From John Lee, Johannesburg:
History shows that the language used in the Eucharistic Sacrifice over the centuries has followed an interesting path in the western Church.
Aramaic was the first language used, then Greek, and later the various dialects of the Roman Empire of the 1st century. Greek became the lingua franca of the Empire. Christians celebrated the Eucharist (the Mass) in their own homes, in their own languages. Early writings suggest that the liturgy was celebrated without any set forms. According to the Didache and St Justin Martyr (150 AD), the presider sent up prayers to the best of his ability.
As Latin became the language of the liturgy, it was celebrated in many different forms. Diversity was not something to be feared but a natural development.
The barricades or waist-high altar-walls enclosing the sanctuary in early churches, such as in Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome, were not meant to be “altar rails” originally, but means of keeping out the sheep and goats which people often brought to church with them.
Seminary reform later did not help much since the laity still could not understand the Mass in Latin. The congregation engaged in their own private prayers. Even as recent a pope as Pius XII (1939-58) encouraged the congregation to pray the rosary while the priest “said” (or rather “whispered”) Mass in Latin with his back to the congregation. The bells that were rung were signals for the people to sit, stand or kneel. The effect was one of passivity with the sense of leiturgia lost.
Though the liturgy seemed to have moved towards greater uniformity because of Latin, most worshippers shared in “common incomprehension”. Many had been clamouring for use of the vernacular in the Mass which was one of the main aims of Vatican II. It was recognised that Latin was neither the first nor the only language of worship, and how was it possible for simple folk to “lift the heart and the mind to God” at Mass in a language foreign to most?
Vatican II boldly declared that the rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the peoples’ powers of comprehension (Sacrosanctum Concilium 34). Translations are necessary in language understandable to people for participation, conveying accurately the theological truth of the Mass.
However, there is a feeling that now there is an insidious move afoot to dismantle the good that the Second Vatican Council has brought about and to return to the past.
A very good article, thank you. Latin has one big advantage: it is pure and it does not change and has been the sacred language of our Holy Church for a long time. It evidently adds to the sacredness of the Mass. It is often said that people don’t understand Latin. Well, any missal will give the words in the vernacular and in Latin.And when one travels abroad, one hears the same mass in Latin just like at home ! So what really is the problem? O.k. I will agree that a missal costs quite a bit of money,but then it is for life. That many people are illiterate? This is debatable, I do not quite believe that it is the case.
An interesting comparison and thought: what would the Orthodox Jews do, how would they react if , tomorrow, all of the sudden, they were told by their highest authorities that their sacred language, HEBREW, was scrapped and replaced by the vernacular? All synaguogue and kiddush prayers should be in each country”s language? That Hebrew was out ! That a Great Council of Judaism had decided in this matter and that was it. O.k. the Reformed and the Progressives would (maybe), possibly be happy with novelties and changes,but imagine the turmoil ,unhappiness, bitterness,debating ad nauseam ….
The same would apply if a Great Coranic Council decided tomorrow that Arabic should be removed immediately and replaced by the vernacular. One could foresee some turmoil to say the least.
To those who might feel uncomfortable, threatened by the prospect that the Traditional Mass, the mass of all time, is slowly coming back FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT, and which will not threaten the novus ordo of 1969, I would suggest that there nothing to worry. The Motu Proprio of 7/7/2007 is clear, any priest may say the Tridentine mass which was never banned officially. Indeed many hundreds of thousands of Catholics world-wide want it, request it and fervently hope that the Bishops will not put any obstacles in its way. Finally, all the Bishops will soon(14th September 2010) have to render an account to the Holy Father on the progress of the Motu Proprio, a document which is becoming a watershed in the History of the modern Church. Exciting times are coming for Catholics. Salus animarum suprema lex.
Thank you John Lee for a very interesting letter.
Considering the fact that we are on the brink of another change to our liturgy (and the reactions to it), I wonder now at how extensive and deeply the change in lingua franca from Greek to Latin affected the Christians of that time. House churches were probably forbidden and it must have been hard for many because ‘Latin’ was the language of the enemy!
The Church literally changed sides and not only because of the influence of Constantine, they moved from being a church of the Poor and Marginalised to the Church of the Rich and Influential!
