Vatican Vandalism: The New English Translation of the Catholic Mass

“This weekend, English-speaking Catholics around the world will walk into their churches to find an act of Vatican vandalism, as a new English translation of the Mass is foisted upon them. This new translation is a throwback to 19th century English that would make the Brontë sisters feel right at home. (I should, in fairness to the Brontës, point out their prose is eminently more readable than the Mass translation in question).” – That’s John Pinette in HuffPost. Read the rest here.

121 comments

  1. I notice that the gentleman who wrote this venomous exercise in vituperation used to be a priest and is now a communications and marketing executive. That explains a lot about his aesthetic. Perhaps if some saints and biblical heroes had studied marketing???
    As for his reference to the Brontes: better that we had had the likes of a XIX. century Latin scholar than the devious purveyors of equivalency.

    1. Regarding: “I notice that the gentleman who wrote this venomous exercise in vituperation used to be a priest and is now a communications and marketing executive. ”

      – I did not notice this when I read the article. I thought that the author gently framed the issues and thereby pointed to several occasions where the curia and the attendent hierarchy again has failed the People of God.

  2. PR: meet John Pinette!
    The only stone thrown that I can see is the one thrown by Mr John Pinette. Quite an intelligent man, actually – he might be able to write a discourse on Arianism and Apollonarianism himself, but denigrates those who think we should be careful that mass texts are irreproachably orthodox. There are, in fact, a HOST of errors of theology, liturgy, catechetics, and music plaguing the Church today in one form or another as in times past. These are not fodder for amusement – except by a clown.

  3. From my own experience with a rather diverse congregation both educationally and otherwise, I find this article silly and the response of my congregation just the opposite of what this gentleman hopes will happen. Vandalism? Really? I think that those who are throwing stones at this translation (especially if they go to Mass in the Crystal Cathedral) should wait six months before being so hyperbolic and see if they need to be so, which will save a lot of broken glass.

  4. Talk about SPOT ON! I hear that the Wreck from Worcester has already had its first parish reaction: Some pastors are already cutting budget for 2012 by 10-15% in anticipation of the fall out. Keep o’le faithful by the side, you may be revisiting it sooner than you think and just because you don’t read Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again any longer in the book, does NOT mean you won’t be hearing it, pretty much everywhere, if not next weekend, REALLY soon.

  5. To put this change into perspective, last Sunday was the equivalent of Good Friday, when something loved by millions of people died. And, but for a few, this Sunday is not going to be Easter.

    1. Hmm, we had the Apostolic Nuncio celebrating Mass with simple people and diplomatic dignateries at Cathedral for the Last Sunday of Ordinary Time. We used the new translation throughout, including the propers. No one had a seizure, or shook their heads at the Preface. The Mass went well, and felt like a mini Easter.

      1. Nobody had a seziure at my local rather mainstream parish (Archdiocese of Los Angeles) either.

      2. People have listened to so many bad sermons and hymns that they have a habitual discomfort mode — not a seizure but a feeling of listlessness and irritation. The Church cannot affort to add any more grams of these negative sentiments — at some point the cup of disgust will overflow (and of course for millions of ex-catholics it already has).

      3. That’s because the church has trained them into believing that they have no choice but to accept it. We have to get the word out that they do not have to accept it:

        1) Stop all contributions to your church.
        2) Continue to say the old words when the new words are being said
        3) Do not sing.
        4) Remain silent on the prayers that have not changed.

        If all that fails, leave the church.

  6. You know, I’m getting pretty weary of the whining. I suppose the charitable reading is that this is really the mourning of a beloved text, but it sure sounds like whining (and the remarks about Arianism and Apollinarianism are just dumb).

    As someone who’s does a bit of whining myself about this new translation, at this point I just want to get on with it and see if we can make it work. Who knows? We do have the Holy Spirit on our side, after all.

    1. You’re not the only one who’s weary of it, Deacon!

      It’s also getting a little tiring reading, again and again, apocalyptic predictions about what’s going to happen this coming year. In England, as I’m sure everyone knows, we’ve been using the new text for the order of Mass since September. As one would expect, some people are happy with it, some not so happy. But there has been none of the mass revolt or disgust that some people here and elsewhere seem to be hoping for.

      And before someone pops up and says “wait until the new propers”, well, our parish has been using them for the last three weeks or so as well. And guess what: everyone’s still coming to Mass, people are starting to get the hang of the new texts and chants, there’s no protests outside, the sky hasn’t fallen in, etc.

      In a decade or two, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. (That’s my prediction, anyway!)

      1. Keep in mind, Americans are a little less reserved about putting up with things that they don’t like, than are the British.

      2. Matthew:

        But there has been none of the mass revolt or disgust that some people here and elsewhere seem to be hoping for.

        Not in your part of the world, nor much (there has been some) in mine, in fact. However in some other E&W dioceses there has been plenty of adverse reaction. You clearly need to get out a bit more.

      1. Thanks, Mr Deacon. But really do you have to share your bodily movements here?

        At least your post has the benefit of brevity.

    2. Doctrinal comments dumb? Via Francis Manion, “The Vatican – and Vox Clara – were and are very doctrinally concerned. So they have made sure that all wording is doctrinally accurate, and as full as possible. “One in being with the Father” could be interpreted as saying that Jesus is a creature of the Father, the Arian heresy of the 4th century.” Yes, Mr. Rev. Deacon, instead of yawning maybe you should read context, and listen to the baptized who have a right to voice their pastoral needs…Guess the author whom you castigate wasn’t too far off according to Manion. Crow?

      1. Dumb, because homoousious has nothing to do with Apollinarianism — in fact, Apollinaris was a friend of Athanasius and a big supporter of the teaching of Nicaea. Msgr. Mannion’s remark was also slightly dumb, since “one in being” hardly lends itself to Arianism (if anything, it lends itself to modalism). But, alas, dumbness is not a zero-sum game. In fact, an increase of dumbness on one side of a debate often leads to reciprocal dumbness on the other.

  7. Fritz: There are many of us who don’t want it to work. We want it to fail so that the church will reconsider what we view as the murder of our mass.

    So, I don’t view it as whining, I view it as taking a stand, and I’m not going to do anything to help it. I will oppose it every opportunity I can get.

    If we just passively accept it, I’m scared of what other changes the Vatican may try.

      1. And perfect pastoral love will guide priests in deciding what to do with the drecky new translations.

  8. We want it to fail so that the church will reconsider what we view as the murder of our mass.
    So, I don’t view it as whining, I view it as taking a stand, and I’m not going to do anything to help it. I will oppose it every opportunity I can get.
    If we just passively accept it, I’m scared..

