Posted on 07/08/2013 1:18:41 PM PDT by NYer
Ping!
Regret to inform that Liturgical insanity of many forms has NOT gone away.
Purely IMO, we Catholics need to start getting serious about bringing Good News of the Kingdom of God to a world in desperate trouble, and quit spending so much time and energy dickering over the fine points of our own rituals.
I assure you, the rest of the world, to whom we should be delivering this message, looks at us as some sort of a weird cliquish cult.
On our last day are we going to face our Heavenly Father and tell him “yes, but we preserved the liturgy in something closer to it’s pre-Vatican II form”?
Glad to hear of BlJPII’s role in this.
"Lex orandi, lex credendi." This whole article makes the point that liturgy matters. More importantly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not like any other "church service", especially not a "preaching service." Those folks are going to think we're weird even if we Protestantize the Mass to the nth degree.
Worrying about what others may think is unhelpful and wrong.
I’m Protestant, but I regularly attend Mass with my in-laws. I like many aspects of the newly translated Mass, but find a few places where they could have chosen simplicity over precision:
“And with your spirit?” replacing “And also with you”
and
“consubstantial with the Father” replacing “One with the Father”
I know I don’t get a vote. Just sharing my opinion.
And in no way does "et cum spiritu tuo" mean "and also with you". The correct translation highlights the spiritual, rather than worldly, nature of the greeting. IMO.
"Consubstantial" is simply an anglicization of the Latin "consubstantialem", which in turn is a translation of the Greek "homoousios" ... a term which was fought over heavily at Nicea. The 1970s translation was "one in being with the Father", which I think really doesn't mean anything. "Of the same substance as the Father", or "of one substance with the Father" would probably also be defensible translations. IMO.
Just sharing my opinion.
Polite discussion is always welcome.
True the simpler wording is more easily understood, but as my old theology professor (a Lutheran) told me...."words mean things". Consubstantial has a deeper meaning than the words "one with". I fondly recall my professor explaining the significance of even the simple words "light from light" in the Nicene Creed.
There are a lot of simpler translations that also spread dangerous false doctrines amongst the faithful, or which at least lend themselves easily to a false interpretation of doctrine. For instance, the statement "One with the Father" in the Creed can be interpreted in both an orthodox and a heretical manner. On the heretical side of things, the phrase can be interpreted in the sense of merely "one in purpose", or even as supporting the heresy of modalism. The use of the phrase "One with the Father" can thus foster a false, heretical, condemned understanding of God that could lead people away from God.
Although, it may be an unusual word for most people, the word "consubstantial" crushes all false or heretical understandings of the nature of the Trinity. This word theologically is by far the best word to use in the Creed, the only problem is that Catholic Priests don't seem to ever teach people what its meaning is. Priests should teach and preach about the meaning of this word more often and clearly.
I’m a Cradle Catholic who goes to Mass every day and I agree with you 1000%!!!
This article also gets a lot of factual errors, which demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the topic of developments in Catholic liturgy which draws its reliability into question. First of all it implies that Quatturor Abhinc Annos (1984) was promulgated in reaction to the SSPX ordaining bishops. That was not Quattuor, it was Ecclesia Dei Adflicta which was promulgated on July 2, 1988. Furthermore, that action was not done to enhance the liturgy. It was very likely done to minimize the size of the schism by throwing those priests who would have gone with the SSPX had Rome not thrown them an olive branch. For the most part, this papal command was also almost entirely subverted by the bishops who refused to enforce its terms, with a few exceptions, for nearly 20 years. Also, it could be argued that Ecclesia Dei actually placed a restriction on the older liturgy. If we accept Benedict XVI's legislation in Summorum Pontificum, which asserts that the Latin mass was never forbidden, then JPII would have actually placed a restriction on the Latin Mass, because his Ecclesia Dei required every priest to get permission from their bishop to say the old mass, whereas no permission would have been required before Ecclesia Dei Adflicta if it had been legal as Benedict XVI asserted in Summorum Pontificum.
They could go a long way in restoring sanity if they stopped using music that seems designed to appeal to 10-year-old girls and instead used music that was designed to be sacred.
If JPII had not done what he did, BXVI could not have done what he did.
It is always easier to destroy than rebuild, no one man can do everything and not all at once. JPII prob could not get a complete indult on the EF through, but his limited permission was an intermediate step.
When I go to almost any other parish it's usually extreme culture shock.
But when meaning is important, the so-called "dynamic translation" is a mistake. Latin is the language of the Church, and the Latin Mass is normative. When the "translation" doesn't accurately translate but says something entirely different, you aren't praying what the Church is praying. The old translation also muddled serious theological concepts and just got rid of others (the "Lord I am not worthy" in the OldTranslation completely omitted the reference to Matthew 8:8).
I also think the old version was just too 60s for words. But I was raised on Cranmer's BCP. Real literature, if you got rid of the Edwardian changes it's theologically sound as well. Go to an Anglican Use Rite Mass sometime. You'll be completely amazed.
I don't know. Things were already very loosey-goosey by 1978. Things stayed that way for quite a time, as I recall, but eventually, long before the end of John Paul II’s pontificate, things started getting much more orthodox and by the book, at least in my archdiocese.
There were (and still are) plenty of abuses even by the end of John Paul's pontificate, but 1) at least where I am, they were on the decline and 2) lots and lots of folks were, in the latter years of his pontificate, much more aware of what was a liturgical abuse, and were willing to say something about it.
Just my impression.
sitetest
“I have found that cradle Catholics are more suspicious of the Improved translation, by and large.”
I'm not sure there is an adequate way to generalize about cradle Catholics. I'm a cradle Catholic, as is my wife and are my two sons. We're quite happy with the new translation, especially my older son, who is fairly conversant in Latin.
I know some cradle Catholics who were “suspicious,” at least initially, but even there, a couple of Sundays at Mass with the new translation, and folks seemed fine. My nephew, who is a liberal cafeteria Catholic, even told me after a few weeks, "Oh, it's not as bad as I thought it would be."
The parishes and churches where I usually go to Mass have been fairly enthusiastic in adopting the new translation.
Most of the folks making the noise are the usual suspects, who make more noise than their relatively-modest numbers would predict.
sitetest
Of course, if you've been raised on a diet of rather bland and "easy" language, stronger meat may be distasteful at first.
It’s been re-translated to be more precise/ from the original. Corrected, if you will. I especially celebrate “I believe’ = ‘credo’, which was ‘we believe’ when we came into the Church in 2005 but has finally been corrected.
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.