Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Catholics exhibit fidelity to the Tradition of Holy Mother Church in many ways. Each of us has a distinctive, unrepeatable immortal soul that has personal characteristics of its own not shared by anyone else. Not even identical twins are the same in every respect. This plurality of souls in the Mystical Bride of Christ is reflected in the many different communities of men and women religious that have developed over the Church’s history. Each community has its own charism and mission. Ideally, each community of men and women religious should be totally faithful to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith and expressed and protected in the authentic Tradition of the Church. The means of expressing this fidelity, however, will vary from community to community.
What is true of communities of men and women religious is true also of us all, including our priests. Some priests have the patience of Saint Francis de Sales or Saint John Bosco, meek and mild, able to handle the rough seas that beset Holy Mother Church and/or themselves personally with perfect equanimity. Other priests have had the bluntness of St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio, mincing no words in their sermons about the necessity of rooting out sin and the possibility of going to Hell for all eternity. Both St. John Mary Vianney and St. Padre Pio were devoted to their role as an alter Christus in the confessional, using that hospital of Divine Mercy to administer the infinite merits of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood to bring sacramental absolution to those to whom they had preached in blunt terms.
In addition to fidelity, though, there are different ways of expressing courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings. Some Catholics stood up quite directly to the unjust and illicit dictates of the English Parliament, which had been passed at the urging of King Henry VIII, at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England. Others kept their silence for as long as was possible, as was the case with Saint Thomas More, who discharged his mind publicly only after he had been found guilty on the basis of perjured testimony of denying the supremacy of the king as the head of the Church in England. Some priests in the Elizabethan period, such as St. Edmund Campion, almost dared officials to arrest them as they went to different locales to offer Holy Mass or as they took groups to the Tower of London. Other priests went quietly from house to house to offer the Traditional Mass underground as both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities in England used every sort of pressure imaginable to convince holdout “Romans” to go over to Protestantism and worship in the precusor liturgy of our own Novus Ordo Missae. Still other newly ordained priests came over from France, knowing that they might be able to offer only one Mass in England before they were arrested and executed.
The same thing occurred in France 255 years after the arrest and execution of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More. Some priests simply stood up to the agents of the French Revolution. Others, such as Blessed Father William Chaminade, donned disguises as they went from place to place, much as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro did in Mexico prior to his execution at the hands of the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico on November 23, 1927. Ignatius Cardinal Kung, then the Bishop of Shanghai, China, was hauled before a dog-track stadium in his see city in 1956 before thousands of spectators. The Red Chinese authorities expected him to denounce the pope and thus to save himself from arrest. The brave bishop exclaimed the same thing as Blessed Padre Miguel Augustin Pro, “Long live Christ the King,” and was hauled off to spend over thirty years in prison before being released. Oh, yes, there are so many ways for priests to demonstrate their fidelity and courage in the midst of persecutions and sufferings.
Well, many bishops and priests who are faithful to the fullness of the Church’s authentic Tradition have been subjected to a unspeakable form of persecution in the past thirty-five to forty years: treachery from within the highest quarters of the Church herself. Men who have held fast to that which was believed always, everywhere and by everyone prior for over 1,900 years found themselves termed as “disobedient,” “schismatic,” “heretical,” and “disloyal” for their resisting novelties that bore no resemblance to Catholicism and a great deal of resemblance to the very things that were fomented by Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, things for which Catholics half a millennium ago shed their blood rather than accept. Many priests who have tried to remain faithful to Tradition within the framework of a diocesan or archdiocesan structure have been sent to psychiatric hospitals or penalized by being removed from their pastorates or by being denied pastorates altogether. Others, though, have faced more severe penalties.
Angelus Press, which is run by the Society of Saint Pius X, put out a book earlier this year, Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?, which discussed the stories of seventeen priests who had decided to offer only the Traditional Latin Mass and to never again offer the Novus Ordo Missae. One of those priests is my good friend, Father Stephen Zigrang, who offered the Traditional Latin Mass in his [now] former parish of Saint Andrew Church in Channelview, Texas, on June 28-29, 2003, telling his parishioners that he would never again offer the new Mass.