    Abuse….Violence….Death….MURDER!…scared…?
    With respect, Sean, do you ghost-write for Dan Brown?
    Please…

    1. Actually Charles, no I don’t.

      And if one year ago, you had told me that I’d be writing this today, I would have told you that you were out of your mind. But then, I didn’t know that the only mass I’ve ever experienced was going to destroyed then. I only stumbled upon it, accidentally, last March while looking at an apologetic webpage and saw their countdown about how many days it was until this glorious change was going to take place.

      P.S. I don’t like Dan Brown’s work, have never read the books, and never saw the movie versions that have been made.

      1. Destroyed? There things that I’ll miss, but the Mass is hardly being destroyed. Maybe it’s because I spent two years in Belgium going to Masses that were made up out of whole cloth, and on occasion skirted the edge of validity (e.g. paraphrasing the words of institution), but I set the bar pretty high on the Mass being “destroyed.”

      2. If the priest is up there (maybe with his back to the pews now?) and still giving a mass, but nobody goes, isn’t that functionally the same as destroying the mass? Because you can expect a lot of empty pews now, maybe a lot of empty churches, as people start to go where they are loved and welcomed instead of where they are feared and assaulted.

      3. Sandi Brough on November 24, 2011 – 2:53 pm

        Today for the commemoration of St. John of the Cross (also Thanksgiving), my parish was treated to an EF missa cantata. Our church celebrates all Masses ad orientem. The daily Masses are well attended, and the feast and Sunday OF and EF Masses are packed. The new OF responses are said with gusto.

        Sandi, I’m not sure if you write under a pseudonym or your real name. Even so, there are parishes which do every last thing you abhor and fear — and have very grateful parishioners who grow and prosper under the traditional liturgy. Perhaps for some the exodus is not from the new translation, but towards a fuller expression of Catholic liturgical heritage.

      4. The current piece of linguistic vandalism will not destroby the Mass but it will make going to Mass even more unpleasant and meaningless than it aleady is for most Catholics. When the new trans is dumped it will already have done much damage. If it gets people to rethink the Eucharist — even to retrieve the creative liturgies abhorred by Fritz Bauerschmidt,
        it might have a providential effect.

  9. And supposedly hierarchs are always talking down to us, yet we cant be trusted to learn the meaning of words like ‘consubstantial’ and ‘oblation’?These words did not come from nowhere, they are part of a rich theological heritage that we should be proud to learn.

    1. Ditto, Jordan. Must our liturgical language be at a third grade level? All this furor over “consubstantial,” “oblation,” “incarnate”…. It wasn’t so long ago that words like “catechumenate, “presbyter,” “liturgy” and even “eucharist” were not in common use among the average Catholic.

      1. The furor is about ugly, clunky. unprayable language. We do not use clunky words like presbyter, catechumen, liturgy in our prayer either.

      2. Jeffrey:

        “Presbyter”… isn’t that a transliteration rather than a translation?

        Hardly. The Latin is sacerdos.

      3. Paul Inwood, Presbyter is Greek and is used instead of preist because the NT does not call ministers priests. A translation would be “elder” or “senior” which alas is not quite what our agist culture likes.

      4. Joe,

        I know very well that presbeuteros is a Greek word. I was just pulling Jeffrey’s leg. Sorry the joke misfired…. 🙁

    2. The word homoousios (consubstantialis) has never had a clear meaning — there are a variety of possible interpretations — its inefficacy against the varieties of Arianism is clear — Athanasius scarcely refers to it in his foundational three treatises against the Arians.

  10. On this most auspicious of American holidays, and as we don’t have the late, great Dr. Hunter S. Thompson to referee our various and sundry bouts of hyperbole and reverie, I hereby propose a Thanksgiving Moratorium Upon These Most Sancte Discourses Pertaining Thereby to the Eucharist and all Ironies Adjunct.
    Now that that’s done, I’m making the seating cards:
    Chicken Littles and Observant Serf Children- please take your versus populum seats.
    Naked Emporers and Gramma Wolves- assume the ad orientem seats, sideways.
    There now, all better?
    Oh, Mr. Hitchens, sirrah, uh…. I didn’t notice….uh.
    I’m not worthy that you should enter under my roof, tent, uh, words fail me.
    And you brought Dr. Dawkins as well, how lovely. Um, I’ll be just a moment.
    Everyone! Mr. Hitchens and Dr. Dawkins have deigned to join us this afternoon! Can we make a place? And do carry on, quite.

  11. Charles Culbreth :

    Happy Thanksgiving, Sean.
    Sorry my reposte/repast had a sort of April First ambiguity.

    Thank you, and I hope all the posters here in the US and wherever you may be find some reason to be thankful today. Do not look at me as someone who is here simply to stir up the water. But the church seems to be ambivalent to the fact that they have seriously hurt many people by their actions.

    1. Oh, for crying out loud! No one is being hurt now in anything resembling the way so many were in the 1960’s, when the Mass in a form they could recognize as such was destroyed in fact, not in mere hyperbole. Of course, losing Church careerists now are hurt in the same way as losing Church careerists then–what else is new with winners and losers–but I’m talking about the faithful in the pews who are blissfully oblivious to all this carping and whining, and see only the beginning of a restoration of authentic Catholic worship.

      1. That may be your opinion, but don’t tell other people what is and what is not hurting them. You are not in their shoes.

        My mass does not imply that priests have spirits while people do not.
        My mass represents Jesus as someone who uses a cup not a chalice.
        My mass says that Jesus died for ALL, not many meaning all, HE DIED FOR ALL!!

      2. “You are not in their shoes.”

        Actually, I do know how everyone feels about this, on both sides. For the simple that, over the past fifty years, I’ve found myself in every possible shoe and felt every one of these pains. It seems to me that only someone young and immature can feel that his pain is new and that no one else can possibly understand it. (Of course, I’ve been there, also.)

      3. If you were in my shoes, you would be telling me I was right. I don’t accept your answer.

        I will keep resisting until the church changes the missal back.

        And if that means on Sunday that when the church tries to make people say “And with your spirit.”. I will wait until they have said it, and then I will shout out, “AND ALSO WITH YOU”, each time.

        Keep in mind that for every one of me out there, there are several hundred that are too scared to make their feelings known. Hopefully, people who are brave enough will help them find the courage to speak out with their feelings in such a way that the hierarchy realizes that maybe they have to stop pulling a deaf ear.

      4. Sean

        Say what you will, but I can virtually guarantee that shouting out that way will persuade more people who are not happy with the translation to be reconciled to it.

        I have witnessed many episodes of shouting protest of divers sorts during the Mass and, each and every time, the negative reaction to it from people who would otherwise be sympathetic to joining in disagreement in another manner has been overwhelming.

        So, if I wanted to ensure the embrace of the new text, and if I were Machiavellian about it, I’d plant people around the congregation to do exactly what you propose….

