This looks like trouble: MisguidedMissal.com

A Pray Tell reader sends in a tip about a new website: Misguided Missal.

Guess how they feel about the new translation?

Looks like trouble – but I think that’s their point. As they put it, it’s all “out of love for the Church.”

Who’s the “they” here? They’re not telling. Do you suppose we should criticize them for hiding behind anonymity? Or should we critique the discussion culturet in the Catholic Church which compels people to hide their identity?

Don’t know where this initiative is going – Pray Tell will keep its eyes on it.

awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

100 responses to “This looks like trouble: MisguidedMissal.com”

  1. Matthew Ferguson

    Thanks so much for the link. I loved the side-by-side comparison of the 1973, 1998, and Vox Clara translations. Now I know why the Vatican rejected the 1998 version. It added all kinds of “creative” things. I’d rather have the awkward Vox Clara version than the 1998 with all of its new options and its refusal to allow masculine pronouns for God.

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Stevens

      Matthew,
      I’ve got an even better option for you! How about the 2008 translation? It has several things going for it that the Vox Clara Pell-Moroney-Ward-Johnson Missal does not have:

      a) accurate translations from Latin;
      b) grammatically and syntactically correct English;
      c) fidelity to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis

      Oh, and it was canonically approved by all the English-speaking conferences of bishops.

      But reading your post, you may have given yourself away. Two incorrect uses of “it’s” and presumably the first incorrect “it’s” refers to the 1998 translation while the second incorrect “it’s” refers to the Vox Clara clunker. That tell-tale Vox Clara signature “can you find the antecedent?” construction!

      ‘Fess up, Matthew! Do you work for Vox Clara??? You seem to have the qualifications “it’s” looking for!

      Reply
      1. G. Michael McGuire

        No . . . both erroneous “it’s” SEEM to refer to 1998, but they couldn’t possibly because look at these “creative things” in “it’s” original texts (if “it’s” 1998):

        Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Year A
        Heavenly Father,
        you have called your Church
        to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
        Give us vigorous faith and a love that is genuine,
        so that all may see our works
        and give you the glory.

        Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time: Year A
        Heavenly Father,
        in Christ Jesus
        you challenge us to renounce violence
        and to forsake revenge.
        Teach us to recognise as your children
        even our enemies and persecutors
        and to love them without measure or discrimination.

        Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Year A
        Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
        by whose gracious will
        the mysteries of the kingdom are revealed to the childlike,
        make us learn from your Son humility of heart,
        that in shouldering his yoke
        we may find refreshment and rest.

        Nineteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Year B
        God, our Father and provider,
        whose Son has given his flesh for the life of the world,
        sustain your pilgrim Church on its journey
        with the word of life and the bread of heaven.
        Draw us nearer to him in whose name we gather,
        that, following his way of sacrificial love,
        we may come to the banquet of eternal life.

        Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time: Year B
        Father of light,
        giver of every good and perfect gift,
        bring to fruition the word of truth
        sown in our hearts by your Son,
        that we may rightly understand your commandments,
        live your law of love,
        and so offer you worship that is pure and undefiled.

        These aren’t even TRANSLATIONS, but ORIGINAL TEXTS. If the compilers of 1998 didn’t want to use masculine pronouns for God when translating the Latin, why would they use “Father” when drafting original texts in English?

        I think Matthew’s “it’s” must be referring to something other than 1998!

  2. Matthew Ferguson

    Sorry, Jeremy. My iPhone keeps changing “its” to “it’s”. I’ve corrected the offensive apostrophes.

    I would love the 2008 translation. We should have stuck with it. But many people would still be complaining. If you recall, the protests started before Vox Clara messed up the 2008 translation. Many of the points that the above linked website criticizes would apply to the 2008 translation, too.

    I find your tone offensive. That is something up with which I will not put. [How do you like that construction. 🙂 ]

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Stevens

      Having been appraised of the erroneous apostrophes
      by the interaction encouraged on this interactive blog,
      you seem to have incorporated,
      with a humility appropriate to one
      whose baptismal consecration has conformed him to Christ,
      who humbled himself in putting on the reality of our flesh,
      the corrections that I sought
      through my posted opinion,
      to whose tone you took not exception but offense,
      to call to your attention,
      thanks to the electronic rewrite function
      which your iPhone has,
      to the improvement of your own original post,
      permitted you to utilize.
      Through this blog.

      Concordat cum orignali:
      + 7,000 (at least) Experts
      (you know who you are)

      Reply
  3. Matthew Hazell

    If they’re going to be fully honest with their side-by-side comparisons, they ought to include the Latin text as well. But then we would be able to see all the liberties 1998 took with the liturgical text, which would (of course) not be helpful to their case…!

    One of the positive things about the website, for me at least, is that it reminds me how horrendous 1998 is in parts. What did Abel, Abraham and Melchisedech do to be excised from EP I? How is “cup of blessing” an adequate translation of Calicem salutis perpetuae? Why do we need alternative English texts to replace the Ecce Agnus Dei?

    And as for calling for bishops and priests to speak out, yet remaining faceless and anonymous themselves… hypocrisy, pure and simple. You can’t claim to want transparency, consultation, etc., and stay in the shadows of the web at the same time. (Not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway. Hmm… perhaps this is all just a grand satire; after all, the website trots out all the usual clichés about clericalism, the “principles” of the Council–as if it were the only one!–dialogue, consultation, wir sind Kirche, etc.)

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Stevens

      Thank God there is no anonymity or hypocrisy in the Vox Clara revisions process.

      Reply
      1. Matthew Hazell

        Nowhere did I excuse VC. Like Matthew Ferguson above, I would have been happier had we stuck with the 2008 version.

        However, VC are not the ones calling for a open, transparent process. (They can’t, therefore, be accused of hypocrisy, but that’s a slight tangent.) The faceless individuals who are running the Misguided Missal website are calling for such things. Their call is, therefore, somewhat undermined.

    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      What did Abel, Abraham and Melchisedech do to be excised from EP I?

      What year’s translation omits A, A, and M from the Roman Canon? The 1998 text I have does not (Volume 1B, p. 11).

      Reply
      1. Matthew Hazell

        I’m going from their side-by-side comparison document, p. 8.