As I reported extensively at this time last year, Father Zigrang was placed on a sixty day leave-of-absence by the Bishop of Galveston-Houston, the Most Reverend Joseph Fiorenza, and told to seek psychological counseling, preferably from Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. Father Zigrang took his two month leave of absence, making a retreat at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, in early August of last year, returning to the Houston area to take up residence in the Society’s Queen of Angels Chapel in Dickinson, Texas. Bishop Fiorenza met with Father Zigrang in early September, seeming at the time to let him stay for a year with the Society while the diocese continued to pay his health insurance premiums. Within days of that early September meeting, however, Fiorenza was threatening to suspend Father Zigrang by the beginning of October if he did not vacate Queen of Angels and return to a diocesan assignment.
October of 2003 came and went. Father Zigrang heard no word from Bishop Fiorenza or the chancery office until he received the following letter, dated Jun 10, 2004:
Dear Father Zigrang:
Once more I appeal to you to cease your association with the Society of St. Pius X and return to your responsibilities as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston
Your continued association with a schismatic group which has severed communion with the Holy Father is confusing and a scandal to many of Christ’s faithful. You are well aware that without appropriate jurisdiction the marriages witnessed and confessions heard by the priests of the St. Society of St. Paul X are invalid and people are being lead to believe otherwise. You are also aware that the Holy See has asked the faithful not to attend Masses celebrated in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X.
I plead with you to return by July 1, 2004, to the presbyterate of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston and receive a priestly assignment from me. This letter serves as a penal precept (c. 1319) and is a final canonical warning (c. 1347.1). If I do not hear from you by June 30, 2004, I will impose a just penalty for disobeying a legitimate precept (c. 1371.2). The just penalty may include suspension (c. 133.1), nn 1-2: prohibition of all acts of the power of orders and governance.
I offer this final warning after consultation with the Holy See and will proceed to impose a penalty if you persist in disobedience to a legitimate precept. It is my fervent hope and constant prayer that you not remain out of union with the Holy Father.
Fraternally in Christ,
Joseph A. Fiorenza, Bishop of Galveston-Houston
Reverend R. Troy Gately, Vice Chancellor
Overlooking Bishop Fiorenza’s John Kerry-like gaffe in terming the Society of Saint Pius X the “St. Society of St. Paul X,” the letter reproduced above makes the erroneous assertion that the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism and that they are not in communion with the Holy Father. A series of articles in The Remnant has dealt with this very issue at great length. Fiorenza’s contentions that the marriages witnessed and the confessions heard by the Society of Saint Pius X are invalid also flies in the face of the fact that the Holy See “regularized” the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, without demanding the convalidation of the marriages their priests had witnesses nor asking that confessions be re-heard. The glaring inconsistency of the canonical rhetoric of Vatican functionaries and their actual practices continues to be lost on Bishop Fiorenza.
Father Zigrang did not respond to Bishop Fiorenza’s June 10 letter. He received another letter, dated July 2, 2004, the contents of which are so explosive as to contain implications for the state of the Church far beyond the case of Father Zigrang and far beyond the boundaries of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston:
Dear Father Zigrang:
With great sadness I inform you that, effective immediately, you are suspended from the celebration of all sacraments, the exercise of governance and all rights attached to the office of pastor (Canon 1333.1, nn 1-2-3).
This action is taken after appropriate canonical warnings (canon 1347) and failure to obey my specific directive that you cease the affiliation with the schismatic Society of St. Pius X and accept an assignment to serve as a priest of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston (Canon 1371.2).
I want to repeat what I have said to you in person and in the written canonical warnings, that I prayerfully urge you to not break communion with the Holy Father and cease to be associated with the schism which rejects the liciety of the Novus Ordo Mass, often affirmed by Pope John Paul II. This schism also calls into question the teachings of the Second Vatican Council regarding ecumenism and the enduring validity of the Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel.
Your return to full union with the Church and to the acceptance of an assignment to priestly ministry in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston will be joyfully received as an answer to prayer. May the Holy Spirit lead and guide you to renew the promise of obedience you made on the day of your ordination.
