USCCB: Dramatic debate, cliffhanger result on liturgy
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Orlando, Florida
Perhaps it’s only fitting that a meeting held in Florida, the state that made the hanging chad famous, should feature a dramatic cliffhanger vote, which, as election day ended, remained inconclusive.
Heading into the U.S. bishops’ spring meeting in Orlando, it didn’t seem likely that a proposed new translation of the Proper of Seasons, part of the prayers and other texts for the Catholic Mass, would stir up much dust. Following a decade and a half of impassioned argument over such texts known colloquially as the “liturgy wars,” many bishops privately expressed fatigue and a desire to move on – suggesting to most observers that approval of this text ought to be more or less a given.
In one sign of that mood, only seven bishops out of 250 Latin Rite prelates in the United States even bothered to propose amendments to the text, a clear sign that most felt the handwriting was on the wall. Like it or not, many concluded, Rome has made clear that the new translations must be closer to the Latin, both in structure and word choice, thus producing a more “sacral” language sometimes remote from ordinary English usage.
All that changed this morning, however, when Bishop Victor Galeone of Saint Augustine, Florida, rose to oppose the proposed text -- despite, he said, fear that doing so may be "in vain." A former Latin teacher who still reads Thomas Aquinas in the original language, Galeone made a forceful argument that the new translation is simply too unclear and awkward to be effectively used in American parishes.
Among other things, Galeone cited the text’s use of the phrase “the gibbet of the Cross.”
“The last time I heard that word was back in 1949, during Stations of the Cross in Lent,” Galeone said.
“I challenge anyone to proclaim what’s given here at Mass,” he said. “It’s very difficult.”
“A good translator has to understand not just the original language, but also one’s own into which these texts are being put,” Galeone said. Despite assurances to the contrary, he said, the new texts are “slavish” with respect to the Latin originals.
“I’m an obedient son of the church, and if these texts are passed as they stand, I will pray with them,” Galeone said. “But I feel that the vernacular has been a blessing to our people.” Galeone added that with “all due respect” to the recent ruling from Pope Benedict XVI authorizing wider celebration of the old Latin Mass, he hasn’t celebrated the old rite since 1970. If he were asked to do so today, he said, he would instead celebrate the new rite of the Mass in Latin.
Galeone’s speech seemed to open the floodgates, as other bishops rose to voice reservations about the new translations.
Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba of Milwaukee, for example, said, “If I have trouble understanding the text when I read it, I wonder how it’s going to be possible to pray with it in the context of worship.”
Sklba warned that if the proposed text were adopted, “our priests and our people” will press the bishops to come back to it “again and again” to remedy perceived defects. “This is not yet mature,” he said.
Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, a longtime critic of the new translations, said the texts contain a number of “archaic and obscure” terms, pointing to words such as “wrought,” “ineffable,” and “gibbet.” He also said that the text’s preference for mimicking the sentence structure of Latin, featuring long sentences with a large number of dependent clauses, impedes understanding in English. Trautman cited one prayer in the new Proper of Seasons presented as a single 12-line sentence with three separate clauses.
“John and Mary Catholic have a right to have prayer texts that are clear and understandable,” Trautman said. “The document before us needs further work.”
Bishop Robert Lynch of Saint Petersburg, Florida, thanked Galeone for giving him the “courage for this moment.” Lynch then told the bishops that he had recently taken the new Mass texts back to his presbyteral council, composed of 26 priests. Two were in favor of the translation, he said, and 24 were opposed.
He reported their reaction as, “Bishop, do whatever you can, because we can’t pray these texts.”
“It’s a good thing that we’re supposed to pause before the orations,” Lynch joked, “because we’ll have to gather enough breath to pray the prayers.”
Other bishops, however, argued that admitted imperfections in the text don’t justify further delays in the process.
“It’s an imperfect sacramentary for an imperfect people, to be prayed by a celebrant who is also imperfect,” said Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco. “I respect those who say let’s move forward and get a new sacramentary, before they all fall apart in the sacristy.”
Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, the retired archbishop of Mobile who sits on the Vox Clara Commission that advises the Vatican on liturgical translation, said that he doesn’t find the new texts “unacceptable or unproclaimable.”
“Our genius in celebrating,” he said, will make up for any deficiencies. Further, he said, the average Catholic will receive the new texts “with the eyes of faith,” rather than focusing on its problems “like an English teacher or a Latin teacher.”
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston said that “with all its difficulties, the translation should go forward,” adding that he believes the new Mass texts “become stronger after Advent, into Lent and Easter.”
Responding to the “let’s move on” argument, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati warned that it “depends on what you’re moving forward to,” arguing that the new texts would be “a linguistic swamp.”
Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland made another argument in favor of the text, noting that four other English-speaking bishops’ conferences have already approved it. If the Americans reject it, he said, it could jeopardize the goal of a common text.
“Admittedly, we’re the big ones, but that doesn’t allow us a terribly privileged position,” Vlazny said. “We need a measure of humility in this.”
Echoing a point made by others, Vlazny also argued that today’s texts may seem more “proclaimable” simply because they’re familiar. With time, he said, the new texts will also become familiar, and the issues of syntax and word choice cited by critics “will be a non-problem.”
Bishop Arthur Seratelli of Paterson, New Jersey, chair of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Divine Worship, defended the texts.
“On whole, the translation is a marked improvement,” Seratelli said. “As we use it, as we ourselves and our priests become more familiar with the new language of the liturgy, it will not pose as great a problem as we fear.”
After all that the bishops were unable to reach a decision, largely because of the electoral math.