        Having just double-checked it, it is a mistake on their part. The 1998 column in their document reproduces the relevant part of the EP for Masses for Various Needs and Occasions, not EP I (located in Vol. 1B, p. 661 in the digital copy of the 1998 sacramentary I have).

        Thanks for pointing that out, Jeffrey! Many apologies for the incorrect reference–I ought to have double-checked it in the first place.

    3. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      What did Abel, Abraham and Melchisedech do to be excised from EP I?

      From EPI in the 1998 Sacramentary:
      Look with favour on these offerings
      and accept them as once you accepted
      the gifts of your just servant Abel,
      the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith,
      and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek.

      From what I can tell, whoever put the table together is comparing two different EPs (I think the 1998 one might be a “Swiss” canon).

      I find the whole tone of the website to be annoyingly quixotic (as if there will be any dumping of the 2011 Missal or return to 1998). But maybe it will make PT look moderate by comparison.

      Reply
    4. Matthew Hazell

      I can’t edit my post above now, but for the purposes of clarification, Abel, Abraham and Melchisedech were not excised from 1998. See above.

      Sorry!

      Reply
    5. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      Though I’m rather fond of the 1998 translation, if you’re looking for wholesale invention in it you might try the opening address to God in many of the collects, which seem to have been conjured out of thin air.

      Reply
  4. Henry Edwards

    Matthew,

    You have hardly scratched the surface of the terminal defects of the abortive 1998 effort. See

    http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

    for a more complete explanation of its rejection as an utterly failed effort.

    In any event, all this 1998-2008 stuff is water under the bridge, best forgotten rather than thrashed about interminably. This stuff has gotten so tedious and tendentious that it will likely be decades before the Church develops an official disposition to revisit English translation.

    Reply
    1. Matthew Hazell

      “In any event, all this 1998-2008 stuff is water under the bridge, best forgotten rather than thrashed about interminably.”

      Agreed. 1998 will forever remain an intriguing piece of history for future liturgical scholars.

      I think it’s worth pointing out, though, that one ought to be even-handed in one’s criticisms. All the translations have their faults, some more serious than others. To assert, as these courageously anonymous people do, that 2011 is “mistranslated”, but then to ignore those vast sections of 1998 that can in no way be described as accurate translations, is not even-handed in the slightest. It is partisan spin-doctoring… which, coincidentally, is something else they claim to abhor!

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        You realize, I hope, that the document guiding translation when the 1998 sacramentary we prepared was Comme le prevoit?? It doesn’t call for exact, literal translation. 1998 It was, then, faithful to the Church’s directives.

        It is ironic: 2010 was done under directives requiring literal accuracy, 1998 was not; but still, in any number of places 1998 conveys the substance of the Latin more accurately.

        We can start with the first Prayer after Communion we’ll hear on the First Sunday of Advent: the words are there, but in the wrong order, so that it conveyes the OPPOSITE of what the Latin means.

        awr

      2. Matthew Hazell

        I appreciate that Comme le prevoit was, for better or worse, in force at that time. I don’t think, though, that excuses sloppy paraphrases like, e.g., “cup of blessing” when the underlying Latin is not exactly difficult to make sense of if translated literally.

        It’s not so much the philosophy of dynamic equivalent translation I have an issue with (although my preference is for formal equivalence). It’s the seemingly frequent descent into banal paraphrase exemplified in both 1973 and 1998 that I have problems with.

        Whether Comme le prevoit called for “exact” translation or not is immaterial, up to a point. If you translate a text literally and it makes sense in the target language (e.g. Calicem salutis perpetuae –> “chalice of everlasting salvation”), then leave it alone! Surely that’s best practice? I mean, if it makes sense as it is, there’s surely no need to change it or fiddle with it, because it already fulfils its function as a translation. And I don’t see anything in Comme le prevoit that requires the scale of dynamic-equivalent ‘fiddling’ we can see in 1998.

      3. Jeffrey Pinyan

        I would guess (and others can correct me) that the authors of 1998 chose to translate Calicem salutis perpetuae as “cup of blessing” because the latter is a recognizable quote from 1 Corinthians 10, whereas “cup/chalice of everlasting salvation” is not (although it is close to Psalm 116:13, which is probably [sadly] less familiar to people).

      4. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        Actually, it translates the phrase calicem benedictionis in the Prex Eucharistica pro variis necessitatibus. This is certainly not a “sloppy paraphrase.”

        What is sloppy is that whoever made up the chart was comparing two different prayers.

      5. Matthew Hazell

        I suppose I ought to just stop assuming that their chart is in any way correct, then. More proverbial egg on my face. Many apologies; thanks for pointing out my mistakes, Fritz.

        I suppose I’ll just have to find some other examples… shouldn’t be too hard… 🙂

    2. Jim McKay

      This website has “hardly scratched the surface of the terminal defects of the” 2011 translation. Perhaps they are compiling a counterpart to the critique of 1998 at Adoremus? Both groups intend only to encourage better liturgies I am sure, and I hope that effort is not being swept away with the other debris passing under the bridge.

      Reply
  5. Samuel J. Howard

    Doesn’t really look like trouble to me… it doesn’t say anything original and it says it anonymously (which will lead many to discount it) and within a framework of left-wing complaint “we are Church” etc. that won’t help it get a fair hearing for legitimate complaints about errors.

    And it emphasizes again, despite the refusal of some to believe it, that much opposition to the new missal is driven by differences with the teaching of the Church (which is expressed not just by concerns for accuracy, but also by fundamental differences in theology.

    Some of the complaints are just bizarre. It complains that the Exultet will be “deleted from our treasury of worship”, by which they apparently mean that the 1998 version with acclamations by the congregation which was never implemented will not be implemented.

    Reply
    1. Gerard Flynn

      There is much virtue in anonymity and pseudonymity. And there are marvelous biblical precedents.

      Pseudonymity enabled the author of Jonah get his message across in a devastating way and lull his hearers into a false sense of security by making them think he was writing about the 8th/7th Century B.C.E. when in fact he was talking about his own time in the post-exilic period.

      Given the Politburo culture at large in the Vatican and in local churches, the website will enable people to make their views known without their being blacklisted and worse.