Fraternally in Christ,
Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza Bishop of Galveston-Houston
Reverend Monsignor Frank H. Rossi Chancellor
cc: His Eminence, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Commissio Ecclesia Dei
Bishop Fiorenza’s July 2, 2004, letter is riddled with errors.
First, The Society of Saint Pius X does not reject the liciety of the Novus Ordo Missae. Its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, criticized the nature of the Novus Ordo and pointed out its inherent harm. That is far different from saying that the Novus Ordo is always and in all instances invalid. Is Bishop Fiorenza claiming that any criticism of the Novus Ordo and efforts to demonstrate how it is a radical departure from Tradition are schismatic acts? Is Father Romano Thommasi, for example, to be taken to task for writing scholarly articles, based on the very minutes of the Consilium, about how Archbishop Annibale Bugnini lied about the true origin of the some constituent elements of the Novus Ordo?
Second, the Society is not, as noted above, in schism, at least not as that phrase was defined by the First Vatican Council. The Society recognizes that the See of Peter is occupied at present by Pope John Paul II. Its priests pray for the Holy Father and for the local bishop in the Canon of the Mass. The Society can be said to be disobedient to the Holy Father’s unjust edicts and commands. The Society of Saint Pius X is not in schism.
Third, Bishop Fiorenza seems to be stating that ecumenism is a de fide dogma of the Catholic Church from which no Catholic may legitimately dissent. If this is his contention, it is he who is grave error. Ecumenism is a pastoral novelty that was specifically condemned by every Pope prior to 1958. Pope Pius XI did so with particular eloquence in Mortalium Animos in 1928. Novelties that are not consonant with the authentic Tradition of the Church bind no one under penalty of sin, no less binds a priest under penalty of canonical suspension. A rejection of ecumenism constitutes in no way a schismatic act.
Fourth, Bishop Fiorenza’s assertion that the “Old Testament covenant God established with the people of Israel” is enduringly valid is itself heretical. No human being can be saved by a belief in the Mosaic Covenant, which was superceded in its entirety when the curtain was torn in two in the Temple on Good Friday at the moment Our Lord had breathed His last on the Holy Cross. It is a fundamental act of fidelity to the truths of the Holy Faith to resist and to denounce the heretical contention, made in person by Bishop Fiorenza to Father Zigrang last year, that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant. Were the Apostles, including the first pope, Saint Peter, wrong to try to convert the Jews? Was Our Lord joking when He said that a person had no life in him if he did not eat of His Body and drink of His Blood?
Fifth, Bishop Fiorenza has failed repeatedly to take into account Father Zigrang’s aboslute rights under Quo Primum to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition without any episcopal approval:
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever order or by whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us.
We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force–notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemoial prescription–except, however, if of more than two hundred years’ standing. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission., statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
It is apparently the case that Bishop Fiorenza received a “green light,” if you will, to act against Father Zigrang from Dario Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, who is both the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and the President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, to whom a copy of the July 2, 2004, suspension letter was sent. Father Zigrang surmises that Bishop Fiorenza brought up the issue of his case during the bishops’ ad limina apostolorum visit in Rome recently. Father believes that Cardinal Hoyos wants to send a signal to priests who might be tempted to follow his lead that Rome will let bishops crack down on them without mercy and without so much as an acknowledgment that Quo Primum actually means what it says. Whether or not the specific “schismatic” acts Father Zigrang is alleged to have committed by being associated with the Society of Saint Pius X at Queen of Angels Church in Dickinson, Texas, were outlined to Cardinal Hoyos by Bishop Fiorenza remains to be seen.
Naturally, the grounds on which Bishop Fiorenza suspended Father Zigrang are beyond the sublime. As my dear wife Sharon noted, “Doesn’t Bishop Fiorenza have a better canon lawyer on his staff than the one who advised him on the grounds of suspending Father Zigrang.” Indeed.
