The liturgy wars: Part 8,064
Catholic World News published a leaked letter from Cardinal Arinze to USCCB President William Skylstad, the content of which ur-Diogenes summarized as “sorry, not buying it.” Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship, was following up on a meeting in which, it’s surmised, Skylstad explained that some of Liturgiam authenticam’s directives on translations won’t sit well with U.S. Catholics. Arinze emphasized that Liturgiam remains binding.
Commonweal readers will recall the John Wilkins article on the liturgical translation controversy, which we published last year (ur-Diogenes called it “shoddy and tendentious,” judgments I disagree with, of course). In light of the current debate, it’s worth revisiting some of Wilkins’s paragraphs on Liturgiam:
Liturgiam authenticam did not recommend, it commanded. It insisted that translations follow an extreme literalism, extending even to syntax and rhythm, punctuation, and capital letters. The clear implication was that in this way it would be possible to achieve a sort of “timeless” English above the change of fashion, a claim reminiscent of that made for the Ronald Knox translation of the Bible, which today is so dated that it is not read except as a period piece.
A stipulation that appeared to mark a further retreat from Vatican II perspectives ruled out ecumenical cooperation over liturgical translations. This meant the end of pioneering links begun in 1967 between ICEL and the North American Consultation on Common Texts and the International Consultation on English Texts. Moreover, according to Liturgiam authenticam, “great caution is to be taken to avoid a wording or style that the Catholic faithful would confuse with the manner of speech of non-Catholic ecclesial communities or other religions, so that such a factor will not cause them confusion or discomfort.”
(snip)
A slashing critique of Liturgiam authenticam appeared in four articles in 2004 in Worship, the American journal of liturgical renewal published by the monks of St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota. The writer was Peter Jeffery, Scheide Professor of Music History at Princeton University and an oblate of the abbey, whose judgment was significant as it came from a conservative academic-in his own words, “as conservative as one can get without rejecting Vatican II.” He too, he testified, “would like to see translations more literal than some of the ones we use now.” He was at one with the authors of Liturgiam authenticam in desiring “a more profound sense of the sacred.” Still, their instruction struck him as “the most ignorant statement on liturgy ever issued by a modern Vatican congregation.” It should be “summarily withdrawn,” he argued, to allow time for “proper consultation with a sufficient number of experts.” (Incredible to say, those who wrote Liturgiam authenticam never consulted ICEL as such, despite the commission’s offer of its services.)
Drawing on his own wide understanding and on exhaustive research, Jeffery described the authentic tradition of the Latin Church and the Roman rite as “a huge garden,” filled with every sort of tree and flower and weed. By contrast, he wrote, the authors of Liturgiam authenticam perceived the treasure of the liturgy as “fully excavated, catalogued, and safely stored in the Vatican museum.”
The truth was otherwise, declared Jeffrey. The Catholic Church was still on its way: it had not arrived at its destination–all Catholics could at least agree on that. Let there be a clear view of the true task of liturgical renewal today. It was “an unprecedented effort.” The challenge was “to develop a worship for a new world, in which near-universal access to scholarship has made most people capable of taking a more active role than was ever possible before in the history of the church.”
For more on the debate, Rocco Palmo has been on the trail. The blog Catholic Sensibility has much wisdom on the subject too. For the scoop on the proposed changes and an excellent summary of the current dustup, see Jerry Filteau’s Catholic News Service piece.
on May 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Enlighten me here, as I found the John Wilkins article not helpful at all on this point: What is the specific reason that some people oppose more accurate English translations?
For example, as I understand it, the old Latin phrase “et cum spiritu tuo” has been (rather obviously) mistranslated in the current liturgy as “and also with you.” (Interestingly, this mistranslation doesn’t seem to have occurred in other languages; as far as I can tell, Spanish masses use the phrase “Y con tu espiritu.”).
So now it is proposed to go back to a more accurate translation: And with thy spirit. What’s to complain about that?
Or to take another example, the Latin word “credo” clearly means “I believe,” not “we believe.” (If I can recall my high school Latin, “we believe” would be accurate only if the Latin word had been “credimus.”)
Again, what’s to complain about saying “I believe,” especially when that’s the only honest translation?
I don’t understand what’s going on here, other than bureaucratic in-fighting.
on May 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Good question Stuart.
Why would anyone wish to keep the promise of Vatican II - a good vernacular Mass - away from the people.
On the part of the “experts” could it boil down to pride?
It seems to me this reform could mark the beginning of a new Catholic era (for English speakers) one which places the mess of liturgical disorder and widespread immorality among the clergy behind us.
You’ve heard it…the new Springtime.
on May 24th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
The issue is not one of “accurate” translation, what is being disputed is “literal” translation. “Accurate” translation is useful in language teaching and the exact sciences, but I’m afraid that when it comes to providing words for people to speak to each other (and to God) what we need to aim for is “faithful” translation, “usable” translation, “speakable” translation. Which puts us into art rather than science, an area where respectful disagreement can be essential.
And does L. A. really call for “literalness” in syntax, rhythm, punctuation, and capitalization? It might be noted that Latin historically doesn’t use capitalization and only a very minimal punctuation.
on May 24th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Mr. O’Grady — how does what you said match up to any specific example?
Et cum spiritu tuo = And with thy spirit.
How is it any more “usable,” or “speakable” to drop out any mention of the “spiritu” (let alone “faithful,” which it clearly is not)?
on May 24th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Mr. Buck,
The Latin “et cum spiritu tuo” means nothing more than “and with you” or “and with thee” if you prefer. The use of “spiritus meus, tuus etc.” is simply another way of saying “ego, tu etc.). So also, for instance, “anima mea” means no more is the Magnificat than “ego”. These usages are Semitisms imported into Latin. Personally I see nothing wrong with preserving them and that exactly because they remind us of the Semitic roots of so much of our religious language. If they are to be kept, it will be incumbent upon the clergy to explain them correctly, and not to indulge in fantasies about “spirituality” and the like. It will also be helpful if the faithful are advised to say: “And with YOUR spirit” rather than “and WITH your SPIRIT” as was common before the present vernacular version came into use.
My inclination would always, as far as possible, to preserve Semitic and Hebraic reflections in our religious language. Thus “incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine” in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed (commnly called Nicene) can be well rendered “By (the power of) the Holy Spirit was given flesh by the Virgin Mary”. Latinisms such as “incarnate” mask to underlying Hebraism. The translation currently in use, “By (the power of) the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary” is a substitution rather than a translation and quite destroys the sequence of thought.
on May 24th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
It might seem that it was quite a scoop Diogenes and company pulled off, getting that letter. But leaks are usually in someone’s interest, so perhaps the scolding of Skylstad by Arinze was thought such a gem by certain parties in the Vatican that it just had to be circulated.
Close to home, here in Northern Westchester, I notice that a local parish is hosting on Ascension Thursday, with Cardinal Egan’s permission, what sounds like quite a performance, a full-scale Latin Tridentine Mass with visiting choir. It will be celebrated by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, founded in 1988 by Cardinal Ratzinger . Their mission is “ to bring traditionalist Catholics back into communion with the universal church.” Now I haven’t heard of any large groups of traditional Catholics on the local scene and no one is pretending this service is meeting an urgent local need.. The pastor who has invited the Fraternity says the Superior General has been invited “because of our love for the traditions of the church, and also to educate our parishioners, especially the young, in the riches of the mass that was celebrated for so long, by and for so many saints.” ( And more than a few sinners, I imagine.)
on May 24th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
A couple of comments that I hope don’t lead to too much rancor.
My comment was primarily general about what we’re looking for in translation (and I’m not sure “translation” is really what we’re about here anyhow, since I don’t think there’s a single liturgy text that comes out of the church’s traditions). I think “accuracy” and “literalness” are somewhat red herrings, having some experience of trying to teach students to put Latin into English that they recognize.
As to “et cum spiritu tuo,” I second Mr. Gannon’s comments, but would note that address to someone’s spirit (more often genius than spiritus) is also a Latin way of talking and thinking. It just isn’t English, and will only sound peculiar, not spiritual. In any event no one I know except myself (check with my kids) ever says thee and thou, and many people don’t know what it means. Reference to Spanish, which retains the singular pronoun in common use (I think) isn’t really parallel.
Perhaps someone who is less ill-informed than I can comment on whether the issues of singular vs. plural (credo, also with you) derive from changes in who was speaking during the mass after the reforms originally started by Pius XII, reflect theological points, or just happened.
For the record, I enjoy and value the Latin mass (and find it prayerful rather than just incomprehensible or mysterious), I just don’t like a Latinate English Mass.
And I hope this discussion can stay on an even keel, since I like to find out where people who differ with my opinions are coming from.
on May 25th, 2006 at 8:00 am
A. What’s the evidence that the Romans, or anyone who ever spoke Latin, ever used the phrase “spiritu tuo” simply to mean “you” outside of the mass?
B. “address to someone’s spirit (more often genius than spiritus) is also a Latin way of talking and thinking. It just isn’t English, and will only sound peculiar, not spiritual.”
For that matter, it “just isn’t English,” at least not these days, to talk of someone’s “trespasses,” as if they’d been wandering onto the wrong property. But somehow people have figured out that “trespass” is being used in an older sense that has nothing to do with property lines.
C. Here’s what the Bishops had to say:
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/0805.pdf
1. Why has the response et cum spiritu tuo been translated as and with your spirit?
The retranslation was necessary because it is a more correct rendering of et cum spiritu tuo. Recent scholarship has recognized the need for a more precise translation capable of expressing the full meaning
of the Latin text.
2. What about the other major languages? Do they have to change their translations?
No. English is the only major language of the Roman Rite which did not translate the word spiritu. The Italian (E con il tuo spirito), French (Et avec votre esprit), Spanish (Y con tu espíritu) and German (Und mit deinem Geiste) renderings of 1970 all translated the Latin word spiritu precisely.
3. Has the Holy See ever addressed this question?
In 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published an
instruction entitled, Liturgiam authenticam, subtitled, On the Use of Vernacular Languages in the
Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy. The instruction directs specifically that: “Certain
expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a great part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony, are to be respected by a translation that is as literal as possible, as for example the words of the people’s response Et cum spiritu tuo, or the expression mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa in the Act of Penance of the Order of Mass.”
4. Where does this dialogue come from?
The response et cum spiritu tuo is found in the Liturgies of both East and West, from the earliest days of the Church. One of the first instances of it’s use is found in the Traditio Apostolica of Saint Hippolytus, composed in Greek around 215 AD.
5. How is this dialogue used in the Liturgy?
The dialogue is only used between the priest and the people, or exceptionally, between the deacon and the people. The greeting is never used in the Roman Liturgy between a non-ordained person and the gathered assembly.
on May 25th, 2006 at 11:10 am
The word “spirit” has much more meaning in the supernatural sense than the simple “with you”. It brings us out of the mundane into the realm of grace, mystery, and sacrament.
ICEL was supposed to give us a translation and the first job of the translator is accuracy.
And beyond the dialogue look at the Prefaces. The Preface is one of the hallmarks of the Roman liturgy. The old ICEL reduced them to seeming paraphrase and in doing so reduced one of the best features of the renewed liturgy - the increased number of prefaces.
Even a first year Latin student can recognize the omissions when they are placed Latin to English side by side. What a shame. Lets get beyond the polite double speak and ask what was the motivation for the old ICEL to reduce our vernacular Mass by leaving aside so many sacred sounding words that bring out the supernatural character of the liturgy?
Suggesting that a sacred vocabulary is awkward in English and, therefore, cannot be proclaimed is didfficult to maintain when reminded that Anglican, Lutheran and Byzantine English liturgies have no difficulty proclaiming these words: Cherubim, Seraphim, Thrones, Spirit, venerable, holy, chalice, etc….
It seems to me that the majority Roman rite Catholics deserve better than a second rate translation filled with paraphrase and omissions. If the new Anglican Catholic usage can have a good translation with a sacred vocabulary, if the Byzantine and Maronite Catholics get one - then so should the poor Romans. Think of it as a justice issue.
I still think a new translation in each parish, chapel, and monastery would give us a fresh start after the messy four decades we’ve just endured.
on May 25th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
I propose to offer an argument for the point that there is no significant difference in literal meaning between “and with your spirit” and “and also with you” as translations of “et cum spiritu tuo”. I had said that in this linguistic context “your spirit” = “you”. The only reason for retaining “your spirit” is that its phrasing reflects the ancient Hebraism which is found the N.T. and in ancient liturgical texts. For the point that it is a Hebraism I cite Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer on Luke 1:46: “‘My soul’ is a Hebrew surrogate for ‘I’ (see Gen 27:4, 25; Ps 34:3” and again on Luke 1:47: “‘My spirit’ is again a Hebrew surrogate for ‘I’ (see Gen 6:3; Ps 143:4)”. A similar account of the use of the Greek pneuma with a modifying pronoun to “mean a person’s very self, or ego” may be found in Bauer’s A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament p. 675 col. 2. Personally I am partial to the retention of the ancient phrasing, but I think it needs to be properly understood. Of course I do not deny that “spiritus” may have a variety of meanings. But consider this bit of dialogue: “Dominus vobiscum — et cum spiritu tuo”. There is a parallel structure. Let us fill in the blanks: “Dominus (sit) vobiscum–et (Dominus sit) cum spiritu tuo”. It does not meant that the presbyter wishes that Lord be with the people but they wish that the Lord be only with the presbyter’s spirit (as contrasted with what? his soul? is body? his whole person?).
on May 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Lest I be thought a conservative in some pejorative sense let me offer a defense of a phrase in the current translation that seems to be under attack. The creed in Latin has “consubstantialem Patri”. The current version has “one in being with the Father”. I gather that some wits want to substitute “consubstantial with the Father”. I cannot approve. The original Greek had “homoousion toi Patri”. The controversial part is “homoousion”, a compound of “ousia” = “being” and a prefix that indicates sameness. “One in being with” is thus a felicitous translation of “homousion”. (1 for the American bishops!) The explanation for the Latin runs along these lines. Latin is, or at any rate was, poor in nouns cognate with the Latin verb to be. For some reason Latin “substantia” was used faute de mieux for Greek “ousia”. Hence “consubstabtialis”. I can think of no reason for using the scarcely English “consubstantial” to reflect the awkward intermediary “consubstantialem” when an excellent English translation of the orginal and undeniably “authentic” Greek “homoousion” is ready at hand. Is it not authenticity (a Greek word!) that we want? Or is that some prefer unhappy Latinisms over plain sense? Well I have heard it said that since we do not understand the underlying mystery, we should reflect that by using obscure words. I fear that is to substitute mystification for mystery, or for the Latinists among us obscurum per obscurius. Hardly the right choice.
on May 25th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Apropos “and with your Spirit:”
Yves Congar, OP, in his monumental, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol 3, writes: “This does not mean simply ‘and with you.’ It means ‘with the grace that you received through ordination for the common good; we are asking now for that grace to be made present in this celebration’.”
Frans Jozef van Beeck, S,J,, in the first volume of his systematic theology, God Encountered, concurs: “The people return the greeting, traditionally reserved to ordained ministers, by means of the response ‘And with your Spirit.’ In doing so, they acknowledge that the special charism of the Spirit in the presiding minister, ordained to call them together as an organically structured community before God, is pivotal to their own integrity as a worshiping community.”
Thus the relevant context for understanding the exchange is neither that of “Hebraisms,” nor Latin usage, but the Church’s liturgical and theological tradition.
Sadly, some of that has been squandered by the first ICEL “translations.”
In this regard, may I call attention to the wonderful feature that the Tablet of London has presented over the past several months: “Listen to the Word.”
In it Daniel McCarthy, OSB, has commented on the Sunday collects, giving their historical background and a careful structural analysis. He gives both the Latin and the current ICEL translation. He never criticizes the present translation directly. After his analysis of the Latin, further critique of the “translation” would be simply redundant!
on May 25th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
On the face of it, to say that “with your spirit” means ‘”with the grace that you received through ordination for the common good; we are asking now for that grace to be made present in this celebration” or that the phrase “acknowledge[s] that the special charism of the Spirit in the presiding minister, ordained to call them together as an organically structured community before God, is pivotal to their own integrity as a worshiping community” seems to me to read much into little. Congar is a figure I remember. I do not know the dates of van Beeck. How far back does this interpretation of this bit of liturgical dialogue go. What arguments can be or have been brought forth to support it? How does it apply to the similar exchange: “Pax tecum–et cum spiritu tuo”. As it is, I find it extravagantly fanciful.
But I am always open to argument and evidence.
on May 25th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Fr. Imbelli,
It occurs to me that three passages from the letters of St. Paul have been advanced as showing that “with your spirit” is a Scriptural usage and thus worth keeping. It seems to me that the passages use the phrase as a surrogate for the pronoun. I wonder if there is anything like a consensus patrum on this subject. Here are the passages in the NRSV version:
Gal. 6:18 May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters.
Philipp. 4:23 The grace of the of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your (pl.) spirit.
Philemon 25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your (pl.) spirit.
on May 25th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Mr. Gannon,
Congar, of course, is the great ecclesiologist who played a major role in the elaboration of Lumen Gentium at Vatican II; and a pioneer in ecumenism and in the theology of the laity. Van Beeck, Dutch born, but U.S. based, taught at Boston College and Loyola Chicago where he is now emeritus. His systematic theology, God Encountered (6 volumes, not yet completed), is a major achievement.
Both reference an article by van Unnik, “Dominus Vobiscum: The Background of a Liturgical Formula,”
which I myself have not read.
My impression is that we have here a gradual emergence of clarity regarding the role of ordained ministers within the Church.
Thus the Scriptural background may not be the texts you cite, but rather a text like 2 Timothy 1:6&7: “rekindle the gift [charisma] of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power and love and self-control.”
I would suggest that the perspective we need to bring to the liturgical formulary and exchange is not “anthropological,” but, as I stated in my post on the “Ascension,” that of a robust Spirit Christology.
on May 26th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Fr. Imbelli,
First of all let me confess that I wrote–from a lapse of memory, but inexcusably–“Pax tecum” where I should have written “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”. However my lapse does not effect the point I had meant to make. I believe that, absent any clear indications to the contrary, the response “et cum spiritu” should mean mutatis mutandis the same as a response to “Dominus vobiscum” as it does as a response to “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”.
Let me devise a paraphrase based on Fr. Congar’s interpretation and test it with both exchanges. For the first exchange he says, if I understand him, that as a response to “Dominus vobiscum” “et [Dominus sit] cum spiritu tuo” means “[may] the grace that you received through ordination for the common good be made present in this celebration”. This is an appropriate enough sentiment, perhaps, if “Dominus vobiscum” may mean “may the grace you received through baptism be present in this celebration”. I find some considerable difficulty in extracting these sentiments from the Latin words.
For the second exchange on Fr. Congar’s view– if indeed it is to be applied– to “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum” the response “et cum spiritu tuo” means “[may] the peace of the Lord that you received through ordination for the common good be always present with you”. Can “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum” possibly mean “May the peace of the Lord that you received through baptism be always present with you”. I find this interpretation of the exchange a very forced, not to say artificial, reading of the Latin words.
As for the text you cite from 2 Tim. I can see some suggestiveness, but the path from there to “Et dominus sit cum spiritu tuo” is far from clear. The writer’s use of pneuma with a string of genitives, each denoting a condition or disposition, seems to me rather different and I cannot find an echo of “charisma” in the Latin of the liturgy
I would be delighted to read the article by van Unnik and I suspect at this point you would also. Perhaps others would as well. Can you give me the necesary bibliographical information? I have a card that enables me to borrow from the Yale University Libraries. You never know what you will find until you have looked.
Incidentally I liked your piece on the Ascension so much that I had nothing to say about it!
on May 26th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Gladly; sorry I did not include it before:
W.C. van Unnik, “Dominus Vobiscum ….” in A.J.B. Higgins, ed. New Testament Essays: Festschrift for T.W. Manson (Manchester University Press: 1959).
Sorry for all those initials. A good weekend!
on May 26th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Let me keep this very basic:
1. We laity pay the bills.
2. We speak American English.
3. Latin was a concession to Roman Christians who could no longer speak the Greek vernacular used by the earliest Christians in the city of Rome itself (Latin was a novelty of sorts).
4. The Tridentine liturgy (including its antecedents) in Latin cemented the spatial, physical, linguistic, and psychological distance between priest and people. It also contributed to the rise of the clerical culture in the Church (and we certainly know all the crap that has festered in this pyramid of pope on top, bishops and clergy in the middle, and the rest of us at the bottom, don’t we?).
5. Contact your bishops and tell them to vote “NO” when this Vatican crap comes up for a vote. It won’t hurt to remind the bishops that WE pay the bills.
6. If this crap comes to fruition, withhold contributions to your parish, and leave the “new and improved” missalettes in a pile at the front of the church when you approach the priest/eucharistic minister to receive communion. Do not use the “new and improved” language at Mass.
7. Share you experience (6) with the pope at: benedictxvi@vatican.va . While your at it, suggest to “the servant of the servants of God” that he invert the pyramid, put himself at the bottom, the bishops just above him, the clergy above them, and the rest of us at the top.
I’m damn tired of the conservative fallout from JPII (may he RIP). And I don’t give a tinker’s dam for some of the more notable hierarchs he left behind. It’ll be a cold day in hell before I use this “new and improved” crap. And I certainly will follow my own advice if push comes to shove! I’m not going to cooperate with any reactionary attempts to roll back the good that has come from Vatican II.
on May 27th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Dear “Joe,”
Let me keep this equally basic:
If your intemperate language represents “the good that has come from Vatican II,” then our plight is even more dire than I had presumed.
on May 27th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Dear Fr. Imbelli,
No, my “intemperate language [does not represent] ‘the good that has come from Vatican II,” at least not in a way that you wish to suggest. My intemperate language comes from a 58-year-old guy, divorced, a Catholic university graduate (cum laude) with a master’s degree in the adult training field, an honorably discharged military veteran, a federal civilian retiree in the personnel field, and a former Tridentine-era altar boy. My extended family has contributed at least three priests to the Church including a former superior general and at least two women religious.
A dear friend of mine once asked if I knew the opposite of love. I hesitated to suggest anger but could not come up with the “correct” answer. He replied “indifference,” and I wholeheartedly agreed (and still do). The emotion of anger indicates that a human being is deeply — indeed, “gut-felt” — concerned about the perceived wrongness of a matter, be it the status quo or the bad direction that events seem to be taking. Of course, depending on circumstances, this anger may be seen as justified or not in the minds of others.
Good Pope John saw the need to open the windows of our Church. They had been closed, I guess, for a good 1500 or so years — long enough, at any rate, for bishops and priests to ascend and the rest of us to descend, long enough for this clerical culture to ignore the laity (except when money was involved), and long enough for all the crap that could grow only in this kind of closed environment. Maybe, as one Protestant observer noted in a COMMONWEAL article, the bishops at Vatican II did get more than what they had bargained for, but when they returned home from Rome, most of them “ran with it,” the latter being the fresh air of renewal that would lend itself to reinvigorating a stale and crusty Church. I understand that dioceses around the world had to experiment with the liturgy in order to find ways to incorporate inculturation and the vernacular. There were probably some places where “excesses” (in the minds of some folks) did occur. My response: So what?!? All of us — bishops, clergy, religious, and laity — were experiencing the euphoria of being able to “come up for air” after being relegated for nearly two millenia in an institution overgrown with mold, rot, and foul air.
I know it’s considered “improper” in some circles to use “intemperate language,” but I use it here (as well as in my e-mails to the Vatican) because I want the readers or recipients to know just how angry I am with attempts in some quarters to downplay or contradict Vatican II’s call for renewal in how the Church goes about its business. In short, I’m “mad as hell” and want the “powers that be” to “feel” my anger!!! I feel and intend to share this feeling of anger precisely because I care and because I know, the sexual abuse scandals notwithstanding, our diocesan bishops and Vatican curialistas — for the most part — still don’t “get it.” Old habits die hard, but I’m going to do what I can to make this “reluctance to relinquish” as painful and difficult as possible for these guys!!! And if they get upset stomach in the process, good!!! When my ox is getting gored, I’m gonna’ fight back!!!
I represent, albeit in only a small way, many of us folks out here in the field, in the trenches. I have a difficult time as it is trying to follow the threads on this particular topic. I am not a cleric, and I am not an academic, but I am a deeply caring lay member of this Church, and “you” — pope, cardinals, curialistas, archbishops, bishops, and priests — had better pay attention to those of us who are getting mighty fed up with the crap that has emanated from the bowels of the Vatican these past 25 years. Ignore us at “your” peril!
My name is Joseph, and I signed on as Joe, Father Imbelli. No need for quotation marks. Thank you.
on May 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
It has been a couple of days since I first read this topical exchange. At the time I hesitated because I found the first two posts too accepting and apologetic of Cardinal Arinze’s directive. On the other hand the all too civilized and intellectual debate over the translation of the Latin left me feeling the discussion was totally irrelevant.
In the due time it came to me that the reason for the latter conclusion was because the issue wasn’t and still isn’t really about the translation at all. It’s about POWER, plain and simple.
And then I came back and discovered Joesph/Joe, God bless him, telling it like it is. And Joe “crap” is the right word, both in the translation and the process.
It may seem uncharitable but this North American for one (and I say it that way because I’m Canadian not American) I want to tell those Italians like Arinze that we in the English speaking world will demind our own translation and they will not dictate to us the words we will or will not use.
It it is a game of power they want then fine, as in any institution money talks. As you can probably tell by now I am angry just like Joe.
Those in the academy can split all the hairs and read all the historical texts they want and folks like Buck & the Maid can acquiesce all they want. In the end it will be the reaction of the Sunday pew dwellers who will finally determine the outcome.
And it they do rebel, I’ll be one surprised Catholic.
on May 28th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
And here we see what is very puzzling here. I can comprehend (because I agree with) the idea that English translations should be accurate and faithful. I can also comprehend (although I disagree with) the notion that the current English translations are not really so terribly awful, and that it might confuse people to change.
But I can’t even comprehend this attitude of belligerence and anger towards a more accurate English translation. It seems sheerly irrational. I suspect that some people are feeling peevish about something else other than English translations, and this is just a convenient vehicle for them to vent their emotions.
on May 28th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
The current English translations are really not so terribly awful. Yes, by definition, they can use some improvement — but not of the awkward, verbose, silly, and culturally deficient kind that the Vatican is trying to cram down our throats. God bless Bishop Trautman and similar thinking bishops who are trying to rectify the situation without chipping away at the underlying pinnings of the Second Vatican Council.
The aforementioned thread can’t seem to understand why some folks would show belligerence and anger “towards a more accurate English translation.” Because it hurts, that’s why! Because these efforts of Arinze and predecessors have all the attitude of episcopal arrogance and a “Father knows best” mentality! Because it all depends on just what “a more accurate English translation” means in this case. And in this case, it means crap, a kind of stilted English no longer used in contemporary communication.
“It seems sheerly irrational…[and] peevish.” That’s interesting because that’s what we progressives see in the efforts by some to turn back the clock on renewal and ignore the lessons of history. After all, those who ignore the lessons of history (clerical culture, rampant and hidden sexual abuse of children, lack of transparency and accountability financial and otherwise, coverups, papal and episcopal arrogance and condescension, ad nauseum) are inevitably bound to repeat them — or revisit them on their children and their children’s children.
An opportunity “to vent [my] emotions?” You bet!!! Because I care — just like the so-called “conservatives” and “traditionalists” who “vent [their] emotions” on the scores of right-leaning Catholic blog sites. They, of course, often display their ignorance of Church history, not to mention their “puzzling” and “irrational” willingness to serve as ecclesial doormats for bishops, priests, and curialistas all too willing to have them lie down. In this light, the word ‘humility’ should mean to have one’s feet planted firmly on the ground of reality, not to allow others to put their feet on one’s head and push one’s nose into the rot, decay, etc. of the pre-Vatican II Church — indeed, a rot and decay that has festered to this day!
on May 28th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
…and please don’t even mention the word ‘obedience’ in this context.
Like some Catholics using the word ‘orthodox’ to refer — ultimately — to a Church culture that “bestowed” the “graces” of child sexual molestation by clergy, misuse of diocesan funds by bishops who think it’s their money (sadly, they’re right all too often in current ecclesiastical administration), lies, deceit, coverups, legal maneuvering to prevent accountability, arrogance to eliminate any chance of transparency, ad nauseum.
No, sirreee, “obedience” doesn’t even belong in this discussion, not by a long shot! Just more crap.
on May 28th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Joe — perhaps you could explain just why it would be “awkward, verbose, silly, and culturally deficient” to say, “I believe”? Or to say, “And with your spirit”? What “lessons of history” are at issue here? Be specific.
I realize that you feel upset over the sexual abuse of children, as am I. But that’s a completely different topic, isn’t it? Try to focus on the subject at hand.
on May 28th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
In order to help Stuart understand the belligerence I would ask him to remember the concepts of collegiality and servant leadership.
Quite simply if there is one place the Vatican ought to butt out and defer to the regional congregations of bishops it is in liturgical translation.
The group that was originally formed to improve the translation was based on such principles. What Arinze & presumably others in the vast bureaucracy was violating is that social understanding of Vatican II. Wilkins in his Commonweal article demonstrated very well the extent of damage done by breaking that social contract.
The issue was not an issue of accurate translation. The task is one of combining, beauty and understanding to best evangelize all English speaking members of the Body of Christ.
What Arinze did was place secular principles of authority and power over the authority and power of Catholic culture. In doing so he has distorted the very purpose for which the renewal of the liturgy was started. It is he who has committed the greater sin. The bishops of America as the leading English speaking nation need to say back to Arinze and the Vatican, back off. This isn’t one you want to fight us on.
This is a linguistic war which should never have been started in the first place. It only demonstrates the degree to which JPII had lost control by the end.
on May 28th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
“Quite simply if there is one place the Vatican ought to butt out and defer to the regional congregations of bishops it is in liturgical translation. ”
Why? Note that the Wilkins article tries to imply that JPII was wrong to allow the Tridentine rite, because of “disunity.” Well, now, why should the American bishops be able to use a demonstrably *wrong* translation — one that departs from the translations into French, Spanish, etc. — just for the sake of being able to stick it to the Vatican? Talk about disunity.
On a different note, the reason that I suggested specificity is that I simply have no idea what is being discussed, when someone says that the current translation combines “beauty and understanding to best evangelize all English speaking members of the Body of Christ.”
No idea what that is supposed to mean. How does the current translation display beauty? Be specific. I can see that “one in being” is more beautiful than “consubstantial,” but I can’t imagine what the other examples are supposed to be.
How does it “evangelize” anyone whomsoever? Be specific. And most importantly, describe — specifically — how it is *better* at evangelism than the more accurate translations that have been proposed.
on May 28th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
What lessons of history are involved here?
“Way back then,” Christians used their very own vernacular, be it Greek, Aramaic, whatever. It was culturally appropriate to time and place.
As time went on, Christian liturgies became elaborate and then more elaborate. In the meantime, the liturgical language froze in Latin while the people began no longer speaking Latin. The diaconal role in the Mass disappeared (so much for a “bridge” of sorts between priest and people during the liturgy). In 1570, of course, the Vatican issued the Missale Romanum that prescribed — exactly, no less! — what was to be said and done by the priest, no more and no less, I gather, under pain of possible (or probable?) excommunication. “Do the red; pray the black,” according to one writer. Good Pope John saw the handwriting on the wall and called a council to bring about renewal. Sensing trouble ahead, the curialistas tried to set the agenda and actually wrote “white papers” (slanted toward the status quo, of course) to keep the bishops busy and, in the process, try to thwart attempts at renewal. This tactic didn’t work. The bishops — correctly — said this was THEIR council and THEY would decide things — curialiastas be damned! As “they” say, the rest is history.
Stuart, the topic at hand may be liturgical language, but, as suggested by John, the ICEL we have today has been “stacked” by bishops “loyal” to the late pope’s conservative (some would say “reactionary”) sensibilities. These guys bow to literal translation of liturgical prayers, and these bishops do not represent the overwhelming sentiments of their flocks on this issue. The Vatican has wielded unbridled power and arrogance to get its preferred way here. As John has noted, this approach completely defies the Church’s long-standing principle of subsidiarity. We are not talking dogma or doctrine here: we are talking practice in accordance with Vatican II’s emphasis on renewal (to make new again). The vernacular , which is more than just mere translation, also incorporates inculturation. In short, if the primitive Christians and their children and grandchildren could pray in their own tongue, so should we. Literal translation is not our own tongue.
Is not the sexual abuse of children “a completely different topic?” Yes — and no.
Yes, for reasons that need not be addressed here.
No, if one looks at the big picture. I think it’s necessary to take a historical and systems approach here. I’ve addressed a history that should give any reasonable Catholic reason to pause about the advisability of restoring the Tridentine rite with its attendant use of Latin, a dead foreign language. What I see in the current situation is a scheme by curial stalwarts to use a reconstituted ICEL to begin a process of gradually chipping away at the renewal advocated by the conciliar fathers (a kind of Trojan horse, perhaps?). “Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” As I’ve mentioned earlier, a clerical culture developed over time that put the ordained “up there” and the rest of us — with and without children — “down here,” a de facto caste system, no less! This sad development was facilitated by an elaborate liturgy “said” (by priest — with back to the congregation) in a dead foreign tongue. And the distancing continued until after Vatican II.
If given a choice between an elaborate foreign liturgy, on the one hand, and a culturally/linguistically meaningful liturgy, on the other, I think you know what I’ll take. And if history has any lessons here, I’ll take a liturgy that is less likely to foster a moldy, rotten, and smelly clerical culture that most recently manifested itself in the sexual abuse of children and others incapable of defending themselves against so-called “servants of God.” I’m not about to go along with changes — no matter how seemingly miniscule — that might even remotely contribute to a return to this scandalous and hurtful episode in the life of the Church. No way!
Let’s continue with responsible and culturally meaningful liturgical renewal, and let’s keep at bay any Vatican efforts, no matter how seemingly innocent, that might very well lead to a restoration of a harmful and thus dangerous clerical culture.
on May 28th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Joe — are you really trying to suggest that the sexual abuse of children had something to do with the choice of rites, or the choice of languages? If so, doesn’t that actually go *against* your case? That is, from all I can tell, the sexual abuse crisis reached its height in the Vatican II generation, after the Novus Ordo was in full swing. Do you have any evidence that sexual abuse was *worse* pre-Vatican-II, while the Tridentine rite was the norm? I’d be quite amazed if you had any such evidence, but I’m all ears.
on May 28th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
As a progressive, I’m not interested in “sticking it” to the Vatican, but when those damned curialiastas try to “stick it” to me, I’m gonna’ fight back, yesireee!
Why should we be able to use (in your words, Stuart) “a demonstrably ‘wrong’ translation?” Answer: Cultural relevance/appropriateness and subsidiarity. Our bishops have no business telling their foreign counterparts what to do, and the latter have no business telling our bishops what to do. And, of course, the Vatican has no business telling any of the bishops’ conferences what to do in this area as long as dogma and doctrine are not at issue.
Beauty, as “they” say, is in the eyes of the beholder. I’ve always lumped together the ideas of beauty, simplicity, and truth. The Tridentine was certainly not simple, and it contributed to development of the clerical culture. The latter facilitated abuse of children and others incapable of defending themselves. No truth in the lies and coverups. No beauty here, either. And the whole shebang turned out to be one ugly, elaborate, and untruthful mess! Interrelatedness and interdependency here, I suppose.
I agree with John: a linguistic war that should never have been started in the first place. To this day, I think JPII did more damage to the Church in his 25 years on the throne than many other folks could accomplish in a lifetime. And we have to live with his legacy. O, well, who said life is fair?
On a different and technical note, I do not know what happened to cause the discombobulated portion of my previous thread. Sorry.
on May 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Stuart, this abuse went back decades before Vatican II (if I remember, the bishops were to report instances of abuse going back to at least 1950, were they not?). Unfortunately, the massive scale of abuse came to light only on account of the investigative skills of a free press (free from Church control) and modern communications technology. God alone may only know the likely massive numbers of sexual abuse instances “way back when.”
Am I trying to suggest that the sexual abuse of children had something to do with the choice of rites or the choice of languages? No. I am saying that the development and retention of a liturgy that put distance between priest and people contributed — greatly, I think — to the onset and continuation of a clerical culture that enabled virtually free and unfettered sexual abuse of children, etc. In other words, do I think the Tridentine Mass “caused” sexual abuse? No. Do I think it was a significant ingredient in development and maintenance of an abusive, paternalistic, authoritarian, and arrogant culture? Yes.
Do I have any evidence that sexual abuse was worse during the pre-Vatican II days? No, but, again, see my aforementioned comment. Keep in mind, too, that the conciliar fathers were persuaded by the scholarship of historians, theologians, biblical scholars, and others that major change in how the Church conducts its affairs was needed.
Perhaps historical scholars can research the extent of abuse in the pre-Vatican II Church — that is, if they can locate records that may (or may no longer) exist.
Times change, but basic human nature does not change. If sexual abuse occurred post-Vatican II, should we believe it did not occur before then? Or that it did not occur on such wide a scale? If today seems worse, might it not be due to the fact that we have investigative and judicial tools and resources that could be — and were, in fact — used to bring this crap to light of day? Remember, too, Stuart, that the pre-Vatican II Church was ruled by a rather traditional papacy.
If you are suggesting that less abuse likely occurred pre-Vatican II, I can offer you stock shares in an orange bridge out in CA.
on May 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Joe: I largely agree with the substance of what you say, although I might say it differently. I hope there are many more people like you. I sometimes get the impression that no one is paying attention. Your certainly are. We do disagree about one thing. I also thought originally that Arinze was Italian. He is actually Nigerian.
John: I recognize that eyes glaze over when talk of grammar and semantics arises, but the devil is in the details. Bishop Trautman’s heart is in the right place but it does not do to defend the indefensible. Replacing as the current translation does “And through the power of the Holy Spirit he was given flesh by the Virgin Mary and became human” with “And by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary and became man” mistranslates and also reverses the sequence of events. The committee that passed on that one must have been asleep, or perhaps they were thinking of the Apostle’s Creed.
What I find especially troubling about the new translation, as far as I have seen examples, is the tendency to confuse authenticity and accuracy with the use of Latinisms and a mindless adherence to the Nova Vulgate Editio, as it is called, over fidelity to the original languages. Let me point to two places to look to as touchstones.
In the Gloria we now say “Glory to God in the highest and peace to His people on earth”. Joe, you will certainly remember when we said ”on earth peace to men of good will” while Protestants said “on earth peace, good will toward men”. The current translation has it essentially right. The Greek speaks more exactly of “the people (or men) He favors” and the current translation finesses that with ”His people”. The “good will” in both Catholic and Protestant (English) versions was a mistranslation. It will be interesting to see if the new translators follow the Vulgate and try to reintroduce “good will”.
Finally, at the end of the Lord’s Prayer we have all been saying “deliver us from evil”. The scholars agree that the Greek means “free us from the evil one”. The Vulgate is ambiguous here because Latin, unlike Greek, does not have a definite article. Will the partisans of authenticity and accuracy dare to make the correction? It would involve something of an admission.
on May 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Joseph R Gannon,
I did not mean to imply that I am against any change or improvement in our liturgy. What I think I was trying to defend was Wilkin’s original support for the translation brought about by the members of the ICEL before the Vatican forced them to bring about changes and if memory serves, forced a new chair upon the committee. This is where my eyes begin to gloss over. And it not because of the intellectual details. I will leave that debate to you and Fr. Imbelli both of whose views I respect and try to understand.
However, Wilkins in his article pursued me, through his examples, that what was originally proposed was more beautifully andcompletely expressed that the more precise literal translations being proposed under Arinze’s followers.
I also want to thank you for correcting Arinze nationality. I realized after posting it that he was from an African nation but there is evidently no way to go back and correct a post. It doesnot however, change the political dimensions of what is under discussion.
on May 29th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
I think a point can be made that the reform in ICEL that finally brought about the Lit. Auth. instruction from the Holy See was (mostly) due to lay as opposed to clerical inspiration.
It began with the “Agatha Christie Indult” in the Uk following the promulgation of the 1969 missal, the drop off in regular mass attendance in nations that once were amazingly regular (USA, Ireland, Australia - voting with their feet), and the growh of lay dominated liturgical groups e. g. Une Voce andAdoremus, as opposed to the progressive liturgical groups that are largely clerical or vowed religious.
Granted no one here can claim to speak for the laity generally - we can only represent ourselves. My point remains, however, that the heavily lay dominated (non-clerical non-vowed religious) liturgical societies/apostolates tend to be the most traditional. That speaks volumes in my opinion to those who would suggest that Lit. Auth. represents a clerical mindset oppressing the laity.
A good example of clerical impositions on the laity may be found in the LA Times today where the clergy will not stand for lay people kneeling at the “Ecce” (pun intended) and are once again invoking “obedience” and even “mortal sin” (threats of Hell fire) to bring the traditionalists around. Is “Commonweal” going to write about this authoritarian bishop in Orange, CA? Is this less extreme or more extreme than firing an editor or suggesting only those in a state of grace should receive holy communion?
on May 29th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Joseph Gannon and Maid of Kent,
Thank you for your comments. I found especially interesting Maid’s observation about more conservative lay groups taking an interest in this area, and if my limited perception of the big picture is reasonably accurate, I must agree (are progressives inherently lazy in “matters of Church?”).
If there was a big drop-off in church attendance after Vatican II (and I vaguely remember at least anecdotal evidence to this effect), can we attribute this phenomenon to rejection of the New Rite, a wish for return to the Old Rite, or to some other factor? I must confess I don’t know.
I, of course, am asking my bishop to vote “NO.” Did ordinary laity have any role in ECEL’s workings? For example, did dioceses around the world have workshops to get lay input on perceived problems and proposed solutions? I don’t recall any such involvement in my diocese although perhaps there was opporunity for lay input (when I refer to lay input, I am specifically referring to us folks who have no formal or informal involvement in liturgical matters at local levels as opposed to laity with some kind of formal background and/or official involvement). Could it be that “the rest of us” were overlooked in this process over the years?
It’s not too late for Benedict to remove this issue from the upcoming U.S. bishops’ agenda. And even if he does not (assuming proposed changes are approved), the pope can still ignore the results and call for the WHOLE church to be invited to give input and not rely on national representatives alone.
on May 29th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Please excuse my ignorance dear Maiden but will you please explain what the “Lit. Auth. instruction” is and also what the “Agatha Christie Indult” is.
Also you claim “the heavily lay dominated (non-clerical non-vowed religious) liturgical societies/apostolates tend to be the most traditional.”. Is this because they represent those who never accepted the changes brought about by Vatican II is the first place and have passed that onto their children?
I’m old enough to remember that time and thinking why does this church have to insist that everyone accept the changes. I remember wondering even then,why can’t we have a wider variety of services? They all accomplish the same goal.
Perhaps, Joe’s fear & mine is that we fear the traditionalists making the same error in judgment and that is forcing upon everyone the same liturgical format. I say let those who want a Tritentine mass have it. Let those who want a literal translation have it and let those who want a more authentic venacular have that also. If this crazy church can have national churches then surely it can have a variety of spiritual expressions.
