PrayTell - Worship, Wit & Wisdom

Formally equivalent Christmas cookies

Dec 15

Posted by Editor in Humor, Translation / New Missal | 53 Comments

From dot.Commonweal: Formally equivalent Christmas cookies.

Send to Kindle:

This entry was posted on December 15, 2011, 10:55 am and is filed under Humor, Translation / New Missal. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

53 Comments

#1 by Xavier Rindfleisch on December 15, 2011 - 11:17 am

Reply Quote

Deign to imagine, with a serene and kindly (yea, even a merry) countenance, how these comestibles will augment the immensity of your majesty, or the majesty of your immensity . . . as the case (declension) may be!

PROSIT!!!!

Report Comment
#2 by Linda reid on December 15, 2011 - 11:24 am

Reply Quote

How clever!!! And too much of a coincidence!!!!! I am baking these cookies as we read!!

Report Comment
#3 by Alan Lukas on December 15, 2011 - 12:04 pm

Reply Quote

For half the number of cookies, use the chapel size version of the recipe.

Report Comment
#4 by Paul Boman on December 15, 2011 - 12:21 pm

Reply Quote

Are there canonical instructions regarding who may purify the cookie sheets after baking?

Report Comment
#5 by Jonathan Day on December 15, 2011 - 12:53 pm

Reply Quote

Pay close attention to the cookies once in the oven, or you will burn them through your fault, your fault, your most grievous fault.

A blessed Advent and happy Christmas to many.

Report Comment
#6 by Kate Allen on December 15, 2011 - 1:46 pm

Reply Quote

Tears rolling like a river down my face. What a holy hoot!

Report Comment
#7 by Janet Darcy on December 15, 2011 - 2:46 pm

Reply Quote

And now a word from our sponsor…

http://www.dancingsantacard.com/?santa=37948

Report Comment
#8 by Lee Bacchi on December 15, 2011 - 2:52 pm

Reply Quote

The opening prayer of today’s Eucharist was quite a downer. Some of these cookies will be just the thing to get me out of the dumps!

Report Comment
#9 by John Woelflein on December 15, 2011 - 3:26 pm

Reply Quote

I’ve been laughing at this from the rising of the sun to its setting.

Report Comment
#10 by Gerard Flynn on December 15, 2011 - 4:09 pm

Reply Quote

You won’t be laughing by the time dewfall kicks in, so a few chalice-cakes should do/dew the job.

Report Comment
#11 by Sean Parker on December 15, 2011 - 4:14 pm

Reply Quote

And don’t dare use the old recipe any more or you’ll end up in Hell.

Report Comment
#12 by Mary Burke on December 15, 2011 - 4:28 pm

Reply Quote

And the cookies may be confected and then served by male cooks only.

Report Comment
#13 by Steve Millies on December 15, 2011 - 5:12 pm

Reply Quote

I think they missed the mark here, actually. Wouldn’t a formally equivalent Christmas cookie actually be, in the case of a star, a large mass of hydrogen and helium that would burn my mouth?

Report Comment
#14 by Elaine Steffek on December 15, 2011 - 5:40 pm

Reply Quote

Half the cooks will make them wrong because they’re not looking at the
new recipe cards.

Report Comment
#15 by Xavier Rindfleisch on December 15, 2011 - 6:28 pm

Reply Quote

A friend writes:

“These cookies are worthy to enter under (the) roof (of my mouth).”

And I hope one of our “cross-posters” has the courtesy to share this recipe with that other blog that has long championed both formal equivalence and wonderful recipes!

Report Comment
- #16 by Brigid Rauch on December 16, 2011 - 11:45 am
  
  Reply Quote
  
  Someone did share the recipe, but the folks over there didn’t get the joke!
  
  Report Comment
#17 by Anthony Lehmann on December 15, 2011 - 7:07 pm

Reply Quote

I certainly hope this new recipe does not result in a “HALF-BAKED” product.

Report Comment
#18 by Jeff Rexhausen on December 15, 2011 - 7:07 pm

Reply Quote

Comments from an anonymous member of Vox Clara:

“All-purpose flour” must be changed to “many purpose flour.”

Sugar is clearly a dynamic, not a formally equivalent translation. The word in the original Latin is dulcedo, which was rendered “sweetness” in the 2008 ICEL translation, but this is considered too “low church” a term. Vox Clara has determined that “charm” (a more “high church” term) is the best translation. [Please note, however, that Lucky Charms are not approved for use in this recipe.]

Report Comment
#19 by Sean Parker on December 15, 2011 - 7:38 pm

Reply Quote

Also note that these cookies can only be baked in a wood burning oven since that was what was used for generations, and using an electric or gas oven would invalidate the cookies’ worthiness.

Report Comment
#20 by M. Jackson Osborn on December 16, 2011 - 12:47 am

Reply Quote

.

Report Comment
#21 by Jonathan Day on December 16, 2011 - 5:01 am

Reply Quote

MJO, kudos for your comment of 16 December 2011 12:47 am. You have shown us a new level of noble simplicity.

Report Comment
- #22 by Patrick Towell on December 16, 2011 - 9:58 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  JD (#21) overlooks the fact that MJO offered his comment in such elevated language that the comment has ascended clear up out of the comment space.
  
  Report Comment
#23 by Hugh Farey on December 16, 2011 - 5:10 am

Reply Quote

Christmas Cookies – The 1973 Version.

Mix some ingredients.
Chill them for a while and then cut them out.
Cook and decorate them.
Enjoy!

Report Comment
#24 by Jordan Zarembo on December 16, 2011 - 8:06 am

Reply Quote

From the dot.Commonweal “recipe”: “when in the fullness of time, you are ready to bake these spotless cookies, these delicious cookies, these Christmas cookies” [...]

Spoofing the unde et memores isn’t funny to me, given that the anamnesis is one of the holiest and most important parts of the Mass. In fact, I find it rather tasteless. The consonance of the Latin text is purposeful, even if a literal translation sounds contrived.

Then again, I realize that humor such as this is part of the coping and healing process for those who are dissatisfied with the new translation. I should lighten up and remember the role that humor and satire plays in dissent.

Report Comment
- #25 by Sean Parker on December 16, 2011 - 8:16 am
  
  Reply Quote
  
  Healing assumes that everyone is going to accept the new version. We do not all accept it.
  
  Report Comment
  - #26 by Jordan Zarembo on December 16, 2011 - 8:45 am
    
    Reply Quote
    
    I’m convinced that we must have reconciliation in disagreement to keep the fracture in the Church from splintering even further. It’s enough to recognize the existence of liturgical diversity and the right of every Catholic to worship according to his or her own conscience. That is enough healing that can be expected. That is enough to keep the Body of Christ together.
    
    It is difficult for me to separate the satire of the Commonweal piece from the importance of what is being criticized. I need to remind myself that the translation is being criticized, and not the typical Latin of the Roman Canon.
    
    Report Comment
- #27 by Graham Wilson on December 16, 2011 - 9:46 am
  
  Reply Quote
  
  /humour off
  Jordan – you are right, but so very unfortunately, the ostentatious and faux character of the new so-called “sacred English” itself lampoons the Mass and mocks the Mass. The text’s pretensions to being vernacular when it apes Latin, to being sacred when it sounds turgid, open the Mass to ridicule.
  
  No wonder Sebastian Moore calls the use of “chalice” in the institution narrative an “unconscious vulgarity”.
  
  Perhaps your anger could quite as well be directed to those who caused this “slavishly accurate” mockery in the first place.
  /humour on
  
  Report Comment
  - #28 by Jordan Zarembo on December 16, 2011 - 10:23 am
    
    Reply Quote
    
    I’m not angry with dot.Commonweal or the “chef” who composed this recipe. This is coming from someone who’s sole culinary triumph was learning to open cans with a right-handed can opener. This is often difficult to learn when when you’re a lefty.
    
    The satirical recipe is an ethical and moral victory for Catholics opposed to the new translation. Conservative/traditional critiques of postconciliar liturgy and liturgical studies are often laden with ad hominem attacks and bald hostile name-calling. The faux recipe acts charitably by not attacking the creators of the new translation, but rather the perceived absurdity of the results. Anger directed towards the translators is anger directed fruitlessly at persons. The results of their work should be the only focus of criticism.
    
    Report Comment
  - #29 by Gerard Flynn on December 16, 2011 - 5:51 pm
    
    Reply Quote
    
    Nonsense. Anger directed at the actions of the creators of the interlinear translation is justifiable if they knew that what they were doing was vulgar, but for reasons of preferment chose to continue on.
    
    Report Comment
  - #30 by Bill deHaas on December 17, 2011 - 12:06 am
    
    Reply Quote
    
    In memory of C. Hitchens who passed away today – quoted as saying: “….human equality and freedom happen & advance when we can laugh at authority”
    
    Report Comment
- #31 by Jim McKay on December 16, 2011 - 9:48 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  To me, it sounds more like Richard III:
  
  This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
  This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
  This other Eden, demi-paradise,
  This fortress built by Nature for herself
  Against infection and the hand of war,
  This happy breed of men, this little world,
  This precious stone set in the silver sea,
  Which serves it in the office of a wall
  Or as a moat defensive to a house,
  Against the envy of less happier lands,–
  This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
  
  But I suppose that is because the cook mimics Shakespere’s iambic pentameter, while the liturgist has seemingly no ear for such things. ( drop the “that you” at the beginning and it would easily be massaged into blank verse.)
  
  Report Comment
  - #32 by Joe O'Leary on December 17, 2011 - 1:04 am
    
    Reply Quote
    
    John of Gaunt in Richard II.
    
    Are you saying that the new translation or the parody of it sounds like this sublime speech???
    
    Report Comment
  - #33 by Jim McKay on December 17, 2011 - 9:28 am
    
    Reply Quote
    
    The parody comes closer to Shakespere’s rhythms.
    The liturgy could sound that way, eliminating some of the clunkiness, but it does not. If there is some rhythm to it, I have not heard it.
    
    Report Comment
- #34 by Ann Riggs on December 17, 2011 - 11:49 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  My son likes the revised translation — and did the LOLROTF thing with the recipe . . . one unforeseen advantage of the new translation is the restoration of Catholic humor — an entire generation or more missed out on putting Latin to humorous uses, so the new texts are the next best thing.
  But yes, the humor IS part of the coping. A strategy, it would appear, might be beyond your ken.
  
  Report Comment
#35 by Sean Parker on December 16, 2011 - 8:11 am

Reply Quote

Actually, here’s the 1973 version – simple, well thought out, and to the point:

Makes 36 cookies:

Prepare dough by creaming 1 cup butter, 2/3 cup sugar.

After combining the butter and sugar, beat in 1 large egg.

In a separate bowl sift together 2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour, 1/2 teaspoon salt, and 1 teaspoon vanilla.

Add the dry ingredients to the creamed butter mixture, and mix by hand.

Chill the dough in the refrigerator for 3 to 4 hours.

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F.

On a floured surface, roll out the dough to a thickness of 1/4 inch, and cut into various shapes using a cookie cutter. If you don’t have any cookie cutters, dip a round drinking cup into some flour, and use it instead.

If you desire, top the cookies with sprinkles.

Place on an ungreased cookie sheet and bake for 8 to 10 minutes or until cookies just begin to brown on top.

Place cookies on a cooling rack until they reach room temperature.

That’s a 1973 version, none of that poetry crap.

P.S. If you wish to use other versions of this recipe, feel free. Unlike some versions, we don’t believe in forcing you to only use one version by telling you that all other versions are now null and void.

Report Comment
- #36 by Lynne Gonzales on December 18, 2011 - 7:20 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  My…that’s so easily understandable! One can actually follow along and get good results.
  
  Report Comment
#37 by Fr. Shawn P. Tunink on December 16, 2011 - 11:16 am

Reply Quote

One does not put butter in a chalice…and one does not put the Precious Blood of Christ in a cup.

Report Comment
- #38 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 16, 2011 - 11:41 am
  
  Reply Quote
  
  Huh?
  People put Precious Blood in a cup all the time, not least where they’re following official Roman Catholic documents (or the Bible!) that call it a cup.
  
  awr
  
  Report Comment
- #39 by Gregory Merklin on December 16, 2011 - 1:15 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  While not every cup is a chalice, every chalice is a cup.
  
  Report Comment
- #40 by Fr. Shawn P. Tunink on December 16, 2011 - 4:41 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  If one were to behold a king wearing his crown and seated upon his throne I would think it inadequate to describe this scene as “a guy wearing a hat sitting on a chair.”
  
  Report Comment
  - #41 by Gerard Flynn on December 16, 2011 - 5:56 pm
    
    Reply Quote
    
    Thank you for explaining that you would think it inadequate!
    
    And your point is?
    
    Report Comment
  - #42 by Joe O'Leary on December 17, 2011 - 1:09 am
    
    Reply Quote
    
    Are you joking? The Bible say Jesus was hung on a tree — even downgrading whatever solemnity might have attached to the word crucified.
    
    Report Comment
- #43 by Gerard Flynn on December 16, 2011 - 5:54 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  Where were you for the last 38 years, Father, when that is precisely where it was entrusted!
  Jesus entrusted his precious blood to the vessels available at the Last supper.
  
  Report Comment
- #44 by Joe O'Leary on December 17, 2011 - 1:08 am
  
  Reply Quote
  
  the Greek word poterion, translated by St Jerome as calix, means a drinking-cup. St Jerome foreswore dynamic equivalence in his biblical translations. Perhaps you will say you do not put the Son of God in a stable –
  
  Report Comment
#45 by Fr. Shawn P. Tunink on December 16, 2011 - 4:39 pm

Reply Quote

Moved

Report Comment
#46 by Mary Burke on December 16, 2011 - 6:10 pm

Reply Quote

I read at Mass this morning. I was tempted to alter the response to Psalm 67 to:

“Let the peoples praise you, O God!
Let many of the peoples praise you.”

Report Comment
#47 by Fr. Jim Blue on December 16, 2011 - 6:23 pm

Reply Quote

We haven’t gotten around to “chalice” here yet. So far no temple police.

What I like about this post is a reminder that sometimes finding humor in a tragic situation helps to deal with it more creatively.

Case in point, drawing from ICEL1998 on occasion is really not that big of a deal. It’s just being the cook who has freed her/himself from the cookbook.

I don’t see real cooks using measuring cups and spoons very often. (Bakers yes, baking is chemistry.)

Report Comment
#48 by Janet Darcy on December 16, 2011 - 6:48 pm

Reply Quote

Take it from Janet, me thinks FATHER Shawn doth protest WAYYYYY toooo much…

http://www.shawnthebaptist.org/images/2011/12/IMG_0440.jpg

Report Comment
- #49 by Fr. Shawn P. Tunink on December 17, 2011 - 12:45 pm
  
  Reply Quote
  
  Please explain…
  
  Report Comment
  - #50 by Janet Darcy on December 17, 2011 - 6:44 pm
    
    Reply Quote
    
    Take it from Janet: a pulpit, Crucifix, classic vestments of the Roman Rite, slow sign, construction cone.
    
    You figure it out.
    
    Fr Blue did…..and so did my boyfriend!
    
    Report Comment
#51 by Fr Jim Blue on December 16, 2011 - 7:15 pm

Reply Quote

Yikes.

Report Comment
#52 by Ken Jones on December 17, 2011 - 11:18 pm

Reply Quote

JMJ
My, my. Lighten up, folks. It’s cookies, for Heaven’s sake.
And with your spirits! Make mine egg-nog, thanks.

Report Comment
#53 by Claire Mathieu on December 18, 2011 - 10:28 am

Reply Quote

Photocopies of this recipe were distributed today to the choir members: compliment of our pastor.

Report Comment