"But familiarity with it does not imply that we like it."
I used a somewhat similar argument with an undertaker who had once called me and asked me if I could play Danny Boy at a forthcoming funeral. When I turned him down, he said "Well, St. Mary's and St. Raymond's both do it", and I said, "yeah, but that doesn't mean that they're right in doing it."
Sure let's keep the same old horrid rancid translation, since they've been used to it for 37 years. NOT!
BMP
AMEN! Another atrocity: the translation of Psalm 23.
"You set a table for me in the sight of my foes,
You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows."
I cringe whenever I hear that lame rhyme! I hope I can have the KJV version at my funeral.
One solution for the "Gregorians" is to download the greatest Latin Gloria ever sung to their iPOD's and then replay it during Mass while the rest of the "pew peasants" like me enjoy and sing our glorious Gloria in English.
#3
I dont see why you are taking offence to Proffessor Dummett's words. Do you find Liturgicam Authenticam offensive also? Why is wanting an authentic translation of the Latin deemed as an attack on the vernacular?
There is much rich symbolism, especially tied up to Scriptural references that make the links between the various stages of salvation history upto Christ, which are more discernable in the Latin of the Pauline liturgy simply because ICEL chose to do something akin to a free translation.
Nobody is attacking self-identified pew peasants. What we are attacking is an obscure rendering of important aspects of 'the liturgy...the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows' (Sancrosanctum Concilium 10).
The trouble is that any English translation of the Gloria is going to be flat. Liturgical creativity is needed, and for that a deep biblical and theological culture is needed, and a church personnel capable of drawing on the best talents of theologians and poets and other writers as well as one capable of consulting and listening to the laity. The liturgy we have now is exactly what we -- or rather what our frozen church hierarchy -- deserve; I mean it faithfully reflects all that is wrong with the RCC. The fact that the Anglican liturgy fares so much better, conversely, must say something good about the much maligned Anglican Communion.
Had we kept the Latin liturgy as it was in 1965, it would be worse, even if esthetically reassuring.
Dummett is a bit of a grouse -- he should stick to sense and reference.
I began the day with King's College Cambridge singing The Psalms of David -- sublime music, that the RCC could also have if it would just unloose its frozen talent-bank.
Myles,
If we need authenticity, we should have Masses said and sung in Aramaic not the langauge of the crucifiers and slavemasters. Visions of the One Global Religion with all "Globites" speaking and singing Latin "ain't" going to happen so get over it.
"AMEN! Another atrocity: the translation of Psalm 23."
Especially the end - I will dwell in the house of the Lord "for years to come" (!!!!!)
"Dummett is a bit of a grouse -- he should stick to sense and reference."
Nope. Beauty is extremely important as well,or rather extremely necesary, as von Balthasar so eloquently argued. Goodness, truth, and beauty should not be separated. His argument in "The Glory of the Lord" Vol. I ("Seeing the Form") convinced me.
"Myles....One Global Religion with all 'Globites' speaking and singing Latin 'ain't' going to happen so get over it."
Ummm, Realist, you didn't read Myles' post! What he said was:
"Why is wanting an authentic TRANSLATION of the Latin deemed as an attack on the vernacular?"
"AMEN! Another atrocity: the translation of Psalm 23.
"You set a table for me in the sight of my foes,
You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.""
Right. You mean the COW translation. Let me graze in green pastures. MOO!!
"Liturgical creativity is needed... a church personnel capable of drawing on the best talents of theologians and poets and other writers as well as one capable of consulting and listening to the laity." I think maybe you ought to be an American cleric: When in doubt, convene the committees! And I thought Thomas Cranmer was the genius behind the Anglican liturgy.
I hate to admit it, but Spirit has a point. In good faith I can honestly yet blushingly say that I'm the most capable hymn text writer I know of, but I'm not that great. That is, my poetry doesn't get published, but my hymns do. There should be a lot of very talented artists working at making liturgy excellent. Fewer sociologists (a point on which I differ with Spirit) but more artists. And more theologians.
