s point, I think what Fr Ruff is saying is that direct congregational participation (laity saying words of the Missal, not participating by saying private prayers) is not really essential to the EF. Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, made some allowances for it (§§105ff) but with lots of reminders that direct participation is not necessary, that the faithful can always lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them, and an anathema (§107) on those who make so much of these accidentals as to presume to assert that without them the Mass cannot fulfill its appointed end.
Whether direct participation actually takes place in the EF or not is another question – most of the EF Masses I have been to have been in Europe, where direct participation is uneven. Some congregations welcome it; in others, you get shushed if you say a word.
Of course, in the OF, a private Mass or a congregation that doesn’t participate directly doesn’t render the Mass invalid or useless. But I agree with Fr Ruff, we now have a different understanding of the nature of the Church, and these practices – which are closer to the EF – don’t reflect it. To turn Mosebach on his head (and I think his book and published speeches on liturgy are very weak), a key redeeming factor for the EF in today’s Church is the dialogue Mass; i.e. the EF celebrated more like the OF.
-
Fr. Cody Unterseher:
Yes to all, I agree with your understanding entirely.
And for those traditionalists who are too easily offended: there’s really no reason, from a Christian standpoint, for putting down where someone was in the past, or where the Church was in the past. Under God’s mercy, we keep responding as best we can. If at Vatican II we came to the conviction that our past response was not adequate, and we are convinced that the Spirit is moving us to a better grasp of the Gospel message, then we rejoice in that and leave the past to God. We’re not better people than they were. We lovingly say, “That’s where they were then, but that’s not where we are now.” Let’s move forward gracefully.
awr -
+JMJ+
Fr. Cody: the use of a liturgy that expresses another ecclesiology, apparently ruled out by the council, is at best suspect.
Can someone point me to the place where Vatican II ruled out the ecclesiology expressed in the liturgy being celebrated during Vatican II? I’m serious about this. What is the specific change?
-
+JMJ+
Jonathan Day: a key redeeming factor for the EF in today’s Church is the dialogue Mass; i.e. the EF celebrated more like the OF.
I know you know this, but the dialogue Mass predates the Ordinary Form, so I personally find it a bit weird to frame the comparison (on the matter of verbal responses by the congregation) as “the EF celebrated like the OF.”
-
A good point Jeffrey, and one I felt even as I pressed the SUBMIT COMMENT button. The Dialogue Mass came before the OF as we know it, but the movement toward direct lay participation started even earlier. And sub specie aeternitatis it’s all one, anyway…
By the way, I’ve used the term ‘direct lay participation’ simply to refer to the laity having a defined and important role in the words and actions of the Mass, and to avoid the old arguments over ‘active participation’.
-
I think the council said something about all the venerable rites of the Church being equal.
-
Even in light of all the commentary that has taken place, I don’t think Fr Ruff’s statement (“only the clergy (and ministers) have to get their parts right and it ‘works.’”) holds water. Aside for maybe a tiny handful of traditionalists, most people don’t consider the participation of laymen to be what causes a Mass to “not work.” Even in the OF, it’s what the clergy (and ministers) do and “get right” that makes it either work or not. It’s not like there’s really all that much more the congregation is allowed to do in the OF than in the EF, and those of us attending Mass don’t actually get to choose what we say and do from a list of options.
The reason the EF is harder to “mess up” is because it doesn’t have a lot of options and the reason the OF is easier to “mess up” is because there are lots of options and substitutions – that’s something that has no bearing on whether the people are outwardly participating or not. An all-vernacular EF with congregational singing and responses would probably still be harder to mess up simply because the rubrics are very specific and you can’t substitute other things for the propers.
-
Johnathen,
I don’t think the laity need to be present at an OF Mass any more than at an EF Mass. Both require only one server
and, when necessary, Mass can be said even without the server.I know there are some who would have prefered a different kind of ecclesiology had developed at V2 by which no Mass could be licitly said by the priest alone (or even with only one server) but Vatican II’s Presbyterorum Ordinis (13) makes it clear, Mass celebrated even without the presence of the laity, is still an act of the Church. -
Jack, of course a Mass, OF or EF, can be celebrated without a congregation. It’s still valid. Nobody has argued otherwise. It just isn’t in line with the guidance in places like Sacrosanctum Concilium, e.g. §§26ff.
Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops … It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private …
In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.
This was an essential and organic development. The move in this direction started early in the 20th century if not before. It was well reflected in the design of the OF and the GIRM. And it is a reform not picked up in the Tridentine Mass. Hence I agree with Fr Ruff.
Of course if the EF continues to evolve and is not fossilised, that could change. As John Baldovin has pointed out, the idea of a stable ‘Mass of all time’ isn’t supported by history.
-
“Fr. Michael Wurtz, CSC, highlighted the fact that the “doctrine of the church,” or ecclesiology, that receives expression in the EF is qualitatively different than that expressed by the OF.”
This needs further explanation to see how it relates to the liturgy especially realizing that V2’s theological expressions also apply to the Byzantine Catholics, Maronites, and all the other liturgical rites that have not experienced significant reform since the late 1960s.
Additionally, V2 was very clear in its reaffirmation of Trent and Vatican I including their teachings on the nature of the Church.