The rules of the conference require that the text be approved by two-thirds of its members, not just those physically present. Since there are 250 Latin Rite bishops in the United States, 166 “yes” votes are required to approve it, while 83 “no” votes are necessary to reject it.
As it turns out, the Orlando meeting was sparsely attended – one headcount yesterday found just 178 voting members. As a result, this morning’s ballot failed to get enough “yes” votes to approve the text, or enough “no” votes to block it.
As a result, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the conference, announced that bishops who were not present will receive ballots in the mail in order to settle things one way or the other.
The bishops did reach a decision on a couple of other points.
If the text is rejected, they decided, all members of the conference will have the opportunity to submit observations and proposals, not just those who have already expressed concerns.
Further, if the text does have to go back to the drawing board, the bishops decided not to send it to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a translation agency which is a joint project of 11 English-speaking bishops’ conferences, for comment. Since ICEL was restructured under Vatican pressure several years ago, some bishops feel the agency has not been receptive to proposed changes to its texts. In a voice vote, the bishops opted this morning to bypass any reaction from ICEL and simply bring a new version of the Proper for Seasons back to the U.S. conference.
That, however, assumes that the text does not pass once all the mail-in ballots are counted. Some veteran conference observers believe that once all the votes are in, the new text stands a good chance of being approved – noting that a number of likely “yes” votes, such as Cardinals Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Edward Egan of New York, were among those absent in Orlando.
Dear Little Bear, Sad to
Dear Little Bear,
Sad to say, I do not think you are hearing me. Your response parsing for me the ins and outs of what has made liturgy liturgy really do not address the points I am bringing up. I'll try and restate briefly my thoughts:
1) I give my wholehearted thanks to God and the Church for Vatican II: especially the express desire for aggiornamento and ressourcement.
2) So does the Pope, a point he has made clear in many places. That you disagree with his approach/hermeneutic is patent, but he is firmly a man of Vatican II.
3) Baggage (some, no doubt, well-founded) with the pre-Vatican II Church ought not, ipso facto, preclude use of the Latin in certain liturgies. To do so is narrow-minded and smacks of incautious reactionism. I mentioned my own preference for the vernacular in an earlier post, but I don't think that negates the use of a beautiful language such as Latin.
Finally, another point: I grow weary of being told by folks like His Excellency Bishop Trautman that -- at the same time -- the laity (a) is the most educated in history, so don't treat them like children; and (b) shouldn't have stuff that is too hard to grasp, like words/prayers in other languages. Which is it? Are we smart enough to have the occasional Eucharistic celebration in Latin, or not smart enough? Was the Mass in Latin meaningless to most people, as you argue, because they did not understand the meaning of every word? (Should we also ban foreign terms like, "Amen," "Alleluia," "Saint", "Pan de vida", etc? Does their singular use in matters ecclesiastical mean that we educated lay folk cannot be challenged to learn about the history and culture of the Church?)
I suspect you will have some more pat responses about Latin being dead while we are a *living people*, about how the Mass is about the People of God, about how much you have given of yourself to the Church, etc., etc. Please do not take my comments as ingratitude for your time serving the faithful as (I assume from your posts) a priest. The thrust of my original point is that your arguments do not address the needs, nor resurgent interests, of the young lifeblood in the Church. You blithely dismiss young Catholics' interests to your own, and the Church's peril. As some are worried about whether "gibbet" sounds too abstruse or not, you have young (ex-)Catholics hemorrhaging at the seams because they do not find the "people's Church," imbued with the putative "Spirit of Vatican II," all that compelling. What I am advocating, Little Bear, is a discerned, honest re-evaluation of what has historically worked to inspire people to the faith. Why? Because it appears that the "Emergent Church" is in need of a trip to the Emergency Room.
We shall see whither the Spirit blows, but all signs (at least among those younger, practicing Catholics) point towards a willful re-evaluation of some things previously jettisoned -- including Latin, whether cynics and doomsayers like it or not. And I assure you, those who seek these things are not just "hierarchs who are greedy for their power, pomp, and authority." -AMDG
Hi MollyJ, I find history
Hi MollyJ,
I find history fascinating and I utilize it quite extensively when I teach (which I have been doing since I was a kid). I use many, many sources---this is part of the history of the liturgies of the Catholic Church. If this explanation was interesting to you, I am glad--the Latin and German texts that this comes from are sometimes very dry. Thank you for the compliment!
Hi annedanielson: The questions are the same that we have been discussing on Beliefnet---"So that seeing you may not see and hearing you may not hear."
Dear ad majorem die
Dear ad majorem die gloriam,
The issue is Liturgy---and whose Liturgy is it? Part of the vision of Vatican II, was that ordinary people, (John and Mary Catholic, as Bishop Trautman calls them) , many of them uneducated in Latin, would be able to worship and participate in the Liturgy, the Work of the People, in their own language.
When the Mass was in all Latin, (except for the Kyrie), the people were OBSERVERS only! People came to "hear Mass". One had to be present for certain parts of the Mass in "order for it to count"--the minimum was how much one had to be present for in order to 'fulfill one's Sunday Obligation. Missing Mass on purpose/or not being present for the essential parts (Gospel & Canon of the Mass) was a (still is) Mortal Sin. The Liturgy of the Word (as we call it today) was not that important. One had to be in Church for the Gospel--to hear it. And many, many times it was not explained by the priest nor was there any attempt to incorporate it into people's lives.
For the Liturgy to be the Work of the People, they need to be able to UNDERSTAND what they are praying, what is being said, so that they, too, as priestly people, can offer their lives, their works, their loves, their stuggles to God along with the perfect Sacrifice, Jesus Christ. But they cannot do that in Latin. Latin has no words for many of the things that people of today face. Only a living language, of the people, can do that. And it cannot be a language (translated from Latin directly), that will do it. The cadence, the pauses, are not the way people speak to God, who not only exists out of time, but in it as well. This is the Lord who has "pitched His tent among us."
The language used is important, as another poster on this forum topic has stated. But the language used signifies not only worship, but one's relationship to the God who is worshipped. If one is using a foreign language, a dead language (and Latin is dead), one's very concept of God, is affected. If one is speaking in a foreign language to God (even in a few prayers), God becomes distant, far away, not interested in us, or in me,----hardly what Jesus intended when he taught us to call God, 'Abba' 'Daddy'. But the use of the vernacular, hopefully, will lead people to grow in their concept of God from policeman, to savior, to master/teacher, to friend, to lover, to Lord of all creation.
Finally, you sighed over my, "... various comments about the future Church without a hierarchy, without clergy, etc. -- the vision of which you cling to with stridence and borderline hostility -- make me a little sad. I am reminded of the line by I-forget-who: Those who marry the age are swiftly made widows"
Response: The whole history of the Church has been rather criminal. In every age, there have been people who have been angry about some things done by the "institutional" and "official" church in the name of religion and fidelity to Christ. The official church often condemns people (even excommunicates them) for expressing their frustrations of the church. My point in suggesting Yves Congar, was that he was almost excommunicated for the positions expressed in his book. He expressed his views before the "official" Church was ready to accept it, and he was practically branded a heretic.
"Those who marry the age..." Ah, yes, but only time can test whether it is the spirit of the age, or the Spirit that moves an Age.
Little Bear, we do not
Little Bear, we do not transform Christ, it is Christ who transforms us through His Spirit of Love. People are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church for "expressing their frustrations of the Church". People who are excommunicated from the Church are those people who are trying to change the Truth, in other words, those people who call the Truth, a lie.
LittleBear~ Well spoken.
LittleBear~ Well spoken. Those who look at history, our church or the larger context and paint it in glory miss the point of history. History, in the Voeglin sense is "the presence under God" an extremely interesting concept that says more about God's tolerence and patience than it does about mankind. History is dirty, anyone who understands a wit of its 'incarnational' dimension would be less proud of the victories and more humble about our sins which are inextricably entwined even in the victories.
From Here Today concerning
From Here Today concerning my use of hocus pocus: "On the contrary I know that little bear was using it {hocus pocus} as a derogative. And this is no feigned grievance, I am in deadly earnest. Words have meanings. They matter. Flippancy with the Mass is a problem."
My response: I have served God, and God's People, the Church, since my adolescence. I have never been "flippant with the Mass." What I have attempted to do in my posting, is point out what historically occured when people could not understand the Latin Liturgy--particularly during the Consecration.
Here Today states: "Funny, as the canon was silent, they (the ordinary people} would have had to have known what was being said from outside Mass. And They would have to know when and why those words were said. And then twisted it, not necessarily out of ignorance."
My response: At the end of the twelfth century, Eudes de Sully, Bishop of Paris (1196-1208)directed that after the consecratory words, 'Hoc est corpus meum' the Host should be "elevated so that it can be seen by all." This directive was also adopted by Stephen Langton, who became the Archbishop of Canterbury and later a Cardinal.
Right before the consecration, bells were rung, to alert people that the Consecration was to occur--when the priest extended his hands over the hosts. The words of the Consecration were spoken aloud over the Host and Chalice following the directives of Pope Innocent III, ("De sacro altaris mysterio", IV,22) which stated that transubstantiation of the bread and wine only took place when the priest pronounced the words of consecration aloud. {For further reading on this topic, please see: Giraldus Cambrensis, Works, II, 124; Caesarius of Heisterbach, "Dialogus", IX, xxvii, and "Libri Miraculorum", ed. Meister, pp 16, 17}.
The importance of people being aware that the Consecration was occuring and seeing the Host, now the Body of Christ, was considered so great, that in many dioceses throughout Europe and in England, the great bells of the churches were rung so that people working in the fields might kneel down and adore the Lord. By the way, there was not the same motive, at first, for insisting upon elevating the Chalice as well as the Host. Uniform elevation of the Chalice did not occur until around 1429.
{Note: in many Carthusian monasteries, the elevation of the Chalice still does not occur}.
As I stated above, when people heard the first bells ringing prior to the Consecration, they ran to the churches to witness the miracle, and to hear the words of consecration....and they did not understand or hear the words well.
Looking upon the consecrated Body of Christ was considered to be of special merit. Among the ordinary Catholics, came the beliefs that anyone who saw his/her Maker at Mass had special privileges: no sudden death could befall them (a great fear during the ages of the Black Death), he/she would be secure from hunger, infection, the danger of fire, etc. And of course, with these ideas, came many abuses as well and the term "hocus pocus".
On the other hand, the importance of being present for the Consecration and seing the Consecrated Host, fostered the introduction of processions of the Blessed Sacrament and the practice of Exposition and Benediction.
Finally Here Today states: "What did Pope Paul VI have to say after all those windows were opened? "The smoke of Satan has entered the Church".
My Response: If we have the smoke of Satan in the Church today, it is coming from the hearts of SOME very incompetent, power-hungry, hierarchs who lord their authority over the laity. And there are still those who would rather cover up their crimes (pretending that they knew nothing about the sex-abuse occuring in their arch/dioceses), than by bringing the truth of the abuses out in the open---so that they can be discussed by the People of God, so that real questions may be asked and honest answers can be provided. All so that real healing can come to the Church in America.
----------------------------
Intolerance is the mother of war.
Little Bear, I love your
Little Bear, I love your hocus pocus story and your adamant point here is that it is based in fact. I like that, too. It reminds me of the kid's game, Gossip, where a phrase is whispered person to person around the circle and the kicker comes when the last person tells the first person what he heard. Naturally it is always wildly distorted.
I always tell my son that it's not communication until the message is effectively sent and received and obviously among humans many things may intervene. It does probably help to use a common language.
But do you have a source for your incident? This is a fascinating and not particularly scandalous but highly illustrative part of our history.
"so that the real questions
"so that the real questions may be asked and honest answers can be provided." Little Bear, what are these real questions you are referring to?
anned, this is not a highly
anned, this is not a highly suspect or complex idea. On any given Sunday our priest may use the readings but also the preface or the other prayers unique to that Sunday's liturgy to highlight the theme he is emphasizing. He does this all of the time. I like it, it's part of the teaching function and sometimes the themes can of themselves be healing or consoling or inspiring. But imagine how the homily changes if Father suddenly has to give folks the thumbnail of the gospel and any other parts of the mass he wants to emphasize in order to make his point. I am fortunate enough to be a reader in my parish. I love reading the readings but then I love reading the commentary that comes with our particular lectionary workbook. And then sometimes father puts the reading in a historical or anthropological perspective and then suddenly-ah ha--there is something else there.
All of those layers of complexity that are unique opportunities to preach the gospel to a multitude of different people and to underline how the total liturgy of the mass underline these themes--all of that is changed radically when suddenly the mass takes place in a language that very few people are fluent in.
The one real thing that is illustrated by the hocus-pocus story is that language may not enhance understanding; it may serve to blur it.
Look, in fact, at how the misunderstanding of a latin phrase, translated to "hocus-pocus" to a long and heated argument about whether someone has poked fun of the liturgy or not only serves to illustrate the blurring.
It is reported that the new
It is reported that the new English translations of the Roman Missal will restore the frequent greeting and response at Mass to: "The Lord be with you...And with your spirit."
O.K., that response is indeed closer to the Latin original than "And also with you." Nevertheless, both the Latin and the English confuse the exchange, perhaps unconsciously, by failing to reflect the fact that the spirit is not the complete "you." Consider: the greeter has in mind the whole "you" of the respondant(s) ; whereas the respondant's words (which are not necessarily all that he has in mind) refer only the greeter's spitit. (One might infer that, in this exchange, the greeter is being short-changed!)
In all I have read recently about the new translations, I have not seen any mention of these things. Is it probable that they have not occurred to any of the translators?
Jedesto
You won't see any mention of
You won't see any mention of your musings over "and with your spirit" because the phrase is a direct quotation from St. Paul who uses it several times as a salutation. See Philippians 4:23. It's unlikely that the translators or anyone else of orthodox belief would suggest that the Divine Word, authored by God himself, contains some kind unintended, unconscious confused theology.
Dear ad majorem die
Dear ad majorem die gloriam,
I have nothing against young people----I teach them---(and I like them very much).
And I have nothing against youngsters studying Latin----it is a great way to see its foundational connection to modern languages.
I also wish to state that I do not consider my "glib" Latin terms to be "vulgar". In my mind, vulgar is gutter-talk/bathroom talk. "Get a life" is my advice to young people who take themselves way too seriously. And "kiss my grits" is a term used more by Southern country folk rather than sophisticated city people---but it is hardly 'vulgar." In fact, I heard it the other day, used jokingly, on a Country/Western radio station.
As far as Latin Masses---and what is going on in the Church today---I suggest that you do a little reading. May I suggest "Lay People in the Church" by Yves M. J. Congar, O.P. Why? This good man and priest (a teacher of young people, too) wrote this as his vision of the Church. He was silenced by Pius XII, his religious superiors, lost his teaching position, was moved every year from one religious house to another, until he finally found a home with the Dominicans in Strasbourg. Just before the beginning of Vatican II, Pope John XXIII asked Fr. Congar to be the consultant to the theological commission that was to prepare for Vatican II. It is, for the most part, Congar's thoughts concerning the laity--that set the stage for the great documents of Vatican II. By the way, Congar was made a cardinal---a year before he died.
As a sixteen year old, my theological mentor, the bishop of my diocese--gave me Congar's book to read. His prayer for me was that I would indeed see Congar's vision realized in the entire church during my lifetime. I have seen the vision begin. And I also see the current magisterium in Rome and in America, attempting to take the vision away, piece by piece, bit by bit. Neither I nor many other people are willing to have the Church that was promised to us by the spirit of Vatican II,
snatched away by hierarchs who are greedy for their power, pomp, and authority.
No, my young friend, if you think that I would stand by and let this happen, you can fac me cocleario vomere!
Dear Little Bear, Do you
Dear Little Bear,
Do you think I have no sense for the importance of the laity in the Church? Fr. Yves Congar -- like the young Fr. Josef Ratzinger, Fr. Henri de Lubac, Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, and others in the vanguard of Nouvelle Théologie -- was instrumental in further articulating the theology of the Church. Are you expecting me, Little Bear, to refute his/their importance? Do you *really* suppose I have never read any of his works? (Consider my previous comment, that a proper aggiornamento is counterbalanced by an equally important ressourcement. This point, too, is held strongly by those of the Nouvelle Théologie school.)
It is my contention that most of these theologians would not recognize many of the post-conciliar fruits that have come after their writings. Pope Benedict XVI noted in his memoirs "Milestones" the bizarre misinterpretations following Vatican II of their earlier writings. (I heartily recommend this book, but I will refrain from condescendingly "suggest[ing that] you do a little reading".)
Ultimately, as the current Pope has written in various places, the question comes down to one of hermeneutics: Were Vatican II's important documents ones of (a)rupture or (b) continuity with the past? "The Church promised to us by the spirit of Vatican II"? Sigh. I'll let the perennially-insightful G.K. Chesterton field this one: "My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday."
Your various comments about the future Church without a hierarchy, without clergy, etc. -- the vision of which you cling to with stridence and borderline hostility -- make me a little sad. I am reminded of the line by I-forget-who: Those who marry the age are swiftly made widows. - AMDG
Little Bear to 'Here Today',
Little Bear to 'Here Today', responding to your
"PS I am sure you are aware that Catholics (ought to) find the phrase 'Hocus Pocus' highly insulting. It is not merely mocking the language or words of the Mass, but as it is used as a "magical" incantation it is a mockery of the Mass itself, and He who is made present therein."
The term Hocus Pocus came about because many ordinary Catholics in the late Middle Ages really 1) believed that 'magic' did occur at Mass. City dwellers would run around to attend as many Masses that they could in town to witness the 'magic' when the priest pronounced the words of consecration. The magic, in their minds, was that---bread becomes the Body of Christ. And 2) because ordinary people weren't educated and DID NOT UNDERSTAND LATIN, they really did not know what the priest was saying up at the altar, with his back turned to the people and bent over the Host. They HEARD 'Hocus Pocus'. This is a term that came about because of the people not clearly hearing and not understanding Latin--it was never made as an insult to our Lord! And yes, today, 'hocus pocus' is used while entertaining audiences in magic acts----vast majority of folks, including many magicians, don't know how the phrase developed.
You think people would be using a missalette to follow along during the Mass? As a child, I lived through the Latin Mass era---I can guarantee you---very, very few folks used any missals (they were about the size of priests' breviaries) during the Eucharistic prayers---and even less would use them today.
Funny, as the canon was
Funny, as the canon was silent, they would have had to have known what was being said from outside Mass. And They would have to know when and why those words were said. And then twisted it, not necessarily out of ignorance.
From my observation at the EF, almost everyone uses a missal, and those that don't seem to no longer need it from familiarity.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
John Allen, Thank You again
John Allen, Thank You again for another wonderful and important Post. God Bless you and all those who are voicing their positions about the importance of this decision by our Bishops. For those of you who would like to let your Bishop know what your position is on this very important issue. PLEACE CALL YOUR BISHOP. Like so many of you I think it’s a mistake to take our church backwards when what is needed is forward spiritual progress. YOU are the Church of God. Let your Bishop know where you stand. May the Holy Spirit guide us in our decisions and bring us closer (not further away) to God.
I received this recently and called my Bishop, Daniel Walsh, today.
"The Bishops are divided about the liturgy and need to hear from you.
They recently voted on a proposal at their summer meeting to make certain parts of the liturgy more closely resemble the older Latin liturgy in both word choice and structure.
But they didn't get enough votes yet so there is still a chance to make your views known.
Call your bishop today (click here for contact info). Tell him you oppose the liturgical changes on which the bishops are voting and that you support the current use of the vernacular language ushered in by Vatican II.
Bishop Galeone of St. Augustine, Florida bravely stood up before the vote and said, "I'm an obedient son of the church, and if these texts are passed as they stand, I will pray with them. But I feel that the vernacular has been a blessing to our people."
Just one of the many Latin-influenced proposals is to bring back the phrase "gibbet of the Cross." He said, "The last time I heard that word was back in 1949...." and later he remarked on how difficult it is to worship with the new proposed translation.
Bishop Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida thanked Bishop Galeone for giving him the courage to speak and also voiced his opposition to the proposed translation. Other bishops did as well, but some bishops voiced their support for the Latin-influenced changes.
A vote was taken, but since so many bishops skipped the summer meeting, there were not enough bishops to achieve the necessary 2/3rd majority vote.
Approximately 70 bishops did not attend the meeting and will be mailed ballots to settle the vote. Call your bishop today and tell him to vote "no" on the proposed changes to the liturgy. If he has already voted, let him know you oppose the Latin-influenced changes.
Make your voice heard. Call your bishop today. Say "no" to rolling back the liturgical reforms of Vatican II."
God's Peace be with you ALL! :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Ah, yes. Now that we will
Ah, yes. Now that we will be going back to archaic English wording in our vernacular liturgies and also having Latin Masses at every parish, we need to brush up on Latin. Some of us baby-boomers, who really did study Latin very hard in our school and university days, will have to do better in order to communicate with the younger folks who post on this website from Christendom College and Franciscan University.
So guys, especially 'Mark', if you are up to polishing your Latin some more--here goes:
The Arch/bishops who are slow to vote for Latin Masses and revised English liturgies, do so because they know that quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. And given that fact, they know that most priests, and liturgists trying to cope with these new changes will be raptus regaliter.
Consequently, I would say to these Arch/bishops in defending the current vernacular liturgies against those who are pushing for revised English liturgies, non illigitmus carborundum! And really, vah! Denoune latine loquebar? Me ineptum interdum modo elabitur.
As far as Latin Liturgies being more beautiful---nescio quid dicas. Actually, having good liturgies in the language of the ordinary people is something that can fac ut gaudeam. And before I will ever attend a Latin liturgy, you can vescere bracis meis!
To the young folks posting here, insisting upon olde English wordes and Latin Masses, fac ut vivas. Many of us worked hard to get the Mass in the current vernacular and nihil caro de ista tua stulta superstitione or in returning to liturgies, and the theology of the pre-Vatican days. Yes, to go back to those days, you can osculare pultem meam. That is my feeling on the subject. And to all who post on the website, die dulci freure!
Dear Little Bear, I am a
Dear Little Bear,
I am a younger Catholic. Unlike those 'young meanies' expressing their opinions from Christendom College or Franciscan University, I am a proud graduate of a Jesuit university. I majored in classics because classical language and literature instill enduring sensibilities and offer commentaries on perennial challenges to humanity. The Latin language -- which is still the official language of the Church -- has a flourish of beauty that simply cannot be squelched. (Come to think of it, I bet that is why some of the people at those newer conservative Catholic schools are studying classics in droves, too.) I have a few questions to ask of you with the hope of getting at the root of the rift between different ages within the American Catholic Church.
1) Do we not rejoice to hear people singing Spanish or African songs in liturgies without knowing what all the words mean? Is our fear of Latin's use because it is not understood by all in the pews, or because of past wounds that are easily associated with the era of a Latin mass?
2) Is 'being open to other cultures' limited to those in poor, (preferably non- or post-Christian) areas of the contemporary world? Can we not reach back to the cultures of yesteryear without seeming stuffy, intolerant, or 'narrowly rigid'?
3) Did any young Catholics in 1968 decided that songs from 1928 were outdated, were from a bygone era, did not reflect the latest developments in the world and in theology, etc.? If so, is it unfair that many young Catholics today in 2008 may find songs 30-40 years old to be likewise outdated, unappealing, etc.?
4) Observation and question: Many young Catholics have little-if-any foundation in understanding the Church's teachings, belief and (yes even) prayer & cultural practices. That we are less aware of our past than the baby boomer generation is not really a refutable point. Is it really unreasonable for curious young folks to take a peek in their grandparents' attic from time to time to see what heirlooms can be dusted off, brought back out, and re-considered? Hopefully the aggiornamento so important in Vatican II does not proscribe the equally weighty ressourcement called for by the council.
I can imagine that these are tough questions to consider; I really can. They strike a nerve among many of my baby boomer friends which can be summed up thusly: "Don't you young people realize that all those pre-Vatican II things are oppressive, obscurantist, deadening routines that cruel nuns and priests forced us to undergo? Vatican II freed us from all that mind control, and we fought for this for *you, too*! How about a little gratitude?"
I'm sorry to hear that you feel such neuralgia around younger peoples' desire to learn Latin and see it used in the Mass. I myself prefer the vernacular because I think it makes good sense and may well draw many people into the Church. Yet my preferring the English Mass is not ipso facto reason that a re-introduction of the Latin Rite means that we are turning back the clocks, or that all Latin Mass appreciators desire to scrap English. Perhaps Latin could be used for special feasts/holidays/solemnities to highlight their special place? Or, in the interest of not giving 'pride of place' to Latin, using it on any given Sunday in ordinary time? It is interesting that at international Masses, Pope Benedict has suggested that Latin be used. I think a Latin Mass in such cases may help us to get beyond the narrowed cultural expressions, and language, of any one nation.
And finally: "Fac ut vivas"? "Osculare pultem meam"? Are these really charitable ways of addressing a fellow human being? If your point is that people can be glib and vulgar in Latin as well as English, then you have succeeded. But I'd ask you to exercise some 'patientia et modestia' in levelling blanket criticisms of younger Catholics. I offer this suggestion more for your sake than for mine; some of my contemporaries will simply no longer pay you the attention that you rightly deserve as a fellow Christian. Perhaps a dose of the tolerance and love for 'the other' often touted by us readers of NCR?
Tu quoque die dulci fruere, amice in Christo.
Latin should be made
Latin should be made available to everyone who has a degree in classical languages of course. They should celebrate it in Steubenville every year on the seventh Sunday of Lent.
The very first "Mass" was at
The very first "Mass" was at the Last Supper. And it was not celebrated in Latin--it was in the very common language of the Jewish people in Palestine (Israel)---Aramaic. As the Christian Communities began to spread to other lands, the "breaking of the bread" as it was commonly called in the Apostolic Era, was celebrated in the common languages of the people, and in easily understood syntax.
Most people will not look up the meaning of these archaic words that are used in the Liturgy----they shouldn't have to. Jesus stated that the 'Sabbath was made for man/woman, not man/woman for the Sabbath.' The language that people use to worship God, should be understandable to them----not in the cadence and dialect of another time and century.
Same thing with the return of the Latin Masses---people will be pulling out their rosaries to pray during the Liturgies (as they did back in the pre-Vatican days---)or they slept---because they didn't understand what the priest was saying. 'Hocus Pocus' for everyone.
Actually much of it would
Actually much of it would have been in the sacred language of Hebrew (after all, it was the Passover). I do think it is likely that the Priestly prayers of Jesus (John's Gospel) were probably said in Aramaic, but not necessarily.
Looking at the English translations purely from a literary standpoint, I cannot believe that the Church that inspired Michaelangelo and Palestrina would participate in the dumbing down of culture. Reading Shakespeare or Chaucer in the original Middle or Old English may be challenging, but there is an element that is lost in 'translating' these works.
The purpose of language in the Mass is to draw us further in, further up. If the language is the same that we hear on the street, then it draws us to the street. If we reserve special language for special occasions (whether it be a congressional proclamation (We, the People, of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union....), a speech at a momentous occasion (We hold these truths to be self-evident...), or in a religious service (Lord I am not worthy that Thou should enter my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.) Formal language has an effect of timelessness, which is quite appropriate when addressing God who exists outside of time.
Back to the Latin: no-one is saying to completely go back to the Latin. Yes some masses will be completely in Latin (I can understand them better than I can understand Masses in most of the languages used in America), others will incorporate it for such obscure prayers as the Holy, Holy (Sanctus) and Lamb of God (Agnus Dei). Apparently our bishops, or a large number of them, think you are too stupid to follow along in a Missal or memorize a few words in a different language.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
PS I am sure you are aware that Catholics (ought to) find the phrase 'Hocus Pocus' highly insulting. It is not merely mocking the language or words of the Mass, but as it is used as a "magical" incantation it is a mockery of the Mass itself, and He who is made present therein.
charley Here Today you refer
charley
Here Today you refer to the 'Sacred Hebrew language. Since when was Hebrew or Latin or Greek a sacred language?
Howdy my brother HT! :-) You
Howdy my brother HT! :-)
You wrote:
"I am sure you are aware that Catholics (ought to) find the phrase 'Hocus Pocus' highly insulting."
I'm sure "you know!" Little bear WASN'T using "Hocus Pocus" in any derogatory way. It was merely an allusion to the innecessity of any ritualistic or dogmatic encumbrance getting in the way of a Child of God's relationship with their Father in heaven. Furthermore while this might necessitate and thus sanctify the use of a mediator, between the Child of God and His/ Her Father in heaven, a position I'm sure the Hierarchy of almost any church would enjoy in that it would make their existence and function more important (at least to themselves), it would be an unnecessary and inappropriate hindrance to the reception of the Spirit of God and the spreading of the True Gospel of Christ to the newly expectant Children of God in the world today.
But you know all that anyway, don’t you HT. You’re just continuing your constant battle using literary contrivances to feign any grievance you can think of in order to undermine or disrupt any manifestation of the Spirit of God in the Children of God that does not conform to the predetermined and Church sanctioned image of the acceptable forms of the Spirit’s manifestations in your eyes and the eyes of the Church you perceive. Right HT?
You seem to give no credence or respect to what Pope John XXIII said when an interviewer asked him what caused him to initiate these upheavals of tradition, how did these ideas come to him? He replied, “I always leave a window open.” I recently read a response to that statement that said, “We need to leave our own windows open so that the fresh air of the Father can touch our minds and our hearts.”
Tear down the Walls HT! Open your heart to the Spirit of God like you’ve never opened it before. Let Him in! Open your door and your window too! Let the fresh air of God’s Love breath over you. In patience and Love, Tolerance and Forgiveness love your fellow human beings like you never have before. Let GOD touch them through you. Open your heart to EVERYBODY. Everybody HT. Let the Spirit come thorough to every person you meet. Let them be touched by God’s LOVE coming to them through you! A stranger, a co-worker, a family member you never got along with, an enemy. Look in their eyes and visualize GOD’s LOVE for them coming to them through you. Let yourself disappear and be replaced by God’s Love for them. God Bless You HT.
Anyway that's just my opinion HT, as your opinion, at least as far as this thread is concerned, is also just yours… and for both of us as much as we let HIM….God’s. :-)
Christ's Peace be with You brother. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
On the contrary I know that
On the contrary I know that little bear was using it as a derogative. And this is no feigned grievance, I am in deadly earnest. Words have meanings. They matter. Flippancy with the Mass is a problem.
What did Pope Paul VI have to say after all those windows were opened? "The smoke of Satan has entered the Church".
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
beware of confusing love with tolerance.
The vernacular movement
The vernacular movement sarted in England,France and Germany at the end of the war.Pious X11 encouraged the reading of the gospel in the vernacular as the initiation of the sermon. Many years beore that in missions the entire mass was permitted in the local language. Those things did not start with Vat11. Vat 11 just made it universal.
yes..I'm quite capable of
yes..I'm quite capable of using a dictionary but I don't usually have one with me at Mass. And by the time I get home from Mass, I will have completely forgotten my puzzlement over the meaning of a word such as "gibbet". All of which defeats the use of the term "the gibbet of the Cross" because now I've completely missed any meaning/understanding the use of such a term might have been meant to convey in the prayer.
I agree with korvesem's
I agree with korvesem's statement:
"I will have completely forgotten my puzzlement over the meaning of a word such as "gibbet"."
I thought "gibbet" was what we chopped up and put in the gravy at Thanksgiving Time. ;-)
Peace my friends. God's Love be with you. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
The lord be with y'all. The
The lord be with y'all. The evolution of language is real. The locale matters. There is no absolute in one state,one culture or even in one English speaking world. For Rome to determine communication modes on the advice of some liturgists [these are the types who would be asked to participate in such a project] is top-down ruling. On the other side of the coin I would not like to have Fr Pfleger in that role either but one might be as extreme as the other.
Is Rome saying "OK but we'll stick in a few words of medieval English to irritate"
With all due respect to
With all due respect to retired Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, I strongly disagree regarding his statement, “Our genius in celebrating,” he said, will make up for any deficiencies. Further, he said, the average Catholic will receive the new texts “with the eyes of faith,” rather than focusing on its problems “like an English teacher or a Latin teacher.”
In my Parish we are desperately trying to understand the dialect of our current Priest. My faith has been tested for a year now and if I have to understand the new/old wording, I might as well stay at home. With much prayer and energy I concentrate. But I finally understand why many show up at Mass AFTER the Homily. It's not acceptable but it's done.
I'm a convert of 35 years, right after Vatican Council II and I probably would not be a practicing Catholic if my first introduction to the Catholic Faith had been in anything other than the English language. Think about this, How many converts have joined the Catholic church, in America since Vatican II? This does not count those joining the church due to marriage or birth, I'm talking converts from other faiths. I believe many would say exactly what I've expressed.
Thank God for Vatican II and the wonderful opportunity of Celebrating our Lord in the Language we are accustomed to!
AJV
Wow I am inpressed.
Wow I am inpressed. Apparently the archbishops have shown just what they think (not all of them) of their congregations. Apparently they are under the impression that American Catholics are unable to pick up a dictionary and find about what words like "ineffable" mean. The dumbing down of America at work.
But hey I guess anyone who takes a "stick it to the man" 1960's attitude with the Vatican gets awarded titles like "reformer" and applauded these days.
Fr. Juan Romero Palm
Fr. Juan Romero
Palm Springs
"Dynamic Equivalent" for translation of liturgical texts is a better option. The ponderous style of language used in a previous age belongs in museums or ancient texts, not in living worship of our Loving Father.
Hurray for Bishop Victor Galeone of Saint Agustine, Florida, the "Oldest continuously inhabited established settlement in the continental United States." (Wikipedia) I sincerely hope that our voting bishops are influenced by his wisdom.
The single best thing that
The single best thing that has ever happened in the modern day Church was when Vatican II allowed the liturgy of the Mass to be pronounced in the native language of the people. The language used in the celebration of the Mass became discernable and allowed the laity to fully participate for the fist time. Now, it appears that the American Church may well take a major step backward. Rome and the American Bishops should not underestimate the level of outrage that will issue from American Catholics, should the proposed changes in the liturgy be adopted. American's are not opposed to change when a change is logical and brings about improvments. These changes will be viewed as llogical and detrimental to the celebration of the Mass. It appears to me that Pope Benedict has too many staffers, with too little to do.
Larry
Yes God bless these old baby
Yes God bless these old baby boomer bishops for thrwarting the Holy Fathers wishes and the wishes of most younger people such as me to have a beautiful reverent worship again. Yeah God bless them for having the courage to stand up and show themselves as the enemies of the Church and beauty they are.
It's really sad. Rather
It's really sad. Rather than have people pray in their authentic language, the church would have them pray in a foreign high-falooting language that would be more "sacral." First, what's more sacral than real prayers in real language? Second, all of this palaver is really about the fact that 2/3 of church-going Catholics don't endorse the Church's articulation of the Real Presence (Body, Blood,Soul and Divinity). Estranging the people from the language of the Mass will not change this. Good, effective catachesis will.
These bishops who are
These bishops who are blocking the 'Proposed Text' are doing this for political reasons.
Are you telling me that the average Catholic can't look up words in a dictionary? That we can't derive meaning from context? How condescending!
We should be offering up to our Lord our very best - not the banal mediocrity that we do today. These translations are hardly perfect but they are much, much better than what we have today.
This debate has been stalling progress for years - and these bishops wish to stall further?
This is not about language – this is power struggle with Rome. It’s their pride and liberal-progressive insensibilities that are the problem here.
Move forward and quit stalling already!
Satis! Roma Locuta est! Procedite et finite!
Mark
Anyone who sees a dictionary
Anyone who sees a dictionary as the route to understanding and respecting a language will get out of it just what they invest.
Thank God for Arch/Bishops
Thank God for Arch/Bishops who think about their (and our) prayers. Thank you Bishop Galeone for speaking up for common sense and comprehensibility.
Englishwoman
Ad majorem die gloriam, This
Ad majorem die gloriam,
This is my last posting on this topic. I fear that I have posted far too much already. I am not giving you "pat answers." They are sincere and heart-felt. I really believe in your sincerity, and I am happy that you have had the opportunity to study the classics, to explore the past (and I wish that more people had the time and opportunity to study the Church of the past), and I understand your longing for the "beautiful liturgies in Latin."
When I see what you are writing, I smile, because once upon a time---long ago, I would have written what you wrote. But my faith development has been influenced by my prayer, life experiences (as an insider in the Church, but not a priest), my study, dialogues with others---who often challenged me to explain why I believe what I believe, and in trying to help others struggle with their own understanding of God and God's place in their lives. Because of my experiences, I hold vastly different views than I once did, views that in certain areas are at variance with my religious tradition.
I like many Catholics, both young as well as older, are frustrated and angry at the Catholic Church for what seems to be its parochialism, paternalism, and intransigence. I have come to realize that my own beliefs have become stronger and better defined for questioning, grappling, and straining with the tenants of the Catholic Church. I know who I am, and that I have a place and a voice in the church both despite and because of my differences with it.
And that, perhaps, is not answering your questions---but for me, Latin belongs in my past (and it belongs in the past of many Catholics---or for others---Latin is not even in the equation). It epitomizes the narrow understanding that God only belongs to Roman Catholics--that only Roman Catholics have the 'real handle' on God, Father, Son and Spirit. Rather, I have come to believe that the determining factor in how I understand and relate to religion is my notion of God.
It has been said that if our understanding of God is false, the more religious we are. If God remains in our minds as a distant someone, somewhere else, then religion generally takes on the character of requirements, those endeavors or beliefs necessary to keep ourselves in good standing with God.
Liturgy, spiritual reading, meditation, service to others, work, play, and love are all avenues that lead us to a mature understanding of who we are and what our faith really means. I think that many young people feel that the sense of 'mystery' has been replaced with the mundane, ordinary. And I guess that they often feel robbed of the wonder--and Latin often oozes with this sense of wonder and mystery. But if we understand that the true Mystery, God, is in our midst, then we must focus on the present, the here and now, because for what lies beyond also dwells within us.
God bless you on your quest, Ad majorem die gloriam, may you feel God's warmth in your lifetime. May you continue to strive for that glimpse of God, and work for the greater glory of God, knowing that your search to do so is not in vain.