The very fact that Fiorenza could make these incredible claims and believes that he has a good chance of prevailing in Rome speaks volumes about the state of the Church in her human elements at present. Will Rome let the bishops govern unjustly and make erroneous assertions about “schism” as well as heretical claims (that a priest must accept that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant and that ecumenism is a matter of de fide doctrine) with its full assent and approval? Will Rome countenance the same sort of misuse of power by local bishops upon traditional priests in the Twenty-first Century that was visited upon “Romans” by the civil state and the Anglican “church” in England from 1534 to 1729? The answers to these questions are probably self-evident. Putting them down in black and white, though, might help priests who are looking to Rome for some canonical protection for the Traditional Latin Mass to come to realize that they wait in vain for help from the Holy See, where the Vicar of Christ occupies himself at present with the writing of a book about existentialism!
There will be further updates on this matter as events warrant. Father Zigrang is weighing his options as to how to respond to the allegations contained in Bishop Fiorenza’s letter of suspension, understanding that the answers provided by the Holy See will have implications of obviously tremendous gravity. Given the intellectual dishonesty that exists in Rome at present, Father Zigrang’s case may only be decided on the technical grounds of “obedience” to his bishop, ignoring all of the other issues, including the rights of all priests under Quo Primum offer the Traditional Latin Mass without approval and their rights to never be forced to offer Holy Mass according to any other form.
To force Rome to act on what it might otherwise avoid, perhaps it might be wise for someone to bring a canonical denunciation of Bishop Fiorenza for his contentions about ecumenism and the “enduring validity” of the Mosaic Covenant, spelling out in chapter and verse how these things have been condemned in the history of the Church. Then again, Fiorenza could “defend” himself by simply pointing to the Pope himself, which is precisely why this matter has such grave implications. This matter is certain to be explored in great detail in the weeks and months ahead by competent canonists and by theologians who understand the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Father Zigrang noted the following in an e-mail to me dated July 14, 2004:
I examined canon 1371.2 (the canon that the Bishop says warrants my suspension), checking a good commentary, the disobedience of an Ordinary's legitimate precept may warrant a just penalty but not weighty enough to warrant a censure (e.g. suspension). I think this point may have been missed by the Bishop's hired canon lawyer, when the Bishop was weighing his options about what to do with one of his wayward priests. As I said to you before, the Bishop has a history of not suspending priests, even those who commit crimes beyond mere disobedience. Although lately I've been told he recently suspended a priest who attempted marriage with one of his parishioners. This was done about the time my suspension was in the works.
Our Lady, Queen of the Angels, pray for Father Zigrang.
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for all priests in Father Zigrang’s situation so that they will be aided by their seeking refuge in you in their time of persecution and trial.
Put on your thinking cap then tell me that such a watershed event at such a holy shrine as Fatima could have possibly occured behind Rome's back.
In fact, I may be mistaken, but IIRC I beleive we at FR heard about this before it happened.
Ever heard of the Chinese Rites, approved under Pius XI?
You will do whatever it takes to search in the past for any small example which will support your "Church of Novelties". Whatever the Chinese rite was, I'm sure it was the exception rather than the rule. In the Novus Ordo religion, goofiness is the rule and sacred is the exception.
1. It's Rome that is losing sleep over the break. The SSPX is content to preach the Gospel and to administer the sacraments. It leaves the rest to God. It's Rome that sues for "regularization" and offers all kinds of goodies in return for burying the hatchet.
2. The dangers the SSPX perceives has nothing to do with the phony "excommunications" and phony "schism". The Society leaves such things to Heaven which can discern who is telling the truth and who is not. Of far more concern to the SSPX is a Pontiff who allows heathens to pray at our altars and who permits the subversion and erosion of the deposit of faith. That is what is dangerous to souls, not the nullities contained in a papal letter.
3. I am not a lawyer--but neither do I have to be one to know that "summary justice" is often a euphemism for no justice at all. It is too often the excuse for carrying out the wishes of a kangaroo court. The Pope had a duty to lean over backwards to be fair. Instead, he did the opposite. Fine. He is the one who must be judged one day for his own misjudgment, not the Archbishop who acted to preserve the traditional faith and for no other reason. A hundred Motu proprio letters can't undo that truth.
