1) that at least some readers would like the series to continue
2) that having the Latin text and at least one English translation should continue
3) that Jonathan Day might be called on to offer a “slavishly literal translation” of the Latin text (if he is interested in doing so, I’d invite him to contact me directly so we could discuss the practical ways in which this could be done)
4) that offering background information on the text as it was formulated for and by the Council Fathers is helpful
5) that offering some questions to trigger blog conversation is also helpful, although I should not be surprised if no one addresses them or if the discussion goes in other directions
6) that the articles should be posted more rarely (and therefore I’ll try once a week for Chapter Two)

We now begin our article-by-article reading of Chapter Two of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Vatican website translation:

CHAPTER II: THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST

47. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.

Latin text:

Caput II: DE SACROSANCTO EUCHARISTIAE MYSTERIO

47. Salvator noster, in Cena novissima, qua nocte tradebatur, Sacrificium Eucharisticum Corporis et Sanguinis sui instituit, quo Sacrificium Crucis in saecula, donec veniret, perpetuaret atque adeo Ecclesiae dilectae Sponsae memoriale concrederet Mortis et Resurrectionis suae: sacramentum pietatis, signum unitatis, vinculum caritatis, convivium paschale, “in quo Christus sumitur, mens impletur gratia et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur”.

Slavishly literal translation:

Chapter Two: Concerning the Most Holy Mystery of the Eucharist

47. Our Savior, at the Last Supper, on the night when he was handed over, instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his own Body and Blood, by which he would perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross through the ages until he should come [again], and so would consign to the Church, his beloved Spouse, the memorial of his Death and Resurrection: the sacrament of devotion, the sign of unity, the bond of charity, the paschal banquet, “in church Christ is consumed, the soul is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” [Roman Breviary in use at the time of the Council, On the Feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ, at Second Vespers, the antiphon for the Magnificat].

Having completed their articulation of the general principles underlying the restoration/reforming/renewal (instaurandam) and promoting/cherishing/fostering (fovendam) of the sacred liturgy, the Council Fathers now turn their attention to particular areas of liturgical reform. They begin with the celebrational forms of the Eucharist. As is the pattern in other parts of the document, they first offer a succinct doctrinal prelude (arts. 47-49) as foundation for their practical decrees (arts. 50-58).

Article 47 proclaims a Catholic understanding of the foundation of the sacrament of the Eucharist as a divine act (“Our Savior…instituted”) and therefore strictly sacramental; it emphasizes (without attempting to explain) the connection between Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Sacrifice of the Cross; it declares that the Eucharist is entrusted to the Church (without articulating the means by which that consignment is enacted); it acknowledges the Eucharist as a memorial of the Paschal Mystery (without attempting to explain the notion of zikkaron/anamnesis); it quotes St. Augustine in a series of appositive phrases highlighting different aspects of the Eucharistic mystery; and it concludes with a truncated citation of the prose text of “O Sacrum Convivium” ascribed to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Pray Tell readers will immediately recognize how dense yet balanced this paragraph is. It clearly confirms some of the theological reflection on the eucharist that had graced the late 19th and early 20th centuries: conceiving the Church as Grund-Sakrament, the development of a “theology of the mysteries,” the biblical movement presenting Jewish notions of liturgical memorial and how they impact Christian sacramental anamnesis, the patristic movement recovering multiple metaphors for the Eucharistic mystery. We might want to discuss: 1) how effectively have these foundational insights taken root among Catholic believers? 2) what ecumenical fruit have these insights borne? 3) what further developments in Eucharistic theology have taken place since the Council that we need to be aware of?

Send to Kindle:

The findings are striking. 59% of priests do not like the new translation, compared with 39% who do. An overwhelming 80% agree that some of the language is awkward and distracting. 61% think the translation needs urgently to be revised. In what is perhaps the most timely element, 61% of priests do not want the rest of the liturgical books to be translated in the same manner. The process of re-translating the Liturgy of the Hours and the rites of the Sacraments is currently underway.