        I think of a new member of my choir who hates the outgoing translation and has been loudly and emphatically saying the new translation of the Creed while everyone else doesn’t. Her actions are uniformly detested, but she insists on continuing. It will be moot this weekend. But just to put the shoe on the other foot, as it were.

      5. “I’ve found myself in every possible shoe and felt every one of these pains.”

        Henry, this preposterous statement alone suggests that everything else you say must be taken with a grain of salt. Acknowledgement of one’s limitations is the beginning of wisdom. Please. You haven’t been in everyone’s shoes. This is ridiculous.

      6. “My mass does not imply that priests have spirits while people do not.”

        Neither does the new text.

        “My mass represents Jesus as someone who uses a cup not a chalice.”

        I’m not sure why this is a big deal. Yes, calix could be translated either way – but when Father tells me in the sacristy how many Eucharistic vessels to get out before Mass, he doesn’t use the word “cup”. The word “chalice” rather than “cup” is used by many Catholics outside of the liturgy to describe the vessel which holds the Blood of Christ, because we know it is a special type of cup.

        “My mass says that Jesus died for ALL, not many meaning all, HE DIED FOR ALL!!”

        All English translations of the synoptic Gospels have Jesus saying “for many”, because that’s what the Greek says. Subsequently, it’s what the Latin says (pro multis, not pro omnibus/universis etc.). My opinion is that historically, linguistic and theologically, “for many” is the way to go. Read, for example, St. John Chrysostom’s 17th homily on Hebrews, specifically his comments on 9:28.

      7. Actually, Rita, I have indeed felt (at different times over the decades) both “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat” on most every side of most every liturgical issue. One reason I occasionally drop in here at PrayTell is to rekindle some of those past memories and feelings. Perhaps you will know better what I mean when you’ve been around as long as I have.

  12. First of all thank you for this blog. I only learned about it a few days ago from a friend and I only learned about the intrigue surrounding the new translation a couple of weeks ago. I knew the new translation was coming even though no one spoke about it in my parish. I didn’t know that the Pope did an end run just in order to get his way. Our pastor told us this has been in the works since 1982 and is the teaching of the Church.

    Also I want to thank all the people who are commenting; they have a much deeper background in theology than I do. (12 college credits 10 years ago)

    I don’t usually care about what the Pope or the bishops have to say because the only time they’ve ever shown any interest in me is when it comes to telling me what and with whom I can do it in my bedroom or to tell me I’m too inferior to be a priest. Nevertheless I do go to Mass regularly and this action will have a direct effect upon me.

    I am so bummed out right now I don’t plan on attending any longer but I do need to worship and I will miss my local community. Does anyone know if there is a website for a parish where they actually tell the truth about what happened?

    1. Marci, please don’t boycott the Mass. It is there where you get the community and it is there where you physically and literally meet the Lord. I have been loathing the new words for a few months now, but I’m not letting them drive me away from the only Church that isn’t shooting blanks.

      There are many possible ways forward, but stamping on your own soul is probably not the best one. I urge you to stay and, with me, wince our way through it.

  13. ‘To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition, through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, that you accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.’

    Yes, this is a kind of murder, the last nail in the coffin of the Roman Canon as far as the English speaking world is concerned.

  14. I’m fascinated by the intrigue about how this translation came about because so many have been quite transparent about the intrigue beginning with Liturgiam Authenticam. “Houston, we have a problem” precipitated a course change with what was happening with the 1998 translation while far superior to the 1970 and slightly revised other editions of the English missal, was still more of the same in so many ways.
    Of course people were hurt, unusual decisions were made even between 2008 and 2010 which of course makes for good reading and excited bloggers and comments.
    If we had the same transparency and means of communication, such as the internet and blogs, I think most would be shocked by the shenanigans of what transpired at Vatican II amongst bishops and theologians who were invited. I think there were a lot of people, i.e. bishops and theologians hurt during that process and other than Archbishop Marcel Lefebre who was the most out spoken and transparent about his feelings, we don’t have much to go on.
    My seminary professors in the 1970’s always loved to point out how tranquil and pastoral the documents of Vatican II read. They said that was deceptive as they pointed out the factions and fights that they knew of from those who were there who told them. If not for nefarious maneuvering and last minute strikes and decisions, things might have been quite different, not only for the Liturgy document but also for the Constitution on the Church. In other words the proceedings at the Second Vatican Councils were not just a kumbaya moment of hand holding and unanimity about all that came forward and certainly not subsequently in later documents. In the Church and in the world, there are always winners and losers. What counts is the gracefulness of both of these camps then and now.

  15. Fr. Allan – have you read books by Alberigo (series describing the council in all of its details including much of what you reference); O’Malley; Komonchak, Xavier Rynne. Much detail in these accounts of the discussions, debates, differences – how much of the work was done in small groups with periti. Yet, eventually these groups blended documents that were voted on – in most cases, the votes were not close.

    First, you have read the comprehensive accounts of Medina, Vox Clara, and the “new” ICEL and the contretemps from 2008 to 2011. Assuming that you have also read enough to be able to contrast this with the “original” ICEL, Consilium, and the very transparent notes and published reasons and decisions for the 1973 and then 1998 liturgies. You make it sound as if the two processes were identical – facts would suggest that nothing is further from reality than to state that.

    You say – “…If not for nefarious maneuvering and last minute strikes and decisions, things might have been quite different, not only for the Liturgy document but also for the Constitution on the Church.”

    Sorry – “nefarious & last minute”….that is your opinion and a judgment that most qualified experts on the council would reject. In fact, you insert the world of Dan Brown by using this type of terminology. “Maneuvering ” – the history by Alberigo et alii more than adequately details the fact that more than 2400 bishops (for the first time in the history of the church from all over the world in sizable numbers) did “positively” maneuver (some might call this the “spirit”) but what comes across is responsible church needs; differences by region, cultures, peoples; and yes, some differences in ideology.

    None of these histories (if studied) would leave you with the conclusion that VII was a “kumbaya” moment. (Wonder if your professors were trying to get across a historical point, even in the church, that decisions are compromises; that the process was messy – so, why is this “negative” or “winners/losers” – a perjorative conclusion).

    Some of the most humurous moments are early in the council when John allowed the bishops to rightfully take control vs. Ottaviani and the curia and you saw the “childless behavior” and reaction of Ottaviani.

    Two disturbing facts:
    – council ended and unfortunately left development to the curia – didn’t work
    – and, revisionism –

    1. Bill, you are just confirming what I said without using the hyperbole I used. There were winners and losers just as there are today no matter how the decisions came to be fair or not by a big margin or small. Graciousness in winning or losing is what I am suggesting as was exhibited by many (not all) at the Council.

      1. Okay but until your last sentence; most everything you wrote was “hyperbole”. Winners/losers language and descriptions are too black and white – council decisions were more often nuanced; setting up principles and allowing regional implementations. In fact, VII made no dogmatic statements or decision; it was pastoral. What was revolutionary is that it used language that never condemned; it never allowed itself to think, act, or write using “anathemas” (read Trent or Vatican I). So, will accept your last line but your point was significantly obscurred by your opinions.

        “Graciousness” – can live with that as long as it isn’t used to cover up opinionated and inaccurate revisionism, ideologies, and power grabs. And I don’t buy the “passive” approach to these control games by becoming “obediently passive” as some would suggest and calling it “spirituality” and “letting the spirit grow.” All that sets up is what I see going on now – the pendulum swings from one side to the other depending upon who is in control and who cares what is good for the church. And, from a famous quote, the ones in power write the history (which may or may not have any resemblance to actual facts)

      2. Just keep in mind, Bill, that Vatican II’s documents like all other documents of various councils through the ages were written for a particular time and place; the sociology of the documents are time constrained and time capsuled although immutable truths were confirmed in the most positive way. I think the problem for many people my age and older, which I suspect includes you, hopefully you’re much older, is that Vatican II was not and is not a panacea nor a god to be worshiped. And times will change and changed they have and not necessarily in the continuum of the spirit of Vatican II that I was taught in the 60’s and 70’s and I taught in the 80’s. And as Walter Cronkite would say, “And that’s the way it is.”

      3. Agree but most councils’ impacts take roughly 100 years to change the church – we have barely begun. IMO, the continuum of VII will continue long after the abortive reactions of JPII and B16. (BTW – as you relate often, you seemed to approach your education as if trying to “fend off” VII rather than actually incorporate it into your pastoral practice – you cast negativity upon some of your teachers at times and suggest that they “mis-interpreted” VII. Revising and reinterpreting only 20 years after the council based upon your own “education” at that time – just wonder?)

        VII may not be a god but neither is original latin; sacral vernaculars, etc. But, per Vox Clara, one would never know that.

      4. I embrace Vatican II and agree that it takes about 100 years for a council to be implemented properly. In just a short 50 years we are seeing that with Vatican II namely through the hermeneutic that Pope Benedict XVI has enunciated, “reform within continuity” with what preceded Vatican II and making clear, just as you did in an earlier post, that this Council was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one and used the language of “hyper optimism” that was so current in the early 1960’s about our abilities to conqueror all, like sickness, war on poverty, etc. It is a part of the misunderstanding of “eschatology” that promoted the theology that we could establish heaven on earth ourselves with God’s help, although the now defunct, thankfully so, English translation so seldom if ever referred to grace in any of the orations, that most people who prayed that translation thought we could do it on our own–and like the tower of Babel, God showed us. We’re not God, He is, nor is Vatican II god. In terms of my seminary days and professors, I appreciate most of what happened there but can look back with 20/20 hindsight to so much that was misguided and classified as “spirit of Vatican II” and made up theology loosely based on the Council–very sad, but glad those days are defunct too, along with the old English translation of that period.

      5. Eventually, long after our deaths, we will see which view is the “alternate universe”…..not sure that many historical theologians would agree with your interpretation of B16’s Hermeneutic of Continuity – it seems to change with the wind and has been embraced and rearticulated by the likes of EWTN, Fr. Z, and G. Weigel in ways that, I doubt, B16 would agree with.

        Sounds like you are in search of a justification for what you have always held. VII, at its core, was about conversion…not sure you can alter that by inserting the term “continuity” – sounds like Orwellian double speak or “newspeak”.

      6. Bill, on this last day of Ordinary Time when our readings are so apocalyptic, I would love to see who is right and wrong at the most transparent Final Judgement when all institutions and individuals will be judged and separated, including the Church, although that judgement for Church leaders has been going on for a few years now as it concerns the sex abuse scandal. At any rate, our time on earth is very short Bill, you hit the nail on the head with that statement and the older we get the more clearly we understand this and that all is passing away, including the Church Militant in what ever form she is or will be in whatever time remains regardless of anyone’s hermeneutic or interpretation of it. I doubt, though, that the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s will fair very well at the Last Judgment, but who knows but God. I just hope I’m counted amongst the sheep, but my time in purgatory might be long due to the spirit of Vatican II I promoted in the 1980’s or given my Italian guilt complexes and anxieties, I might go to hell, who knows but God! 🙂

  16. Bill, my candidate for one of the most humorous moments at Vatican II would be when one bishop intervened to warn that if SC were approved, then the time would come when the whole Mass would be celebrated in the vernacular. According to the account I saw, the assembly of bishops broke out into loud laughter, none of them being able to imagine such a preposterous thing.

  17. Henry – would love more details. Wonder if your “story” isn’t about Cardinal McIntyre of LA who tried to say in latin that any reform that ended latin would destroy the church. (I say “tried” because McIntyre’s latin was so bad that someone else had to step forth and restate his latin attempt at words on the floor of St. Peter’s so all could understand. The laughter was because the movement towards vernacular, of course, assumed that the liturgy would, for the most part, be in that specific vernacular – sorry, they laughed because it was an utter non-sequiter statement.

  18. Actually, the bishop in question was, as I recall, South African. As for the substance of the matter, I’m not aware, from the minutes of the 50+ meetings of the Council commission that prepared SC and presented it on the floor, that there was any extended formal discussion at the Council of a largely vernacular liturgy. As the alleged antidote I mentioned suggests, the vernacular movement behind the scenes apparently had not yet surfaced sufficiently to be taken with full seriousness. It was, of course, quite active beneath the level of formal consideration, with translations in preparation before the Council ended, and came to the fore soon afterwards. At any rate, I’m not aware of any serious or widespread anticipation among the Council Fathers that any of their intended reforms would “end Latin” in the liturgy.

  19. “My mass does not imply that priests have spirits while people do not.”

    “Neither does the new text. ”

    For 40 years we have offered back to the priest exactly what he offered to us. Now, his words don’t change but our response does. If he wants us to offer something to his spirit, he first offers it to our spirits. Priests are no different than lay people we are 100% equal.

    Because our responses change and the priests does not, now gives the perception that priests have spirits and lay people do not, Perception is reality.

    If he wants “And With Your Sprit” he has to start with “The Lord be with your Spirits”.

    “My mass represents Jesus as someone who uses a cup not a chalice.”

    “I’m not sure why this is a big deal. Yes, calix could be translated either way – but when Father tells me in the sacristy how many Eucharistic vessels to get out before Mass, he doesn’t use the word “cup”. The word “chalice” rather than “cup” is used by many Catholics outside of the liturgy to describe the vessel which holds the Blood of Christ, because we know it is a special type of cup. ”

    Because calling it a cup emphasizes the human side of Jesus, and not that He was a King or that He was God. We know Jesus was divine. What draws us to him is his humanity.

    “My mass says that Jesus died for ALL, not many meaning all, HE DIED FOR ALL!!”

    My Eucharistic prayer has said that Jesus’ blood was shed “for you and FOR ALL, so that sins may be forgiven.”

    God accepts everyone, even the ones who don’t believe in Him or who follow other religions. To say otherwise depicts a sadistic torturous God. The only way a person can turn away from God is to know and believe 100% without a doubt that what they are doing is what God doesn’t want you to do, and to do it anyway. Otherwise, God forgives. You can’t accidentally or unknowingly sin. You have to truly believe that what you’re doing really is a sin.

    1. “Priests are no different than lay people we are 100% equal.”

      Equal in dignity, not equal in function (e.g. CCC 1547). Through Holy Orders, priests are made fundamentally different, their spirit is changed, an “indelible spiritual character” (CCC 1582) is conferred upon them.

      “Perception is reality.”

      So, if someone perceives that God does not exist, that then is the reality of it? Of course not: reality is what it is regardless of our own perceptions of it. You may perceive that “and with your spirit” means something other than what it really means; the reality then is that your perception is deficient in some way, not that your perception somehow becomes reality.

      I think these three words are at the root of both our disagreement and your clear unhappiness with circumstances as they are re. the new texts.

      “You can’t accidentally or unknowingly sin. You have to truly believe that what you’re doing really is a sin.”

      Your philosophical view above binds you into accepting something that is demonstrably not true. Something sinful is sinful, regardless of whether or not one believes that it is.

      In any case, your view seems irreconcilable with a properly Catholic understanding of the justice of God, of the nature of sin (esp. CCC 1846-76), or of Jesus’ words in (e.g.) Matthew 25:31-46.

      “God accepts everyone, even the ones who don’t believe in Him or who follow other religions.”

      That’s news to me. I thought that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus still applied (e.g. Lumen gentium 14; CCC 161, 846-48).

      1. Sean, for “a properly Catholic understanding of the justice of God and the nature of sin,” read “the views that agree with mine.” Like the lady said to the Cardinal who objected to removing the ban on artificial contraception on the grounds that so many had already gone to hell for using it: “You don’t think the good Lord obeyed all of your decrees, your eminence.”

        The smugness of your attitude, Mr Hazell is most unpleasant.

      2. “The smugness of your attitude, Mr Hazell is obnoxious.” [Note: subsequently you edited “obnoxious” to “most unpleasant”.]

        If it is smug to suggest that scripture and the Catechism might have the right views here, then by all means, label me smug.

        Otherwise, state your disagreements and keep the slurs out it it.

      3. Maybe some reader might like to oblige and complete the following Ninth Beatitude:

        “Blessed are the smug…..”

        Your admonitions and imploring of others to read the CCC might well be turned around on yourself to listen to the prayers of this evening’s and tomorrow’s mass for some edification and atuning of your thinking to the Gospel. But I forgot. It’s most unlikely that anyone will listen to them to look for inspiration of any kind.

      4. Gerard, please explain why suggesting to people that they might want to read and study the Catechism qualifies as “smug”?

        And my ears will be very attentive tonight and tomorrow, thank you – I have looked forward to this day for a while now! (Though our parish has been using the full missal for a number of weeks, so tonight does feel a little anti-climactic… but not much…!)

      5. John Paul II, quoted by Card. Ratzinger in Dominus Iesus (200) clearly taught that the God uses the religions to bring peple to his salvation:

        Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors’”. (quoting Redemptoris Mission, subquote is from Paul VI)

      6. However, Father, that also has to be read in the context of the whole document, especially (with regard to other religions) sections 20-22. For example:

        “Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God, and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.” (DI 21)

        In the area of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, I’m perfectly happy to accept the teaching of the Pope and the Catechism – I had hoped that was clear from my citations of LG and the Catechism! I remain very concerned, however, that Sean’s opinions in this matter go some way beyond the teaching of the Church. I’m even more concerned that he seemingly has no interest in even considering that he might be misreading the Church’s teaching.

        If that makes me smug or reactionary, so be it.

      7. Mr Hazell “However, Father, that also has to be read in the context of the whole……. ”

        Has to? Who says so? I presume what you mean is “I like to.”

    2. “Priests are no different than lay people we are 100% equal.”

      “Equal in dignity, not equal in function (e.g. CCC 1547). Through Holy Orders, priests are made fundamentally different, their spirit is changed, an “indelible spiritual character” (CCC 1582) is conferred upon them.”

      A rule invented by priests who wanted to be able to control people by scaring them into believing that if the people didn’t do what the priests said, they’d be sent to Hell.

      “Perception is reality.”

      “So, if someone perceives that God does not exist, that then is the reality of it?”

      To the person who perceives it, yes. Similarly, to many, the use of And With Your Spirit gives the perception that priests have spirits and people do not.

      “You can’t accidentally or unknowingly sin. You have to truly believe that what you’re doing really is a sin.”

      Your philosophical view above binds you into accepting something that is demonstrably not true. Something sinful is sinful, regardless of whether or not one believes that it is.

      And if a child picks up a gun and unknowingly kills someone, that child goes to Hell because he has committed murder. That child has committed no sin.

      Similarly, if I believe that the church is wrong, and do not believe that doing something is wrong, it is no sin, because God knows that my belief was genuine. He may explain it to me ultimately, and if I were ultimately sorry once He personally explained it, then He’d forgive me because He’d understand why I believed the way I believed.

      God does not follow an ignorance is no excuse policy, because He knows.

      In any case, your view seems irreconcilable with a properly Catholic understanding of the justice of God, of the nature of sin

      You mean irreconcilable with the views of the men who wanted to control others by making up rules saying that they were different from them.

      “God accepts everyone, even the ones who don’t believe in Him or who follow other…

      People can believe in God in different ways. An atheist who loves his fellow man loves (and is believing in) God, even if he doesn’t know or believe that he is.

      A lot of fundamentalist like to pull out the line when Jesus said:

      “No one gets to the Father except through Me.”

      We just have fundamental differences on what “through me” means. Many will say that it means literal belief and acceptance in Jesus as the Son of God (which I do have), but I believe that “through me” also means following Jesus most basic teaching of being good to your fellow man.

      A Wiccan who is good to his fellow man, is viewed is just as acceptable to God as a Catholic who attends mass everyday. They are both acting through what Jesus taught, but in different ways.

      I will never believe that God created this entire universe only to damn those born into other religions. That is the narrow minded thinking that caused the church to create the entire system of laws that we have.

      Jesus never said any of the CCC it is a man made law system because people like controlling others, they don’t want to help. They just like the power.

      1. “To the person who perceives it, yes.”

        So, what then is truth? How do we decide what is true?

        “And if a child picks up a gun and unknowingly kills someone, that child goes to Hell because he has committed murder. That child has committed no sin.”

