Posted on 05/23/2006 8:56:11 AM PDT by NYer
...or, to respond in ICEL-ese, "And also with you, pal." A letter from Cardinal Arinze shows that, while the liturgy wars continue, the old tactics just aren't doing it. In the latest round of the Roman Missal translation battle, the U.S. bishops dug into their playbook and tried to run Pastoral Hardship Left in order to out-flank Liturgiam authenticam (they explained to Rome, you see, that we faithful are so besottedly in love with the 1974 ICEL Sacramentary that it would be cruel for the Holy See to make us change it for a translation closer to the Latin). Arinze wasn't having any:
2 May 2006
The Most Reverend William Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Prot. n. 499/06/L
Your Excellency,
With reference to the conversation between yourself, the Vice President and General Secretary of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, together with me and other Superiors and Officials when you kindly visited our Congregation on 27 April 2006, I wish to recall the following:
The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is the latest document of the Holy See which guides translations from the original-language liturgical texts into the various modern languages in the Latin Church. Both this Congregation and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow its directives. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is therefore not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam. If, however, there are difficulties regarding the translation of a particular part of a text, then this Congregation is always open to dialogue in view of some mutually agreeable solution, still keeping in mind, however, that Liturgiam authenticam remains the guiding norm.
The attention of your Bishops’ Conference was also recalled to the fact that Liturgiam authenticam was issued at the directive of the Holy Father at the time, Pope John Paul II, to guide new translations as well as the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, to bring them into greater fidelity to the original-language official liturgical texts. For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.
Requesting Your Excellency to share these reflections with the Bishops of your Conference I assure you of the continued collaboration of this Congregation and express my religious esteem,
Devotedly yours in Christ,
+Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Ouch.
Loss of eight. Fourth and twenty-two. And the punting unit, led by John Huels, is coming onto the field.
Cardinal Arinze may not be happy, but there is no way he can force Bishop Skylstad's hand.
Sure he can. Just make sure that Bp. Skylstad understands that nothing bogus is going to get Roman approval.
I love it lol. I wish the at times the Vatican didnt run at the speed of a snail sometimes as regarding this. In my World the Pope would get on the phone one afternoon and call the American Bishops and say "NO. Now change it now. I want to see the contracts with the missal companies for the revisions next week."
But it does appear to me that BXVI is moving things along at a pretty good clip here . . . especially in view of that tradition of geologic time.
. . . < cranky comment > sure is odd that the U.S. Bishops are so worried about upsetting the laity. They didn't worry about that at all when they introduced these execrable "translations".< /cranky comment >
What are they going to do about it? If the U.S. bishops go ahead without Roman approval, Rome will be forced to approve it eventually.
You know as a convert I have always found in ironic that change to worship practices in my Former non Liturgical Southern Baptist church is met with more opposition and hard core resistance than the the stuff I have to put up with Liturgy in the Catholic Church. IE-"What ,we dont't do that Mr Preacher man we been doing it this way for 50 years so DONT change it" and then the Pastor submits.
I heard in canon law we have rights to an properly done liturgy. In my Diocese we hav e been told we have to stand after communion till the very end of part of the mass. NO kneeling? What? I have been told we are the only one of two Diocese in the USA that interprets the provision that way. Well if I have rights how do I get them enforced. Do I hire a canon lawyer? Do we file something with the Diocse. Do we have a trial? Do we have a right of appeal.? IF so where? How much would this cost?
LOL!
In any case, it does seem to me that BXVI is moving pretty rapidly, by Vatican standards. He's probably not going to do anything major. But no matter how wanting the NO Mass may be, if he at least moves quickly to establish a base-line of orthodoxy and orthopraxis, that's going to put us way ahead of where we are now.
Rome can not be 'forced' to do anything. But the Bishops in question can be censured.
You do have rights and can use them, but you will be dealing with church hierarchy. Before making any move, please familiarize yourself with the GIRM (General Instructions of the Roman Missal). It governs all aspects of the Mass. You will find a link embedded in the following article, which also provides you with the name and address of Cardinal Francis Arinze, who just happens to be Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.
Is Your Mass Valid? Liturgical Abuse and what to do about it.
Rome can not be 'forced' to do anything.
Explain to me how Rome told two different bishops to retire, and they didn't, and Rome was "forced" to accept them staying in place until they wanted to retire. I agree with you, in theory Rome can't be forced to do anything. But the reality is, they aren't willing to press their authority.
That's not the way it works. Translations of liturgical texts require formal approval from CDW (technically called a recognitio) before they can be put into use.
Something I wish would happen:
A huge hand writes on a wall of the Vatican the following: "Translate the Liturgy right and stop monkeying around with it, or I'll come down on y'all like stink on an old hog and then commence to hurt you!" (sort of a modern Southern variation of the Beltshazzar and the writing on the wall in the Book of Daniel) Sheeze I get so tired of all these various bishops, committees, liturfical experts, conferences, etc., chopping up and "experiementing" with the Liturgy like it was an onion being chopped up for a casserole! My pastor has a great term for these characters - "disobedient bishops and nincompoop theologians."
Regardless of anything, you have and will continue to have many priests and a few bishops who ad-lib the Mass at will. No translation, official or not, is going to stop this nonsense. The crap Trautperson wants to have made official has already been put in use for quite a while now in actual practice, especially the "inclusive language" crap, even though none of this appears in any official liturgical book.
You're right, of course. It's the bishop's job to put a stop to that garbage. Some polite-but-pointed comments from the laity sometimes do the job as well.
Of course he can. The translations MUST be approved by Rome
That's the one!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.