-
-
-
Bishop Conley said the problem arose when good people misinterpreted the Council badly. And that part is true.For example, STL makes mention of the place of Latin in the Liturgy. There was nothing that said that the Bishops could forbid the use of Latin in the Liturgy , but the only reason the venacular language was used was to make the Liturgy more understandable. Fr.Pecklers points out in his book that that is what happened when the Mass was translated from Greek to Hebrew, because Hebrew became the prevalent language of the people and people didn’t understand the Greek. The same thing happened when Hebrew was translated into Latin and then when the Latin was translated into English.
But, I would dare say we have more of an understanding of Latin than we might think as the origin of many of our words comes from Latin(prefixes and suffixes), and if you remember learning these in school, you have a basic understanding of Latin. That’s all you need to have.
Also, if you have ever studied any modern language in school whether it be French, Spanish, Italian, German, many of these have a Latin base. Your ability to understand foriegn languages gives you the ability to understand Latin.
In STL-Read specifically P. 61-66(Chapter 2: The Church at Prayer, and P.72-78(Chapter 3: The Music of Catholic Worship for more information.-
More directly, much English vocabulary comes from Norman French, not all of it directly from Latin. This had sociological and political consequences for the English people of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and we don’t quite escape the shades of elitism even today. All in all, MR3 strikes me as reaching up to an aristocratic hierarchy more than to heaven.
Additionally, English usage is dramatically different from Latin. This is where the real charge of “poor English” in the 2008/2010 edition is laid. And where the best case is made for the impoverishment of the MR3 as rendered in English.
-
Dear Todd
Norman French is spoken here by a few people as their mother tongue.
Whilst you are correct that many words in English came from the Normans I think you would struggle with the language.
So did the Germans during the war.
One of them asked when England conquered the Channel Islands only to be told: “Never, we conquered them in 1066.”
Cheers
Peter
-
-
Mr. English,
German is NOT a Latin-based language. Where did you ever get that idea?
-
Mr English says that many (not all) of the languages he lists are Latin based.
I would add that a knowledge of Latin grammar would help to study German. It also helps if you are studying Turkish, possibly a minority language for Pray Tell readers.
-
-
-
I do not see where Martin Mosebach can claim more liturgical insight than anyone else. Liturgy & sacramental theology etc are not his specialized areas of education. His reputation in German speaking areas is that he is a writer of novels, poetry, articles on art and literature, film scenarios, and even texts for operas. His writing style owes a great deal to the German Romantic tradition. Perhaps his comments can be likened to those that a US Supreme Court Justice was said to make when faced with pornography — he can not define it, but he knows it when he sees it. Mosebach in his book “”The Heresy of Formlessness” takes an approach of one who says “I feel” rather than “I think”. It is unfortunate that some one like he should gain a large influence in the formation of the worship of the Church.
-
Bishop Conley also acknowledged liturgical abuses and aesthetic misjudgments in parts of the Church
But I’m sure he doesn’t include the new text coming soon at a Congregation near you in this category. He doesn’t see the abuse of power (but no authority — there is a difference) in treating episcopal conferences in a dismissive and discourteous way. He doesn’t see the new text coming soon (etc, etc) as an aesthetic misjudgment, though it will surely prove to be the case.
Using an extreme case (the coffee cup) as a paradigm for all the liturgical ills of the Church is the sort of thing that the traditional wing of the Church does all the time. It’s actually the sort of thing the CDW does all the time, turning isolated abuses into a law of universal abuse. The Bishop ought to be above that kind of pathetic polemic.
-
I see little mention of the role of Christ in the good bishop’s discussion. Maybe that can account for “interpreting the Council” badly?
-
“…I would dare say we have more of an understanding of Latin than we might think as the origin of many of our words comes from Latin(prefixes and suffixes), and if you remember learning these in school, you have a basic understanding of Latin. That’s all you need to have.”
-The vast majority of people in my family, not to mention society at large, would not be able to write an entire page of grammatically correct complex English, much less recognize many of the antecedent Latin words at the root of English words. Was there an actual attempt here to propose that Americans might understand liturgy ‘celebrated’ in Latin? Even with a degree in Classics, I still find the use of Latin in liturgy to be a barrier to the immediate apprehension of meaning necessary for my own internal participation. The vast majority of Americans I know find it impossible to understand English spoken with a thick foreign accent.
Why on earth would anyone still be suggesting the use of Latin, unless he also thought of the laity as a disposable audience to the Eucharist whose full, active and conscious participation meant absolutely nothing? I move that anyone who indicates that we ought to return to Latin, or who is in favor of obstructively unfamiliar language should no longer be fed and housed by the church (meaning, in this case, those of us who put money in the collection baskets), but should have to go work for a living, doing something actually useful for society, and sharing in the common lot by putting food on their own tables. Perhaps that will settle their minds and free them from such flights of fancy. Is there a second?
-
Second! May I propose an amendment requiring manual labor?
-
Vatican II calls us to a different direction Michael. We should be able to say or sing in Latin the part of the Mass that pertains to us (SC). The Council Fathers did not see the barrier in Latin that you do and every Latin rite Catholic, per the council, should find room for it.
The issue at hand here though is not the use of Latin, a settled matter even if it is resisted, but the worthy translation of our Latin Mass that we will soon be able to use.
-
-
Just would like to note the following change on your part, Fr. Ruff:
1. “A liturgy of this sort does not reflect what we believe the nature of the Church is.”
…now becomes…
2. “The EF does not adequately express the nature of the True Church.”