      In a top-down hierarchical structure such as we have in the RCC at the moment, holding a different view from that of the master could be fatal.

      Here in Ireland we have had anonymous voting since the 1870s for very good reasons.

      I hope the website thrives and succeeds in the projects which it undertakes.

      Floreat!

      Reply
      1. Matthew Hazell

        There is, though, little virtue in anonymity when one is advocating openness and transparency.

        And if their fear is that they will be “blacklisted”, then that’s pretty cowardly, in my opinion. Either you have the courage of your own convictions, or you don’t.

      2. Karl Liam Saur

        They are entitled to whatever level of transparency they like. They just need to accept the consequences of it, too. As someone who for years has used a pen name in much of my commentary, I realize and accept that it comes with the risk of not being taken as credibly. Given the defensive tone of the anonymity disclaimer on the linked site, I am less sure the authors are accept such consequences.

  6. claire bangasser

    It is strange really to want ‘literal accuracy,’ as it can only allow little space for the Spirit’s inspiration… Which may be very revelatory of a whole approach to Church these days. Because the ‘literal’ aspect of anything has much to do with the ideology behind. Agh…
    What shall we do?
    Pray in tongues, I guess 🙂

    Reply
  7. Jan Larson

    Great reminder from awr: there seems to be so much criticism of the 1998 translation for not being faithful to the Latin and the demands of Liturgiam authenticum. But the guiding translation norms at the time did not require slavish literal translations from the Latin, and Liturgiam authenticam had not yet been hatched up. Given that, and given it’s approval by the bishops, I think it’s the best translation so far.

    Reply
    1. Matthew Hazell

      But a translation of the Latin liturgy ought to be faithful to the Latin text, regardless of whether a set of guidelines explicitly says it should be. And I don’t think there’s anything in Comme le prevoit that requires the level of paraphrase and dynamic equivalent fiddling found in 1998.

      Reply
    2. Jeremy Stevens

      But shouldn’t the NEW translation be faithful to the Latin text? Given that LA requires that translations be “in the most exact manner” (#51)?

      Haven’t you seen the articles on here with parallel columns of Latin, 2008 and the Vox Clara that show inaccuracies or outright mistakes in the VC version that now has the confirmatio of the Holy See?

      Everyone at Adoremus and the other anti-ICEL sites made such a big deal about stuff like “We believe” in the Creed: “It’s not what the Latin says!” Well now we’ve got “I believe” – FOUR times! And that’s not what the Latin says either. And not a word out of Adoremus except brainless praise for the new translation. Talk about hypocrites. One of those four “I believes” precedes “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and Saint Thomas has a whole article in his Summa explaining why we do not and should not say “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

      And Monsignor Harbert, who guided the very accurate 2008 translation to completion, has mentioned several times on here that Vox Clara’s fiddling with the Collect conclusion has given us an inaccurate Christology: “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, ONE (NOT IN THE LATIN AND ERRONEOUS) God, for ever and ever.”

      Another article pointed out error in the Trinity Sunday Collect.

      Here come the big beautiful expensive books with errors that we’ll have to pencil the corrections into. Not just style corrections but dogma corrections.

      Where are the defenders or the faith on these issues?

      Where are the Bishops who we know read this blog but don’t have the courage to speak up? What’s more important the truth in our liturgical prayer or your careers?

      Reply
      1. Matthew Hazell

        “But shouldn’t the NEW translation be faithful to the Latin text?”

        It’s a lot more faithful to the Latin than either 1973 or 1998. I don’t see how anyone could deny that.

        “Here come the big beautiful expensive books with errors that we’ll have to pencil the corrections into. Not just style corrections but dogma corrections.”

        That’s lovely rhetoric, but I don’t remember people being that bothered about the far more numerous stylistic and dogmatic errors in the 1973 missal.

    3. Gerard Flynn

      “But a translation of the Latin liturgy ought to be faithful to the Latin text,” M.H.

      You are confusing fidelity to the language of origin with the replication of the syntax of that language onto another.

      A translation of Latin in to English ought equally to be faithful to the language of destination.

      English does not require Latin syntax for elevation of style. This new interlinear ‘translation’ which we shall shortly have to deal with is most un-English. It is pseudosacral, pseudoelevated and pseudoliterary and genuinely unproclaimable, dreckish and revolting.

      Reply
      1. John robert francis

        “… pseudosacral, pseudoelevated, pseudoliterary.”

        And that goes for 2008 as well. 2008 is bad; 2010, worse.

      2. Matthew Hazell

        “This new interlinear ‘translation’ which we shall shortly have to deal with is most un-English. It is pseudosacral, pseudoelevated and pseudoliterary and genuinely unproclaimable, dreckish and revolting.”

        In your opinion.

        Personally, I don’t have a problem with translations sounding like translations. It reminds me that out liturgy is fundamentally Latin, not English. (Which links to something that Fritz said above: one of the criticisms I would have of both 1973 and 1998 is that they invent/create English texts for the liturgy, not just engage in translation of the root Latin text. The case could conceivably be made that this is a thinly veiled attempt by some to create a new, independent English liturgy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the various alternative collects in 1998 exist in the Latin missal; they are new, English compositions. I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that this was part of the reason Rome shot down 1998.)

        “Unproclaimable”? Really? Do you think priests are that incapable of reading texts out loud? Sure, some of the texts may require some study and practice beforehand–on the part of both priest and people–but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing!

  8. John robert francis

    Unproclaimable is unproclaimable. All the study and reading aloud beforehand will not overcome the problem of texts that have scant regard for the rhythms and cadences of the English language. Translation is an art, and in that art two languages are engaged in conversation. If one of the partners in the exchange is treated as inferior, second-rate, a concession to our weakness, then the conversation will end in frustration. If the Latin has the corner on all the truly worthwhile and exalted claims in this exchange, then why bother at all? The vernacular project is doomed from the start. Perhaps that in the end is your position.

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      We have slavishly gone around and around on the “latin is the original” language meme. In fact, it is not.

      As jrf says well, translation is an art; the “latin original” was and is a translation; LA has been endlessly discussed – very few experts support its principles or translation techniques. Any biblical or scripture scholar understands that there is “no original” – the bible we have was changed, added to, deleted some, etc. by translators from the time of King David.