The survey was conducted under the auspices of the Godfrey Diekmann, OSB, Center for Patristics and Liturgical Studies at St. John’s University School of Theology-Seminary, in Collegeville MN. The project manager was Chase Becker, assisted by Audrey Seah and Christine Condyles, and advised by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, with the aid of Dr. Pamela Bacon, a professional consultant. Every Latin Rite diocese in the US was invited to participate in the survey (there are 178), and of these, 32 from all regions of the country chose to take part. A total of 1,536 priests (diocesan and religious) responded, a response rate of 42.5%. The full results are available here.

More than half of the respondents submitted written comments as well as filling out the questionnaire. Their comments spanned a variety of subjects, including aesthetics, grammar and syntax, reception by their people, translation principles, ecclesiastical process, vocabulary, theological content, book format, and music. In these comments, critique of the Missal outweighed affirmation by a four to one margin. Full comments can be found here.

Two questions about process, unique to this survey, also showed sobering results. More than half (55%) of the respondents are not confident that priests’ views of the translation will be taken seriously. Nearly half (49%) do not approve of the role of the Holy See in bringing the new translation about, compared with 39% who do.

Fr. Edward Foley, Capuchin, professor at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, commented: “The most disappointing result of this survey for me is that most priests doubt that their views about the translation will be seriously addressed; on the other hand, this too is not surprising since they were never consulted in the first place.”

Bishop Robert Brom of San Diego was not surprised by the critical assessment of the new translation. “While we don’t want to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater,’ the new missal needs corrective surgery and this should take place without delay,” he said, “The views of priests must be taken into consideration.” Fr. Michael Ryan of Seattle agreed: “The high level of dissatisfaction among priests should be a grave concern for the bishops, assuming they care about what their priests are thinking and feeling.”

Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, executive director of ICEL questioned the representative value of the responses, pointing out that the respondents constitute less than 3.7% of priests in the US. Without some indication of selection bias, however, the absolute number would not seem to indicate that the sample is unrepresentative. The CARA survey concerning the Missal, for example, had 1,239 participants, a much smaller fraction of the total Catholic population which the survey is presumed to represent.

“The survey results initially surprised me,” said Jeffrey Tucker, managing editor of Sacred Music Journal and founder of The Chant Café blog, who is far happier with the new translation than he was with the old. “The survey lacks demographic data, but I suspect a generational split is at work here.”

The use of the Missal is a subject of high importance to priests. They are the ones who must lead prayer using it, and who must navigate the complexities of the language in ways that will bring forth meaning for their people. For those who are well satisfied with the new translation, its daily use will be rewarding. For the majority, however, it seems to have created obstacles and a burden. As Fr. Anthony Cutcher, president of the National Federation of Priests’ Councils observed: “The Eucharistic liturgy and the ability to celebrate it well is at the core of a priest’s identity. … [I]t is clear that America’s priests want to preside well and provide a meaningful experience of the sacred, but archaic language and unintelligible syntax have greatly hampered our abilities as presiders and effectively made that impossible.”

When a majority of priests are unhappy about something as important as the Missal, the situation calls for creative leadership and constructive responses. It is not clear, however, whether those in positions of authority are ready or willing to respond. Msgr. Rick Hilgartner, director of the office of the BCDW at the USCCB, declined to comment for this story, as did Bishop Gregory Aymond, chair of the BCDW, and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, incoming chair of the BCDW. Not replying to a request for comment were: Bishop Arthur Seratelli, former chair of the BCDW and current chair of ICEL; Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB; Cardinal Francis George, former USCCB president under whom the implementation date was set; Cardinal George Pell, chair of Vox Clara; Msgr. Jim Moroney, executive secretary of Vox Clara; and Fr. Dennis McManus, advisor to Vox Clara.