Two totally different statements. The second can perhaps be defended, but the first is pretty outlandish.
-
Somewhat different, surely, but totally different? The second is clearly just a clarification of the first, not a contradiction of it.
-
“Different” is not synonymous with “contradictory.”
-
I think that’s Mr. Bauerschmidt’s point – “different” and “contradictory” are not the same thing. My second statement is different, but it is not contradictory of the first. The second statement clarifies – as Bauerschmidt wrote.
awr -
And I, for one, am thankful for the clarification because the first statement was, as I indicated, quite an assertion.
-
-
-
Do some research on Bishop Conley. Out of the very conservative environment of Wichita, KS; converted to catholicism in college. Went to seminary at Pius X (very small, very conservative); then Emmitsburg (good school but very conservative). Had some pastoral experience before spending 10 years in Rome working for Ratzinger and others. Then, made auxiliary bishop to Chaput – wonder how that happened?
Conley has made a number of statements on issues ranging from the Boulder parish incident when kids were asked to leave the parish school because their parents were two lesbian women; his statements focused on Marian devotions; his dutiful following in the footsteps of Chaput. He has a MDiv out of one of the lesser institutes in Rome.
Would suggest that his remarks have little to do with liturgical expertise; rather, it has a lot to do with “Romanita” in the Chaput school of announcements.
-
+JMJ+
What is “statements focused on Marian devotions” doing in the rap-sheet?
-
Read some of his statements – it reveals priorities and emphases that detract from the key mission of the church. In this time when we have such large issues to confront, he appears to focus on side issues.
-
-
-
Mr. Ziegler, regarding the content and proposal in your final paragraph above (#35)-
Are you actually comparing proponents of the use of Latin in our Roman Catholic liturgies and Masses (EF/OF) to errant Thessalonian slackers or gnostics? In the parlance of our times, “REALLY?” And does that logically lead us to conclude that your exhortations indicate that you self-identify with St. Paul?
How do you feel about that, Father Ruff? I own and have read your book, and will need to re-read it a few more times, and I know you’re in community when you worship and pray in Latin, so the laity are not a factor, but do you second Mr. Ziegler’s motion?
Is it agreeable among the PT contributors and commentariat to, for example, castigate and cast out of the Roman Catholic community folks such as Stanford musicologist Dr. Wm. Mahrt (yes, he’s president of CMAA) for advocating the paradigm of the chanted Latin Mass, and actually helping that movement thrive for four decades in his own parish, as well as in increasing numbers of parishes in this country?
Maybe a populist ideology would suggest that such folks like Fr. Ruff and Dr. Mahrt, academics so to speak, don’t really work, or are “unwilling” to find real jobs, and thus should be excused from the table. (I dunno, reminds me of purging intellectuals from totalitarian regimes, how’d that work in the 20th century?)
Hmmm. “Flights of fancy?” I wouldn’t hestitate for a second to suggest that either of these gentlemen’s, and many others’ advocacy for proper liturgy and just living is in accord with St. Paul’s discipleship and the gospel of our Lord. I have not been personally “disposed” by either in word or deed.
Such inferences are unworthy of this, or any other forum that examines the full breadth of ecclesial concerns. IMO.-
Charles, calm down. Most of what I have to say I wrote above at 7:41 pm in response to Fr. Unterseher.
Mr. Ziegler only suggested that some people should get up and serve the poor (always good advice; perhaps something I should do!) and not be on the Church’s payroll. That’s already a bit polemical, so I’d prefer you not escalate things but getting indignant and acting as if he wanted to kick people out of the Church. He didn’t say that.
My monastic community worships almost entirely in English, and laity are present at most every service. I don’t know what you’re talking about in your reference to my community and Latin.
awr
-
Academic work is one thing…
I feel the need to clarify that my remarks were rhetorical in nautre, meant to express my frustration with what I would call a liturgical fetish around the use of Latin. I wasn’t attempting even minimally to express charity, but severity in castigation of what I believe is a genuinely anti-Catholic (and idolatrous) pursuit, because it would exclude the possibility of full participation on the part of the fullness of the assembly. You can lament, as I do, the deterioration of civilization that is in evidence in our contemporary paucity of skill in the use of language and reason, but Americans are where they are in these terms, and we have to meet them there in order to serve them. So, am I to praise this attachment to Latin? In this I do NOT praise you! (NOW you can make the St. Paul comments.)
I am perfectly comfortable in the use of Latin, Greek, or many other languages in the liturgy, but this is a personal disposition, not a pastoral judgment. Knowing what I know about language and psyche, along with the constant tradition of the Body of Christ, a tradition interrupted almost exclusively in the West, the use of the vernacular as the primary liturgical language would seem to be the pastoral norm for Christian worship. There is no rational basis for striving to preserve the use of Latin in liturgy when the vast majority of the royal priesthood are incapable of understanding it. Logike latreia requires intentionality, and intentionality requires one’s own language, at some level. Therefore, I firmly believe that, despite the legalism with which many are seeking to limit the impact of the CSL today, the general intention shines through like a bright beacon: “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by ALL the people is THE aim to be considered BEFORE ALL ELSE…. ” Yes, that even means before the stated goal of the preservation of the use of Latin in the sacred…
-
-
I was and and am calm, Fr. Ruff. My references to you were based upon your own statements here and elsewhere about your love and usage of Latin. Sorry if I mis-recalled.