      The statement – our liturgy is fundamentally latin – gives the lie to your argument. The whole point of the conciliar reforms (dating back to the late 19th century) was that this view or concept of liturgy codified one latin western liturgical style – when, the early church and many other western liturgical expressions had celebrated the eucharist in very different manners, cultures, languages.

      Would agree with jrf – it sounds like the real agenda is to dismiss any inculturations/vernaculars, etc. and canonize the Trentan liturgy.

      Also, no one seems to ever explain or connect to the reality that every other language group has delayed, stalled, or given an extended timeline to their process of implementing LA and MR3. Wonder why?

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        But a vast majority of the preces are Latin originals, and not from the 1500s, but from ancient sacramentaries.

        Why should the Latin rites (which Vatican II does not appear to have been interested in doing away with) lose its distinctiveness and become a melange of proto-Christian traditions?

        I’d be interested to know particularly what earlier western liturgical expressions you have in mind.

  9. John robert francis

    The 1973 Missal has alternative opening prayers for the Sundays and solemnities. These were composed in English. The texts were approved by the English-speaking conferences of bishops, and the Holy See gave its “recognitio” to the canonical approvals of the several conferences.

    A number of Missals in other languages also have texts newly-composed in those languages. See, for example, the Messale Romano of 1983, which is still very much in force.

    Liturgiam authenticam (106, 107) allows for original texts. They can no longer be proposed by the mixed commission (ICEL), but individual conferences may compose new prayers and submit them to the Holy See. Why none of the English-speaking conferences have taken advantage of this possibility has not been explained. It seems a terrible regression, in a series of regressions.

    Reply
  10. Fr. Jim Blue

    Yes, “unproclaimable.”

    We have been told by the “experts” that these texts cannot be read cold, they must be studied and practiced. By definition a text that cannot be read aloud is exactly “unproclaimable.” This is from all the talking heads making the rounds of the dioceses.

    The Book of Common Prayer is beautiful piece of literature and it practically reads itself. Thus it is not true that something that is good needs to be studied and practiced in order to be made intelligible.

    And that is the crux. In theory probably all liturgical texts should be practiced and studied in advance. But the VC2010 (like the ICEL2008) needs to be practiced and studied not for “polish” but for intelligibility! That is a scandal for which the episcopal conferences should be very much ashamed.

    It is truly Kafkaesque that we are told these texts are better, but they are composed of such twisted English that even the brightest of us can’t possibly proclaim them without practice. Absurd!

    And frankly, how many people in pastoral ministry have an extra hour to sit around on Saturday afternoon and preview liturgical texts. That time will simply be sacrificed from homily preparation time, so along with the new poor texts the quality of the homilies will inevitably decline as well.

    Reply
  11. M. Jackson Osborn

    At least Fr Blue gives the BCP its due. And, he is correct! There is, though, no dearth of people in and out of holy orders who would feign horror and balk at the BCP’s language merely because it is not the every-day speech of our time – and who would proclaim it unproclaimable. Such a judgment has little relevance to its objective value, for it means ‘Egad! I might have to spend some time with it, and I have so many better things to do on a Saturday afternoon.’ (And: why would you wait until Saturday afternoon?) (And: few are the things that would be a better use of your time.) Anything worth ‘proclaiming’ will take some mental effort, study, and understanding. What we are being graced with is not perfect – but, more worthy is it by far to be used in sacred discourse in the Lord’s own house than what we now have. It isn’t the BCP, but it is perfectly and immediately intelligable to me – even if it is a little amusing here and there: even the BCP (and the Miles Coverdale psalter!) has its, shall we say, ‘enjoyable’ moments.

    Reply
  12. Jack Feehily

    Surely it’s time to pull the plug on the all but dogmatic assertion that the faith of the church must be expressed in Latin prayers. English, French, German, Polish and other bishops around the world are somehow constrained from composing prayers that reflect the law of faith? This is absurd and can only be maintained in a rigidly monarchical system of governance in which loyalty and ambition trump all other values. The Vatican secured the loyalty of the bishops, and now the latter are counting on the loyalty of codependent priests. Since many of us priests are embarrassed by the position we’ve been put in, we are left to figure out ways to go along with this without forfeiting every shred of intellectual honesty.

    Reply
  13. M. Jackson Osborn

    And: one does not ‘proclaim’ a collect, or the canon, or the dialogue, or most other parts of the mass than the gospel: one prays them in deliberate, sacral, language.

    Reply
  14. M. Jackson Osborn

    What about the priests and people who are NOT embarrassed, but delighted? What is embarrassing to me is what we now have.

    Why ‘Latin’ prayers? Because the Catholic Church is (save for the Eastern Rites and the Anglican Use) the Church of the Roman Rite. Use of the vernaculars, then, presupposes that they are translations of the Latin Roman Rite. This would seem elementary and self-evident. Would you propose that we should just abandon all pretense and have our own American Rite? Some, I think, would!

    Reply
  15. Jordan Zarembo

    I don’t agree with any of MisguidedMissal’s positions. Still, their website is very forthright and charitable. Its charity is light years ahead of the venom spewed against the OF on trad Catholic websites. Good for them for keeping the debate civil.

    I thought the 1998 Sacramentary would permit the Lutheran practice of substituting “This is the Feast” for the Gloria in penitential seasons. I remember Fr. Ruff once saying that this option was removed early on in the 1998 formation process. I don’t see anything explicitly heterodox about “This is the Feast”, even if I don’t particularly like it. Why was it removed from the 1998? Were some Vatican bureaucrats upset that the hymn and idea were sourced from a Protestant denomination?

    One more thing (after further website reading): those attached to the Sacramentary might not get a formal motu such as Summorum Pontificum. Some bishops, however, will just turn a blind eye to those parishes which reject the new missal. There’ll always be a place to go for those who prefer the Sacramentary. During the indult days I always found a licit EF, even if it was hole-in-the-wall. There will be ways to circumvent the new law in the breach. I’ll simply avoid those parishes, but in apathy and not malice.

    Reply
  16. Joe O'Leary

    The Gloria is one of the most routinized parts of the liturgy (unless sung in Latin in a beautiful setting by a good choir). I believe most of the faithful just sit it out in boredom. It robs the Mass of its dynamism right at the start.