Reactions to the survey were provided by Bishop Robert Brom of San Diego, Father Anthony Cutcher of NFPC, Fr. Edward Foley, Capuchin of CTU in Chicago, Peter Jeffery of Notre Dame, Fr. Michael Ryan of Seattle, Jeffery Tucker of Chant Cafe, Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth of ICEL, Fr. Mark Wedig OP of Barry University, And Bishop Donald Trautman, retired bishop of Erie. The full text of their comments is available here. 

Send to Kindle:

Our thanks to Liturgical Press for their kind permission to share this with our readers.

Send to Kindle:

Although there are many different ways of praying that use Scripture, the process of lectio divina seems to be a rich one for preparation for or reflection after Sunday Eucharist. This is not catechesis. It is not exegesis. It is not Bible study. But I do believe it can be a kind of mystagogy, opening our hearts and lives to Christ’s presence in the Word.

The specific connection to the liturgy is through the choice of scripture: a reading is taken from the Sunday lectionary. Fr. Tom Ryan, CSP, who wrote the sections on Lectio Divina, and is an experienced retreat director, described the four stages of the process — Lectio, Meditatio, Oratio, Contemplatio — in a way that I found engaging. Here are some excerpts from his descriptions.

Lectio

The art of lectio divina begins with cultivating the ability to listen deeply, to attune our hearts to the voice of God, which often speaks very softly and which requires us to become still and silent. … Is there a word or phrase or a sentence that has a particular ‘sheen’ on it, that lifts off the page, or hangs in the air for you when the reading is over? Do not expect a bolt of lightning; attune yourself, rather, for a gentle touch.

Meditatio

After listening to the reading a second time, take up the phrase or verse that attracted you, and let it interact with your thoughts, hopes, memories, and desires. …  Do I ‘see’ or ‘hear’ Christ in this verse? Gratefully receive the Word and look closely at what it reveals to your heart.

Oratio

The third step in lectio divina is prayer, understood both as dialogue and as consecration. … At the heart of oratio is the experience of Christ calling us forth into doing or being. What is Christ in the text calling me to do or to become?

Contemplatio

Here we become still, and know that God is God. Here we lay aside our thoughts. We simply come to rest in the presence of the One who, through the medium of the living Word of Scripture, invites us into God’s loving embrace.

There’s more, of course, and I’m sure there have been many books written on this subject. But this gives you a taste. Now, not everyone will be attracted to any one discipline of prayer, so I’m not proposing that everybody ought to do this, but I found it intriguing and wanted to see if others have experience of it.

Here is why I bring it up. When we think about what it means to fully participate in the Liturgy, it seems to me that we are very sure the choir and cantor should practice, the preacher should prepare his homily, and the readers their readings, and all the ministers should know their cues and be prepared to do whatever is their role in the celebration. Yet many in the assembly, which has a role of the utmost importance in offering their lives joined to the sacrifice of Christ, come in “cold.” By the grace of God, it all still comes together for many people, but I wonder about those who drift away because “I don’t get anything out of Sunday Mass.” Maybe we have to put more thought into what we do outside Mass in order to help people come together to celebrate the liturgy more fruitfully.

Of course there are challenges in this. Having more prayerful attention to the Scriptures which will be proclaimed at Sunday Mass means we must have readers who proclaim them well and with a good grasp of their meaning. We need homilists to realize that when they preach at Mass they are standing on the holy ground that is the intersection of this community’s life and the Word of God. Ball score bonhomie and trite generalities are not enough.

But these are good challenges to have.

We live in an instant gratification society, something that Liturgy flies in the face of. Liturgy is slow and the stakes it is most concerned with are very, very long term. That doesn’t mean there are no immediate returns to be gained from going to Mass. But I think we need to cultivate an ability to enter the liturgical action deeply, and this is a multi-faceted task including disciplines of prayer and the practice of our faith in everyday life.