What you call getting indignant, I call astonished. Taking your advice given me many times, I re-read Mr. Ziegler’s post several times, particularly the last paragraph before I responded. I can appreciate that you prefer to keep things tidy, but his language was precise and not particularly allegorical. I didn’t feel the charity. My bad.
And for the record, I concur with your sentiments in comment dated 7:41pm.
Regarding escalation, how do prefer your discourse to proceed? Should it glide on a flat line. Or when is it appropriate to dial it up or down?
Sorry, as you’ve also upbraided me now and often in the past, I stand by my comments. -
I propose that anyone who calls for the exclusion of Latin in the sacred liturgy isn’t terribly familiar with Sacrosanctam Conciliam, or feels himself above the expressed reforms of the Council.
I further propose that anyone who claims that those praying the Latin texts with translations
aren’t really praying needs to get out a bit more and immerse themselves in more liturgical diversity.
If Latin is too controversial, such a person could start with a Byzantine or Chaldean liturgy. -
It would be an interesting avenue of discussion to consider the identity crisis in the Latin Church and the way the post conciliar liturgical reform contributed to that crisis. A certain Latin phobia is evident in some posts here albeit in varying degrees coupled with a suspicion of almost anything that originates with the Holy See. I think that this Latin phobia is at the root of the proclaimability issue which is a contributing factor to the opposition to the new translation. It is a translation that we are discussing after all and why shouldn’t it sound like a translation of the Latin for Christians in the Latin Church? A cursory read of the translations used by the other sui juris Catholic Churches reveals the same elevated language and poetic imagery that we see in our new translation while also clearly showing signs that they are translations of a Greek or Aramaic original. Those indicators help preserve their identities as sui iuris Churches.
-
I think the Church will be healthier once the widespread bias against anything too “pre-Conciliar” (which is what I think you are really talking about. Latin wouldn’t be such a bogeyman were it not so closely associated with the pre-Vatican II Church) eventually passes.
-
Additionally, the bias is also about the association of the 1962 Missal with disobedient schismatics in the 70’s and 80’s.
-
And now, thanks to BXVI’s liberalization of the older use, lots of people coming to the EF on a steady or even regular basis don’t have an association with those times and groups. This ‘middle group’ has great potential for healing change.
-
-
-
I use to buy into the “ecclessiology” thing that the Vatican II liturgy was in tune with the ecclessiology of the Church being the people of God and not just a clerical institution which many think the Pre-Vatican II liturgy intrinsically obfuscated. Of course that’s a straw man and somewhat bogus.
In fact, it would not take much tinkering of the EF Mass to allow a lay person man or woman, boy or girl, to read the Epistle (I think they already can chant the Gradual) and encourage them to sing and say all parts of the Mass which is currently the norm in the OF Mass.
By the same token, there could be and have been overly clericalized OF Masses, where the priest does it all and few if any participate externally from the congregation in a verbal way (can’t judge interior participation as easily).
I know that those who prefer the EF Mass might do so because it is more clerical and only boys/men can have formal roles except of course for the choir/cantor. But these are not intrinsic to the EF Mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium could have just as easily directed no actual reform of the Mass except to allow the laity to read and that some parts of the Mass could be in the vernacular thus making verbal responses a bit easier for the laity and to be more inclusive in some of the non-clerical ministries of the Mass.
Oh yes, this did happen for the Tridentine Mass in the 1965 missal. -
But SC did NOT direct reforms the way you suggest – thus, the ecclesiology did change. Your approach is either-or; would suggest that VII outlined a both-and approach that greatly increased various models of the church (ecclesiology) rather than a model that had existed since Trent and had become ossified.
Would also suggest that you have reduced ecclesiology in your comments to who has roles in either an EF or OF liturgy – that misses the point and misses the key principles of VII documents – re-read LG; first chapter starts with the people of God (all of us – specific ministries, roles, etc. make no difference).-
No disagreement with you there, both masses which are celebrated today in many parishes, including mine, are in the post Vatican II context of the baptized, all of us even those not in full communion with us, as the people of God. My parents during the Pre-Vatican II times never thought themselves to be anything else but a part of the people of God on their pilgrimage to heaven which Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross renewed at the Tridentine Mass they celebrated and the OF Mass they celebrated after it was promulgated made this one sacrifice available to them in an “unbloody” way. My approach is not either or but both and, both the EF for those who appreciate it as the extraordinary expression of the Latin Rite Mass and the OF as the normal, ordinary form of the one and same rite. Both forms, though, in a symbolic way can include the laity and do include them although some would say the OF form makes this inclusion more visible and audible. I don’t believe there has ever been an ecclessiology in the Church than excluded the faithful baptized which includes the laity and the clergy.
-
Once again – V2 also happened to the Eastern rites, & V2’s teachings on the nature of the Church applies to them while also leaving their liturgies essentially unreformed, even the Maronite which has no specific Orthodox equivalent and is world-wide due to their diaspora. Fr. Allen’s point is well taken. I wonder how much of this entire debate is grounded in a concern that a more accurate translation of the OF will reveal more clearly the limits of the presumed differences between the pre and post conciliar liturgy.
-
-
Shouldn’t the Mass be a time when Heaven comes down to earth, a statement that the Kingdom is imminent?