        This is why the distinction between mortal and venial sin exists (1 John 5:16; CCC 1854-64). Mortal sin destroys charity; venial sin does not, though it does damage and weaken it (CCC 1855). If it is not repented of, mortal sin results in eternal hell (CCC 1861); venial sin can be taken care of in Purgatory.

        In your example, the child has probably committed a venial sin, because they did not have full knowledge of their actions. It’s still sin, though.

        Please, read and study your Catechism.

        “An atheist who loves his fellow man loves (and is believing in) God, even if he doesn’t know or believe that he is.”

        Then belief and love mean absolutely nothing, and we might all as well do what we like. It is a utter nonsense to say that someone who refuses to believe in God really does believe in Him. Your sentiment here is also totally incompatible with your “perception is reality” view.

        Relativism and the Catholic faith are not compatible. What you espouse is not what Jesus taught, nor what the Church continues to teach. I implore you again: read and study the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

      2. The catechism was written by men who want to control people. I choose which parts of the catechism to follow based on what sounds logical and not what sounds like it is a rule to control.

        For example, Jesus never said to attend mass once a week or you go to Hell. That is a rule implemented by men to control others. If you don’t want to go to mass, just say a prayer at home, and you’re fine.

        SImilarly, a bunch of celibate men have no business saying that married people can’t use a condom or the pill. People have sex because it feels good, that’s why we maturate too, for simple pleasure of doing it. It feels good, and we want the pleasure without the risk having children. There is nothing wrong with wanting to experience pleasure.

        The church needs to get off it’s high horse about how if something is pleasurable it must be sinful.

        Women should be able to be priests;

        Priests should be able to get married;

        And there is no such thing as papal infallibility. No human is incapable of making any error. Does that mean that the Pope has not said error free statements. No. But to claim that there are certain things that he can absolutely claim to be error free is B.S. and is simply another controlling tool that the church uses.

        I’ll go on and on and on.

        I’m only saying what many Catholics feel.

        The church is losing it’s grip and the leaders of the church don’t like it. But, by flexing their muscle, they’re only going to outrage more and send more away.

        And no, I’m not leaving the church.

        It’s mine, it’s universal, so it belongs to everyone. And I’ll work to change it.

      3. Jeffrey,

        If you define faith as literal belief in God, in Jesus as the Son of God, and the other tenets of the Catholic church as being the one true, or only way to God, or the best way to God, and to eternal reward then no, that is not necessary.

        If you define faith in the belief that we are supposed to be good to one another and help one another and be charitable to one another, then yes, that is necessary.

        By being good to one another, we are good to God (Whatsoever you do to my brethren, you do unto me), whether we actually know or believe that we are being good to God or not. A charitable atheist is being good to God as much as is a charitable Catholic, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Methodist, etc..

        And even then, for those who may not be as good to their fellow man, they’re given compassion by God because HE understands the fact that some people may be ignorant of this, and He takes that into account. He knows what we know, and why we believe what we believe or do what we do, and he takes the experiences of our lives into account. God has an intimate and personal relationship with each and every person.

        The only people who go to Hell are the ones who believe that God wants them to do “A”, and that they voluntarily, knowingly, and with desire choose to do the opposite of “A” with the full knowledge and belief of the consequences and who fail to repent. And they’re even given a chance to repent after they die, once all is made clear to them.

        Ultimately, faith is a crapshoot. 99% of the people born will follow the belief system that they are born into. I once had a debate with a Baptist who swore that if she had been kidnapped as a baby and raised in a different religion, that she would know that being a Baptist was the right thing to do, and that she would want to become a Baptist when she grew up. That’s bull. There are 100 different religions out there, many of which say that they are the right one and everyone else is wrong.

        I believe in Heaven, and I believe that ultimately, when we die, we’re ALL going to find out that we got some of it right, and some of it wrong.

        If God says to me that he was hurt because of something I did or didn’t do during my life, I will honestly stand before Him and say that I’m sorry, because I didn’t understand that You wanted me to do or not do that thing. And He’ll know that I’m telling the truth because God knows all. And then I’ll expect him to forgive me, because He expects us to forgive those who hurt us (70 times 7), and how can God do no less than what he expects us to do?

        Some of you may say “Well, this guy’s a lost cause.” If you truly feel that, then I ask for your prayers, and I pray for each one of you, that you can find the way to be close to God.

        I am a child of Vatican II, and child of the 70s and beyond, I went to Catholic school from Kindergarten through College, and that is the relationship with God that I have formed over these forty something years. This translation tears that God away from me, and throws him up a throne, making him inaccessible, destroying the intimacy of the relationship that I have with him and the belief that the church is here to serve the people, and not some organization to be blindly obeyed. God doesn’t need worshipers. God has no needs. God has children, us.

    3. P.S. For those of you who say I’m a Cafeteria Catholic. Yes, I am, and damn proud of it. I will not simply follow. I think!

      1. it is simply impossible not to be a ‘cafeteria catholic’: we cannot but be discriminating in how we are faithful to the tradition, in that we must distinguish somehow between what is binding and what is situation-dependent in everything we receive.

        That said, I endorse the commentator who counselled you against being too public in your use of the old responses. A quiet whisper is more sustainable in the long run, and won’t cause disruption and scandal to those who are, in good faith, coming to Mass, and to whom we must be sensitive.

      2. I will consider your reply. But, at the same time, when they’re not listening to you speak in a normal tone, how do you get them to listen? They’re stonewalling.

      3. Shouting in the congregation merely puts it in the frequency of 4000 Jerkahertz, and that’s all people will hear, regardless of your bona fides.

        (In general, whispering is more effective than shouting.)

    4. I’m curious which church Sean intends to attend which says “for all” in the Institution Narrative. The Lutherans say “for many”, the Methodists say “for many”, even the Episcopalians say “for many”.

      As of today, there is not a single church left saying “for all”. So good luck finding “my Mass” somewhere else.

      1. I have not decided yet. I keep flip flopping back over going or not going because I know if I go, I’ll be in tears when I hear those BS words they they’re pushing upon us without our consent.

  20. Yes. I agree with Sean’s views and identify with his sentiments. I don’t like the term ‘cafeteria catholic.’ The presumption is that the church is a table d’hôte affair, when in fact each one has the responsibility of evaluating the food, that is of critiquing the decisions of the administrative wing of the church.

    1. Perhaps, you are correct. I was only using that term because of it’s widespread use. But the point is, I evaluate each rule and make an independent evaluation rather than simply following blindly.

      Some people may need to go to church every week, and I have gone most, but when I haven’t I’ve simply said an extra prayer and spoke to God.

      I also don’t need a priest to confess my sins. I confess them directly to God, and ask him for his understanding and forgiveness if there are any of the rules that I’m getting wrong.