    Reply
    1. Jack Feehily

      You couldn’t be more mistaken, Joe. We always sing it using a variety of settings and the folks participate with great gusto. Do you think it may depend on the attitude and leadership of the priest and musicians?

      Reply
      1. Samuel J. Howard

        We have good congregational participation with a Latin chant Gloria.

      2. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        My experience as well; it often gets much better participation than the opening song.

  17. Joe O'Leary

    I was in T. S. Eliot’s church in Kensington for his favorite feast, the Assumption. The 3rd EP was beautifully recited. I asked them if they would adopt the new translation and was told they would be ignoring it. So Anglicans will continue to use this good prayer-text while we throw it away. Sad.

    Reply
  18. Joe O'Leary

    “What about the priests and people who are NOT embarrassed, but delighted? What is embarrassing to me is what we now have.”

    The delighted are still not much in evidence. The current translation can be faulted for a certain flatness and its preces are sub-par. But the new translation generates a feeling that can only be described as a puzzled embarrassment. And all this could have been avoided by insisting on the 1998 texts. The Germans and French are doing a better job of protecting their well-wrought texts against Vatican philistinism.

    Reply
    1. John Drake

      “The delighted are still not much in evidence”.

      Perhaps a trip outside the hallowed walls of this blog, to several other “tradition” minded liturgy-oriented blogs might help you discover how many are indeed delighted!

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        I hope you don’t think Fr Z represents genuine delight.

    2. Jeffrey Herbert

      As I am involved with the catechesis for the new translation and the accompanying chants, I can assure you that there are many delighted. They are not what I would call “traditionalist” … because the new translation is not a “traditionalist” effort. Traditionalists, in the sense we usually mean, have little or no interest because their world now exists within the EF and is unaffected by the new translation. Blogs tend to be either from the Progressive view or the Traditionalist view. There are few prominent blogs that reflect the vast group that exists in between those two views…a group that probably would be at least supportive of the new translation, even if not “delighted”. Jerry Galipeau’s “GOTTA SING – GOTTA PRAY” is a good example of one blog that I would put in that camp. I think it would be fair to say that he has made a transformation from being resistant, to being accepting, to being enthusiastic now about the new translation. That will probably be the case for most of that group.

      Reply
      1. Jeremy Stevens

        He’s selling books, Jeff!

        Funny how the next paycheck can rev up your enthusiasm, when you realize that, if Vox Clara didn’t care what all the English-speaking bishops of the world and the experts who compiled the “Areas of Difficulty” thought, they sure weren’t going to care what the proprietor of a blog called “Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray” thought.

        Let’s give a cheer, Jeff! Give me a V, give me an O, give me an X …. you take it from there ….

      2. Matthew Ferguson

        Jeremy Stevens,

        Perhaps you should stop impugning the motives of people you don’t know.

        You’ve developed quite a nasty attitude of late. My mother would be ashamed of me for writing some of the things you’ve written lately.

      3. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        Jerry has been quite open about his difficulties with the new translation. He’s just not been a jerk about it.

      4. Jeremy Stevens

        I wasn’t impugning motives, Matthew, I was stating a fact.

        He sells books.

        There are a number of people, whom I do know, who privately complained heartily about the new translation, and then went on to fly hither and yon, and publish here and there, presumably not pro bono, explaining, training for, helping to implement something that, in private, they tore to shreds as a flawed product of a flawed process.

        Facts.

        And I have no doubt that your Mom is very proud of you, Matthew, hanging around on line monitoring other people’s attitudes.

  19. Jack Rakosky

    Don’t know where this initiative is going

    The website has some value as a collection of materials critiquing the New Missal.

    It lacks much of a vision, a leadership, or mechanisms for moving forward.

    The website prefers the 1998 Missal, but there is not much of a strategy for having that Missal implemented.

    The “whatifwejustsaidwait” initiative had a much better strategy, asking for a comparison of the New Missal with the Current. Both will be readily available later this year, and that comparison can still be done.

    People in the pews are more likely to be interested in a choice rather than esoteric debates about translations and translation principles, the history of liturgical politics, or listening to boring catechesis for or against the New Missal.

    The “whatifwejustsaidwait” initiative had an identifiable leader, and more importantly put together a potential “network” of more than 20,000 people including more than 200 in my own diocese. I signed on in part because it would have been interesting to meet those 200 people and talk about liturgy in our diocese. I knew only a few of the signers.

    The “whatifwejustsaidwait” initiative was interesting because it involved substantial numbers of priests, religious, lay ministers, and just plain lay people like myself, – the makings of a broad movement. If these people had met in each diocese, “lay people” who are not employees of the church (and hence less vulnerable to retaliation) could have assumed the bulk of the responsibility for the movement. Religious often have control of many resources that are independent of the diocese. And priests and lay ministers are essential for communication and collaboration with the parishes. A whole bunch of resources for the making of a grassroots movement.

    So a potential network of more than 20,000 has dwindled to an anonymous few. What an absence of liturgical leadership!

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      The earlier effort was doomed by being 2-3 years too late, and woefully short on specifics of how to conduct experimentation and evaluation in a way that would be falsifiable, as it were (that is, in a way that would not guarantee that the petitioners would be happy with the results).

      Reply
  20. Lee Bacchi

    Having trouble downloading the side-by-side, as after I set up an account, it says my account has not been validated?!?!? Help!!!

    Reply
  21. M. Jackson Osborn

    ‘The Germans and the French are doing a better job of protecting their well-wrought texts…’

    Not having seen them, I cannot speak as one informed on this matter. So, I ask with genuine inquisitiveness: is it possible that their texts are, in fact, more well wrought and faithful to their Latin types than are our texts currently in use; and, thus, are not in such desperate need of revision? I shouldn’t be surprised were such the case. The French, in particular, are noted for guarding jealously the poetry of their language – something that, as seems self evident, was not on the minds of those who fashioned our not-well-wrought and very (un-)dynamic equivalent.