-
+JMJ+
We’re lifted up to Heaven too. We’re praying “before the face” of God, we’re lifting our hearts up to Him. We’re in the presence of angels singing “Holy, Holy, Holy”. We’ve come to the heavenly Jerusalem, to Mt. Zion, etc.
-
+OMG+
The translation I’ve seen is not as much ‘lifted up to heaven’ as it is ‘crying out to heaven for vengeance’ . . .
-
We’re not “singing” (canentes) or “saying” (dicentes) anymore, Jeffrey. In our “faithful but not slavish” adherence (Bishop Serratelli) to Liturgiam authenticam, we’re now ACCLAIMING.
Amazing.
-
+JMJ+
I wasn’t saying a darned thing about the new translation, Chris. I’m speaking objectively about the Divine Liturgy. I don’t like the choice of “acclaiming” any more than you, X.R.
-
-
-
All I need is to be lifted up a little bit. If the Mass reaches all the way up to heaven, I will be left in the dust.
-
Dear Claire,
The poet Henry Vaughn posited:
“And here in the dust, oh here, the flowers of God’s love appear.”
I’m counting on that. -
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. Genesis 11:4
-
Jack Nolan said A cursory read of the translations used by the other sui juris Catholic Churches reveals the same elevated language and poetic imagery that we see in our new translation while also clearly showing signs that they are translations of a Greek or Aramaic original.
Yes, they show elevated language and poetic imagery, but they are also GOOD Coptic/Slavonic/whatever….. That is the difference. What is coming is not good English by anyone’s standards.
And I beg to differ with you about them clearly showing signs of being translations. We all know that the best translations sound as if they were composed in the receptor language, not as if they have been cobbled together by Google, and I believe this is true of whatever other languages you are referencing. They reflect the sentence structures, word patterns and use of idiomatic expressions that are part of the speaker of the receptor language. To pretend that anything else is acceptable does not stand up.
Why, otherwise, did the American Spanish-speakers insist on ustedes instead of the Castillian vosotros with, for them, its “hidalgo” overtones, to give just one example? I leave aside the whole question of grovelling language in the forthcoming English text, since we have already discussed that extensively on this blog.
This is why other nationalities are trying to ensure that the language used for them is both accurate and beautiful.
Like the German bishops with the funeral rite, we need to have the courage to say “This is simply not good English. We will not use it until it is good English.”
-
Father Ruff>> We’re not better people than than they were. We lovingly say, “That’s where they were then, but that’s not where we are now.” Let’s move forward gracefully.<<<
Father!
this is exactly why I see some of the rationales given for the 70's changes as dishonest.E.G. Communion in the hand was sold to us as a giant step *back* into catacombs of the early Christians and not as a 'move forward'. In my world 'forward' does not equal 'backward'.
Perhaps you see the Council's roll having nothing to do with forward or backward, but rather to simply undo the bad old medieval days? [150-1970 AD]
-
George Andrews, I think Mother Church treated this issue quite well in Sacrosanctum concilium. If good things were lost in the course of history, then retrieving them for our use – on our terms, for our reasons, perhaps or probably with adaptations for our purposes – is not simply going backward, it is a step forward.
You state it polemically – undoing the bad old medieval days – but I believe the Council was led by the Holy Spirit in helping us do our level best to get beyond the problems the Middle Ages left us, while still keeping the good things the Middle Ages gave us. There’s no reason to get polemical about this or state it in unrelentingly negative terms. The Middle Ages gave us some gains. To state one example, celebrating Eucharist at funerals is a great gain of the Middle Ages – something which it took the Church a long time to start doing. But it also gave us real problems, such as the alienation of people from the liturgy. At least Pius X and every Pope since him believed this.
But I gather your argument isn’t with me, but with Vatican II and even with its antecedents in all the Popes from Pius X up to Vatican II.
awr
-
“If good things were lost in the course of history, then retrieving them for our use – on our terms, for our reasons, perhaps or probably with adaptations for our purposes – is not simply going backward, it is a step forward.”
What about those who feel this way about the 1962 Missal? A good thing “lost” in the course of (recent) history* that can be retrieved today to suit modern purposes as a step forward?
*Okay, it wasn’t ever “lost” in that it totally fell out of use…
-
Jack Wayne, I think you already know the answer, but I’ll state it anyway. The judgment of the last ecumenical council is that the liturgy of the 1962 missal, holy and venerable as it is, was so in need of reform that it was not to continue in use in its unreformed state. So as I said to someone else, it appears that your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the Second Vatican Council.
awr -
The council may not have foresaw or intended the continued use of the old Mass, but that doesn’t mean times and circumstances don’t change and allow for something that may not have been foreseen but which may still harmonize with the council. I suppose it’s a difference of opinion – the old Mass has never struck me as being so far off from what the council specified that it should be seen as off limits or totally outmoded now (you have rather bluntly stated that you disagree with this position). The most important principle of the council’s call to liturgical renewal (“active participation” by the whole people of God) can be applied to it rather easily, and often is in modern celebrations.
I will say that I think the 1962 Missal should be “updated” in light of the last forty odd years of history and have SC applied to it more directly. Such an update likely wouldn’t resemble the current OF in very many ways, but could still conform to what the council wanted.
-
One of the great gifts of the middle ages still with us today? Benedictine monasticism. Each visit to an (arch)abbey (or a read of markedly Benedictine writing) is like a hot tub soak for an overworked mind and spirit. Just sayin’.
-
-
Sometimes a move “backward” can be a move “forward.”
How does 150-1970 possibly delineate “medieval”? More to the point, what could one possibly say about the liturgy throughout that entire span of dates which isn’t true now?
FWIW, communion in the hand has nothing to do with catacombs. It comes from Cyril of Jerusalem, from the (“medieval”?) 4th century.
-
-
George Andrew:E.G. Communion in the hand was sold to us as a giant step *back* into catacombs of the early Christians and not as a ‘move forward’. In my world ‘forward’ does not equal ‘backward’.
I’m sorry it was presented to you like this. Communion in the hand was the normative way of receiving (as was Communion from the cup) for the first nine centuries of the Church’s life.
And in any case SC asked us to strip aside the mediaeval accretions which had obscured the rite and to return to the purity of the early Church (cf. 21, 23, 34), so a revisiting of our tradition is not in itself a bad thing.
-
From Mr. Ziegler’s earlier post: “There is no rational basis for striving to preserve the use of Latin in liturgy when the vast majority of the royal priesthood are incapable of understanding it.”
Thank you for that… thank you.
-
Jeffrey Pinyan :
+JMJ+
I wasn’t saying a darned thing about the new translation, Chris. I’m speaking objectively about the Divine Liturgy.+OMG+
How, Jeffrey, do you propose we have a Divine Liturgy without an imposed translation?
-
+JMJ+
I’m not sure I understand the question. For starters, we already have “an imposed translation”, the one from 1973. But like I said, I’m not talking about the new translation, nor about the current one. I’m not even talking about the Roman Rite in particular. I’m talking about the Eucharistic liturgy in general.
The Eucharistic Prayer begins with the “Preface”, “spoken before” (prae- + fati) God, or spoken “before the face” (prae- + facie) of God. And the ancient dialogue which begins this prayer begs that the Lord be present among us, and that we be present to the Lord: “Dominus vobiscum” and “Sursum corda / Habemus ad Dominum.”
We’re lifting our hearts up to God in Heaven. We’re hearing the angels and saints singing (not acclaiming) “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and we join our voices to theirs.
We’ve come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.
That’s what I was talking about.
-
-
Father> >There’s no reason to get polemical about this or state it in unrelentingly negative terms. The Middle Ages gave us some gains. To state one example, celebrating Eucharist at funerals……But it also gave us real problems, such as the alienation of people from the liturgy. At least Pius X and every Pope since him believed this.<<
Father Ruff,
How’s this for ‘alienation from the liturgy’?: I think the changes instituted after the Council drove tens of millions of Catholics out of their Church! I think we certainly stopped them from saying the Rosary during the Liturgy… now they’re down at the Baptist church singing ‘Bringing in the Sheaves’! or perhaps having a second order of pancakes down at IHOP.
I do wonder how much of this church-shrinking was accidental. The radical nature of the changes was bound to injure the faith simple minded people. The people-that-run-things had to know this! Wasn’t it Flannery O’Connor who said if a Sacrament was just a symbol then ‘to hell with it’?
Maybe the decision was made, in a smoke filled room, to ‘turn the page’ on that kind of rigid Catholic perhaps with the false hope of replacing them with an influx of mainline Protestants.[[my pure conjecture!!]]
You might be right, Father. Maybe my gripe is actually with the Council itself. If you convince me that the Council necessitated all which ensued: the wrecking of churches, the wrecking of people’s faith, the butchering of the Credo itself, the emptying of seminaries….I will agree with you.
Chris O. and Paul I., you still are pointing *backwards* to justify eradicating a Catholic devotion hundreds and hundreds of years old… (Btw your position –-that current hand Communion is a revival of an ancient practice– has been thoroughly refuted by Bishop Schneider’s little book ‘Dominus Est’.) I still maintain that many of the changes were born of pure animus towards the Faith of our fathers.
-
Btw your position –-that current hand Communion is a revival of an ancient practice– has been thoroughly refuted by Bishop Schneider’s little book ‘Dominus Est’. I still maintain that many of the changes were born of pure animus towards the Faith of our fathers.
‘Thoroughly refuted’ is hardly an accurate description of Bp Schneider’s opus, which is notable for being not so much a scholarly work as an expression of a pious wish. It is one in a line of similar works by Gamber, Reid and others in which historical fact is distorted in the cause of a reactionary agenda, and in which scholarship gives way to rant.
May I suggest you read Nathan Mitchell’s magisterial work Cult and Controversy, which will answer any questions you may have on the subject of Communion as well as worship of the Eucharist outside Mass.
Your lack of charity in imputing pure animus to liturgists whose sole desire was to return to the traditions of our forebears is disappointing. The ‘faith of our fathers’ spans 2000 years, not just a few hundred.
You surely know by now that the decline in Mass attendance was not so much a function of Vatican II and its liturgical reforms, which have been greeted with acclaim by many, as of what happened in July 1968. I trust you can recall what that was.
-
“You surely know by now that the decline in Mass attendance was not so much a function of Vatican II and its liturgical reforms..’
The problem with this position Paul is it is a debatable point. Others have already referenced studies that show a different point of view than yours with the relevant statistics. I don’t expect those who’ve invested their talent & resources into the renewal to accept their evidence, of course. The post V2 reform, especially the ICEL translations were bemoaned by many including the editors of the Tablet in 1967 & 1968. Even on this blog there have been predictions that people will stop attending Mass when the new translation is implemented, and we’ve only had a bit less than 40 years to learn to appreciate it, compared to 500 (or more) for the former usage.
-
Jack,
How confident are you that liturgical reforms in any direction have the effect you suggest? How confident are you that the coming translation will arrest the declines and bring people back to the Church? What sort of increase in Mass attendance do you think is in the realm of possibility beginning Advent 2011? And how much money are you willing to place on this in a bet with me? Name the amount and then you and I can work out the verification strategy.
We could also apply this to “reform of the reform” more broadly where we see it being implemented. I think, for example, of the parish in Platteville, WI where three priests took the parish in a new direction starting last July. The report is here: http://www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com/?p=341081. Eventually we should see the situation turn around and the numbers start to go up, yes? Shall we place a bet on when this will happen and to what extent?
Pax,
awr
-
We’ve already seen from a 2009 pew survey that the primary reason Catholics leave the full communion of the Church for other Christian communions is to be “spiritually nourished” which evidently they didn’t experience in their own Catholic parish. The second reason is they like the other Christian communion’s parish (church) better. I suspect because of fellowship and comradeship as well as evangelical mission to the world. The least two reasons for leaving are the current sex abuse scandal and 1968, ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL.
So if one wants to make casualty the reason, I don’t think 1968 will do. We’ll have to look at what kind of nourishment people are receiving in their Catholic parishes which includes the manner of celebrating the Mass along with the preaching of the clergy and friendliness of the parish as well as how evangelical and mission oriented said parish is. Do clergy and laity of any given parish have a zeal for the faith and an evangelical passion to share it family, friends, co-workers and strangers? Do they care for the poor and distressed? Dry bones which could describe some parishes, even the “most with it and progressive” as well as the “most traditional and reactive,” might be the problem. The problem is one of nourishment and likability. But I would also suspect that Catholics no longer see anything distinctly unique and exclusive about their local parish compared to Protestant counterparts and Protestants seem to nourish and fellowship a lot better than many Catholic parishes. So might it also be ecumenism run a muck in the minds of rank and file Catholics? Why stay a Catholic if it really doesn’t matter and all communions are equal? -
You’re conflating two eras – 1968 and today. There is solid data that many left the Church in 1968 and named Humanae vitae as their reason. Your more recent data suggests that birth control is not the main reason why people are leaving today.
awr -
1968 is thrown around a lot as the reason for today that people are leaving and yes, I’m speaking about today and not 1968 because as pastor what’s happening today is more important than 1968. Most of those people who left back then and didn’t return aren’t going to return except some have returned to dust and others are waiting. 🙂
-
Fr. Ruff,
My confidence is not high in the short term because so much depends on the humble obedience of pastors. In the long term I am highly confident and, should we bet, I’d prefer a Mass be offered for my deceased relatives than any money be exchanged.
Speaking of applying the reform more broadly, adhering to a strong Catholic tradition, as LA does, seems helpful:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_parishes_flourish_in_southern_u.s./ -
Three problems with the “people left the Church in 1968 due to Church teaching on birth control” are:
a. Church teaching on birth control brought no change from the long & consistent period of growth the Church had in every area. Why wait until the liturgy was reformed to stop attending Mass to display an objection to Church teaching on artificial birth control.
b. the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church did not experience the same level of diminished practice as the Latin Church after 1968. This is important because if the prohibition of birth control was the reason for this sudden change they would have experienced it as well.
c. The most dramatic drops in Catholic practiced occurred among those most deeply involved in the liturgical renewal.
-
-
-
Paul>>…Bp Schneider’s opus, which is notable for being not so much a scholarly work as an expression of a pious wish. It is one in a line of similar works by Gamber, Reid and others in which historical fact is distorted in the cause of a reactionary agenda, and in which scholarship gives way to rant…<<>>Vatican II and its liturgical reforms, which have been greeted with acclaim by many, as of what happened in July 1968. I trust you can recall what that was.<<<
ahh, no, I don't….Woodstock? but, as you know 'acclaim by many' is not 'by all'. I have mentioned before….good people like Eamon Duffy were totally baffled by what they saw as protestantization of the Church's worship.
-
You might ask Eamon Duffy sometime what he thinks of the scholarship of people like Alcuin Reid. I think he recognizes that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
-
F C, google lets me down on -‘eamon duffy’ and ‘alcuin reid’!
you’ll have to break tio me.Duffy’s view of the medieval Church is not dismissive, nor condescending. This and his disappointment regarding Vatican II’s insensitive implementation–its severing of rank and file
Catholics from their past– puts him at odds with most of Praytell’s contributors. (and closely in line with the pope’s view.)There you go! I’m out on a limb. Saw that off! (but be please be gentle!)
-
George,
Sorry to be cryptic. I was basing my comment on a personal conversation, in which I asked Eamon Duffy what he thought of the whole notion of “organic development” and he indicated that he thought it was question begging and ahistorical. There was, of course, no way for you to know that.
For what it’s worth, I myself think very highly of the liturgy of the Middle Ages and I also think there have been some problems with the liturgical reforms after Vatican II. But thinking these things doesn’t require me to agree with work like that of Reid, which strikes me as pseudo-scholarship that involves lots of gathering of texts, but a complete inability to think with any subtlety about them. For him, “organic development” and “continuity with authentic liturgical tradition” simply mean “what I like” and “rupture” means “what I don’t like.”