      And believe it or not, I feel I have a very vibrant and spiritual connection to God. I feel his presence and see him in the everyday surroundings and goings on of the world.

      Some people may need a level of religion that has rigid rules to follow, but not all of us do, yet we still define ourselves as being part of this faith.

      I think that’s one of the things that the church is the most scared about Vatican II. It’s produced people who think the way I do and they want to restore the pay, pray and obey mentality.

    2. No, Sean is a victim of people like Mr Hazell who interpret church documents in the most reactionary fashion, consigning most of the human race to damnation; as I pointed out above “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is no longer interpreted in this negative fashion by Vatican II, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, Sean.

      1. Please point out where exactly I have said any of what you (in a ‘reactionary’ fashion!) claim I have said.

  21. That said, I endorse the commentator who counselled you against being too public in your use of the old responses. A quiet whisper is more sustainable in the long run, and won’t cause disruption and scandal to those who are, in good faith, coming to Mass, and to whom we must be sensitive.

    Yes.

    Earlier this year when I discovered that the biblical response in Ruth 2:4 to the “Lord be with you” was “The Lord bless you” I found I could easily quietly blend that response with others saying “and also with you”.

    While I liked that solution I am using the “and with your spirit” largely because members of the parish where it was introduced in September spontaneously took to saying “Peace be to your spirit” or “And with your spirit” to one another at the sign of peace.

    I have also enjoyed using an expended full Pauline form “The Lord be with your spirit this morning (this week)” as a greeting or farewell before and after Mass. So it is relatively easy to remove any clericalism from it, and perhaps attract people to doing the same.

  22. I have just finished Robert Nugent’s recent book, Silence Speaks, in which he outlines the positions of Teilhard deChardin, Yves Congar, John Courtney Murray and Thomas Merton in respect to church authority.
    Although dealing with different issues, and the vexed question of censorship, there is a lesson that we can learn from the experience of these men. To have an opinion is important, to pursue the argument in support of that opinion is valid, to act in conscience is essential. But it is also necessary carefully to choose language that helps rather than hinders and to be patient for the right time in which to make pertinent comment. Raising the temperature by intemperate words helps no-one and only serves to impede our experience of Eucharistic prayer.
    Let’s continue our exchange with that in mind.
    Greetings to all at the start of a new Liturgical Year. Chris McDonnell UK

  23. Fr. Allan J. McDonald :
    Bill, on this last day of Ordinary Time when our readings are so apocalyptic, I would love to see who is right and wrong at the most transparent Final Judgement when all institutions and individuals will be judged and separated, including the Church, although that judgement for Church leaders has been going on for a few years now as it concerns the sex abuse scandal. At any rate, our time on earth is very short Bill, you hit the nail on the head with that statement and the older we get the more clearly we understand this and that all is passing away, including the Church Militant in what ever form she is or will be in whatever time remains regardless of anyone’s hermeneutic or interpretation of it. I doubt, though, that the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s will fair very well at the Last Judgment, but who knows but God. I just hope I’m counted amongst the sheep, but my time in purgatory might be long due to the spirit of Vatican II I promoted in the 1980’s or given my Italian guilt complexes and anxieties, I might go to hell, who knows but God!

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    Thank you for this statement Father. It is so edifying, especially from a Priest when they say they were wrong about many of the ways they implemented Vat II in their parishes. It helps put it behind us and move forward in continuity with all things prior the Council, Vat II. A…

  24. Odd! That in comments about purported Vatican vandalism, none have mentioned the vandalised rite that was thrust upon us fory hears ago.

    1. Actually, in several previous discussions it’s already been acknowledged that yes it was thrust upon people back then. It was also mentioned that two wrongs don’t make a right and that while people who went through pain and suffering back then had a valid right to be upset, they shouldn’t bring it up now, with a tone of vindictiveness (not that I’m saying that you are). Many have used a tone of “well, this is us getting back at you” attitude. Just because it was done then, does not justify thrusting it back in the other direction now.

  25. I’m so happy that this conversation is not over my head! I’m learning a good deal and find that I agree with some folks more than others but it is clear that there are some differences which are more profound than those over the new translation. I thought that just about everyone would have been opposed to the new translation simply based on how the process was hijacked by a couple of old revisionist bishops.

    Most of my Catholic friends stopped going to Mass after high school. I stopped going for a while myself after a priest in confession told me that I not only should not be using “artificial” birth control but even having sex is a sin. I remember I asked which was worse having sex with or without protection. When he told me to have no sex at all until I got married, I stopped going to confession and to Mass. Then I figured I wasn’t going to say away from Mass just because someone who doesn’t know anything about sex told me it was sinful! Now I find that I am what was just called a “Cafeteria Catholic”. I really like that term! Now I can be a Catholic and be part of the real world as well.

    I wonder if it is a meaningful argument to suggest that just because people were not concerned about the translation that occurred before most of us were born that we shouldn’t be concerned about the one that is being forced upon us now.

    From the little I know, nobody suggested that the current translation is the most optimal and that a superior translation was produced and then squelched in 1998. I didn’t realize that the current translation was forced on Catholics but was rather the work of the Second Vatican Council as opposed to the work of one or two people known for their longing for the good old days.

    1. Marci, It’s nice to know that there are others willing to be vocal. The problem is going to be that the implementation of the new translation will probably follow the old 20/80 split.

      10% extremely in favor
      10% extremely against
      80% saying, “Whatever. Just get the mass over with so you can’t say I didn’t go to church, and I can get on with my day.”

      That 80% won’t notice that their passive reaction is take as acceptance by the Conservatives who are in power in Rome, until they start to see more of Vatican II rolled back, piece by piece.

      The church does not want to admit that:

      1) If Sunday mass were officially made optional, church attendance would drop to single digits.

      2) Many Catholics would not mind women priests.

      3) Many Catholics would not mind married priests.

      4) Most married Catholics use artificial birth control without any guilt.

      5) Most Catholics do not go to confession to confess their sins. They confess directly to God.

      6) Most Catholics who go to mass regularly, only do so to cover their ass (they’re afraid that if they don’t they will go to Hell).

      7) The church has had to loosen the requirements on getting an annulment, because they know that if they held tight, Catholics would leave.

      They don’t like losing the grip they once had, and they’re doing everything they can to restore it, but they’re not going to win. The church belongs to the people, not the hierarchy.

      Keep exploring your own path, and do what your conscience. I’m not going to tell you to go to mass or not. That has to be your decision. Just give it a lot of objective thought and don’t be scared by the ones who will tell you if you don’t go, you’re going to Hell.

      Our generation won’t let them have that control over us anymore.

      We can even have different opinions. Personally, I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage, but not because the church says so. I view it as being something reserved for two married people. But that’s for me. You have to do what’s best for you.