5. I am not trying to graft American law onto Church Law. Both laws are based on the Divine Law encoded in nature--namely, that the innocent should not be punished. What you would allow is a perversion--and is not permitted. The Pope has definite limits--which come from a heavenly court above, not below him. He is supreme legislator, but cannot abuse his supremacy by means of an injustice. If he acts unjustly, his decrees are nullities.
6. No, it only seems I criticize the Pontiff excessively, because you and others on this site insist on defending him even when he is wrong--and do this often. The problem is not with traditionalists, the problem is the refusal of Neo-Catholics to acknowledge the dereliction and heterodoxy at the very top. The emperor is stark naked--but because he is a pope and because he is widely celebrated, his clothes are lavishly admired.
"We all know your 'Holier than thou' position. No need to keep annoying everybody by repeating it. Please say something new instead"
No. I don't confuse orthodoxy with sanctity. I am not saying I'm holier than thou--only a helluva lot more orthodox.
http://members.cox.net/vipr/bao/ancestor.html
Plane compertum est, which allowed Asian Catholics to participate in the cult of Confucius and the veneration of ancestors, did so only because these rituals, “although in earlier times they were tied in with pagan rites, now that customs and minds have changed with the flow of the centuries, merely preserve civil expression of devotion toward ancestors, or of patriotism, or of respect for fellow countrymen.”
Ignoring facts such as presented by Mgr Foley---is something you do at your own risk.
BTW, did you decide NOT to decorate a Christmas tree? Pagan custom, calling on the Sun-god or some such...
Chop up any turkeys at Thanksgiving, showing your true Methodist/Pilgrim roots/beliefs?
Grow up.
I think quite clearly. You made the charge that JPII personally approved the Fatima deal. It's up to you to prove it or back off the charge.
Which 'misjudgment' is in YOUR judgment.
Given that you are a schismatic, exactly why should ANYONE pay attention to your bleating?
Not at all unlike Pius XII's licensing of the use of orchestral instruments for Mass in 1955/6, or his permission to use women in parish choirs.
Of course, "traditional" Catholics had been DOING both for quite a number of years (e.g., Mozart's patrons in Vienna and virtually ALL parish choirs in the USA, respectively) but hey--if it's done in the Old Rite, it HAS to be a legitimate innovation, as opposed to what's done in the NO.
The little geldings are getting upset.
You are wrong. The Gregorian missal and the Novus Ordo are not even close. Some example of the pervasive mis-use by the 1970 missal of ancient prayers is given by Eamon Duffy who delivered a paper on precisely this, entitled "Rewriting the Liturgy". The study was presented at the International Liturgical Conference, held at Oxford University in June, 1996. It underscored the Pelagian elements of the 1970 missal. Here is just one excerpt:
______________________________________________________
Vagaggini was discussing the theological focus of the Roman Canon, but this notion of a "holy exchange" in fact underlies many of the most characteristic prayers of the Roman Rite, and could even be claimed, I think, as one of its defining features. The 1973 Missal's success or failure in handling this aspect of the Roman tradition will therefore provide a good litmus test for its general theological character.
In the Missal its characteristic form is binary: prayers over the offerings or after Communion repeatedly explore the paradox that earthly and temporal things become, by the power of God, vehicles of eternal life. The Missal is never tired of this dialectic, and prayer after prayer rings the changes on it. Here, by way of a representative example, is the prayer after communion for the eighth Sunday in ordinary time. (7)
"Satiati munere salutari tuam, Domine, misericordiam deprecamur, ut, hoc eodem quo nos temporaliter vegetas sacramento, perpetuae vitae participes benignus efficias."
This is a remarkable rich prayer in many ways: here I would just draw your attention to the phrase "nos temporaliter vegetas". "Vegetas" in the Vulgate version of Genesis 9/15 is what souls do to bodies (8); it is the life force itself, filling inanimate things with motion and growth. So the prayer may be loosely translated
"Having fed full on your saving gift, Lord, we humbly beg your mercy: through this sacrament you make flourish in the world of time, through this same sacrament, in your goodness, make us sharers in the life that has no end."
Here now is what the 1973 Missal makes of this.