Please look at the discussion on Pontifications just now about the Tridentine Mass. Some are expressing disappointment with their first experience of Tridentine low mass. An Irishman Desmond Gaynor tells how it was back in Ireland before the new liturgy. His experience is exactly my own. There were no Good Old Days. The Tridentinists are giving the wrong solution. We need -- to repeat -- artistic and theological courage and creativity, going back to the biblical roots of the Eucharist. I sometimes join the Indonesian community here in Sophia University, despite not understanding their language. Their singing is superb, and the kiss of peace last ten minutes -- everyone warmly saluting everyone else. It seems a very happy and spiritual liturgical experience. Not all belong to "God's frozen people" and it is not true that "Catholics don't sing" -- that probably applies only to English speaking countries.
(Groaning) What's likely to happen is that some celebrated national or international liturgist will read about the beautiful "incarnational" liturgies at Sophia University and build a workshop extolling their virtues. And this summer thousands of parish liturgists will be sent by their pastors, at parish expense, for professional formation in the Sophia Liturgical Movement. A centerpiece of the workshop will be a catechesis on the sign of peace: how what was originally a kiss and warm embrace in The Early Church was formalized in The Dark Ages due to the Black Death and scholastic theology. It became a cold, symbolic gesture rather than "the living sharing of the spirit" that it was originally intended to be.
After this keynote "catechesis," workshop participants will have the option of break-out workshops on Massage, Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, World Music, Tai Chi/Gospel Values, and Labyrinth Walking.
The outcome, of course, will be that when the parish liturgists go back to their calendars to plan the coming year, they will make it a priority to Educate the People in The Sophia Liturgical Movement. Musicians will be intstructed not to begin the Lamb of God for at least 5 minutes after the deacon's instruction, "Let us offer one another the sign of peace." At first, people will stand around after greeting the people around them, wondering what to do. But then the spirit will begin to move and they will enthusiastically and warmly salute everyone else. It will be a very happy and spiritual liturgical experience!
Fr Joe says:
"The trouble is that any English translation of the Gloria is going to be flat. Liturgical creativity is needed, and for that a deep biblical and theological culture is needed, and a church personnel capable of drawing on the best talents of theologians and poets and other writers as well as one capable of consulting and listening to the laity."
Got that? Liturgical "creativity". God forbid we should dismantle the committees -- look how far they have taken us! Rather, pack the committees with poets, artists [what's the "Piss Christ" guy doing these days?], flittery-twittery faux folk "artists", theologians [Curran? Kung? Scott Hoodilly-Doodily Hahn?], maybe a gaggle of spiritualists to channel the ghosts of Teilhard and Bugnini, and definitely a bowling league of protestant periti to tell us what is permissible and what is not.
Father O'Leary:
If more creativity is the solution, why isn't everyone deliriously happy with the existing ICEL translation? The translators removed so many words in their attempt to be modern, hip, up to date or whatever, but certainly not flat. The sad result is a translation which fails to communicate many important truths of the faith, even as I recognize it as a valid Mass.
Mr. R-D., speaking of creativity, how about that list? "Curran, Kung, Scott H.D. Hahn."
You crack me up, man. Although sometimes I think you might be a persona of Dr. Blosser.
Thanks for speaking up for me Mt looks like quite a discussion has been going on without me.
5:
20. The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.--Congregation for Divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments, Liturgiam authenticam 20.
If you have a problem with my post convergent then you have a problem not with me but with the Holy See. Personally, I feel the proffessor has every right to make the comments he did. The English translation of the Mass is full of innovations that reduce the Christocentric atmosphere created by the Sacred Litrugy from the outset e.g. the 3 Mea Culpas that we dont have.
These reductions drastically reorient the focus of the Sacred Liturgy. Indeed, I cannot see how anyone can seriously argue that the translators have not attacked the sense of the Holy Mass being Christ's wholly gratitious act of salvation on our behalf: A gift of love from on high. They swallowed the zeitgeist with their translation and now we have an English rendering that is 30 years behind the way people think.
I myself am 20 years old. I am a Briton one of Thatcher's children. We dont believe in all that banner waving get a campfire nonsense that was going on in the 60's. The horizontal language translation put out by ICEL just doesn't reach us. The world has changed and it seems that only people in the Church cant see that sometimes! I think Ed Oakes got it right when he said the Church cannot convert culture it has to convert people, individuals because thats the society we live in. The society of individualistic capitalism.
I am a card carrying member of generation X and I'll tell you what my peers are looking for? They wanna know what God is doing for them not what they're doing for God. Yes, the latter is important but it flows from the former (cf 1 Jn 4:19). They wanna hear the Mass is the wholly free, totally giving action of the God-Man. They're not interested in this horizontal community ethic that ICEL
The present ICEL translation, or the new one floated in 2004 which is even worse, is of course NOT my idea of creativity. Let us study how great liturgies were created in the past, asking ourselves all the time what Jesus intended in instituting the Eucharist. A tall order? You bet! But not impossible to the collective resources of the Church if these are not impeded and discouraged by obstructionism.
Kathy and Roister, what is all that sarcasm about? Do you think tinkering with translations is all that the Church today is capable of as it tries to renew its liturgy? Do you not see that the churches are being voided precisely by this timid attitude? And do you really think that artistic creation today can get no further than obscene images or that theological reflection can get no further than fads? This may, indeed, alas, be true of American theology -- in which case it is high time to take the liturgy out of the hands of those soulless American committees. But have you even noted the inculturated African liturgies?
Myles Bailey, you CANNOT divorce the vertical and horizontal in the Eucharist or in the Gospel. Yes, we receive a free gift of salvation from above, but Yes we are also ministers of that salvation to the world ("my flesh for the life of the world"). Paul VI stated clearly: The Church exists not for itself but for the world. Benedict XVI stresses the impossibility of divorcing the eucharistic celebration from the cause of justice and the works of love.
This is not a question of "what you can do for God" but of "what God can do through you".
Spirit I am more than aware that you cannot divorce them but the horizontal only has any meaning because of the vertical. It is rudimentary Catholic teaching that we cannot save ourselves but that the sacrifice of Christ does that e.g 1 Cor 16. We become one body but only through the one bread not the other way around. The Mass isnt something we do for God its something He does for us and at times the 70's translation doesn't get that message across aptly.
I don't see what you mean about the translation. Could you not make the same complaint about the Roman Canon in Latin? It stresses heavily what WE are doing, our offerings. Of course that would be a very captious criticism, but how is the current English text different? The 4th Eucharistic Prayer, in English, speaks more eloquently of grace and gift than the Roman Canon does.
Dummett is a bit of a grouse -- he should stick to sense and reference.
And you, Father? What would Dummett say about you?
Spirit, I honestly don't know what your charism is, but it's really wasted on trying to convince me that what we need is to raze the Tradition and build it up again by going back to Jesus Christ.
The Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ in time. Where we have been is good, because we have been with Him, i.e., He has been with us. Where we are going is good. These definitive breaks that you are suggesting have been tried a million times before and they are destructive. Not prophetic, but destructive.
A question: If you were a curator restoring a piece of art, how would you begin? By slashing interminably at the canvas? Of course not. Your iconoclasm is misdirected and destructive.
PP, Ms Ploodily-Doodily-Ooth’s notion that I am your persona is fascinating. I can’t let go of it. It is as if Jerry Mahoney was suddenly, somehow, made to realize that all of his snappy patter originated not with himself, but with Paul Winchell, on whose knee he happened to be sitting – that he was, in fact, a mere blockhead.
On the other hand, as your persona, I could be the disembodied projection of all your hopes and dreams – the man you wish you were, the man you dream of being, the alpha and omega of your fondest aspirations. I get that sort of thing all the time.
We will have to settle down to a pitcher of Guinness one day and discuss this. The first question will be whether we need one glass or two.
Doister,
In my case, I'm flattered by the confusion of personae. As to your first question, my answer would be at least a good pitcher -- not for endurance but for celebration.
... at Pontifications .... Some are expressing disappointment with their first experience of Tridentine low mass.... There were no Good Old Days.
This is nonsense, like the Evocation Theory of 'expressiveness' in aesthetics, supposing that what is expressed depends on subjective perceptions. But if a jagged line expresses "restlessness," is it because it plunges you into subjective feelings of restlessness? Of course not: and whether it did or not would be irrelevant. A jagged line's expressivness of restlessness is due to its cross-modal similarity, and thus fittingness, to the quality of restlessness.