    Reply
  22. Victor Wowczuk

    I am grateful for that website, and the comparison of texts it has.
    I do not know what the problem is. The new 2010 translation is so much better than the other 2! We will finally have those wonderful bees back in the Exsultet, God’s hardworking creatures that make the paschal candle possible.
    I fail to understand what un-proclaimable could possible mean as some of you have raised. Is the English too difficult to understand? Is it about understanding the text? Maybe the Latin itself is hard to understand. I can see that many of you have not read English translations of German philosophers, such as Heidegger in using the word “hard”. Many of those texts speak to God alone and I am sure he would have no problem understanding them.
    And if it is about understanding, having knowledge of the meaning of the text, then there seems to be quite a streak of Gnosticism here, as if understanding is essential for salvation.

    Reply
    1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      So Heidegger is now the standard for English prose style?

      God help us.

      Reply
      1. Jeremy Stevens

        And you don’t need to understand, just say it. Beautiful.

  23. Luke Jensen

    I’ve got mixed feelings about Misguided Missal after reading through much of the site. On the one hand, I do not in any way support Liturgiam Authenticam or any translations produced using its directives. As someone else said in response to this post, translation is an art, and the problem with LA’s directives, in my view, is that they treat the Latin text as if it were (to quote Rita Ferrone) “a deposit of faith.” The Latin is, in itself, a translation, and it is not perfect.

    I personally hope the new translation flops, or that it is substantially revised shortly after its adoption. That said, though, it seems to me that Misguided Missal just rehashes the extant criticism and doesn’t bring much–if anything–new to the table. The anonymity of the site’s creators does strike me as a bit suspicious.

    Reply
  24. Dunstan Harding

    Our pastor isn’t ordering the “Misguided Missal” and, in fact, intends to continue using the current edition. I’m told there are other pastors in this diocese who intend to do likewise.

    Reply
  25. M. Jackson Osborn

    By what authority would anyone not use the new translation? This is what the Church is doing!
    Renegades are nothing new: in spite of the express wish of the Vatican Council and successive popes, many prelates and priests presume to forbid Latin and Gregorian chant in their parishes or dioceses in contravention of superior authority. This is more of the same. How the disobedient do expect to be obyed!

    Reply
    1. Jim McKay

      Don’t you think disobedience is what led to the extraordinary form?

      Reply
    2. Jordan Zarembo

      The way we trads got the EF back is by being total PITAs to the bishops for almost 40 years. The election of a sympathetic Pope also helped to buoy our sails. Who knows — maybe the next pope will be liturgically liberal and give a motu for older translations? Who knows? Anyway, I commend the muted, assertive-but-not-aggressive tone of those who want to continue with the Sacramentary. But I think that the protests need to be a little more edgy than MisguidedMissal.

      Maybe those disenchanted with the new Missal and interested in using the 1998 proposed Sacramentary should do what many priests of the Church of England did with the the proposed 1928 BCP revision. Parliament voted it down for doctrinal reasons (reserved sacrament and prayers for the dead). That didn’t stop some high churchmen from using the revised prayerbook anyway. Maybe priests should just use the 1998 proposed texts and see how far episcopal limits can be pushed. The C of E eventually approved the 1928 texts almost forty years later during its 1960’s gradual liturgical reforms. It took traditional Catholics forty years to licitly worship with the Tridentine liturgical books again. Maybe some long-term disobedience will pay off. ???

      Reply
    3. Joe O'Leary

      A German was complaining to me about the money spent on newly translated funeral books that turned out to be useless. We will undoubtedly hear the same complaints about the expensive new missals.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Joe, we priests could forgo a few meals at expensive restaurants to pay for the new missal. Do they have Krystals in Ireland? It’s kind of like WhiteCastle in the north. Cheap, greasy, small, square hamburgers. 🙂

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        And continuing my line of thought on priestly sacrifice of expensive meals and Krystals in the south, if every priest, deacon and bishop sacrificed these big expensive meals we could help the Diocese of Orange in California purchase the Krystal Cathedral in a heartbeat by sending them the money saved on these expensive meals! 🙂

      3. Gerard Flynn

        If the text merited the price or the sacrifice, people would willingly come up with the money. The problem is having to squander scant resources by paying for a discredited, third-rate travesty of a ‘translation,’ which will be replaced before the decade reaches the half-way mark.

      4. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        I want your Krystal ball!

      5. Jeremy Stevens

        Father, why don’t you start a blog with a DONATE button and put together a wish list?

        And let me know the last time you heard of a priest going hungry or even to Mickey D’s so his parish could have a new Missal.

        Please.

      6. Samuel J. Howard

        If you don’t know priests who make personal financial sacrifices for their apostolate you should get out more. There are lots of them.

      7. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Jeremy, we’re a stewardship parish, thus we try not to nickel and dime people to death and strive to cover our needs through the budget. Yes, the new missal, both large and chapel size and our new hymnals to reflect the changes in the English translation will be purchased through money budgeted for these. We’re more than likely going with the Vatican II hymnal which I just received today in the mail and I’m quite impressed with it.
        We ask people to give of their “time, talent and treasure” and as treasure goes, we suggest 5 % to 8% to the parish (gross income) 1 to 2% to the bishop and the rest to charities of one’s choice. I strive to lead by example in all of this and fill out a commitment card of time,talent and treasure annually along with my fellow parishioners.

  26. M. Jackson Osborn

    It seems to me (and this is mere musing) that if those who exalt the EF over the OF had exerted their energies to the more reverent and sacral celebration of the latter the church would have been better served by far. The problem with the OF is not sui generis, but with the reprehensible way in which it has been celebrated in the majority of American parishes. So, the false dichotomy has been perpetuated: EF=reverence and beauty, OF=ipso facto irreverence and pop music. This divergence is not necessary and should never have occured. But: now that we have the ‘EF’, I respect and appreciate it though I do not prefer it. It seems to me just too too precious. (And, makes less sense to me than a restored Sarum Use – which I should like much better.) One might imagine that the OF in the hands of high Anglicans would be a very different and gracious thing than is experienced by most Catholics in this (or many other) countries. Many Catholics seem to have lost totally any sense of the penumbra of holiness and grace that should characterise the mass and the divine office – but, this is not the inherent fault of the OF.