That change, in its entirety, produced the schism between East and West. So sad really. We do not, however, seem to be very pro-active in healing the division by trying to entrench ‘Roman Empire standards’ into the Third Millenium, considering the level of consciousness most Christians have reached today.
The ‘common incomprehension’ of most believers was unfair and unjust, as was the thinking which kept the stories of the Gospels from being freely available to all believers for so long.
No Holy Mass can be celebrated by just one priest on his own because the very institution of the Sacrament was a communal one, and we were all commanded to “Do this in memory of Me”. Vatican II attempted to redress the injustice of common inability to raise all hearts and minds to God, as you emphasize.
Although I agree it appears to be that certain elements in Church authority want to return to the past, I am absolutely convinced this would never be possible. I believe just as Zulu or Sotho speaking people have a right to participate in the Eucharist in their spoken language, so can those who want only Latin be allowed to access the Mass in Latin.
As far as returning 100% to Latin in all countries, in all churches, it will never happen because it would be an injustice to the People of God.
So-called “private” Masses are discouraged (Sacrosanctum concilium, n.27), but a priest can certainly celebrate Mass without any of Christ’s faithful present if there is “a good and reasonable cause.” (CCL, can. 906)
Leaving aside the dubious historical review presented here, I doubt very much that the Venerable Pope Pius XII “encouraged the congregation to pray the rosary” during Mass.
What we read in the Encyclical “Mediator Dei” (1947) is:-
“108 . . the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say . . that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.”
and (where the context is not participation at Mass)
“173/4 . . there are certain exercises of piety which the Church recommends very much to clergy and religious. It is Our wish also that the faithful, as well, should take part in these practices [including] enclosed retreats, visits to the blessed sacrament, and those special prayers in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary among which the rosary . . has pride of place.”
If the question is whether the Church, in the context of Mass in the vernacular, encourages recitation of the rosary, the answer was given by Pope Paul VI in his exhortation “Marialis cultus” (1974):-
“48. The commemoration in the liturgy and the contemplative remembrance proper to the Rosary . . have as their object the same salvific events wrought by Christ . . Once this substantial difference has been established, it is not difficult to understand that the Rosary is an exercise of piety that draws its motivating force from the liturgy and leads naturally back to it . . It does not, however, become part of the liturgy. In fact, meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary . . can be an excellent preparation for . . the liturgical action and also become a continuing echo thereof. However, it is a mistake to recite the Rosary during the celebration of the liturgy, though unfortunately this practice still persists here and there.”
Although I do not know whether or not Pius XII encouraged praying the rosary during Mass, it seems that Leo XIII did—at least according to Joseph Ratzinger!
Perhaps some might find interesting the following extracts from Ratzinger’s book “Theological Highlights of Vatican II”, published in 1966. (Paulist Press Deus Books). (It’s a fascinating little text, although probably out of print.) Providing background to the 1964 Vatican II discussions on liturgy, Ratzinger describes the liturgical reforms of the Council of Trent in the following terms (pp86–87):
“The main measure [of the Council of Trent] was to centralize all liturgical authority in the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the post-conciliar organ for the implementation of liturgical ideas of Trent. … the fate of the liturgy in the West was now in the hands of a strictly centralized and purely bureaucratic authority. The authority completely lacked historical perspective; it viewed the liturgy solely in terms of ceremonial rubrics, treating it as a kind of problem of proper court etiquette for sacred matters. This resulted in the complete archaizing of the liturgy, which now passed from the stage of living history, became embalmed in the status quo, and was ultimately doomed to internal decay. The liturgy became a rigid, fixed and firmly encrusted system; the more out of touch with genuine piety, the more attention was paid to prescribed forms. We can see this if we remember that none of the saints of the Catholic Reformation drew their inspiration from the liturgy.”
[After discussing this point with respect to John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila, Ratzinger continues as follows:]
The baroque era adjusted to this situation by superimposing a kind of para-liturgy on the archaized actual liturgy. Accompanied by the splendor of orchestral performance, the baroque high Mass became a kind of sacred opera … The entire performance seemed aimed at a kind of festive lifting of the heart., enhanced by the beauty of a celebration appealing to the eye and ear. On ordinary days, when such display was not possible, the Mass was frequently covered with devotions more attractive to the popular mentality. Even Leo XIII recommended that the rosary be recited during Mass in the month of October. This meant that while the priest was busy with his archaized liturgy, the people were busy with their devotions to Mary. …”
Recommending the rosary and other prayers for those incapable of following the Mass (as Venerable Pius XII certainly did in the passage I quoted) is rather different from a general “encouragement” to people at large to recite the rosary during Mass. Perhaps Mr. Lee will favour us with his source in order to put Mr. Kourie’s mind at rest on this vexing topic.
Venerable Pius XII was one of the most significant promoters of liturgical renewal through his Encyclical “Mediator Dei” (1947), so it goes rather hard to find him unjustly painted as retardataire in this particular aspect of the Church’s life.
As for the new piece of hearsay that Mr. Kourie has unearthed, all I can say is that we must wait and see until his researches are complete. If what the Holy Father is represented as having written in 1966 is literally true (as opposed to being a piece of polemic), the recommendation can hardly have been one of those “secrets” that the “Vatican” is commonly supposed to specialise in, so I cannot doubt that it will take Mr. Kourie long.
Meanwhile I have located this passage from the Encyclical “Supremi Apostolatus” (1883):-
“We decree and order that in the whole Catholic world, during this year, the devotion of the Rosary shall be solemnly celebrated by special and splendid services. From the first day of next October, therefore, until the second day of the November following, in every parish . . let five decades of the Rosary be recited with the addition of the Litany of Loreto. We desire that the people should frequent these pious exercises; and We will that either Mass shall be said at the altar, or that the Blessed Sacrament shall be exposed to the adoration of the faithful, Benediction being afterwards given with the Sacred Host to the pious congregation. We highly approve of the confraternities of the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin going in procession, following ancient custom, through the town, as a public demonstration of their devotion.”
Personally, I cannot extract from this a recommendation that the rosary be recited at Mass as opposed to before or after it, although I shall not say it is an impossible construction to put on the words of Leo XIII – nor am I disposed to berate him postumously if that is indeed what he intended.
It is well-known that Joseph Ratzinger, one of the youngest young guns among the Council “periti”, soon recognised that the liturgy had jumped (or been thrown) from the frying-pan into the fire and had ended up in the hands of “experts” and liturgy groups who falsely believed it was up to them to exercise creativity, much as the Israelites got tired of waiting for Moses to return from Sinai and took to dancing around the golden calf –
“a kind of banal self-gratification. The narrative of the golden calf is a warning about any kind of self-initiated and self-seeking worship. Ultimately it is no longer concerned with God but with giving oneself a nice little alternative world manufactured from one’s own resources. Then liturgy really does become pointless, just fooling around.”
“The Spirit of the Liturgy”, Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Eng. trans. 2000, p.23, but his horror at the post-Vatican II liturgical developments which themselves brazenly transgressed the norms laid down by the Council long pre-dated this book.
It is unclear what, precisely, it is that Mr Keenan labels as hearsay. Perhaps he is calling into question the veracity of the quote that I have given above. Perhaps he believes that I might have made it up. Perhaps he believes that the book from which I quote might be a forgery.
I categorically deny the former. As for the latter, a web search will show that copies of the book are available from Amazon.com. You may purchase the book for yourself and see that what I have quoted is “literally true”. I offered into the above discussion, not as a piece of polemic, but as an item of apparent interest and relevance to the discussion.
Mr Keenan’s assertion that “the recommendation can hardly have been one of those “secrets” that the “Vatican” is commonly supposed to specialise in, so I cannot doubt that it will take Mr. Kourie long.” is so obscure that I do not know how to respond to it.
Although the Pope is sometimes said to have been “liberal” when younger, but to have grown more conservative, I am not sure that he can be so easily boxed into these categories. In his book I have cited (yes—a real, genuine book), he talks quite a lot about the “progressives” vs the “conservatives” at Vatican II—the former being the overwhelming majority. He himself calls these categories into question, and points out that the key difference seemed to be that the one group, the “conservatives”, tended to look to the immediate past for guidance about the future direction of the Church. The “progressives”, in contrast, tended to reach deeper into the past for guidance, seeking out the root practices and teachings of Christianity. He shows a clear preference for the “progressive” thinking, but cautions that the “conservatives” also have something to say and should be taken seriously.