The same with the new Mass or old Mass. The question is not primarily: "How does it make you FEEL?" Rather, the question is: "What qualities are expressed by the Mass?" The latter is objectively grounded in measurable qualities and properties of the Mass itself. On that basis, the symbolism of the new Mass is confused and radically inferior to the old. Sacrosanctum Concilium, though itself far from being a perfectly clear document, was never properly implemented.
SC was never properly implemented -- but the same can be said of the Tridentine Mass of my childhood -- as described by my compatriot on the Pontifications thread ("Our Lady of Sorrows"). Part of the problem of implementing it as a living liturgy was of course the fact that no one understood the language, which was in any case sotto voce except for the exchanges with the acolytes (as an altar boy I memorized lots of Latin without understanding a single word).
Kathy, I said NOTHING about razing tradition. But your analogy with art is good -- living art demands constant creative renewal. Treating the liturgy as an object of curatorship only is the very root of the problem, it seems to me.
Let me say that I admire very much Dummett's books on Frege (though experts may pick holes in them). I once heard him lecture, rather disappointingly, in Pittsburgh. On the liturgy etc. he has the disadvantages of a complete lack of theological training.
Spirit, I think you did imply razing tradition to the ground when you wrote There were no Good Old Days. The Tridentinists are giving the wrong solution. We need -- to repeat -- artistic and theological courage and creativity, going back to the biblical roots of the Eucharist.
By the way, please don't take my analogy to art more literally than I meant it. I referred only to the process of restoration--what is NOT helpful. Like destroying it in the name of renewing it. (For some reason I can't get the Dada Mona Lisa out of my mind.)
Part of the problem of implementing [the traditional Mass] as a living liturgy was of course the fact that no one understood the language, ...
"Spirit," I disagree. This statement simply assumes the explicitly propositional verbal framework of post-Enlightenment logical empiricism. But you would be the first, as a proponent of existentialist theology (among other things), to question that framework when it came to the concept of Revelation. Why assume it in liturgy?
I won't go into more detail on something I've discussed at length in earlier posts but to say that I dispute the notion that "active participation" requires a rational intellectual comprehension of all the priest is verbalizing in the Eucharistic Prayers. Any intelligent participant in the Divine Liturgy of Eastern Orthodoxy would tell you the same -- and THAT liturgy makes the Novus Ordo seem like something Alec Guinness once described as, in general tone, like a "BBC radio broadcast for tiny tots." And I shouldn't be surprised if Generation X spokesman, Myles Bailey, with whose sentiments I find myself in complete sympathy, quite agrees.
"Spirit" writes:
"Let us study how great liturgies were created in the past, asking ourselves all the time what Jesus intended in instituting the Eucharist."
Kathy writes:
"Spirit, I honestly don't know what your charism is, but it's really wasted on trying to convince me that what we need is to raze the Tradition and build it up again by going back to Jesus Christ.
I agree. Why this assumption that we all need to be creative and re-invent the liturgy for our time? Isn't this precisely the pervasive assumption of the Bugnini team who cobbled together the new experiements in liturgy that have led to the perception (if not reality) that the Novus Ordo is a forum for perpetual experimentation? Who needs that?
The liturgy is an organic tradition passed down to us from the most ancient times of the Church. Our proper disposition is to receive the tradition, not to re-invent the wheel. None of the liturgical reforms of Church history -- whether the ancient Gregorian reform, or the reforms of Pius V or Pius XII -- presumed to carry off something de noveau, but to put refining touches on a sacred inheritance from the past. This is where Pope Benedict's criticism, as Cardinal Ratzinger, of the "rupture" represented by the Novus Ordo in liturgical tradition, addresses the heart of the present crisis in the Roman liturgy.
If Ratzinger regarded the Novus Ordo as a bad rupture with the past, why is he still celebrating it? And he is not adopting the favored options either -- Latin, Eucharistic Prayer I, ad orientem -- he celebrates in the vernacular, facing the people, and using all four eucharistic prayers. He also presides over liturgies with dancing women in St Peter's Square (Mass for the beatification of Teresa of Calcutta).
To repeat, going back to biblical roots is essential to all theology and liturgy (see Louis Bouyer's great book on the Eucharist). It does NOT imply razing what came later, but revising it in light of deeper understanding of Scripture.
My lowly opinion: I thought what Ratzinger was saying related to the way the new missal was presented, introduced, implemented, and especially the way it is in the majority of cases being currently celebrated (fabricated). This constitutes a rupture or breach of sorts - serious discontinuity with the liturgical past and tradition of the Roman Rite, as it had grown and developed, and had been passed down; as well as a break with the pre-Vatican II 'liturgical movement' and Papal directives and reforms.
It was my impression Ratzinger maintained that many of the problems and disorientation (even schisms) in the church today can be traced to the poor implementation, understanding and celebration of the Mass. I do not think he has ever attacked Pope Paul VI, or the current Roman Missal in itself; he does however, if I understand, see areas where it could be improved.
==
I should add that he has said some positive things about the current Roman Missal of Paul VI and the
reforms.
==
Happy, and not surprised, to discover that the Pope is a Catholic!
Had he attacked Paul VI, whom he refers to as "the venerable Paul VI" it would have been the height of filial ingratitude, since it was Paul VI who made him Archbishop and Cardinal.
In short, Cardinal Ratzinger does NOT say that the Novus Ordo is objectively deficient, but that its IMPLEMENTATION is often deficient. And no one disagrees about that.
If Ratzinger regarded the Novus Ordo as a bad rupture with the past, why is he still celebrating it?
Ask him. I suppose it's because he doesn't think it would be prudent or even possible to attempt any sort of abrupt radical reform, since it might be more uprooting than something piecemeal. At least, I've heard others make that sort of argument, though personally it never packs much credibility.
To repeat, going back to biblical roots is essential to all theology and liturgy (see Louis Bouyer's great book on the Eucharist).
I would trust Bouyer's judgment on this matter above a dissenter's, certainly. The problem is that Bouyer, whom you call upon here, abandoned the project in despair (around 1968?) when he saw the 'rupture' with liturgical tradition intended by Bugnini's Concilium. Going back to biblical roots is commendable as long as you keep in mind the authentic development liturgy has undergone, like an acorn that has grown into an oak. Nothing wrong with seeing where the roots lie, as long as you don't go hacking off the oak at its trunk.
In short, Cardinal Ratzinger does NOT say that the Novus Ordo is objectively deficient, but that its IMPLEMENTATION is often deficient. And no one disagrees about that.
I think you are basically correct here: nobody is disagreeing that this is essentially what Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI believes.
A recent issue of First Things, however, has an article by Cardinal Dulles reviewing Cardinal Ratzinger's participation in the Second Vatican Council, as well as his development after the Council, which suggests that Ratzinger was critical of the wording of several of the V-II documents. So there could be some ways in which, although he considers the V-II documents 'normative', he may consider their precise wording something less than perfect. Besides this, there are the statements by the former Cardinal Ratzinger that there are dimensions of the traditional Roman rite he personally prefers, for whatever reason, even though he definitely backed (and continues to back) its reform (and 'reform of the reform').
"a dissenter" "a heretic" "a relativist" -- sorry, I do not recognize myself in these descriptions.
Not looked in a mirror recently?
Do you disagree with the constant teaching of the Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered? Then you are a dissenter.
Do you willingly accept that the Holy See has the right to settle definitively matters moral, liturgical and those directly addressing matters of faith? See -- you're a relativist.
I'm not willing to call you a heretic. That's Pope Benedict's job.
I don't diagree that the Holy See has the right to settle definitively moral, doctrinal and liturgical questions. However moral and doctrinal issues are never resolved by arbitrary fiat -- that would be real relativism. Rather the Church comes to clear insight into objective truth on the basis of a tried and trusted and long-drawn-out process that is protected by respect for the free exercise of reason on the part of all concerned (pope, bishops, theologians, faithful).
I ask for development of the Church's teaching on contraception and homosexuality -- The issue of whether certain acts are instrinsically disordered, in that the semen is not directed to procreation, needs to be brought into perpective. I trust entirely in the development of Catholic doctrine, and have no doubt that fuller truth on these issues will emerge as the full exercise of reason and consultation takes its course.
With a certain degree of trepidation I ask for an explanation of the statement "Semen is not directed to procreation."
Kathy, ok, I should have said "the sexual act is not open to the transmission of life".
Oh! Sorry, Spirit, I was confused about your syntax. I thought you were making a statement, not stating the moral principle. All clear now.
Commenting by HaloScan