    Reply
    1. John robert francis

      1. Though it is called a “mere musing,” the statement that “the problem with the OF is not sui generis, but with the reprehensible way in which it has been celebrated in the majority of American parishes” is a sweeping statement to say the least, and bordering on the slanderous. And this just a week after a call to charity and temperance in speech, based on St. Thomas.

      2. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition, gives as one of the meanings of “to proclaim” — “to praise or extol.” I believe public prayer satisfies this definition, and so the use “unproclaimable” with respect to the 2008/2010 texts. But, if not, “unspeakable” would do. (In both senses.)

      Reply
      1. Gerard Flynn

        J.R.F. You haven’t yet got the message that M.J.O’s. posts are parodies. They are intended to be. No one could seriously hold the views that (s)he expresses here and keep a straight face.

        When you look at it this way, there is some humour to be got from it.

      2. Jeremy Stevens

        “straight face” – good one! 🙂

    2. Jack Wayne

      “It seems to me (and this is mere musing) that if those who exalt the EF over the OF had exerted their energies to the more reverent and sacral celebration of the latter the church would have been better served by far.”

      If you poke around enough, you’ll find lots of people who strove for years to accomplish that with the OF before finally giving up and promoting the EF instead. Many people have noted that traditional celebrations of the OF were just as forbidden as the EF was. Any progress made in the OF could be easily undone by the next pastor if he didn’t personally like it.

      I’ve noticed that many people who oppose the EF have warmed up considerably to traditionally celebrated OF masses now that the EF is freely available.

      Reply
      1. Gerard Flynn

        Many people have warmed up?

        I suppose is you double a fraction of one percent, it’s still a hundred percent increase.

        Maybe the US is different but here in Ireland there very little enthusiasm for or interested in the liturgy of the Council of Trent. We’ve moved on. And given that hardly any seminarians have every studied Latin, at least there’s the consolation of knowing that they won’t be mumbling words they don’t know the meaning of. Those that do plough on witless of what they are supposed to mean are lucky that Latin is a phonetic Language, where it’s possible to master the very limited number of phonemes in 24 hours. However, as to what any or all of it might mean…..

      2. Samuel J. Howard

        Gerard, I think you’ve misread Jack’s comment:

        “I’ve noticed that many people who oppose the EF have warmed up considerably to traditionally celebrated OF masses now that the EF is freely available.”

        That is, unless you mean to suggest that people are generally opposed to “traditionally celebrated OF masses”.

      3. Jordan Zarembo

        #73 by Gerard Flynn on August 18, 2011 – 9:58 am

        Gerald, I wouldn’t be so proud that Irish seminarians and newly ordained priests can’t read Latin. An education in Latin and Greek is not just the hallmark of a well-rounded humanistic education, but also a way to see past translations towards the mens of the church in her constitutions and liturgical texts in their typical editions.

        The post-conciliar neglect of Latin studies in seminaries is not merely unfortunate, but a crime against those who will lead congregations and interpret official texts to the laity. Even if a priest never says Mass in Latin, he will inevitably be asked to clarify Church teaching. Is it wise for him to merely read the translation and not know the meaning of the typical Latin text?

        As I have said before, I suspect that some seminaries have intentionally denied seminarians a Latin education simply to hinder their ability and inclination to say Mass in our sacral tongue.

      4. Gerard Flynn

        The very idea of a sacral tongue, or, more to the point, the corollary of the idea is reprehensible.

        Don’t waste your time on conspiracy theories. The seminary in Ireland is not responsible for the situation. Fewer than a quarter of one percent of students took Latin at second level last year, and no one, in the entire country, took Greek.

        This is a drastic shift from the position in 1973, the year when Latin was no longer obligatory for university entry.

        We need a second renaissance.

      5. Jordan Zarembo

        Re: #77 by Gerard Flynn on August 18, 2011 – 1:35 pm

        I’m not quite sure why liturgy in a sacral language is reprehensible. Would you criticize worship in Qur’anic Arabic or Pali? Why would you judge worship in Latin differently?

        Once I am professionally and financially stable, I hope to dedicate much of my volunteer time to teaching priests Latin. It’s their right by their ordination to know the language of the Roman-rite. And yes, I would gladly go over rubrics with the priests. I’ll help them train for the EF and the OF in Latin to the extent that a layman is permitted.

        There is nothing reprehensible at all about immersion in the Latin language. Only through this immersion can seminarians, priests, and the laity receive insight into the theological, liturgical, and philosophical history of the Roman-rite Church. Its our right, the right of the entire Roman-rite, to learn, love, and cherish the Latin language.

      6. Samuel J. Howard

        The seminary in Ireland is not responsible for the situation.

        If seminarians in Ireland are not learning Latin, it is most certainly the responsibility of the seminary to teach it to them.

        Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

        If they haven’t gotten sufficient Latin formation before their seminary studies begin (and this is rare in most countries) they’re expected to get it in the seminary.

      7. Jim McKay

        Jordan,

        Latin does not hold the same place as Qur’anic Arabic or Pali. According to popular belief among Muslims, the first is the language used by God to speak to Mohammed. Pali is the language of the earliest Buddhist texts. Koine Greek would be the closest a Christian could come to these languages, and even that is not quite the same.

        Latin otoh was called the Vulgate, roughly vernacular, when it was first used to translate the Greek. It became a sacral language later, but only under the influence of imperial inculturation. It may be sacred to the empire, but not to Christianity.

      8. jordan zarembo

        Re: #80 by Jim McKay on August 18, 2011 – 7:56 pm

        Jim, you are quite right about Qur’anic Arabic and Pali. Thank you for pointing that out. However, I disagree with you about the notion that Latin is/was significant for Roman/Western Christianity simply because Latin was the language of the western empire at the time of Christianity’s cultural, political, and social ascendancy.

        All languages are “imperial” to one degree or another. Some might contend that the current use of English as a world lingua franca has roots both in British and American imperialism. The Greek of the New Testament reflects the hellenization of the Levant even after the formal rule of a hellenized kingdom ceased. With the Qur’an, perhaps it could be said that the recitation of the holy book and the use of suras in calligraphic art cemented the role of Arab Islamic political conquest and the conversion of diverse peoples to Islam through missionary work. A decision to use a vernacular language instead of Qur’anic Arabic in Muslim worship would probably destabilize the potent force the liturgical language has had on those peoples are now Muslim. Ataturk converted Turkish from a modified Arabic script to a Latin script in a deliberate attempt to pull Turkey towards a secular state.