I found that observation quite thought-provoking, and the book as a whole quite a fascinating insight into Vatican II as well as into the mind (and indeed eloquence) of the youthful Ratzinger.
No need to fence with me, Mr. Kourie. We do not often see eye to eye, but that is no reason to magnify our differences.
The hearsay I was referring to is the information, given at second-hand via that remark you quoted, as to what Pope Leo XIII said or wrote concerning the recitation of the Rosary. Just as Mr. Lee did not refer to any writing or speech of the Venerable Pius XII, neither did the young Ratzinger as quoted by you. I was not doubting the existence of that book(!), or your fidelity in quoting from it.
I (for one) would like to be directed to the place or places where these two Popes said or wrote what they are said to have said or written about the Rosary, that is all. I was not insisting that you conduct the research, Mr. Kourie, but I was giving you credit for not wanting to take your stand exclusively on what the young Ratzinger wrote (polemically) about Pope Leo XIII. The words of Pope Leo XIII are what interest me here.
To unpack further, if Pope Leo XIII did “recommend” what young Ratzinger said he did, then presumably it was made public and is beyond the scope of research – even research conducted online (I gave the fruits of my own rapid review). I apologise if my ironical style confused you.
I agree that quasi-political labels are often uninformative where not positively misleading, but it is widely known from what he himself has said and written that Fr. Ratzinger was greatly perturbed by les événements of 1968 (inside and outside the Church). He announced something fundamental about his own position when he helped launch the journal “Communio” in 1972 (having previously served on the board of “Concilium”, a journal founded in 1965).
The roll-call of leading contributors to the two journals is itself eloquent of the difference in stance: Rahner, Schillebeeckx and Küng for “Concilium”; De Lubac, Danielou, Urs von Balthasar, Ratzinger and Wojtyla for “Communio”.
It is now tolerably clear that the major dispute today over the interpretation and application of the teaching of Vatican II is whether it constituted a rupture with the Church’s past (including Vatican I) or (as Fr., then Archbishop, Cardinal, and Papa Ratzinger has long contended) was in continuation of, and in harmony with, the entire magisterium taken as a whole.
. . presumably it was made public and is NOT beyond the scope of research . .
my apologies
Professor Kourie has most certainly not unearthed a new piece of hearsay … rather, he has quoted directly from a book written by Joseph Ratzinger – any suggestion to the contrary smacks of moral turpitude from someone backed into a very tight corner. This little book is actually quite well-known and currently quite talked about in churchy circles. I think it to be self-evident that Professor Kourie’s “researches” on this topic are complete. But a (good) lawyer might be able to prove me wrong on this (rather vexatious?) matter.
Thank you, Derrick, for your posts, which are as always a delight to read. I must say that Professor Ratzinger certainly didn’t pull any punches in his critique of a certain curial department! Would that there were a few more theologians around today who would do the same thing vis-a-vis the CDW. But the current climate appears to be a tad more oppressive than that of the mid-sixties.
And thanks, too, to John Lee for a well-crafted letter to the Editor on timely matters.
I wonder if some among us might be tempted to label the “young” Professor Ratzinger as somewhat heterodox, and the “old” Papa Ratzi as utterly orthodox?
Perhaps Mr Keenan could e-mail Pope Benedict, and ask him to verify his sources? Maybe the e-mail cold even be phrased in his “ironical style”?
Thanks, Mr Keenan, for clarifying your response to my quotation from Prof Ratzinger. Thanks too for finding the extract from the Encyclical “Supremi Apostolatus” of Leo XIII. I too did some googling, and could find nothing more explicit than the extract that you discovered.
My guess would be that neither Leo XIII nor Pius XII ever issued an encyclical explicitly recommending that the rosary should be said during each and every Mass. Neither, it seems, did they ever forbid or discourage saying the rosary during Mass. That was left to Paul VI.
In the citation that you provide, Leo:
1) Requests (in fact, decrees and orders) that during the month of October of a particular year (seemingly not every year in perpetuity?), daily services should take place in all churches for the purposes of communal recitation of the rosary.