"God of salvation, may this sacrament which strengthens us here on earth bring us to eternal life."
This, I am sure you will agree, is very depressing. Gone is the saving gift, gone the vivid image of diners stuffed full to bursting with good things, gone is the distinctive force of "vegetas", gone is the contrast and pairing between "temporaliter" and "perpetuae". Moreover, the whole prayer has been pelagianised.
The agent of both the human flourishing and the sharing of eternal life in the original is the Lord himself "you make us flourish, may you make us sharers". In the translation, it is "this sacrament" which will bring us to eternal life. Of course, it is implicit even in the English prayer that God is ultimately responsible for the effect of the sacrament, but it is only implicit, whereas the Latin insists on it. I don't think this is a matter of splitting hairs. As we shall see, this shift towards an emphasis on the primacy of human religious activity or experience, at the expense of the Latin Missal's relentless emphasis on the agency of God, is a striking feature of the 1973 version.
What we have here, then, cannot strictly be called a translation: it is a loose and flaccid paraphrase, which empties out the distinctive content of the original, and which lacks the binary structure which gives the original its force and memorability. Incidentally, one may fairly take the version provided in the new sacramentary as an indicator of its general character. While it omits important nuances from the prayer, in particular its deference of tone and supplicatory character, nevertheless is a vast improvement on 1973, making the essential point. If it takes some liberties, it is nevertheless a real translation
"Merciful Lord, We have feasted at your banquet of salvation. Through this sacrament which nourishes our lives on earth, make us sharers in eternal life."
Take now another example, the ancient Gregorian prayer over the gifts prescribed for the fourth Sunday of Easter.
"Concede, quaesumus, Domine, semper nos per haec mysteria paschalia gratulati, ut continua nostrae reparationis operatio perpetuate nobis fiat causa laetitiae."
This is a playful prayer, which takes the idea of the Church's annually repeated celebration of Easter, and moves from the fact of the temporal repetition of the feast, through the unending work of grace which that repeated action mediates to us, to the perpetual joy of heaven which will be its fulfillment--note the progression through three types of endlessness--semper, continua, perpetua. There is also a play here, notice, on the word "operatio" which can simply mean work, business, performance, but which may also mean specifically a liturgical performance. So a rough translation might run
"Grant, we beseech you, Lord, always to rejoice through these Easter mysteries, so that the ongoing work/celebration of our renewal may be to us the cause of unending joy."
The 1973 version, in its very first line, sabotages the play on repetition and endlessness, by refusing to offer any translation of "semper".
"Lord, restore us by these Easter mysteries. May the continuing work of our redeemer bring us eternal joy."
Not only has the threefold variation on the idea of recurrence gone, but an ambiguity has been introduced into the prayer. What, exactly, is meant here by "the continuing work of our redeemer"? It is not securely tied, as the original is, to the annually recurring Easter celebration--to the Easter mass; the whole prayer has lost its focus and energy.
Finally, a simpler example, the straightforward but excellent prayer over the gifts for the tenth Sunday of ordinary time.
"Respice, Domine, quaesumus, nostram propitius servitutem, ut quod offerimus sit tibi munus acceptum, et nostrae caritatis augmentum."
This prayer once again plays on the dual character of the liturgical offering, exploring quite simply its Godward and its Churchward dimensions. It may be translated
"Look with favor, we beseech you Lord, on the service we render you so that what we offer may be for you an acceptable gift, and for us an increase of love."
The 1973 missal once again sabotages the distinctive energy of the prayer.
"Lord, look with love on our service. Accept the gifts we bring and help us grow in Christian love."
There is now no discernible link between the three elements of the prayer, for what we are left with is essentially three disjointed petitions--with the final request for a growth of love in particular completely unconnected by any logic to the two petitions which concern the acceptability of the offering. (9)
So far, I have been focusing on prayers over the gifts or after communion, prayers which, like the Canon, reflect directly on the meaning of the eucharistic action. I have suggested that the 1973 Missal fairly consistently fails to deliver the essential quality of these prayers, but the examples I have given do not suggest much in the way of a theological consistency about the translations. But I did mention the evident pelagianising tendency at work in the rendering of my first example, the postcommunion prayer Satiati munere salutari.