-
-
-
Paul, looking over the liturgies of the Eastern rites, including the Qurbono, we see a translation from another language. No one would presume its original form is in English. Most criticisms of the current stage in our post conciliar reform, represented by LA, could also be applied to the existing vernacular liturgies used daily in all the Eastern rites of the Church.
I agree that V2 ordered a modest reform of the liturgy and certainly we are still working at it with LA, which is another step in the implementation of this reform.
I think most people forget that Trent was not a medieval council, it was a council of the modern age. -
Fr. MacDonald – your interpretation of the 2009 PEW report is interesting but merely an opinion based on what?
Would suggest that the results of what the Pew Study found have evolved over almost two generations since the late 1960’s. It is problematic to just isolate one year or a couple of years and link that to a primary explanation. Religious choices, cultural choices are not made overnite. In fact, most studies indicate that catholics have left; not to move to other churches but have just left.
Would recommend a new study/book, The American Catholic Revolution by Massa, SJ – link for an overview: http://www.amazon.com/American-Catholic-Revolution-Sixties-Changed/dp/0199734127/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290206313&sr=1-1#reader_0199734127
Thus, his study indicates that the key reason for these results was the notion of CHANGE. He analyzes four key events:
– Vatican II
– Humanae Vitae & C. Curran
– cultural change in the 1960’s
– Avery Dulles-
Pew report of 2009 used a sample of those who joined Protestant communions, not those who left for “nothing.” That would indeed be another sample and other reasons. The third and fourth highest reasons for joining Protestant communions was the loss of Catholic faith and apathy about the Catholic faith. I suspect those two would be the main reasons why others leave to join “nothing.”
-
-
Paul,
somehow I managed to edit out the heart of my last post! I was wanting to ask you whether you have read Bishop Schneider’s book–which you have already assured me is a distortion of historical fact. I’m betting you haven’t.
As per the word ‘animus’…I am at a loss to explain the motivation any other way…listen to the condescending and disparaging manner used by the people-that-run-things whenever they describe the pre 1970’s Church, or the EF, or kneeling, or anything that doesn’t reflect the dramatic shift. It sounds very much like someone talking about their ex to a divorce court judge! Or maybe Saint Boniface explaining why he cut down the Teutons’ oak tree.
Look at the main tactic used against traditionalists– in addition to ridicule. Bullying. DREs and schools only teach one way….the new way. And if any child wants to obey their conscience they are pressured to go along with the group.–maybe that it’s even a sin of pride *not* to hold hands during the Our Father, or *not* to laugh and flash peace signs around before the Agnus Dei or that it’s sin of pride if a child wants to kneel before the King of Kings.
There is no explanation of these things (unless you read Father Ruff’s blog 🙂 )…it an exercise of sheer power over the powerless.
-
When I first started to get serious about my faith again, I couldn’t escape all the online chatter about the “old Mass” I’d never really known anything about. I asked some Catholics whom I respected a great deal what they thought of it (usually in passing) and the bizarre and totally overblown negative reactions sometimes shocked me. When I discovered the Latin Mass for myself, I was kind of angry that it wasn’t any of the awful things I had been told it was. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to put up with such negative attitudes for forty years.
Something that amazes me is that many don’t seem to be able to make a connection between the bitterness and supposed “divisiveness” of (mostly older) traditionalists and the ridicule and bullying directed towards them for the last half-century by not only their peers, but also by those in power within the Church.
-
Jack W.>> some Catholics whom I respected a great deal what they thought of it (usually in passing) and the bizarre and totally overblown negative reactions sometimes shocked me. <<<
Jack, you would expect this 'animus' against the old to be acknowledged. We just hear about 'bitter traditionalists'. Do those chased out of the Church by irreverence and rock bands ever get an apology?
That's why I have great hope for the holy Father. He seems to get it. He is trying to make amends and truly reach out to everyone. Who howls in protest when he offers reconciliation to groups like SSPX? Process of elimination says: only someone who sees Vatican II as means to lord it over certain people or else hound them out of the Church.
-
-
-
Peter Haydon :
Mr English says that many (not all) of the languages he lists are Latin based.I would add that a knowledge of Latin grammar would help to study German. It also helps if you are studying Turkish, possibly a minority language for Pray Tell readers.I wish you’d extended your reach into the language capablities of the Vox Clara people who put together the 2010 catastrophe – oh wait, maybe you’ve hit the nail on the head . . . it might explain everything if they’re in fact native Turkish speakers!
-
F C>……For what it’s worth, I myself think very highly of the liturgy of the Middle Ages and I also think there have been some problems with the liturgical reforms after Vatican II……..
F C, to me that’s worth a lot! it’s as the old visa ads say…priceless!
my search did yield an article by Duffy on Summorum Pontificum… I even found a place where Duffy uses the term ‘organic development’ which prompted no gag reflex. He very sympathetically portrays the pope’s view and makes it sound as though maybe Pope ghost-wrote Duffy’s own preface to ‘Stripping of the Altars.’
From the Tablet….
….In place of the ancient “giveness” of the liturgy, he detected a restless modern obsession with change and innovation, and a preoccupation with human community that excluded or hindered true openness to God. All this came to a head for him in the imposition of the Missal of Paul VI as the sole legitimate form of the Eucharist.
This he saw as the substitution of the concoction of liturgical experts in place of an organically evolved liturgy….end quote
Leave a Reply