Posted on 03/10/2005 3:28:28 PM PST by siunevada
Signs continue to accumulate that the “liturgy wars” in the Catholic Church are nearing an end, even if no one has declared the close of major combat operations à la President George Bush in Iraq.
In the 1990s, no issue in English-speaking Catholicism was more contentious. Sliced one way, these tussles -- whether to use the word “man,” where to put the tabernacle -- were a struggle between inculturation and diversity, versus unity based on the Roman model. Sliced another way, they pitted decentralization against a strong Roman hand. It also put “inclusive language” against critics who felt feminism had cut too many inroads into the church.
Whatever the case, these liturgical debates commanded enormous amounts of time and psychological energy. Today, however, the situation is closer to a mop-up operation. The advocates of a more traditional, “sacral” approach have won, while those who want a more flexible and idiomatic style of speech and worship have largely retreated to fight another day.
The latest indication came in an exclusive March 11 NCR interview with Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia. Pell chairs the Vox Clara Committee, created in July 2001 to advise the Vatican on liturgical translation in English. Pell told NCR his committee may not have a raison d’être after a translation of the Roman Missal, the collection of prayers for the Mass, is completed. The core of that project, the Order of Mass, could be finished by early 2005, with the rest coming not much later.
Even if Vox Clara continues in another form, the fact that Pell can contemplate a future without it suggests that its original purpose has largely been accomplished.
A body of 11 bishops from around the English-speaking world, Vox Clara was erected in response to the need to speed up a translation of the Mass consistent with the conservative translation principles promulgated in the May 2001 document Liturgiam Authenticam. Besides Pell, who has a history of concern with the fidelity of English translations to the original Latin, the committee includes two Americans with a similar pedigree: Cardinals Francis George of Chicago and Justin Rigali of Philadelphia.
In part, Vox Clara’s mission amounted to monitoring the progress of a Vatican-directed overhaul of the the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).
Long a bete-noir among critics of post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, ICEL now has new statutes and personnel, and is producing texts more to the liking of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and Vox Clara. The turn-around at ICEL means that, in effect, Vox Clara may have worked itself out of business.
What does the future hold?
One lurking danger for the victors in the liturgy wars is, ironically, much the same faced by American forces in Iraq. With the combined force of the Vatican and heavy-hitters such as Pell, those favoring a more distinctively Catholic argot could deploy a “shock and awe” campaign that was destined to prevail in any test of ecclesiastical strength. The problem is that they have not yet convinced the people in the trenches of the justness of their cause. Many English-speaking liturgists are resigned to the new dispensation, but in their hearts they cling to the approach embodied in the “old” ICEL.
Hence, there is a risk of low-key resistance, even sabotage, as church officials get things rolling in parishes and dioceses. Forcing through new translation principles and turning ICEL upside down, as painful as it may have been, was the easy part. Now the hard work begins -- winning the hearts and minds of pastors and liturgists, not to mention worshipping communities.
Pell and I also spoke about whether or not the new Order of Mass is being produced with undue haste, how Vox Clara organizes its work, and the controversial question of changing the “people’s parts” in the Mass. The full text of the interview can be found in the Special Documents section at NCRonline.org: Pell Interview.
I looked at an October, 2004 article from Catholic World News and the sections they quoted looked pretty complete. It seems to be a pretty straight translation. Our diocesan folks seemed to be expecting it in time for a January, 2005 implementation. That came and went.
Some folks are going to be unhappy with it. It's a straight translation.
A real honest translation would really help the Novus Ordo.
The collects and any other changeable prayer in particular are wretched compared to the weekly translations in the Wanderer. Next, turn the priest around to face the Tabernacle which should be in the center on top of the altar.
The examples cited in this article seem to be pretty straight translations:
After reading your link, I can see the ICEL butchered the ordinary parts of the Mass as well. I hope to see the day the translation is corrected.
Great news, if Allen's accurate.
In a recent thread, the Bishop of St. Petersburg seemed to rejoice that the new missal would not soon be forthcoming.
Isn't it amazing, the gyrations we must go through just to reach a place we have been. Once twisted, not so easily untwisted.
"What's the hold up?"
The bishops are filibustering in the hope that its publication can be permanently delayed. Their game plan is to hold out until a new Pope.
Allen misjudges the nature of the debate. It's not between a good and bad translation; it's between the ancient and the new liturgies. That debate is only growing. Reverting to a better translation of the Novus Ordo still leaves us with the Novus Ordo; it also leaves us with the same modernists who invented the Novus Ordo in the first place.
I bet you are right.
Oh, for crying out loud. You sound like the Senate Democrats who rejected a $1 minimum wage hike because it wasn't a $2 minimum wage hike. Be Happy! Celebrate a small victory and let that encourage people towards a still better wording.
A validly promulgated liturgy which, celebrated according to the rubrics, confects a valid sacrament. Do you deny it?
If you do not deny it, then you ought to rejoice that it will perhaps be translated with greater fidelity to the Latin. Who knows, maybe they'll even get pro multis right this time.
"Celebrate a small victory and let that encourage people towards a still better wording."
Nonsense. The Novus Ordo was designed to destroy the traditional Catholic faith whether in the original or in its bad translation. The focus remains on the memorial meal aspect condemned by Trent, not on propitiatory sacrifice nor on Transubstantiation. There is nothing to celebrate. It remains a protestantizing liturgy.
I don't think they need to filibuster. They, as a "college", just reject what Rome proposes until said proposal meets their liking.
The final version of ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA is a good example.
"A validly promulgated liturgy which, celebrated according to the rubrics, confects a valid sacrament. Do you deny it?"
No, it's valid. But it still protestantizes the faith, which is why even Lutherans use it. As Bishop Fellay put it recently, "Rome says it's a soup, eat it. We say, sure it's a soup, but it's a poison soup. We don't wish to eat it."
"A validly promulgated liturgy..."
Actually I took your post to mean the New Mass itself was valid, not that it was "validly promulgated." In fact it was invalidly promulgated, lacking any papal signature whatsoever, the General Instructions carrying only the signatures of a few cura cardinals--insufficient for any official liturgical change of that magnitude in the Church. A later published document on the new liturgy included decrees by Paul VI which carried his signature, but the decrees only covered Eucharistic Prayer changes, not the new liturgy itself. A still later explanation of this published Constitution again lacked the papal signature, having been signed by a cardinal. These are curious facts. Was Paul VI fearful of an official promulgation? No one can say. Curious also is the fact that the traditional Mass was never officially abrogated. History will look on the whole debacle as a strange aberration from Catholic Tradition and the immediate cause for the loss of faith of tens--some claim hundreds--of millions of Catholics.
What objections, if any, have you to the Novus Ordo when celebrated in Latin?
The use of the vernacular was always only a small part of the objection to the new missal. The problems are multiple, but here is a brief summary of what they are.
1. The emphasis of the new Mass is on the memorial meal, not on a re-enactment of Calvary. This is a clear violation of Trent which prohibited this interpretation and is in keeping with Protestant theological understanding. To Protestants the liturgy is a memorial service. To Catholics the liturgy is a here-and-now sacrifice to the Father of the Son.
2. The new Mass changes the meaning of "sacrifice" to the Protestant theological understanding of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Again, Trent specifically rejected this interpretation and insisted the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in expiation for our sins. This Catholic dimension is suppressed in the New Liturgy. Instead, there is a heavy emphasis on the Resurrection rather than on the Crucifixion. It is a celebration of our salvation primarily rather than an occasion for remembering our unworthiness as sinners who have need of the sacrifice of Jesus.
3. The New Mass does all it can to emphasize the virtual presence of Christ and to suppress any awareness of the Real Presence following the Consecration. Genuflections have been reduced. Kneeling for Communion has been eliminated. In many places kneelers have been removed from the pews, the tabernacle is no longer central, Communion is taken in the hands, communion rails have been ripped out. The focus is chiefly on ourselves as a congregation in the Protestant fashion, rather than on the individual encountering a personal Christ as a Real Presence. This focus on ourselves is emphasized by the priest's now facing the congregation rather than East, which is a symbolic facing towards the Father. Equal emphasis is given to Christ's virtual presence in Scripture as well as to his virtual presence in the congregation--in the Protestant way. Almost no attention is given to the worship due to Christ when he is really and truly present on the altar. This reality, in fact, is deliberately ignored and undermined, though it is the central fact of traditional Catholic theology. This is why Holy Hour devotions are springing up everywhere--in the effort by good Catholics to compensate for this suppression of our awareness.
4. The uniqueness of the priesthood has been compromised by the muliplicity of ministers in the sanctuary. Ordinary laypersons now handle the sacred vessels, the text repeats that the priest's sacrifice (of praise and thanksgiving only) is "our" sacrifice, with everything done according to the Protestant understanding that the Priest is just another minister, that it is the congregation of the baptized who offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, along with the priest who becomes a mere presider and not someone who makes a genuine and real sacrifice of propitiation of the Son to the Father. Again, this violates Trent.
5. In the New Mass Communion is the apex of the Mass, the sharing of a memorial meal in fellowship. In the old Mass it is the act of Consecration--the fact of Transubstantiation--which is the apex of the Mass. The emphasis in the New Mass once again is on ourselves; the emphasis in the Traditional Mass is on adoration of the Real Presence prior to His immolation to the Father. Again, the traditional Mass focuses on offering the Father the reality of the Son in expiation for our sins. The new Mass suppresses this Catholic understanding.
"...text repeats that the priest's sacrifice (of praise and thanksgiving only) is "our" sacrifice..."
The Latin text of the Orate Fratres in the Novus Ordo still says "...meum ac vestrum Sacrificium...".
ICEL translates "...meum ac vestrum Sacrificium..." as "... our Sacrifice...".
A major part of the Novus Ordo problem is ICEL.
This may be true in part in the text. But the orientation of the New Mass is that of the community's action with the priest, not of the priest's action apart from the community. The New Mass makes the congregation essential; the Old Mass recognizes the congregation is not essential since only the Sacrifice matters, the Offering to the Father of the Son. The act of worship in the Old Mass is what is pleasing to the Father--hence the importance of Transubstantiation. We are left out of it. The locus of worship in the New Mass, on the other hand, is what's going on in the congregation, the celebration of its salvation. In this the Eucharist signifies our union as Christians--a virtual union, not the personal physical union of the individual with the Real Presence of Christ. This personal union with the Real Presence is Catholic, in accordance with the teaching of Trent; the virtual union of the congregation is according to the Paschal Meal theology which is Protestant. These modes of worship are worlds apart.
Thanks for your detailed comments.
1&2: Could you provide some specific examples?
At my indult parish the "Vetus Ordo" is celebrated weekly. The NO in English is celebrated on weekdays. On Sundays the NO is celebrated also, but with a difference: The Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei are all untranslated, as is the Eucharistic Prayer. Both priest and people face liturgical East. There is no kiss o' peace. The people kneel from the Sanctus through Communion -- on kneelers, of course. Communion is distributed at the rail, to kneeling communicants (who usually receive on the tongue), by ordained ministers or else men selected from a small team of extraordinary ministers. Apart from rare invitations to religious sisters to deliver post-communion charitable appeals (never from the pulpit, which we have and use), no women enter the sanctuary during Mass, nuch less act as ministers of Holy Communion. Given these circumstances -- not a hypothetical, but the current and regular practice -- where would you find fault?
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.