This pelagianising tendency becomes much more striking if we consider the translations of the collects of the Missal. These collects include some of the greatest prayers of the Latin Church, and have the added advantage of having inspired Cranmer to some of his most marvelous feats of translation: time and again the versions of these prayers in the Book of Common prayer render virtually exactly and fully both the rhetorical force and the theological depth of the Latin originals. Time and again, alas, the 1973 versions subvert both. And here, I do think we can see some of the more facile dimensions of the theological fashions of the 1960s and early 1970s at work.
"Given that you are a schismatic, exactly why should ANYONE pay attention to your bleating?"
Why, indeed--unless they may suspect I am not a schismatic and am simply presenting the truth. You yourself obviously pay a lot of attention.
Yup, I'm paying attention. 4 hours of responding to you was assigned to me as an alternative to 500 years' sufferings in Purgatory. It seemed like a good deal at the time.
I'm not surprised you were assigned the five hundred years in the first place, given your stubborn refusal ever to admit the truth. But you do well to read my posts. They may enlighten you.
Well only short-buser would believe that such an event as a Hindu ceremony at the Fatima shrine would occur without Rome being fully aware it. Next you'll ask me to prove that the CEO of Crysler is aware of a new model of car that's coming out.
BTW, why do you call UT a "schismatic" when you know very well that he himself is not in schism? Are you trying to show the rest of us that you don't mind being intellectually dishonest?
In fact, the Post Communionem prayer for the 8th Sunday of Ordinary Time is:
Satiati munere salutari,
tuam, Domine, misericordiam deprecamur,
ut, hoc eodem quo nos temporaliter vegetas sacramento,
perpetuae vitae participes benignus efficias.[Lit trans.] Having been filled to satiety with the saving gift,
we beg, O Lord, your mercy,
that by means of that same sacrament by which you are enlivening
us now for a time,
you will kindly make us participants of life everlasting.
Look at that paper again - it's comparing the Latin missal of 1970 to the ICEL 'translation'.
Corpus Christi
Collect:
1970 Missal
Deus, qui nobis sub sacramento mirabili
passionis tuae memoriam reliquisti,
tribue, quaesumus,
ita nos Corporis et Sanguinis tui sacra mysteria venerari,
ut redemptionis tuae fructum in nobis iugiter sentiamus.1962 Missal
Deus, qui nobis sub sacramento mirabili
passionis tuae memoriam reliquisti,
tribue, quaesumus,
ita nos Corporis et Sanguinis tui sacra mysteria venerari,
ut redemptionis tuae fructum in nobis iugiter sentiamus.
Prayer over the gifts:
1970 Missal
Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine,
unitatis et pacis propitius dona concede
quae sub oblatis muneribus mystice designatur.1962 Missal
Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine,
unitatis et pacis propitius dona concede
quae sub oblatis muneribus mystice designatur.
Prayer after Communion:
1970 Missal
Fac nos, quaesumus, Domine,
divinitatis tuae sempiterna fruitione repleri,
quam pretiosi Corporis et Sanguinis tui
temporalis perceptio praefigurat.1962 Missal:
Fac nos, quaesumus, Domine,
divinitatis tuae sempiterna fruitione repleri,
quam pretiosi Corporis et Sanguinis tui
temporalis perceptio praefigurat.
Trinity Sunday
Collect:
1970 Missal
Deus Pater, qui, Verbum veritatis
et Spiritum sanctificationis mittens in mundum,
admirabile mysterium tuum hominibus declarasti,
da nobis, in confessione verae fidei,
aeternae gloriam Trinitatis agnoscere,
et Unitatem adorare in potentia maiestatis.1962 Missal
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,
qui dedisti famulis tuis in confessione verae fidei,
aeternae Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere,
et in potentia majestatis adorare unitatem:
quaesumus, ut eiusdem fidei firmitate,
ab omnibus semper muniamur adversis
Prayer over the gifts:
1970 Missal
Sanctifica, quaesumus, Domine Deus noster,
per tui nominis invocationem,
haec munera nostrae servitutis,
et per ea nosmetipsos tibi perfice munus aeternum.1962 Missal
Sanctifica, quaesumus, Domine Deus noster,
per tui nominis invocationem,
haec munera nostrae servitutis,
et per ea nosmetipsos tibi perfice munus aeternum.