2) In addition, as part of this instruction, he wills either that:
2a) Mass should be said at the alter, or
2b) exposition of the Blessed Sacrament should take place.
3) Instructs that, thereafter, Benediction is to be given with the Sacred Host to the pious congregation.
There is no indication in his text as to whether 1 and 2 should happen contemporaneously, or whether 2 should succeed 1.
It seems to me that Ratzinger’s assertion is well explained by the text you have cited, i.e. it is entirely plausible that Ratzinger construed Leo’s intention to be that 1 and 2 should happen contemporaneously.
I say this because–as you know–the practice of praying the rosary during Mass was entirely commonplace in pre-Vatican II days. (Indeed, to this day it lingers on as a practice amongst a number of older—and even younger—pius souls—Paul VI’s recommendations notwithstanding.) It would be entirely natural for Ratzinger, observing the practice all around him in 1966, to place such a construction on the intention of the encyclical’s author.
I recall as a pre-Vatican II child and subsequently, attending devotions where 1) and 2b) happen simultaneously, followed by 3. I believe that you will find many parishes to this day where such devotions are practiced, seemingly in obedience to that encyclical. This fact, too, argues that Leo quite probably expected that 1) and 2a) could happen simultaneously.
It seems to me, then, that the balance of the evidence suggests that, not only did Professor Ratizinger construe Pope Leo’s intention to be that 1 and 2a) should happen simultaneously, but that that was indeed Pope Leo’s intention. In saying this, I do not dream of posthumously berating the good pope. I think that, as a creature of his times, he was simply responding in terms of the practice of his times: that the rosary was prayed by the faithful, while the priest, with his back to the faithful “said” the Mass.
However, it also seems to me that Professor Ratizinger misrepresents Pope Leo’s intention in this sense: the good pope was not issuing an explicit instruction that henceforth the rosary should be prayed during every Mass, as perhaps suggested by Ratzingers text. Rather, he was urging that the rosary be said daily during October, and co-incidentally “willing” that either Mass of Exposition take place during those devotions.
I think it would be an anachronism to construe the intention in the encyclical otherwise. Such a construction would require one to believe that Leo anticipated the spirit and practices of Vatican II, and the subsequent teachings of Paul VI on the matter. At best, I think that one could attribute the absence of words such as “during” or “at the same time” in the encyclical to the working of the Holy Spirit, so that legal minds in the future could argue that “He never actually said it”, and thus argue in support of the inerrancy of Papal teachings.
I have to confess some puzzlement about your closing comments regarding the alleged major dispute today: whether Vatican II was a rupture with the past, or a continuation. In my experience, it is only the marginal “far right” (apologies for the political term) who see Vatican II as a rupture with the past. It is they who have difficulty acknowledging its authority, ratifying its recommendations, accepting the vernacular, etc. etc. As far as I can see, the broad mass of practicing Catholics accept VII as a continuation of the past, with appropriate adaptations for current conditions. There is no talk of rupture, but of organic growth of Christ’s mystical body.
Apologies for the length of this posting. I think it was Mark Twain who remarked about a letter he had written: I did not have the time to make it shorter :-)
Dear Mr. Kourie, I am very appreciative of the generous manner in which you have expressed your summary – which I would not wish to argue over.
The Council is certainly seen as a rupture by Lefebvrists of all stripes (including those who believe the Papal See has been vacant since 1963, or even 1958), but the major dispute over the interpretation of the Council to which I was referring was analysed by the Holy Father himself in the second half of a famous Christmas speech to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005.
Rather than paraphrase it, I give the paragraphs which introduce his theme, showing that he did not have the Lefebvrists in mind and also showing where he stands on the question. He mentions the continuing difficulties over “reception” of the Council and ponders why this might be so:-
“Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
“On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.
“On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
“The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless.
. . .
“In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.
“The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood.”
If you want to read the whole speech it is at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html
For the avoidance of all doubt, I repeat that I did not dispute that Derrick Kourie had correctly transcribed what was written by the young Ratzinger, nor was I accusing the young Ratzinger of having cooked up what he wrote about Pope Leo XIII in the passage quoted.