Send to Kindle:

Blessed Franz Jagerstatter
Conscientious Objector and Martyr (1907–1943)

Franz Jagerstatter, an Austrian peasant and devout Catholic, was executed for refusing to serve in the German army. Known in his village of St. Radegund as a man of honesty and principle, devoted to his family and his faith, he was also known as a fervent opponent of the Nazis. Nevertheless, his singular act of resistance came as a shock.

In 1943, when he was served with an induction notice, Franz turned himself in and announced his refusal to take a military oath. Before taking this stand he had sought counsel from his parish priest and the local bishop. They had advised him to do his duty and serve his Fatherland. But Franz believed the Nazis were a satanic movement and that any compromise represented a mortal sin.

In prison he spurned ongoing appeals to save himself, convinced that he could not prolong his life at the price of his immortal soul. Franz was beheaded on August 9, 1943. For years his story was little known beyond his family and fellow villagers. In time, however, the story of his solitary witness spread, and he was recognized as a heroic witness to conscience. In one of the mysterious ironies of history, he was beatified in 2007 by Benedict XVI, a pope who, as a German youth, had taken the oath that Franz refused.

“Neither prison nor chains nor sentence of death can rob a man of the Faith and his own free will. . . . The power of God cannot be overcome.”

—Blessed Franz Jagerstatter

By special arrangement, Pray Tell is featuring weekly excerpts from Give Us This Day, the new prayer resource from Liturgical Press. Pray Tell readers receive a free vinyl cover with a renewal or new subscription to Give Us This Day. Use promotion code TDPTBVC for Standard Print or TDPTBVCL for Large Print when you subscribe.

Send to Kindle:

I recall a monk (now gone to his reward) who would post on the abbey bulletin board that he was to be away for a “well-deserved vacation.” Not sure why that anecdote is popping into my head just now…

But I won’t entirely be away – I’ll still chime in as contributor the next few weeks when the occasion presents itself.

Rita is well known in these parts. We give her a warm welcome. Address all correspondence to her.

awr

Send to Kindle:

Even if the original Pentecost event was credited with a daily increase in numbers (Acts 2:47), this number 400 is not good news – neither for this Pentecost, nor for the planet, nor for Pentecosts to come.  A safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million, significantly lower than the levels currently measured.  We have already witnessed the devastating effects as we moved above 350, for example in rising seas and extreme weather.  (And in case someone still wonders: the rapid rise of carbon dioxide levels is the work of human hands, not, for example, that of cow farts, as some still seem to think).

My wish for Pentecost 2013 is this:  that Christians around the globe will not only fervently invoke God’s Spirit to renew the face of the earth, but also commit themselves, with equal fervor, to refrain from further marring the face of the earth, for example by reigning in the use of fossil fuels, and transitioning to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable food practices.

One thing is certain, on this first Pentecost at 400:  the future Pentecosts Christians will still celebrate on this beautiful planet will be numbered unless we bring the number 400 back down to 350.

Send to Kindle:

In light of Pope Francis celebrating Eucharistic Adoration on the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, and calling for a world-wide participation in the event, a question has arisen. Is it appropriate to have Eucharist Adoration on a Sunday? The celebration of the Eucharist in the sacrifice of the Mass is the source and summit of the Christian Life. It seems that having a celebration of Eucharistic Adoration after a Sunday Mass downplays the primacy of the celebration of the Sunday Eucharist.

Similarly, I find it odd in the season of Lent for parishes to have a communal celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a Sunday afternoon or evening. Should not both Reconciliation and Eucharistic Adoration lead us TO the sacrifice of the Mass?

I am not opposed to Eucharistic Adoration, I just find it odd to have it after a Sunday liturgy. I would be curious to know other people’s thoughts on issue.

What do you think?

Send to Kindle:

The Collect for Pentecost provides a good example of the difficulties that beset translators working within the constraints of Liturgiam Authenticam (LA).

The Latin text is

Deus, qui sacramento festivitatis hodiernae
universam Ecclesiam tuam
in omni gente et natione sanctificas,
in totam mundi latitudinem Spiritus Sancti dona defunde,
et, quod ipsa evangelicae praedicationis exordia
operata est divina dignatio,
nunc quoque per credentium corda perfunde.
Per Dominum.

