Posted on 05/14/2011 2:02:50 PM PDT by NYer
Here is an excerpt from a lengthy and very thoughtful address on the new translation of the Roman Missal given last month by Auxiliary Bishop James Conley of Denver at the Midwest Theological Forum in Valparaiso, Indiana:
The key point here is that the words we pray matter. What we pray makes a difference in what we believe. Our prayer has implications for how we grasp the saving truths that are communicated to us through the liturgy.
For instance, our current translation almost always favors abstract nouns to translate physical metaphors for God. If the Latin prayer refers to the “face” of God, “face” will be translated in abstract conceptual terms, such as “presence.” References to God’s “right hand” will be translated as God’s “power.”
This word choice has deep theological implications.
The point of the Son of God becoming flesh is that God now has a human face — the face of Jesus. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Whoever sees him sees the Father.vi
Yet if in our worship we speak of God only in abstract terms, then effectively we are undermining our faith in the Incarnation.
As Archbishop Coleridge says: “The cumulative effect [of abandoning human metaphors for God] is that the sense of the Incarnation is diminished. God himself seems more abstract and less immediate than ever he does in Scripture or the Church Fathers.”
I want to say this again: I don’t believe there were bad motives involved in the translations we have now.
I think the root problem with the translations we have now is that the translators seriously misunderstood the nature of the divine liturgy.
Our current translations treat the liturgy basically as a tool for doing catechesis. That’s why our prayers so often sound utilitarian and didactic; often they have a kind of lowest-common-denominator type of feel. That’s because the translators were trying to make the “message” of the Mass accessible to the widest possible audience.
But Christ did not give us the liturgy to be a message-delivery system. Of course, we pray what we believe, and what we pray shapes what we believe. Lex orandi, lex credendi. But the liturgy is not meant to “teach” in the same way that a catechism teaches, or even in the same way that a homily teaches.
On this point, the words of the great liturgical pioneer, Father Romano Guardini, are worth hearing again:
The liturgy wishes to teach, but not by means of an artificial system of aim-conscious educational influences. It simply creates an entire spiritual world in which the soul can live according to the requirements of its nature. ….
The liturgy creates a universe brimming with fruitful spiritual life, and allows the soul to wander about in it at will and to develop itself there. ….
The liturgy has no purpose, or at least, it cannot be considered from the standpoint of purpose. It is not a means which is adapted to attain a certain end — it is an end in itself.vii
This is the authentic spirit of the liturgy.
As Guardini says, the liturgy aims to create a new world for believers to dwell in. A sanctified world where the dividing lines between the human and the divine are erased. Guardini’s vision is beautiful: “The liturgy creates a universe brimming with fruitful spiritual life.”
The new translation of the Mass restores this sense of the liturgy as transcendent and transformative. It restores the sacramentality to our liturgical language. The new translation reflects the reality that our worship here joins in the worship of heaven.
The new edition of the Missal seeks to restore the ancient sense of our participation in the cosmic liturgy.
The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of the Eucharist bringing us into the heavenly Jerusalem to worship in the company of angels and saints.viii The Book of Revelation starts with St. John celebrating the Eucharist on a Sunday. In the midst of this, the Spirit lifts him up to show him the eternal liturgy going on in heaven.ix
The message is clear: The Church’s liturgy is caught up in the liturgy of the cosmos. And our Eucharistic rites have always retained this vision of the cosmic liturgy.
The Gloria and the Sanctus are two obvious points of contact. In the first, we sing the song that the angels sang at the Nativity. In the latter, we sing in unison with the angelic choirs in heaven; we sing the song that both St. John and the prophet Isaiah heard being sung in the heavenly liturgy.
The oldest of our Eucharistic Prayers, the Roman Canon, lists the names of the 12 apostles along with 12 early saints. This is meant to correspond to the 24 elders who John saw worshipping around the heavenly altar.x
The Roman Canon also includes a prayer for the holy angels to bring the sacrifices from our altar up to God’s altar in heaven.
And of course the Communion Rite includes the Vulgate’s translation of the invitation that St. John heard in the heavenly liturgy: Blessed are those who are called to the Supper of the Lamb.xi
Yet we need to recognize that this experience of the heavenly liturgy has been lost since Vatican II.
Read the entire piece, published today by ZENIT.
I’m not exaggerating. The Paris Bible of the friars was simply not available in 1400. It came only after printing had become more common. Manuscripts written on paper were cheaper, of course, but still required wealthy patronage to complete.
That pretty much sums up the music.
Fortunately there are samizdat hymnals cropping up with more and better chant and hymns of beauty and depth.
I hope so. Most of what is offered at Mass is closer to Cain quality than Abel. Words that sound like they were written for children, music that sounds like 70s musicals. I call then "short bus" liturgies.
I pray it will change, but I know it won't in my lifetime. I'm hoping that there will be an Anglican congregation nearby that converts so I can go there.
People blame it on us boomers (and Vat II) but I don't think that's it. I think as the current crop of clerics ordained in the 60's and early 70's hits retirement things gonna happen. I hope. Hymns that sound like they come from a Disney movie or a cocktail lounge just have on staying power. They are kept alive, like the NAB, by authority.
We’re in the Phoenix diocese. The problem as I see it is threefold:
1.) The music ministers are ignorant of the purpose of liturgical music.
2.) The music ministers have enormous egos.
3.) The clerics share the same problems as the music ministers.
I should add a fourth problem: The appalling lack of good taste among all concerned.
I actually count some music ministers among my friends, and they are decent people, but I won’t bring the subject up anymore because they’ll never change.
Of course, the numbers available were nothing like the numbers of vernacular Bibles available in the 16th/17th centuries. But the Protestant notion that the Bible was "locked away" in a few libraries or in Churches chained to a lecture is simple not true.
The main point remains is that whether in the original languages or Latin or in the vernacular the Bible needs an interpreter. The modernist conceit that only the Biblical scholar has the competence to interpret is even further from the mark than the half-educated printers who thought their ability to read made them able to disregard fifteen hundred years of interpretation and to get "back" to the thinking of the early Church and the old Jews.
I woukd add one more: the inveterate experimentation. Music ministers cannot settle on one set of hymns/music settings. They are constantly changing things. Go from one church to another and seldom does one hear the same music.
We, as the real Church, have lost much. I am working at the highest levels to have the apostasy of VII overturned.
To give some context: in 1400 London a workman made about 3 shillings a day. Assuming that the pound sterling and the livre tournois were convertible (and they were close in value) and Paris workmen were making near what Londoners were making, then 200-300 livres means about 40 months’ wages.
It is an act of love because in the Holy Liturgy we come to meet God and He comes to us; it is the meeting of Christ in the flesh that overpowers any other intention or objective in the liturgy. For example, when the scripture is read or the icon is viewed, it is also true that information is conveyed to the worshipper; but his disposition must not be anything that other than the encounter with Christ that is occurring, and words of God are spoken to him during the encounter.
Further, love is kenotic: it sacrifices for the lover, and so the Holy Liturgy is also an act of sacrifice, both by God in His love giving us His only Son to suffer death, but also in us bringing our pains and labor to the altar.
It is an act of love "simply" in the sense that it is a short way of describing every essential aspect of the liturgy.
"Simple" should not be taken in the sense of "austere", or "improvised". Just like a lover would not intentionally reduce the splendor of his encounter with the beloved, so we should give our best, materially, behaviorally, and artistically, to the Church, as there is no more important time in the life of a Christian than this.
We had a priest, who was on the committee, come to our Parish and give a talk about the need for the changes. He said much of what this article said, and the folks in our Parish enjoyed hearing the explanations. We had a couple of hundred people total in the two nights on which he spoke, and we were surprised that many showed up!
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.