ROFL. That's awesome.It's in these situations that Fr. Z usually says something to the effect of, "If they don't like it, they could always do it in Latin."
God save poor old Ireland!
While the new translation still is not as Latinate as the older translations, the new one is closer to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer style I grew up with. I could live with that.The problem is that we have a Anglophone Catholic Church that is less literate and scared of Latin that a Latinate rendering in 21st century English is enough to cause apoplexy! It is just quite unfortunate that a Catholic and Protestant Ireland won't have an Ordinariate anytime soon. At least the Anglican Roman Catholics can show them that a Latinate English is nothing to be scared of! And this should benefit the Protestants too.
Furthermore, in a country where ecumenism should be an important pastoral priority, it is worth noting that the new text is less ecumenical than the current one.Good grief. No wonder the Church in Ireland is in such a mess.
Fr. Dermot Lane’s attempts at fomenting disobedience are nothing new. Fr. Lane taught at the Catholic University Of America in the early 1980s, whereupon I had the distinct ‘pleasure’ of being a sophomore undergrad in his course “Jesus as the Christ.” His class’ main thrust was that Jesus did not know He was divine until He began His mission around the age of 30, but rather that He was ‘aware of a unique closeness to God.’ Father Lane referred to as ‘Ascending Christology.” (and if our young teen mush-heads did not parrot back his party line in essays tests, but dared assert orthodox thought, we got a D or F).He also made the remarkable claim that the Church had finally managed to transcend such archaic concepts as “trans-substantiation.” He actually smirked and said “to think that all over the World little pieces of bread are becoming the actual Body of Jesus is fostering a childish, Star Trek outlook that somehow Christ is ‘beaming down’ into each Host.” Lest anyone doubt Fr. Lane's clearly heterodox mindset, here's the textbook he authored that we had to use, available on Amazon "The Reality of Jesus: An Essay on Christology", ISBN. #978-0809120208.The Amazon review puts a slightly charitable spin on Fr. Lane's heterodoxy: "This departure from traditional Christology seems somewhat veiled by an appeal to the absolute mystery of God, when Lane argues that even Jesus couldn't have been the perfect revelation of the Father. "That about sums up where this man is coming from...
So then, if the new translation is closer to the Book of Common Prayer, it should be a more ecumenical translation, shouldn't it?
PREPARE TO BE SHOCKED!!! This is what the Irish Church is at... Have a look at these clips from Fr. Tony Flannery's base in Limerick, Ireland... He is the head of that destructive association. Shame on them all!Rev. SUPERIOR at his besthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hVh1MQGLZA&feature=channel"Rev. Woman Priest" proclaiming the Gospel AND preachinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3NaGAzErk8&feature=relatedMs. Henrietta O'Meara (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYbF7RE9Ps&feature=channelMs. Henrietta O'Meara (Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9ejPZZyfZQ&feature=channelFr. Tony Rice's INAPPROPRIATE jokes - watch from 3:40 onhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ6cP-fqlJs&feature=relatedNewly ordained Redemptorists on The Late Late Show - wouldn't St. Alphonsus be so proud of them! So embarrassing...Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saMYwJZhckAPart 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNfik3g9MQkPart 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMEYJ8eXM4&feature=relatedPart 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHk7rMxxBYU&feature=relatedNewly ordained Redemptorist Priests on TV (Part 6) - Watch all 6 parts on youtube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5eR-zhsLZY&feature=related
The Irish Association of Catholic Priests' prosaic, if frantic, missive notwithstanding, the proverbial silk purse can never be made...Just to read again that novus ordo offertory...God help His Church!
The main point of the protest is this one (the rest is just excuses to hide it):"A central teaching of the Christian Churches is that Jesus died for all people. This meaning is conveyed in the current translation of the Latin words of consecration over the chalice, pro vobis et pro multis. The phrase is translated for you and for all in the current missal. The new text opts for the more literal translation, for you and for many. In English, the word “many” contrasts with the word “few,” so people may be led to ask, are there some for whom Jesus did not die?"Where do this people learn theology? Are they serious with the question?Jesus died for all people, but the sentence in Mass is not about what Jesus wanted, but about the effects of His sacrifice, and since not everybody will be saved, many is the correct word, in English, Latin, and any language.All these guys should be expelled from their parishes righ now, they´re now even slightly prepared to be pastors of anyone.
From the ACP critique itself: Ignoring WomenMany women will be rightly enraged by the continued deliberate use of non-inclusive language. The ACP strongly opposes the introduction and use of any texts which will insult and offend women who are at the heart of every Christian community in Ireland.And many of us will be rightly enraged by attempts to bring sexism into the liturgy.
An extract from a recent editorial in the Irish Church and State magazine (organ of the now defunct Campaign to Seperate Church and State):http://current-magazines.atholbooks.org/readers/full_article.php?article_id=41&&title=The%20Church%20And%20Its%20Critics[...] The early issues of this magazine carried a series of articles on The Rise Of Papal Power In Ireland, explaining it more or less as it is explained here. They were issued as a pamphlet, under that title, on the occasion of the Pope's visit in 1979. Again they were widely distributed for review. One curt notice, dismissing the subject as inappropriate, was published, in Books Ireland.So the Pope came and he was received with mindless adulation, lay and clerical, with only two noticeable expressions of dissent—this magazine and the Bishop of Cork, who is now taken to be a by-word for obscurantist reaction, Con Lucey.The Taoiseach was Cork City politician Jack Lynch, who had won an overall majority in 1977 in an election campaign which was unusually Catholic clericalist for Fianna Fail. But, two years later, the Pope did not visit the second city in the state because the Bishop did not invite him. And, some time later, Lucey retired and went off to be a missionary in Africa. He did not ever explain his failure to invite the Pope to Cork, but it is not hard to see a reason for it.Vatican 2 Catholicism undermined and trivialised the earnest Catholicism of Pius IX on which the Irish Church had formed itself, in association with the developing national movement, since the mid-19th century. That phase of development was not exhausted in Ireland when it was halted by Vatican 2. It was still filling itself out when it was ordered to stop. If the original impulse given by the triumph of Anti-Vetoism in the Veto Controversy was running out of momentum, there would have been evidence of this in the appearance of a sceptical intelligentsia to dispute certain areas of ground with the Hierarchy, and by so doing to provide for an evolutionary transition to a new relationship of Church and State.What happened instead was that the new Church formed in Ireland in the mid-19th century—by O'Connell's Roman colleague, Cardinal Cullen—was stopped in its tracks by the Vatican, while there was still no social development against it to take its place. The Vatican 2 changes had to be imposed on Ireland. And their imposition devalued the values to which the generations then in their prime had dedicated themselves.Religious development in Ireland, with which social development was connected, was suddenly written off as an aberration. My Lord Bishop suddenly became Bishop Jack or Bishop Jim. Communion and Confirmation became occasions for display of fashion. Hell was abolished—and Heaven along with it, for all that was said to the contrary. And convents and monasteries were deprived of meaning.The ersatz intelligentsia, which is now kicking the Church because it is down, did nothing to bring it down. It was the Vatican that undermined it. But that is an inadmissible thought in the fashion of the moment because the futile scepticism which is the outcome of Vatican 2 must have it that Vatican 2 was a good thing. (The creature must love its creator.)
This is a rite of the liturgy that is translating itself into obsolescence. The sooner the better.
It's really funny that Over in Great Britain (do come back Ireland), we have had a largely led Catholic hierarchy or descended hierarchy who have been the staple of the church since the WW2 at the least. It seems quite apt then seeming that Catholicism the once staple Spiritual food of Ireland akin to the Potato is now well rancid, that it will take the hearts and minds of English Catholics to help their fellow brethen out in all the heterodoxy that is in Ireland. Another point is the Catholic Church never did do enough to wrestle control of its own identity in the times of 'Irish Liberation' meaning that many used Ireland's catholicism as a means of rallying people to their 'differences' with Protestant Britain. It is from this point hereon that we see a gradual 'nationalization' of Catholicism in Ireland akin to the Nationalist Orthodox churches you have ! If Catholicism is to survive in Ireland, First thing that neds to be done is each diocese needs to be directly accountable to the Holy See and their 'Collegial' Bishop Conference shutdown completely and same goes for all the other Bishop Conferences in Existence which encourage Clericalism, Humanism but most of all a diminishing of Our Lord's will unto secularism.Lee Lovelock.
"Bishops are the chief pastors of their dioceses." They conveniently left out one detail: Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ.The Pope has the patience of a saint!
Please note that Fr Dermot Lane is in fact Monsignor Dermot Lane, and a Chaplain of His Holiness. I wonder would His Holiness be pleased to learn what one of his chaplains is proposing?
"The ACP believes that the imposition of the new texts could lead to chaos and confusion. The new translation may be fully implemented in some churches and rejected in others. Some priests will adopt a ‘pick-and-mix’ approach using some texts from the current Missal and others from the new translation."___Hold on...! this is EXACTLY what you guys in the modernist church have been IMPOSING over "the people" for over +40 years....So, they think a good way to "avoid" this is making it into "their" way. Of course! my way is better than yours type of idea. I found the whole text repulsive, sorry to say.What a JOKE.
Disobedience in doctrine and dogma leads to disobedience in other areas (as we all discovered to our dismay last year!)
"The Pope has the patience of a saint!"Oh no! Not another hurried sanctification!
Anonymous 'Prepare to be shocked':Thank you for posting those video links - very entertaining in a grim sort of way.
Arguing over what should have remained in perpetua, The Holy Mass as codified by Pope St. Pius V. Otherwise; it will forever remain in flux and be argued over by all who seek their own fancy.
LeonG: It was just a good ol' fashion expression, honest!
The Irish are also known for blarney. This statement is full of it.
The paradox is that even though the NO liturgy is in their own tongue they still do not think the ordinary layperson can understand it!
When the new translation was made available, I did a very detailed scholarly analysis of the two translations of the New Missal, comparing them both from semantic and æsthetic points of view. The rhetoric I used in this personal draft was too extreme: it needs to be toned down I realised this from the outset. It was not my intention to publish it.I found that the latest translaion was vastly superior semantically, although it could still be imporved in a few places. In terms of æsthetcs, I found that the latest version was considerably better but that the one from the 1970s was actually better in a number of important places. In particular, E.P. No. 2, especially in its opeining, is better in the previous translation on these grounds. It didn't occur to me at the time but I am wondering if it was not made to be so rhythmic (in this case) so as to make it more attractive to celebrants. Important when you consider that this E.P. is more troubling theologically than are the others. But I might just be reading in something there. I think that the new translation does a very great deal to imporve the situation. However, the problem is the master text in Latin. When a celebrant gets to the Canon, he can refuse the unacceptale E.P. No. 2 and just use the slilghtly-damaged Roman Canon (No. 1). But there is no way, in the New Mass, to escape the New Offertory, and that Offertory is unacceptable for several important reasons. That is why I keep harping on that Offertory: celebrants have no choice but to use it. There are four alternate Euchartic Prayers and three alternate Penitential Rties but only one Offertory text.Benedict XVI could restore the ancient Offertory at least as an *option*, calling it 'Offertory I' and the New one 'Offertory II' (or even with the reverse labels). This would largely save the day theologically. If he is even more daring, he could restore the mediæval "Placeat Tibi" at the end of Mass and make its use mandatory. At this point, I think, only a handfull of liberals lions from the 1970s would refuse to obey on this, and the propitiatory nature of the Mass, which is central in its meaning, would be settled forever. I think that Benedict XVI will begin a process of reforming the New Mass: there might be several baby steps over the next two or three pontificates. The Roman Canon is already preserved as an option. What is essential is to restore the mediæval Offertory at least as an option and perhaps make optional at least for E.P. No. 1 to have the traditional formula for Consecration, sans Memorial Acclamation.Benedict XVI, I think, is a man of his word. So, when he tells us that he means to merge the two Missals, making them 'enrich' each other, I think that he means what he says. However, to say that they are to be merged in some Missa Normativa does not mean that the ancient Mass will be made completely unavailable as a result. He knows that the S.S.P.X will never agree to a merged Missal and he is determined to recognise or even regularise the Society. So what we may find is a merging of the 'indult' Mass and and N.O.M. but with a small allowance on the side for the former.P.K.T.P.
PKTP writes"Benedict XVI could restore the ancient Offertory at least as an *option*, calling it 'Offertory I' and the New one 'Offertory II' (or even with the reverse labels). This would largely save the day theologically. If he is even more daring, he could restore the mediæval "Placeat Tibi" at the end of Mass and make its use mandatory. At this point, I think, only a handfull of liberals lions from the 1970s would refuse to obey on this, and the propitiatory nature of the Mass, which is central in its meaning, would be settled forever."The Offertory of the ancient rite as an alternative option is a splendid idea. The banal (and in my view) neo-Protestant offertory of the novusordo needs to go completely and forever, but I agree with your comments on an earlier thread that such a gift is unlikely. Agree as well with respect to the Placeat tibi. You've hit the nail square on the head re the two principal reasons I do not assist at the newmass.I suspect you're right about only a handful of liberal lions...and I would add the Neocatechumenate. I don't consider their 'liturgy' to be Catholic period, but the contumacious rejection of the mass as Sacrifice is heresy and offensive to the unity of the Church, although they seem to care little enough about that in any event.
n terms of æsthetcs, I found that the latest version was considerably better but that the one from the 1970s was actually better in a number of important places. In particular, E.P. No. 2, especially in its opeining, is better in the previous translation on these grounds. It didn't occur to me at the time but I am wondering if it was not made to be so rhythmic (in this case) so as to make it more attractive to celebrants. Important when you consider that this E.P. is more troubling theologically than are the others. But I might just be reading in something there.Very interesting. Perhaps then we'll see priests using that Eucharistic Prayer much less. That would be desirable for several reasons.
After reading the various comments here, 2 thoughts came to mind:1. the Liturgical Life in the Roman Rite is improving but still needs a bit more tweaking;2. It seems to me that Catholics of the various theological persuasions need to to engage in internal dialogue and consensus before thinking that restored Communion with the Orthodox Church in attainable. frankly there are some who teach and offer opinions contrary to the thinking of Rome, that would be better served in the Anglican Communion as constituted these days.
There is nothing worse than a fashion victim and these priets are just that. They are not concerned with whether the new translation is more authentic or English vocab more accurate and intelligent. I am afraid this is all like a bad episode of Fr Ted!
"While the new translation still is not as Latinate as the older translations, the new one is closer to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer style I grew up with. I could live with that."How revolting a thought, that the "new Mass" which will be introduced in eight months, supposedly more faithful to tradition, rather than being faithful to Catholic tradition...is now closer to the sound of the old Anglican Book of Common Prayer! Horrible.Since Vatican II, we'vre gone from the liturgical and spiritual heights of the magnificent Tridentine Latin Mass, to the lowest depts to be like a group of Calvinists or Lutherans.....now with some semblance of a recapture of more sacrality in the words of the Mass...it reminds some of old Anglicanism? I'll take the SSPX and ROMAN CATHOLICSM, over the revised "Mass" which is more like Anglicanism any day!
This is grotesque. I am incensed at this haughty Irish document, complete with adoring commentary by men in "music ministry". Honestly. Ireland - with the hardly any vocations and almost unsurpassed apostasy in Europe complaining that this, this and not their half a century of liturgical abuses, is going to cause confusion and isolate women. I read all of their examples and found them completely intelligible and readable. Find me a single Irishmen, outside of this AC whatever the acronym was, so stupid as not to be able to follow the English while either reading or listening. It is not sufficient that we have abandoned Latin - now unless the vernacular is urinarily poor the Irish bishops are going to forestall the best thing to happen in the English-speaking churches since who can even say anymore?! Mark well their use of the sole, imfamous, justification for their mockery of the liturgy in the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy; their comical claim to have been ensuring a "dignified" and "prayerful" (perhaps if it was to Bacchus...) celebration of the Mass; their looking to German-speaking bishops for their conduct (these men who illegally oppose legally elected candidates for the episcopacy; who by being alive scandalize the faithful).Their note about irony concerning Irish poets and novelists! I laughed in disbelief. Their discussion of pro vobis et pro mvltis. For many is not a "more literal" translation. It is what the text says. It does not say all. It is a quotation of Christ (though He was not an Irish poet or novelist or known for His talents in linguistics and anthropology - mark well the appeal to abstruse fields of science while condemning the Latin as a confusing departure from the pure, every-day worse, English of the people; most English-speakers shall understand fidelity in a translation over appeals to "dynamic equivalent" and ectera - and He was not a German bishop, why heed Him?).What is most infuriating is the fact that these opinions, those embodied in the document, are marginal outside of the priesthood and yet they are all we shall be hearing in most countries (it is not so in our parish but they have brought in a nun to give talks for the next three weeks; I shall attend one and she had better be wearing a veil and not speaking in an Irish accent or so help her). Most of the laity shall not even notice the changes after they have been in use for a few years (they know now because most bishops have had their priests "prepare" them for it; others now know because of documents such as this). They only among laity who support such outdated and un-Christian ideals are those politicking committee seat-seekers who when they die shall leave empty churches (and they are all, more than less, empty even with them there if we exclude from the count the elderly) and perhaps hope, hope in the quiet, even of desolation, so much more sacred than what they have put in them.May these bishops and their priests - their and not Christ's - die and let the Church breathe.
" He knows that the S.S.P.X will never agree to a merged Missal..."After 50 years with the anethamatised vernacular version & many a long journey with empty spaces between, neither will I.
Johannes, Well put. The gall, audacity. At least if their Churches are empty very few will hear their viewpoints. Perhaps there is a bigger reason than we can see for the Churches being almost empty for so many years. Less ears for the garbage to fall upon until a complete restoration of all things Catholic can occur from the top down.
The new translation is closer to the Anglican BCP rendering THAT HAS BEEN RESTORED to Roman Catholicism and communion with the Pope of Rome. But it isn't perfect. As far as I know the SSPX despite its Tridentine heritage has not been restored to Communion with the Roman Pontiff. And many Anglican Roman Catholics will not go back into schism more so now with the charity of Pope Benedict XVI. Communion with Rome is for us the Pearl of Great Price!
"While the new translation still is not as Latinate as the older translations, the new one is closer to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer style I grew up with. I could live with that."How revolting a thought, that the "new Mass" which will be introduced in eight months,No "new Mass" will be introduced in eight months. It's a new English translation of the Roman Missal that will be introduced, not a "new Mass."Of course the current non-translation is so removed from the original Latin of the Roman Missal that one could say, since the new translation is much more faithful to the original Latin and the current non-translation is deliberately unfaithful, it will seem to many like a new Mass. But it's still a new translation, not a wholly new Mass, that has been prepared.supposedly more faithful to tradition, rather than being faithful to Catholic tradition...It is certainly a more faithful and accurate rendering of the original Latin. That's something altogether separate from the question of whether or not the Roman Missal is faithful to Catholic tradition.is now closer to the sound of the old Anglican Book of Common Prayer! Horrible.Why would that be horrible? Is dignified sacral language horrible?
Ben Vallejo questions whether the SSPX is "in communion" with the Holy Father or not.Chris Ferrara has a good article for you Ben on "Remnantnewspaper.com".In summary though, The Holy Father himself has never questioned their "in communion -ness" so why should you?For 1) only4 bishops of the Society had been excommunicated, not their priests, religious or laity.For 2) the 4 bishops are no longer excommunicated.For 3) it is acknowledged on both sides that the issue is their "irregular" status.They are "in communion" but need "regularization".Speak intelligently. It is more conducive to mature Christian discussion.Thank you, Neophyte
Post a Comment