Prayer after Communion:
1970 Missal
Proficiat nobis ad salutem corporis et animae,
Domine Deus noster, huius sacramenti susceptio,
et sempiternae sanctae Trinitatis
eiusdemque individuae Unitatis confessio.1962 Missal:
Proficiat nobis ad salutem corporis et animae,
Domine Deus noster, huius sacramenti susceptio,
et sempiternae sanctae Trinitatis
eiusdemque individuae Unitatis confessio.
Easter Sunday
Collect:
1970 Missal
Deus, qui hodierna die, per Unigenitum tuum,
aeternitatis nobis aditum, devicta morte, reserasti,
da nobis, quaesumus,
ut, qui resurrectionis dominicae sollemnia colimus,
per innovationem tui Spiritus in lumine vitae resurgamus.1962 Missal
Deus, qui hodierna die, per Unigenitum tuum,
aeternitatis nobis aditum, devicta morte, reserasti,
da nobis, quaesumus,
ut, qui resurrectionis dominicae sollemnia colimus,
per innovationem tui Spiritus in lumine vitae resurgamus.
Prayer over the gifts:
1970 Missal
Sacrificia, Domine, paschalibus gaudiis exsultantes offerimus,
quibus Ecclesia tua mirabiliter renascitur et nutritur.1962 Missal
Suscipe, quaesumus, Domine,
preces populi tui cum oblationibus hostiarum:
ut Paschalibus initiata mysteriis,
ad aeternitatis nobis medelam,
te operante, proficiant.
Prayer after Communion:
1970 Missal
Perpetuo, Deus, Ecclesiam tuam pio favore tuere,
ut, paschalibus renovata mysteriis,
ad resurrectionis perveniat claritatem.1962 Missal:
Spiritum nobis, Domine tuae caritatis infunde:
ut quos sacramentis Paschalibus satiasti,
tua facia pietate concordes.
Holy Family
Collect:
1970 Missal
Deus, qui praeclara nobis sanctae Familiae
dignatus es exempla praebere,
concede propitius,
ut domesticis virtutibus caritatisque vinculis illam sectantes,
in laetitia domus tuae praemiis fruamur aeternis.1962 Missal
Domine Jesu Christe, qui Mariae et Joseph subditus,
domesticam vitam ineffabilibus virtutibus consecrasti:
fac nos, utriusque auxilio,
Familiae sanctae tuae exemplis instrui,
et consortium consequi sempiternum.
Prayer over the gifts:
1970 Missal
Hostiam tibi placationis offerimus, Domine,
suppliciter deprecantes,
ut, Deiparae virginis beatique Ioseph interveniente suffragio,
familias nostras in tua gratia firmiter et pace constituas.1962 Missal
Placationis hostiam offerimus tibi Domine,
suppliciter deprecantes:
ut, per intercessionem Deiparae Virginis cum beato Joseph,
familias nostras in pace et gratia tua firmiter constituas
Prayer after Communion:
1970 Missal
Quos caelestibus reficis sacramentis,
fac, clementissime Pater,
sanctae Familiae exempla iugiter imitari,
ut, post aerumnas saeculi,
eius consortium consequamur aeternum.1962 Missal:
Quos caelestibus reficis sacramentis,
fac, Domine Jesu sanctae Familiae tuae exempla jugiter imitari:
ut in hora mortis nostrae,
occurrente gloriosa Virgine Matre tua cum beato Joseph;
per te in aeterna tabernacula recipi mereamur.
"Yup, I'm paying attention. 4 hours of responding to you was assigned to me as an alternative to 500 years' sufferings in Purgatory. It seemed like a good deal at the time."
LOL.
Will you never learn??
What was that line from Genesis? 'So that you may become like unto God, eat this fruit...'
Yup.
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.