        Similarly, approximately 1500 years of Latin liturgy, ecclesiastical culture, religious and devotional art, and literature in Roman Christianity has been destabilized by the insistence of some that vernacular liturgy and expression partially or fully take over Latin. Many participants of PTB has demonstrated a willingness to learn about building vernacular liturgy through dialogue with the Reformation heritages and current sociological research. Yet, we are still moored to empire — and why do we desperately wish to cut ourselves free?

      9. Dunstan Harding

        I’ve noticed that many people who oppose the EF have warmed up considerably to traditionally celebrated OF masses now that the EF is freely available.
        ====================================
        Yet, if a very traditional and popular OF becomes too popular, soon there is a steady trek of those young folks back from the EF to the traditional OF masses. I’ve noticed this in parishes where the EF was introduced in the last few years, apparently leading to more traditional NO masses, but the EF liturgies became somewhat depopulated in the process. In a few cases they were cancelled altogether.

        Which raises the question, will too much success in reforming the mass of Paul VI lead eventually to the abolition of the EF for lack of interest? There are strong signs, this may be happening.

    3. Brigid Rauch

      I find myself put off by suggestions that the OF is lacking in reverence. For me, Mass celebrates God imminent in all creation. What others may label irreverence is for me celebration . The God who is self-titled Abba is not a King bound by court ritual. Thus, from my point of view, elaborate rituals separating the congregation from celebrant, and celebrant from God are just the wrong way to go about it. I’m left wondering what is being worshiped, God or the ritual?

      But that’s me.

      Maybe the real problem isn’t the divide between OF and EF, but between being aware of the Presence and just showing up because that’s what you do on Sunday. Any liturgy that leaves people bored and unengaged has problems. And even the finest liturgy fails if the sound system leaves people listening to distant mumbles. At the same time, the person who habitually shows up unprepared to pray is missing the point.

      Ultimately, we all need to recall the Pharisee and the Publican. It’s one thing to discuss liturgy in the abstract in an effort to bring everyone closer to God. It’s quite another to sit in church silently condemning the teenager smacking gum. The teen is guilty of a careless habit and may be unaware of the gum (just as any adult can forget to turn off the cell phone on a given day.) But chewing gum in the mouth doesn’t preclude prayer in the heart. The teen with gum may be the one to leave Mass justified!

      Reply
      1. Samuel J. Howard

        The God who is self-titled Abba is not a King bound by court ritual.

        The God who is self-titled “Abba” is also self-titled “King” and “Lord” and “Prince”.

        elaborate rituals separating the congregation from celebrant, and celebrant from God are just the wrong way to go about it.

        Of course, rituals that separate people from God aren’t the way to go… But you’re sort of assuming that elaborate rituals do this.

        And even the finest liturgy fails if the sound system leaves people listening to distant mumbles.

        Good liturgy in properly designed Churches works without microphones.

  27. Joe O'Leary

    “exerted their energies to the more reverent and sacral celebration of the latter the church would have been better served by far”

    spot on. I concelebrated the OF in Latin at Farm St Jesuit Church on July 31 and it was as reverent and beautiful a celebration as could be desired, and not in the least precious.

    Reply
  28. Brian Duffy

    “One might imagine that the OF in the hands of high Anglicans would be a very different and gracious thing ”

    This is all well and good, but remember that the Vatican II reforms have only been in effect for forty +/_ years. It took the Anglicans at least three hundred years to build a liturgical culture. The first forty years years for them were challenging – no King James Version, no 1662, no auditory churches. The Recusants are living proof of a negative reaction to the settlement.

    Cut yourselves some slack!

    My, my! I’d never thought I’d write that.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Herbert

      Bravo Brian! I think we forget that 40 years is not much more than a blink in “church time”. We already see what is happening to the “Spirit of Vatican II” as those who were the young adults carrying that vision become old adults trying to keep it alive while a new generation asserts it’s particular vision of the church. I’m not saying that the youth are a horde of Tradionalist EF advocates…they’re not by and large (although a large percentage of EF advocates are youth). But they also do not have the enthusiasm for the social and liturgical goals that their elders see as central to the council.

      Perhaps we will know where this will end up in two or three generations. I recall seeing recently where a Muslim leader was asked what he believed were the effects of the French and American Revolutions on the world. His answer:

      “It’s too soon to tell”.

      Reply
  29. John robert francis

    Gerard Flynn :

    J.R.F. You haven’t yet got the message that M.J.O’s. posts are parodies. They are intended to be. No one could seriously hold the views that (s)he expresses here and keep a straight face.
    When you look at it this way, there is some humour to be got from it.

    Ah, Gerard, I did suggest some days ago on this site that they may well be parodies. But now I agree with you that they MUST be. !!!

    Reply
  30. Brian Duffy

    “Maybe the US is different but here in Ireland… And given that hardly any seminarians have every (sic) studied Latin…”

    So sad to learn this! I trust that the same does not go for Greek. The elegant WB Stanford of blessed memory would be quite upset.

    Reply
    1. Gerard Flynn

      I’m afraid that the situation with Greek is even worse. We have an annual cohort of approx. 50,000 graduating every year. In 2010, nearly 150 took Latin and no one took Greek.

      O tempora! O mores!

      Reply
  31. Brian Duffy

    “In 2010, nearly 150 took Latin and no one took Greek.”

    Perhaps The American Classical League could send missionaries to reignite the flames of Classical learning in Holy Ireland – a la Mormons.

    Reply
  32. Charles Culbreth

    Thus, from my point of view, elaborate rituals separating the congregation from celebrant, and celebrant from God are just the wrong way to go about it. I’m left wondering what is being worshiped, God or the ritual? Brigid Rauch

    First of all, I am very much enjoying this discussion and learning quite a lot.
    Brigid, I suppose that POV will always be an impediment to consensus, if not unity. From mine, I’ve never had a doubt God is being worshipped at the EF’s I’ve been a party to. For me, a major revelation overwhelmed all my senses and sensibilities. That’s “my story” and I’m sticking to it.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading