Nice cup chalice. Is the Pepsi logo a reflection or part of the design?

Here is the handout to help you follow along.

In Koch’s view, the readmission of the celebration of Mass in the preconciliar form is “only the first step,” but “the time is not yet ripe” for further steps. Rome can take further actions only when there is readiness among Catholics to consider new forms of liturgy “in service of the Church.”

According to Koch, “the pope suffers from accusations” that he wishes to go back on the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). On the contrary, the pope wishes to take up statements of the Council on liturgy which have not yet been implemented.

Koch maintains that not everything in today’s liturgical praxis can be justified by the texts of the Council. He named as an example the priest facing the people during the celebration of the Eucharist, about which the Council said  nothing.

In Koch’s opinion, further development of liturgical forms is necessary for an inner renewal of the church. “If the crisis of church life today is above all a crisis of liturgy, then the renewal of the church must begin with a renewal of the liturgy,” he said.

The cardinal’s remarks provoke several reflections.

It is not the case that the Second Vatican Council exhaustively defined the parameters of liturgical reform. Much of this was left to the Consilium to carry out after the Council closed. The Council never mandated versus populum (priest facing the people), nor has any Church document since the Council, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the practice an illegitimate development. Scholars such as Fr. John O’Malley have demonstrated that there is a “spirit of Vatican II” opening up new vistas for the Church. It is to be expected that responsible and creative implementation of the Council would lead to possibilities not yet foreseen at the Council itself. Whether versus populum is one of these can remain an open question. Which is to say, the fact that it isn’t mentioned by the Council doesn’t really answer the question.

I suppose it’s inevitable that any interpretation of Vatican II will emphasize some passages more than others. Ratzinger and Koch and others can point to a few statements of the liturgy constitution (Gregorian chant is to have pride of place, Latin is to be retained) to buttress the claim that they wish to implement the Council’s statement that have been ignored up until now. Fair enough – but specific directives of the Council have to be ever reevaluated in within the broader context of ongoing liturgical development. Within this context, it is difficult indeed to see how the Council fathers ever intended that an unreformed rite of Mass would remain in use alongside a reformed rite. And there is no denying that Liturgiam authenticam, the 2001 Roman document on translation, introduced centralism and thereby undoes the explicit directive of the liturgy constitution that translations are to be prepared and approved by bishops (not Rome).

Finally, I would be very interested in the cardinal’s thoughts on liturgy and ecumenism, not least because he is the head of the Holy See’s ecumenism department. How does he understand his liturgical proposals to contribute to the work for church unity? Some theologians believe that Roman decisions in recent years have been a setback for the cause. What would Cardinal Koch say?

awr

Roman Catholic Fr. Dwight Longenecker, former Anglican, comments on it at First Things. Excerpt:

So maybe we want to get rid of the Christian fellowship completely and be freelance followers of Christ? This is impossible because to follow Jesus, you have to know Jesus, and the best way to know Jesus is through the Church. “I have my Bible!” the eager independent will cry. We only have the Bible because of the Church. Furthermore, what is the Bible but the story of the people of God—first in the Old Testament and then in the New? The Bible reports the history of the people of God and recounts their relationship with God. Jesus himself went to the synagogue, and indeed practiced religion. The New Testament was composed with and for the Church—a group that practices a religion. To say that you are going to follow Jesus but reject religion is like saying you love baseball, but don’t need a team to play on, a league, or a team to root for.

Fr. Robert Barron offers his comments at Catholic News Agency. Excerpt:

What the young man in the video is presenting is a simplistic and radical form of evangelicalism whose intellectual roots are in the thought of Martin Luther. Luther famously held that justification (or salvation) takes place through grace alone accepted in faith, and not from good works of any kind.

To rely on liturgy or sacraments or moral effort for salvation, Luther thought, amounted to a pathetic “works righteousness,” which he sharply contrasted to the “alien righteousness” that comes, not from us, but from Christ. This basic theological perspective led Luther (at least in some texts) to demonize many elements of ecclesial life as distractions from the grace offered through Jesus, and this is why we find, even to this day in many evangelical Protestant churches, a muting of the liturgical, the sacramental, the institutional, etc.

Barron continues with a pretty heavy-handed defense of the Church as founded by Jesus:

What [Jesus] affected was a transfiguration of the best of that classical Israelite religion—Temple, law, priesthood, sacrifice, covenant, etc.—into the institutions, sacraments, practices and structures of his Mystical Body, the Church.

I find Fr. Longecker’s defense of organized religion, though perhaps a bit overstated, more persuasive than Fr. Barron’s. Both point out the communal nature of following Jesus, but Longecker does so without Barron’s triumphalistic, preconciliar-sounding claims about how Jesus founded the Church.

Also unfortunate is Barron’s caricature of Luther. Pro Ecclesia and recent Luther studies, anyone? The New Finnish School, anyone? Barron rightly critiques the video for driving a wedge between Christ and the Church. What a shame that in doing so, Barron drives a wedge between Luther and the Catholic Church. So much for ecumenism.

Whaddaya suppose is up with Bob Barron? He’s a renowned theologian with a sharp mind. But a few days ago he was putting words in the mouth of Elizabeth Johnson (see Grant Gallicho, “The Yawn Patrol” over at Commonweal.) Not long ago he claimed the new Mass translation is beautiful and poetic. And now this.

Commonweal 1, First Things 1, Word on Fire 0.

awr

The German-speaking bishops overwhelmingly voted to retain “für alle,” and in fact to retain their current Order of Mass translation because it is sufficiently faithful to the Latin. But at special request of the Congregation for Divine Worship, pro multis will be rendered “für viele” (”for many”).

The Italian bishops voted overwhelmingly to retain “per tutti,” and a representative of the conference reported this in person to Pope Benedict. His response was that his opinion on the matter is well-known, but if that is the consensus of the bishops’ conference, it will have to be respected. I’m not sure this story has reached its end, though.

Meanwhile, Pray Tell is seeking to confirm reports that Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix will be heading up Vox Clara, in the position held until now by Cardinal Pell.

“In our big cities, there are very often more coven groups than there are Catholic schools, parishes and rectories put together,” the Rev. Dennis D. McManus, the archdiocese’s special adviser on demonic possession, warned on a show broadcast one Thanksgiving.

“Good Lord, I’ve been to some of them for dinner,” the archbishop said. “But go ahead.”

(Fr. McManus is an advisor to Vox Clara.)

(NAAL began in 1973 with a meeting organized by two Jesuits, Frs. Walter Burghardt and John Gallen. It was officially founded in 1975 at Notre Dame, and the first meeting was at Loyola in Louisiana. Its ecumenical membership numbers somewhere around 500 members, of which a bit less than half are Roman Catholic. Worship at the meetings is sometimes Christian, sometimes interfaith in consideration of the Jewish, and now Muslim, members.)

Scholarly topic for the morning session of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy was Anything But The Roman Missal.

More precisely, liturgical diversity in Canada. Very interesting panel with Fr. Gaetan Baillargeon (Directeur, Office national de liturgie, bishops’ conference), Simone Brosig (Director, Office of Liturgy, Diocese of Calgary), Fr. Bill Burke (Director, National Liturgy Office, bishops’ conference), Peter Galadza (professor of Eastern Catholic Liturgy, St. Paul University, Ottawa).

A few highlights:

* French-speaking and English-speaking Catholics in Canada have quite different histories and traditions. Oversimplification: the French are more traditional and less legalistic. Example: implementation of new GIRM for the French meant “let’s not worry about details of new rules, let’s focus on the spirit of the liturgy. Actually, let’s not change much of anything.”

* In some places people stand for the Eucharistic Prayer after the Sanctus, then kneel for the “consecration” (aka Institution Narrative) (aka Supper Narrative). In other places people stand for the entire EP. In other places people kneel for the entire EP. Time to unify all this, right? Bishops’ conference almost got agreement that all would kneel for all of EP – but French-speaking bishops would accept this only if the local bishop had freedom to legislate otherwise (since standing until the Supper Narrative is in fact the universal norm). Holy See would approve this only if the local-bishop-clause were removed. Bishops’ conference rejected this. Which means:  the diversity continues.

* Communion under both forms is common among English-speakers, rare among French-speakers. At joint liturgies some resist both forms because “that’s not Catholic, it’s English.”

* Marriages are increasingly not just ecumenical, but interfaith. The rite of marriage needs development to acknowledge this.

Reports were heard from the national liturgy offices of the U.S. and Canada, with ICEL update from Fr. Paul Turner.

* A Spanish-language Missal for the US is in progress. Its completion relies largely upon the process being completed in Mexico. The US bishops are considering issuing just the official Spanish-language order of Mass separately, with the remaining materials to be issued upon the completion of the work in Mexico.

* Yes, Vox Clara is really producing a Roman Pontifical. But this doesn’t necessarily mean they’re acting like a translation agency, taking over ICEL’s work. Their Pontifical will simply bring together the episcopal rites in their current translation, with adjustments made (e.g. “And with your spirit”) where necessary. No new translations in it. (But still…)

* The Eucharistic Prayers for Children will soon be coming out in a separate fascicle. ICEL created a quite literal translation of the Latin – but the Latin was never intended as an original to translate, the idea was that it would be a model for developing original texts in vernacular languages. The Latin missal of 2008 doesn’t include these prayers in Latin because the Latin text isn’t intended for liturgical use. (And then some people got to get worked up that the Church was doing away with these prayers. Not.) The new missal in English doesn’t include these prayers because – I’m not making this up – the English missal has to mirror the contents of the Latin missal. Even though… oh, never mind. For now, the current translation will remain in use, with necessary adjustments such as “And with your spirit.” The fascicle will provide for this, while a more extended conversation about how to draft original English EPs for children can be taken up. Interesting question: do the assembly acclamations throughout the prayer work in practice, when these liturgies are celebrated infrequently?

* A U.S. document on preaching is coming which supplements but does not replace “Fulfilled in Your Hearing.” A concern from the floor: why is the consultation by invitation only, why couldn’t there be an open consultation as worked so well for Sing to the Lord? The question was handily dodged by pointing out that it’s being produced by the Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations, not the liturgy office.

* Common English-language lectionary (for those not in the U.S.) continues to bounce from one translation to another, after many candidates have fallen. Now they’re looking at the ESV, the English Standard Version, which comes from Protestant evangelicals.

I had a pleasant lunch with Msgr. Rick Hilgartner, director of the US liturgy office, and his able assistant, Fr. Dan Merz. I began by promising that nothing they said would go on this blog! The conversation was free and open. And I learned two things that are so interesting I can’t resist divulging them. (Just kidding, Rick.)

Excellent afternoon panel on future publication prospects for CAL with Glenn Byer (Director of Publications, CCCB), Hans Christoffersen (Publisher for Academic and Trade Markets, Liturgical Press), Don LaSalle, S.M.M. , and Mark Wedig, O.P. Wide ranging discussion on the many rapid changes buffeting us – print journals are fading, electronic media are rapidly changing, attention spans are shortening, book lengths are getting smaller, few Catholics are now going into liturgical studies. CAL membership is aging. Where is the field going??

At the business meeting, the Catholic Academy for Liturgy elected to its three-person leadership team: Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB. This means I’ll rotate into office of president in two years.

awr, with thanks to Alan Hommerding

Astrophysicist Richard Conn Henry and applied economist Steve Hanke propose a calendar where each date always falls on the same day of the week. Christmas could always be celebrated on a Sunday, for instance, and Memorial Day Monday could always be on May 28. Their calendar would make it easy to plan annual activities, from holidays to academic schedules to financial calculations.

The pair says their calendar is different from other alternative calendars proposed in the past because it keeps each week at seven days. “All of the major (other calendars) have involved breaking the seven-day cycle of the week, which is not acceptable to many people because it violates the Fourth Commandment about keeping the Sabbath Day,” Henry says. “Our version never breaks that cycle.”

Read CNN on it here, and read the professors’ article here.

The Second Vatican Council declared in Sacrosanctum Concilium that the Catholic Church “does not oppose efforts designed to introduce a perpetual calendar into civil society. But among the various systems which are being suggested to stabilize a perpetual calendar and to introduce it into civil life, the Church has no objection only in the case of those systems which retain and safeguard a seven-day week with Sunday, without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that the succession of weeks may be left intact, unless there is question of the most serious reasons.”

My first reaction to the proposal? I like.

awr

Deus, cuius hodierna die praeconium
Innocentes Martyres non loquendo,
sed moriendo confessi sunt:
da, quaesumus, ut fidem tuam,
quam lingua nostra loquitur
etiam moribus vita fateatur.

Can you spell “bowdlerize”?

LITERAL VERSION:
O God, whose public heralding the Innocent Martyrs
professed this very day not by speaking but by dying;
grant, we implore, that (our) life might confess Your Faith,
which we speak with our tongue,
also by (our) morals.

NEW CORRECTED VERSION:
O God, whom the Holy Innocents confessed
and proclaimed on this day,
not by speaking but by dying,
grant, we pray,
that the faith in you which we confess with our lips
may also speak through our manner of life.

Did the translator not get that fateor is deponent? The subject is vita, no? Accusative fidem is the object, not the subject.

What a mess.

A bit of back story: the “bowlderize” line is a swipe at the revisions made to Latin missal prayers after Vatican II. Someone who has written on that topic is Lauren Pristas – I believe in The Thomist, maybe also in Antiphon.

And here (Fr. Z. doesn’t give this) is the translation produced by ICEL and the bishops, and then approved by the bishops for submission to Rome:

O God, whom on this day the Innocent Martyrs proclaimed and confessed
not by speaking but by dying,
grant, we pray,
that we may profess your faith
not only with our lips but also with our lives.
Through our Lord . . .

awr