In the absence of a source reference, however, A’s summary of what B said is hearsay: that is to say, while not doubting A’s integrity, we are entitled to ask for first-hand evidence of what B did, in fact, say. Mr. Kourie understood this perfectly well and everything he has written indicates that there is, indeed, no source reference in the young Ratzinger’s book from which anyone could check what was there attributed to Pope Leo XIII. Absent any further research, the source does seem to be the 1883 Encyclical from which I quoted above.
Peace.
A small correction in Mr Keenan’s first letter dated 7th July. He speaks of “Lefebvrists of all stripes(including those who believe the Papal See has been vacant etc)….. ” This is a little misleading and can cause confusion in the mind of readers. Sedevacantists do not belong to the Priestly Society of St Pius X. The sedevacantists belong to small groups on the fringe, they are dangerous, very dangerous and do a great harm to traditionalists belonging to the SSPX or the Ecclesia Dei groups. The SSPX is a very strong supporter of the Pope, of the See of Peter, and would happily shed their blood for the Pope, should the crunch come…
Thank you to the writer for his most interesting contribution.
P.R. Margeot is quite correct: I should have written “Lefebvrists and ex-Lefebvrists of all stripes”. To take one instance, the notorious sedevacantist “Bishop” Daniel Dolan (I haven’t studied his claim to authentic episcopal ordination) was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976 and was expelled from the SSPX in 1983.
While a discussion of the merits of the English of this new “translation” could be useful, a few other points seem to me more important:
1. We are being lied to regarding the reason(s) this translation was undertaken and about its supposed efficacy. Furthermore, our pastors are going to be asked to stand up before their congregations and lie to them (i.e., us). Lying is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
2. It is difficult to understand why ANYONE who was around at the time of Vatican II and experienced the complete turnaround in ecumenical relations which resulted, could ever even consider using a liturgical translation which is not merely accidentally anti-ecumenical, but rather was INTENDED as an affront to our ecumenical partners, fellow members of the Body of Christ. Those who were not around for Vatican II might like to ask some of us greybeards what things were like before the Council. This translation is a violation of Vatican II’s document on Ecumenism.
3. Similarly, how can anyone in the English-speaking Catholic Churches support this translation when our bishops were so ill-treated in the process, and the whole notion of collegiality was trampled upon? These incidents have been well documented by retired Bishop Maurice Taylor of Canada, and by John Wilkins, former editor of The Tablet of London. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/). What happened to the vaunted principle of subsidiarity? This translation violates the Council’s Constitution on the Church.
4. Apart from the merits or lack thereof of the text, the PRINCIPLES of translation espoused by the mis-titled “Liturgiam Authenticam” are absolutely backward, both in terms of ecclesiastical translations and secular ones. In short, they are simply wrong.
To state, as the Voice article does, that, “The missal…has undergone a lengthy and rigourous translation process….” is also simply wrong. The process was indeed lengthy, but the translation is far from rigorous, except in the sense that it is stiff (e.g., rigor mortis).
And what are the implications of this? Among other things, these erroneous “princlples” could well infect the accuracy and objectivity of biblical scholarship, bringing further disrepute upon the Catholic Church. (“Further” because — in case you missed it — the pedophilia scandal and its fallout have already done considerable damage.)
5. On the pastoral front, it is good to be concerned with those already members of the Catholic Church, but what about those who are not? In our diocese, about 63% of the people living here belong to no formal religion at all.* So we have some scope for mission, for evangelization. Will these ‘unclaimed’ souls be attracted to a Church whose leaders do not have the courage to tell the truth? We need to be concerned about the effects of this translation upon evangelization — in other words, look outward, not just inward. Will the language of this new missal help or hinder evangelization?
6. The German Bishops were recently ‘given’ a new translation of the funeral rites similar in methodology and spirit to this new Roman Missal. They refused to implement it, for pastoral reasons. (See http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/newsjuly15.htm)
Pace e bene
Michael J. Cassidy
* Data from Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies via the Association of Religious Data Archives (ARDA), University of Pennsylvania.
Inadvertent omission: To state, as the Voice article does, that, “The missal…
This refers to the lead article in the Catholic Voice, diocesan newspaper of the diocese of Oakland, California, USA, for September 6, 2010. The article was “Use of new Roman Missal to begin Advent 2011″, (Nancy Frazier O’Brien, Catholic News Service)