The complicated construction of the second half of the text et quod ipsa … makes difficult reading in English. The text as we have it is:

O God, who by the mystery of today’s great feast
sanctify your whole Church in every people and nation,
pour out, we pray, the gifts of the Holy Spirit
across the face of the earth
and, with the divine grace that was at work
when the Gospel was first proclaimed,
fill now once more the hearts of believers.
Through …

Small details first. The English supplies ‘great’ in line 1 and ‘we pray’ in line 3 which are not in the Latin. It would be interesting to know the thinking behind such additions.

LA 57 says that the manner of Latin expression be rendered in the English, without making any attempt to justify this view. In the Pentecost Collect, though, there has been some paraphrasing. Quod is fused with divina dignatio and becomes concretised as ‘grace.’ Is this an attempt to ease the complexity of the syntax? It is certainly not blameworthy.

However, the resulting construction of the second half beginning at and, with … while elegant in the Latin, still sounds clumsy in English and takes some effort to proclaim effectively. The gap between with the divine grace and fill now makes effective speaking difficult, though not impossible.

Complicated constructions such as this were traditionally addressed (cf. Book of Common Prayer Collect for the Annunciation cf. Collect for Advent 4 in the new translation) by the ‘as … so’ device. The Latin uses this device too, but more rarely, and not in the case of the Pentecost Collect. But why not try it here? It would give this lovely prayer a more satisfactory English ‘flow’ (cf.LA 58).

A revised version of this collect might read something like this.

O God, who by the mystery of this day’s feast
are sanctifying your universal Church
in every people and nation,
pour out the gifts of the Holy Spirit
across the face of the earth
and as your divine grace was at work
in the first preaching of the Gospel,
so now let it work once again
in the hearts of those who believe.
Through our Lord.

Alan Griffiths

Fr. Alan Griffiths is a priest of of Portsmouth Diocese, UK.

Send to Kindle:

Conrad Schmitt Studios' design rendering of the Cathedral interior.

This past Sunday, the parishioners of St. Mary Cathedral in St. Cloud, Minnesota celebrated the completion of an interior renewal project that began nearly five months ago. The work consisted primarily of an entirely new paint scheme, the replacement of a worn floor, and restoration of pews.

The interior of the Cathedral as it appeared prior to refurbishing.

Construction on the Romanesque Revival building was completed in 1931 and later designated as the Cathedral of the Diocese of St. Cloud in 1937. Prior to the refurbishing, the interior of St. Mary’s represented a mix of artistic approaches resulting from previous renovations in 1959 and 1980.

The interior of the Cathedral as it presently appears.

Conrad Schmitt Studios created a new color and design scheme that would better harmonize the architectural details of the original structure with the newer liturgical furnishings that were designed by Frank Kacmarcik, OblSB in 1980. The new granite floor of the nave is especially effective in unifying the space by drawing together the original granite pillars and the newer granite sanctuary furnishings. (St. Cloud is in the middle of the largest granite producing area in Minnesota, in case you were wondering!) A more detailed account of the Cathedral’s refurbishing project is available from the St. Cloud Times.

The interior of the Cathedral as it appeared prior to refurbishing.

While the blogosphere abounds with drastic “before” and “after” photos of church renovations, the St. Mary’s project is worth noting because of its sheer reasonableness. There were no major structural changes, nor any rearrangement of liturgical furnishings. The project tackled by the Cathedral Parish represents a situation that most parishes face: how to address a worship space that is simply looking a bit tired and dated.

The interior of the Cathedral as it presently appears.

What do you think? Did the St. Mary’s project effectively unify visual elements from different eras? What is the best way to address older, previously renovated church buildings that aren’t looking for a wholesale historical restoration? Have you been involved in any similar church renovation projects?

Send to Kindle: