Bishops can also make mistakes

In The Southern Cross of February 18-24, in which Cardinal Wilfrid Napier explained why the new Mass translations are necessary, the editorial by Günther Simmermacher on “The Absence of Love” was truly excellent.

Based on the commendable explanation by Cardinal Napier, I understand that at the time of Vatican II, the Dynamic Equivalence (DE) philosophy of translation was adopted in respect of translating the liturgy into the vernacular.

When the fruits of Vatican II unfolded, I was in my thirties, and the outcome was for me like an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a freeing from liturgical captivity, so that the liturgy of the Mass in English unfolded the truths it conveyed and was invigorating.

In 2001 the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam required that the Literal Equivalence (LE) philosophy of translation replace the DE philosophy in respect of the liturgy. What is of importance is the conveyance of spiritual truths to the laity. Where the LE conserves the truth it is important, as in the change from “seen and unseen” to “visible and invisible”. However, the LE cannot comprehend or encompass the rapidly expanding knowledge of God’s creation.

It would seem that DE and LE philosophies should be combined in the quest to convey spiritual truth in the 21st century.

The efficacy of Liturgiam Authenticam can be challenged. The laity are the Church. Without the laity, what purpose does the hierarchy serve? Its purpose is to serve and teach the laity, and in this context, bishops have God-given authority.

However, the hierarchy consists of humans who are not free of error. Witness their previous errors which include the burning of Joan of Arc at the stake, the questionable practices which resulted in the revolt of Martin Luther, the censoring of Galileo for hundreds of years, and the muzzling of Teilhard de Chardin.

Cardinal Napier challenged the right of the editor of The Southern Cross to publish the reactions of the laity, religious, priests and bishops to the new liturgical changes. He accused the editor of openly encouraging dissent. Accordingly I infer that Cardinal Napier is not at all interested in the opinions of the laity and clergy on the changes to the liturgy imposed upon us. The Southern African bishops neglected to give a formal reply to the first draft of the changes submitted to them by the ICEL. (I refer to the letter of Fr John Converset, “Some text changes are harmful”, December 24-30, 2008).

In this respect I consider Cardinal Napier to be in error. The statements that follow his accusation of the editor infer that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the preserve of the hierarchy, and that he wishes for the return of an uninformed, unthinking, docile, captive laity who will not challenge the efficacy of any of the actions or inactions of the hierarchy.

Prior to the current editorship, I seldom bought or looked at The Southern Cross.

Chris Watermeyer, Blairgowrie