As the article in the current issue of Commonweal so informatively explains about the Assyrian right, the prayer of the Faithful and the words of consecration can occur in different forms and still be valid. (I did that from memory as I do not have the issue before me as I am travelling so I hope I got the terms correct, but you get the point I’m sure)
Oh, and BTW please explain ECCE to this layperson. I presume you mean communion. Obviously, on that one you would know my answer , who cares! If someone wants to receive communion standing on their head, it doesn’t make the reception less vaild. A little bizarre maybe but not less sacramental.
So maybe, dear maiden, as a traditionalist, why do you feel we must all conform to your ideas? Could you accept a diversity of ritualistic forms of worship if they were all vaild forms of sacramentality?
on May 30th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Dear John,
Thank you for your questions. I hope I remember them all :).
“Lit. Auth.” is the instruction from the Holy See that directed that a more faithful translation be made in the liturgy. It led to Vox Clara and the reformed ICEL.
The “Agatha Christie” indult is the permission granted to England alone (as far as I know) for the older liturgy to be celebrated under Pope Paul VI shortly after the promulgation of the late pope’s 1969 Missal. It is named after the famous mystery writer because she signed the petition to Pope Paul VI asking for permission to continue the old liturgy along with many other Christians from the UK. This indult helped prevent the supression of the classical usage in the Church. I linked to the petition in my earlier posting.
You asked about lay liturgical societies and their aims. Some lay dominated liturgical societies seek free permission to celebrate the “classical” liturgy, others support Vatican II’s SC by promoting wide use of Latin & Gregorian chant in the missal of Pope Paul VI. Some seek a better vernacular translation and others want a more organic reform along the lines of the FIRST post Vatican II missal - the 1965 missal - that already had incorporated all of Vatican II’s reforms (they say) by making the prayers at the foot of the altar optional, the long offertory was optional, the readings were read once out-loud, and I think the last Gospel was also optional.
The concept of liturgical rite is important in this discussion. The Latin Church must have a great degree of ritual unity and that means (yikes) some uniformity. Vatican II’s SC does not call for a break down in the liturgical unity of any one sui iuris (ritual Church) be it the Latin, the Byzantine, the Maronite or whatever…..
The traditionalists are not imposing anything not already given to us by Vatican II and our bishops. No one is calling for the general imposition of the 1962 missal in parishes, chapels, monasteries, and convents around the world. They ask for the reformed missal of Pope Paul VI along with easier access to the earlier missal in some places.
It seems to me all the imposing, wherever it occurs, has been on the progressive side - unless you consider Pope Paul’s missal itself to be an imposition. I have not sensed that from anyone here.
You speak of “national Churches” as if that would be a good thing. I don’t agree - the history of the Church suggests it can often be a serious problem. Consider that this at a time when our world is smaller than ever before with frequent travel and transfers from place to place. The Latin Church is one ritual Church governed by national conferences who do have some ritual diversity within the limited framework of that Roman “recognitio”. The Eastern Churches do the same on a smaller scale - as many Maronites live outside of Lebanon as in the old country but all use the liturgy approved by their one patriarch. I think it would be an error to suggest further breakdown in our ritual unity within this one liturgical rite.
The “Ecce” is the point in the Mass just before his communion when the priest genuflects and then lifts up the Host and Chalice saying “Ecce Agnus Dei, ecc qquit tollit pecata muni…..” and we respond “Domine, non sum dignus….”.
I think it incorrect in our religion to presume posture does not matter at all - our words, our thoughts and these postures are all aspects of our actual participation in the Mass and do express more of our unity and reverence for Him.
Different words and different postures are well and good among the different ritual Churches that make up the Catholic communion but we are here speaking of one ritual Church, namely the Latin Church.
And John, of course I recognize the diversity of at least twenty-two Catholic ritual Churches in communion with Rome. Without granting labels to myself or anyone else, I do not expect anyone to conform to “my” ideas. Vatican II tells us that only the Apostolic See can regulate the liturgy and grant “recognitio” to local adaptations by Bishop’s Conferences-notice the conference not the bishop alone. It is Vatican II that calls us to obedience within the tradition of our own ritual Church.
God Bless.
on May 30th, 2006 at 11:38 am
John:
I had read the Wilkins article and it was very distressing to read.
I remember the Tridentine mass quite well. There is something very odd about a rite in which the celebrant several times greets the congregation in a language they do not understand and without turning around to face them, and in which the congregation’s response takes the form of some words mumbled by two altar boys in a language they also do not understand. It does not take a liturgist to figure out that some quirk has deformed an originally beautiful ceremony. We are well rid of it. For those who have some Latin, or just ilke to listen to it, it is quite possible to do the new mass in Latin. I believe they do it at the Brompton Oratory in London, or at least used to.
on May 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am
As possibly the “most senior” poster here, I can clearly remember attendance at Mass pre and post Vatican II. Those longing for the “good old day” want to blame attendance decline on the Novus Ordo. I blame large Mass attendance pre VII on an all-pervasive sense of fear and obligation. Fear of mortal sin if one wilfully missed Mass. But that climate pervaded the church in those days. The rules were legion and the sins (mortal and venial) were constantly being pushed.
Once people began to be treated as adults and with the widespread rejection of Humanae Vitae, the pew potatoes started to grow up. This resulted in a large loss of fear with consequent less of Mass attendance.
I realize that this has been a rather simplistic explanation. To put it into a better context …..
My parish in San Francisco is small (800 members, of which 400 are active) but has one of the best liturgies in the entire Archdiocese (as attested by numerous officials and the last 2 archbishops!). Most of us do not live within the geographical parish itself. Some drive as much as 40 miles each way to PARTICIPATE (not just attend) in the liturgy. Our music program is excellent and we sing out with gusto. The selection of hymns if truly catholic … it is drawn from traditional Catholic, trad Protestant, contemporary Catholic, Orthodox (the real ones) and, of course, some Latin.
We attend and participate because we WANT to be there, not because of a fear of sin by not being there. This attitude spills over into the programs we offer and the participation therein.
My geographic parish (in Oakland) is larger and suffers from terminal boredom. All one has to do is attend, listen to the wimpish music program, boring homilies and notice the dullness in the look and response of the attendees to see the “good old days” in current mode.
on May 30th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
To Joseph,
We are not “rid” of the Tridentine Mass. There are parishes all over the world using it exclusively. There are monasteries, convents and active religious orders using it every day. There are children being brought up in it and people are buried according to that rite.
There are seminaries training priests according to its norms and at least one resident bishop in Campos Brazil runs his diocese according to that usage. The Tridentine usage is only going to grow because it is being maintained by its own (schismatic) but valid episcopate and by regular RC bishops who are pastoral to the faithful attached to that usage.
I agree it is not as widely used as the Pauline ordo but in the USA it probably is used at least as often as the Maronite liturgy - maybe more so. I would not want to be placed in a position where I compare the fruits of one Roman Catholic liturgy to another. The entire western hemisphere was brought into the faith following that usage while the Pauline ordo has only seen decline in Mass attendance, decline in vocations, decline in conversions, decline in baptisms, decline in RC school enrollment, etc….. Ironic when we consider the promises of renewal given us in 1970 and predictions that all the above would only get better.
Traditionalists could easily toss barbs at the Pauline ordo (I know they do) but we should at least follow the teaching of Vatican II and respect all legitimate rites in the Church including the Tridentine usage. Your comments could be read as triumphalism - for example the Maronites use Aramaic for two important parts of their liturgy and that is not their vernacular either.
By the way - I cannot understand the decline in Mass attendance being blamed on Humanae Vitae alone since there was no change in discipline in that area with the period before the council when Mass attendance was high in the US. Also, even after the council Mass attendance did not decline everywhere even though Humanae Vitae was the norm throughout the Catholic world. AFter 1968 Mass attendance remained high in Ireland (for years) and Poland (still high today).
My .02.
on May 30th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Mr. Gallicho:
See all the trouble you started!
:)
on May 30th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Oh Joe, you don’t know the half of it. I just wrote a too long reply to the maid of kent, you and JFG and then posted it but because the wifi died just as I posted it, I lost it. :(
Sorry it is just too late to redo it.
on May 30th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Maid of Kent,
I should have said “would be well rid of it”. As for the reasons, I gave one. Generally I think the Pauline rite is superior to its predecessor. Its great fault is that it –I judge from what I see and hear–gives the presider too much freedom to improvise, but that could be easily corrected. I had not meant to give occasion to be thought triumphalistic and frankly I don’t see how I might be thought to have done so. I have no knowledge of any other rite than the Roman and have no wish to comment on any of them. I personally have no objection to Latin, as I think I have made clear, but I recognize that knowledge of Latin is not common among Catholics, or any other group, in North America, unfortunately.
on May 31st, 2006 at 12:00 am
I attend masses in different rites and in 2 languages. The Roman/ Latin rite in English (about 40% of the time), the same in Malayalam - the local language-(30%), Syro Malabar rite in Malayalam (30%) and Syro Malankara in Malayalam (occassionally, though there was a time I attended it almost exclusively).
[It is a special situation here in Kerala state in India, where I live, with all 3 rites having prominence. Syro Malabar has 15 dioceses, Latin 9 and Syro malankara 5. Within 5 km of my house I have several churches of Syro Malabar and Latin rites and 1 of the Syro Malankara]
As you can imgine the liturgy is different for the different rites. There are differences even between the Latin rite usages in English and Malayalam. But I dont think these affect the meaning and purpose of the Eucharistic Celebration. Personally I like the Syro Malabar and Syro malankara masses because they have a lot of parayers - mostly praise and thanksgiving - which for me produces a more spiritual atmosphere. But then my wife and children prefer the Latin rite mass. So while I think accuracy and understandability are necessary requirements in translation, it is never going to be that everyone will agree that one particular translation is correct.
And that is why I feel (as John Borst pointed out earlier) that this controversy may be more about the Vatican’s attitude about ‘imposing’ their view rather than the actual translatioins.
Sunil Korah
on May 31st, 2006 at 8:30 am
Sunil Korah wrote:
“And that is why I feel (as John Borst pointed out earlier) that this controversy may be more about the Vatican’s attitude about ‘imposing’ their view rather than the actual translatioins.”
I guess I can understand where this complaint is going but I think it is misdirected because Vatican II is pointed in stating that only the Apostolic See can regulate the liturgy and reserves the “recognitio” to itself.
Think about this - if Pope Paul’s magisterium could reform the entire rite, rework the calendar, reduce the minor orders to instituted ministries and recognized earlier liturgical translations than today’s magisterium must be able to recognize today’s vernacular translations - a far more modest exercise of Apostolic authority then Pope Paul VI.
on May 31st, 2006 at 9:24 am
“if Pope Paul’s magisterium could reform the entire rite, rework the calendar, reduce the minor orders to instituted ministries and recognized earlier liturgical translations than today’s magisterium must be able to recognize today’s vernacular translations - a far more modest exercise of Apostolic authority then Pope Paul VI. ”
But you don’t understand — it’s OK to impose a sweeping Church-wide reform of the rite if it’s done bya Pope that progressives like. But it’s not OK to ask for something as obvious (and as comparatively insignificant) as an accurate translation, if it’s done while someone like Pope Benedit is in power.
on May 31st, 2006 at 7:40 pm
First I will try to reconstruct my reply to Maiden Kent from last night:
Thanks for your detailed response to my questions.
You should know that I basically agree with both Joe & Joseph F. G. I too am old enough to remember the Latin mass as an altar boy. And yes neither I not the congregation had much idea of the meaning of what we were saying. Mass then was a “feeling” thing. And all kinds of people said the rosary, read prayers or just dreamt through the mass.
I’m also of the opinion that the percentage of people attending regularly wasn’t really that much higher than today. I say this because I can remember the great increase in attendance at Christmas and Easter which is consistent with today.
I also agree that sin played a much more dominant role. This might be better translated as guilt. And that really was the great significance of Vatican II. By this I mean V-II taught Catholics that it was the Church and not God who determined what sin was. This is best symbolized in the changed rules about fasting and eating meat on Friday. It may seem simple but the effect was much more profound than probably realized. It taught Catholic’s the Church can and does change…a realization still reverberating through the Church as witnessed by the condoms for HIV/AIDS debate. This was of course followed by the real hammer in the form of the role of conscience in the Humanae Vitae debate.
This isn’t going to change the Catholic in the pew or at home skipping the pew, no matter what the magisterium or neo-traditionalist may wish to have happen.
I also have to agree with maiden Kent, re: the fact that the Tridentine mass is everywhere even if only quasi licit. Even in a remote community such as Dryden Ontario (200 km north of International Falls Minnesota). We have a number of families who are trying to live by what they think is pre-Vatican II norms, even to the extent of rejecting the rhythm-method of birth control. Hence they have large families, and tend to home school their kids. They are certainly not old enough to have ever experienced pre-Vatican II life. But & I made reference to this earlier, they as children had parents who had rejected the changes. They are almost frantically trying now to pass that same rejection onto their children. I am anticipating that one or two of the children will rebel against this authoritative approach. I will be interested to see how they as parents handle the situation. These families have built a small private church out in the country and they have a priest come from Winnipeg (400 km away) once a month to say a Latin mass.
I would like to end this comment to Maid of Kent by asking what in her history has brought her to have the knowledge of the Latin that she possesses. I’m impressed in a sense but it is a mystery as to why you feel the need for such structure and accuracy in translation.
Now to Stuart Buck’s most recent comment:
Your characterisation of this as an its OK if it’s a progressive move by a pope and NOT OK if it’s a conservative move by a pope is just way off base. Your bias against progressives is simply preventing you from seeing the deeper political issues involved. Sorry, but that is how I see it.
And Grant this is actually longer but less well written than yesterday’s lost original. And tonight I am connected by cable. :)
(and a P.S. -I wrote it in Word first, just in case)
on June 1st, 2006 at 9:29 am
Hi John,
I don’t know if anyone is still reading this commentary but I’m happy to dialogue with you.
I’m no Spring chicken myself. I also have a large family. One of my younger sons is a diocesan priest and most of my other children are married with families of their own.
Most of us here (I presume) are “Latin rite” Catholics and, if Vatican II means anything, Latin is part of our tradition just as Aramaic is part of the Maronite tradition. We were promised an expanded vernacular. My opinion is an expanded vernacular is of little use if it is not an actual and faithful translation. Remember – the first duty of the translator is accuracy.
The Holy See, the same authority that reformed our liturgy in the late 1960’s, wants to give us that accurate translation of the Vatican II Mass. I cannot grasp why anyone would begrudge this improvement.
John you give us your anecdotal experience as an altar boy before the council and tell us that most people did not know what was going on at Mass. My anecdotal experience tells me that you may be overestimating how well people understand what is taking place during the sacrifice today and may be underestimating what people knew then. We have data collected from various surveys from before and after the council. I believe the data will support those who suggest understanding of the faith and the miracle of the Mass has declined since the reforms. I believe the old ICEL (mis)translation made the decline much more rapid. You talk about people reciting the rosary or “dreaming” during Mass while seemingly ignoring the much more active lay organizations during that period, the much higher percentage of people who actually were sitting in the pews each Sunday, the much higher number of people entering the religious life and priesthood, the greater number of converts, the greater number of baptisms and church weddings, and the greater number of laity who read Catholic journals like Commonweal – every measure of lay participation was higher before the council only falling after the reform.
Today we have a larger number of Catholics living in the USA (due to immigration) then before the council but far fewer: baptisms, marriages, school enrollment (including CCD), conversions, vocations, and lay membership in Church societies (Holy Name etc…). Some of the “progressive” movements suggest this decline was not due to the reforms almost as a matter of faith (evidence is ignored) or because the reforms were not deeper. Benedict XVI has no illusions and has told us that a Council can fail in its purpose – it has happened before and to those who think we should have become more “reformed” I can only point them to the contemporary ECUSA and say “no thanks”. Sadly, some of our once great religious congregations have reformed themselves to the extent that they will soon resemble the last surviving Shakers – a few elderly celibates sitting upon huge endowments.
You said: “V-II taught Catholics that it was the Church and not God who determined what sin was.”
I don’t see this statement in Vatican II. Our religion is revealed. Disciplines can change but Cardinal Newman himself told us that there are no reversals in the development of doctrine. Vatican II gave us no new doctrines and what you suggest would be a reversal like no other.
The Church changed disciplines both before and after Vatican II and the changes you mention (fasting/meat on Friday) were not granted us in the council anyway but afterwards. Do you realize that some bishop’s conferences continue the no meat on Friday discipline? Some conferences continue to not celebrate Mass after noon on Sunday and there are still sub-deacons in other jurisdictions. Even in the USA – we are still supposed to abstain from meat on every Friday of the year unless (a big “unless”) another penance is substituted for abstinence from meat. Friday is still a day of penance because Our Lord died on a Friday.
There are a few ultra-traditionalists who lament Pius XII’s liturgical & disciplinary reforms. Even St. Pius X changed the age for 1st Holy Communion – a big change – none of this suggested to the people that disciplinary change indicates doctrine can change.
If many people do not know or appreciate our current discipline it reveals a weakness in the post-conciliar Church and the work the bishops, priests, and laity must do.
The Tridentine Mass may be much more than “quasi licit” whenever the local bishop approves of it. Thanks to our late pope many more bishops are being pastoral in this regard. My parish is simply diocesan and uses the Mass of Pope Paul but I do attend Tridentine parishes on occasion.
I don’t know what you mean by “pre-Vatican II norms” is it only liturgical discipline and fast days that you reference? It must be - because nothing else has changed that would impact family religious observance if the priests and religious educators are up to the task. Some of my children have large families. For example, my 39-year-old son has eight children. Some of my kids home-school others use Catholic schools. One of my daughters is in a Tridentine usage parish but she does not reject Vatican II – Vatican II did not, in itself, suppress the Tridentine Mass. Thanks be to God all my children continue to practice the faith but naturally some are more devout than others.
Stuart can speak for himself but I must remind you, my priest son would agree I think, that progressives can be very authoritarian in imposing their views even when there is nothing in the Church suggesting the change they seek to impose. For example, some parishes removed all their votive shrines claiming it was a V2 reform. This was sometimes done with a zeal that might make Oliver Cromwell blush. How wrong that was. The same was done with sacred images, novenas, outdoor processions, and even liturgical Latin itself. The irony is by doing these things some clerics actually and needlessly alienated many of the faithful from the reformed rite of the Mass. They also stripped the rite of much of its beauty not just with the poor ICEL translation but also by needlessly stripping the rite of its ceremony (incense, sprinkling, processions) even though the ceremonies are actually easier to perform in the new rite than in the old.
on June 1st, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Maid of Kent,
You mentioned that “Latin is part of our tradition…” Yes, it is. However, the vernacular is a much older part of our tradition and was supplanted by Latin when the folks in Rome itself were no longer able to pray in Greek. And, of course, when these same folks could no longer understand Latin, the pope et al retained this strange language, nonetheless. A strange (Latin) tongue and a growing imperiousness in the liturgy would be crystallized in 1570 with formal adoption of the Tridentine rubrics. Where did all of this development over the centuries leave the people? Far from the priest and far from the Mass. According to one author, this deplorable state of affairs prompted the laity to develop — outside of Mass — separate devotions that could be done in their native tongues.
You believe that “the first duty of the translator is accuracy.” I would agree with you if we were discussing translation at the UN, at a Synod of Bishops, etc. where it is important for attendees/participants to understand one another. However, I think what is missing in this attempt at literality by the Vatican/ICEL is due regard for the oldest history of our liturgy (closest in time to Christ and his immediate disciples and their followers) and the call by Vatican II for inculturation. Critics of the Vatican/ICEL do not see history and inculturation here. For me, inculturation and the primitive Church are far more important than the comparative historic novelty of the Tridentine rite and the preoccupation with Latin.
on June 2nd, 2006 at 10:00 am
RE: my last post near midnight
Oops. The third sentence should have indicated that Latin was originally a vernacular language for the Christians in Rome when most of them no longer understood Rome’s original vernacular, Greek. Thus, the tradition of the vernacular in our worship, so to speak, is older than the tradition of the use of Latin in the Mass.
Sorry for the obviously confusing phraseology in my original.
on June 2nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Virgo Cantiensis,
I suspect you will not mind the Latin verson of your nom de guerre. You have not responded to my criticism of certain elements in the Tridentine mass. I assume from your silence that you agree with me on these points.
You speak of accuracy as the first duty of the translator. I wholly agree. But I would add that there are many other consideration as well. Two renderings may be equally accurate, but one may still be superior to the other. A case in point: “one in being with the Father” in the “Nicene” creed is no less accurate than “consubstantial with the Father” as a rendering of the original language, but it has the advantage of being more natural and clearer English. Would you also agree with me on this point? I await your reply.
on June 2nd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Joe G.,
You seem to be making what I believe is the bishop in Pennsylvania’s mistake - LA calls ICEL to translate the Mass text not to become biblical literalists who go back to the original languages and ignore tradition in the process.
I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that LA is asking for translations to echo the New Vulgate because the official Mass text references the New Vulgate as well.
If I’m correct that LA is asking for a Mass translation instead of scriptural literalism then we return to the question of authority. If the Apostolic See following Vatican II’s directive is the body that regulates the liturgy, and if the Apostolic See had the just authority to reform the liturgy in the 1960’s, those who oppose LA and Vox Clara have no grounds unless they are ready to declare the Msgr. Lefebvre was right.
And to Joseph - these discussions on whether the vernacular Mass predated the Latin Mass is not the question at hand. The question is fidelity to the 2nd Vatican council and the tradition of our sui iuris Church. No one is suggesting that Latin be used in the readings or in the variable prayers but in the ordinaries - something Pope Paul VI suggested with his Iubilate Deo hymnal. The reformed ICEL discussion is about the vernacular being faithful to the official Latin text of our Mass not a return to Latin.
Pax,
on June 2nd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Virgo Cantiensis,
The example I gave was from the “Nicene” creed, which is no part of the Nova Vulgata Editio. You seem unwilling to answer my question. Let me put it this way: (1)”consubstantialis” is translation of “homoousios”; (2) “one in being” is a translation of “homoousios”; (3) ergo, “one in being” is also a translation of “consubstantialis”. Now one might say but “consubstantial” is also a translation of “consubstantialis”. Agreed. But it is less authentically English, less intelligible to Anglophones, and no more traditional than “one in being”. Therefore the appropriate choice is “one in being”.
As for what you call “scriptural literalism” I call the same giving an accurate, true and authentic rendering of scripture. Pius XII wisely called for translations of scripture to go back to the original languages. So did the Vatican Council II. In doing this they followed St. Jerome as well as good sense. It would be very odd if one were to say, in the face of these wise and sound decisions, that because the original text of the mass is in Latin, translations of scriptural passages should follow the Nova Vulgata Editio even when that document mistranslates the orginal text.
If a translation that is false and thus erroneous can also be true, accurate and authentic, then goats may well be sheep and circles will be easily squared.
on June 2nd, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Joe G.,
“Consubstantial” is now an English word whether the bishops choose to use it for theological reasons or attempts to enrich our liturgical vocabulary or not - we shall see. I believe it is used in some of the Eastern rite liturgies. I think today’s “thinking Catholics” can handle the term as well as our Eastern brethren who are long removed from their countries of origin.
Everything else you’ve written is not related to the quesion at hand. Pius XII and DV are speaking of the Scriptures while LA is addressing the liturgy. ICEL is called to translate the liturgy not do Scriptural analysis. Our liturgical tradition is deeper than Sciptural literalism.
The Maid
on June 2nd, 2006 at 7:27 pm
It is really rather simple. There are extensive passages of from Sacred Scripture in the liturgy. We now have as a matter of policy our official translations of Sacred Scripture based on the original languages. Are we to translate the many passages that occur in the liturgy with reference only to the Nova Vulgata Editio and the same passages in their proper Biblical context with reference to the original languages. We may as well have two official translations for the Sacred Scriptures for the faithful to read, one from the Nova Vulgata Editio and the other from the original languages. Can anything be more likely to occasion confusion and even scepticism?
Can you really believe this is a good idea?
on June 2nd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Maid of Kent,
“The reformed ICEL discussion is about the vernacular being faithful to the official Latin text of our Mass not a return to Latin.”
Then why ICEL in the first place? No need to have an international commission, convened over many years and eventually stacked in its membership by the Vatican, to make recommendations for changes in liturgical phraseology. Indeed, no need to waste everyone’s time and energy when the Vatican could just as easily have mandated compliance with the official Latin text in a literal fashion. Why the concerns of Bishop Trautman and others far more knowledgeable in such matters than the rest of us?
The issue, as I see it, is not “fidelity to the original Latin text of our Mass” but, rather, fidelity to the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, which called for inculturation and conceded the right to the vernacular. The overarching theme of Vatican II was renewal, i.e., to make new again. If Latin in the fourth century was “new” (or still new) after it supplanted Greek as the vernacular for Christians in Rome, then we need a liturgical language that would, of necessity, be not only dignified for worship but, just as important, be “new” for 21st-century Catholics in the United States.
What the Vatican and its ICEL cronies are doing is wrong. In the spirit of renewal, there is no room for literality here. Literality is not important to tradition (some folks might even go so far as to suggest that Latin itself is not important to tradition in this debate).
On a somewhat different note, while ICEL may not be concerned with a “return to Latin,” there are so-called “traditionalist” Catholics who see this push by the Vatican as a hopeful first step toward eventual restoration of the Tridentine rite as the only official rubric of our Church (not including Ambrosian and a few other minor rites). And there are progressive Catholics like me — while not wishing to seem alarmist — who would not hesitate to believe that if given the chance, various “traditionalist” folks within and outside the curia would push for just such a development. But I digress…
Literality? No, contrary to the oldest traditions of our Church. Renewal? Yes, fully in accord with the oldest traditions of our Church. Inculturation and the vernacular are integral to the renewal.
on June 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 am
Dear Joseph Gannon and Joe,
I am s