      Check out the following websites:

      http://www.misguidedmissal.com
      and
      http://www.cta-usa.org/

  26. What I find rather amazing is the idea that seems to float around that it is somehow possible to create a Mass that will please everyone.

    As one who does not remember the Latin Mass (I might have been baptized in Latin but that’s about it!) I am excited by the new translation. I think it’s an improvement over the Mass of my lifetime to this point.

    In the course of discussions where I live, no one seems to be at all put out about the new translation. Admittedly, I have access to two parishes, in two different dioceses. One parish is bi-lingual English/French. The main comment was “Oh, the English Mass will sound more like the French Mass.”

    When training lectors on some of the specifics (In Canada, we are also introducing a revised GIRM…double whammy), the only comment was that this “new” Mass would sound and look like Masses experienced in other places. It is seen as a step toward unity. Most of these people are younger than I am.

    Actually attending Mass tonight, things were smooth. Father had undertaken a lengthy and thorough catechesis. There was some stumbling over words, but no one seemed all that distressed.

    I think that this will all be a non-issue in 20 years. For most of us. There will always be someone who is unhappy.

    1. What the Vatican have succeeded in doing is creating a Masss that will displease everyone, creating perhaps a new kind of communal bonding. The best the defenders of the new trans can say is that it has not produced evident signs of distress, and that the sturdy Catholic people are so used to bad hymns, bad sermons, boring liturgies that the ugly new texts will make no substantial difference.

      1. “The English Mass will sound more like the French mass” — poor deluded hopesters! The French mass, which the Vatican would like to hatchet, is a beautiful work, which has never displeased anyone as far as I know. To compare the new drecky trans with the French mass is an insult to the later.

  27. Well, we may very well have hit bottom, as it appears that many of these solliloquies will only echo in the Theatre of the Absurd. So many choosing to react with bald-faced, ego-embolded anger, defiance and self-demeaning spite, it’s as if we’ve all spun the mouse-wheel to the rapidity of a centerfuge which is hell-bent upon one goal: disintegration.
    Make no mistake, this is not “wheat and tares” time, nor “I have come to set brother against brother” lessons to enable us to empty our “selves” that we could in true humility fill our hearts with the discipline that true love demands we accept. No, this is something disturbingly “other” and not in accord with either the gospel or the deposit of faith.
    Good luck with all of that. Amen.

    1. Charles,

      I think we’ve long known that some people will always see or hear what they want to see or hear, and it’s a phenomenon that knows no ideological boundary (other than the fact that ideologues are particularly vulnerable to it).

  28. Well, the Vatican started it. Things were fine until they said they were changing things. Point the finger directly at Ratzinger’s face.

  29. KLS,
    I’m sure that you took notice that my remarks did not include any specific identification or even inferences of any particular faction of ideologues. I understand, would allow as how, and regret that as the remarks were made here at PTB, others may not make such a distinction. As a keen observer and voice of reason here, Todd’s blog, the Café, MSF and elsewhere we both frequent, you know my exasperation with intransient ideologues and the increasing ranks of Taliban Catholics of all stripes is “an equal opportunity venture.”
    But if some here, or at CMAA or anywhere decide to self-identify with my analysis of our impoverished, deplorable state of affairs, who am I to get in their way. If the shoe fits…
    PS. Should anyone wish to deplore my “take” as self-serving or righteous, allow me to pre-emptively assure any/all that I am among the worst of offenders of God’s patience and grace. Save your breath, please, for nobler endeavors, like singing prayer and praise.

    1. Charles I thought your description above was rather spot on! I don’t necessarily like the labels conservative or liberal when it comes to Catholics. Orthodox and Unorthodox can be better evaluated. Faithful and unfaithful also. The ultra-unorthodox who tend toward schism illustrated by some comments here and certainly those who comment at the NCR sites make me wonder what it would be like to have a parish full of these kinds of angry people who are so divisive and apart from their anger that unifies them, nothing else does, not even our Lord. Whereas ultra-orthodox Catholics, such as SSXP while schismatic too, are at least unified in theology and mission and adhering to the basics of the faith as they understand it, although opposed to the Magisterium since Vatican II. The ultra-unorthodox are not opposed to a “spirit of Vatican II” theology and diversity, but like the ultra-orthodox are opposed to the Magisterium and thus hold that in common. Interesting. But if I had to choose between an ultra-orthodox parish and an ultra-unorthodox one, I’d take the orthodox radicals any day! 🙂

  30. Well, it’s Black Sunday, everyone. The day the church took a step backwards, and made its first step to dismantling Vatican II.

    May the departure of people begin!

    For those interested, I will attend mass this morning, probably for the last time, if only to say that I attended at least one Sunday mass using the new missal, although I already have attended a practice mass that they held.

    I will have to resist spitting at the Rat’s picture hanging in the church foyer, but primarily because it’s someone else’s property. He deserves worse than being spat on for what he’s done.

    1. *First* step? The Romish clique was already spitting in the face of the Holy Spirit with Humani Generis.

      Speaking of which, don’t bother holding back your loogie when you see the Rat! He certainly didn’t hesitate to dump a load of stinking manure on us. 🙂

  31. I can’t respond to the Deacon’s call (11/27) for reports about the advent of the new Roman Missal because I cannot pray in sexist language; it feels like a deliberate offense. But parts of Pinette’s article draw a response from me, particularly this: “It’s part of [Vatican officials’] larger effort towards a “Catholic Restoration” of more traditional values and ways. . . . Catholics with even a hint of feminist sensitivities will be appalled to see the new translation never misses an opportunity to use the term ‘men’ to describe human beings. The United Nations stopped doing that in 1948.”

    I’ll suggest an image for the occasion. Like the Missal, it’s the product of what Pinette aptly terms a “restoration” attempt. At its center is the apostles’ fishing boat: http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Interior/Navicella/Navicella-b.jpg. The mosaic’s boat-bound crew of eleven know that keeping their vessel (symbolically, Church) in continual repair is a safer way to navigate in a storm than setting out like Peter to walk over turbulent waters. The Spirit continuously guides the work of repair and reform whereas it takes a divine rescue operation to save a faltering chief apostle from sinking beneath the waves.

    Question: Is the Navicella mosaic a 13th Century Giotto original, restored, or is it the work of 17th Century artists, inspired by Giotto’s original? Without the later repair work, we would have only confusing fragments of an original. It really doesn’t matter, I suppose, because, as wise restorers, the 17th Century artists probably returned to the original scene in Matt. 14:21-24 and took the gospel itself as their guide. Today, with the storms of the culture wars unabated, the fishing boat, “battered by waves,” has sprung leaks. It needs not only liturgical “restoration” but comprehensive repair work, like the repairs of the Navicella, to carry its occupants to safety. Anyone for reform work?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *