What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

There is a great article about His Excellency Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don, Secretary of the CDWDS.

Vatican liturgical official seeks recovery of the sacred

Here are some excerpts:

"But unfortunately," he said, "after the Council, certain changes were made rapidly, without reflection, in a burst of enthusiasm, in a rejection of some exaggerations of the past." The result, the archbishop said, was quite different from the Council’s intent.

Asked to provide some examples of the negative results, the Sri Lankan prelate listed "the abandonment of the sacred and the mystical," the confusion between the common priesthood of all the faithful and the ordained ministry, and the concept of the Eucharist as a common banquet rather than a representation of Christ’s Sacrifice.

...

Asked whether he was hinting at approval of the use of the old Missal of St. Pius V, the Sri Lankan archbishop said that the requests for the use of the pre-conciliar liturgy have become more common. But the question is in the hands of Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news), he said. "The Pope knows all this," he said; "he knows the questions, he is very conscious of the situation, he is reflecting, and we are waiting for his indications."

Archbishop Patabendige Don addes that the use of the Tridentine rite "has never been abolished or banned." However, he said, because of the split in the Church caused by the traditionalist followers of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, the old Mass "has taken a certain identity that is not right."

The ubiquitous fair-minded writer for the lefty National Catholic Reporter in his weekly Word From Rome piece.  He discusses some very interesting things with his usual insight.

Do check out his brief interviews with The Chair and with Msgr. Moroney.

I will parse them pretty soon, but it is 5000 degrees in my room and only about 120% humidity so, I am just a little low in energy and motivation.

When Father Robert Altier and I were in seminary together, and ever after, we joked about working on a project that would cover things "from A to Z".  Who’da thunk it….

You remember Fr. Robert Altier of St. Paul and Minneapolis fame, don’t you?  It looks as if Father is going to be contributing a brief "in print" Sunday sermonette in the weekly journal of opinion The Wanderer.   Those of you who followed Fr. A’s bits before, might want to subscribe.

The Wanderer is where my WDTPRS columns have appeared for the last 6 years.

Opinion Journal arrives in my inbox everyday and I look forward to it.  Imagine my delight that a fellow patristicist wrote a piece on the recent vote of the USCCB to approve the English translation!  Here it is.  (Emphasis and comments mine)

The Language of Prayer
New changes to the Mass will make it closer to the original.

BY MICHAEL P. FOLEY
Friday, June 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last week the U.S. Catholic bishops overwhelmingly approved changes to the wording of the Mass that will significantly affect how Roman Catholics pray. Instead of an expected split vote, the bishops deliberated for only 20 minutes before deciding 173-23 in favor of a new English translation of the Latin Order of the Mass.

The bishops’ decision follows decades of displeasure with the current English translation. Drafted in 1970 by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy and in use ever since, the translation has been criticized as banal, uninspiring and inaccurate (one fastidious Latinist counted over 400 errors in the ordinary parts of the Mass alone). A rather straightforward response such as "and with your spirit" (et cum spiritu tuo) was rendered, "and also with you," while entire phrases were omitted or even inserted. In the Roman canon, for example, "a pure Victim . . . a spotless Victim" was ignored and "We come to you Father with praise and thanksgiving" added, the effect being that even the holiest part of the Mass seems more focused on us than on the Sacrifice. (TELL IT BROTHER!!)

It is difficult to believe that these errors were not intentional (no other translation—Spanish, German, Italian—has had such extensive problems), and indeed, according to some insiders, the committee’s decisions were ideologically driven. The Rev. Stephen Somerville, one of the original members of ICEL’s Advisory Board, apologized in 2002 for "the bold mistranslations" that "weaken[ed] the Latin Catholic liturgy."  (QUAERITUR: What should the penance be for that?)

Other former ICEL members have been less contrite. After the Vatican began to address the problem in 2001 with Liturgiam authenticam, its document on the principles of sound translation, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk direly prognosticated a "liturgical winter." John Page, a former executive secretary of ICEL, criticized the new procedures for not bringing "the wider Church into the conversation," a curious remark given ICEL’s own notoriety for ignoring decades of complaints from pleb and prelate alike.  (Sound familar to you?  Remembe the whine in The Floridian about people in the pew not being asked for input?  Does this sound like talking points?)

Today opponents of the new translation cite concern over the effects the changes will have on congregations, which have grown accustomed to ICEL’s old renderings. While change can certainly be destabilizing, there is a difference between changing in order to move away from tradition and changing in order to return to it. And it is odd for those who pushed for a radical shift in 1970 to be now making the same arguments about continuity their detractors once did.  (Again, perfect.  As Card. George said to Bp. Trautman concerning his argument that 30 years of use means we shouldn’t change – this constitutes a Lefevbrism of the LEFT!)

The current controversy is also interesting because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding over the nature of liturgical language. The Rev. Lawrence J. Madden, director of the Georgetown Center for Liturgy, dislikes the new and more accurate translation because "It isn’t the English we speak. It’s becoming more sacred English, rather than vernacular English."  (This is precisely what Liturgiam authenticam called for, nay rather, mandated.)

Yet that is precisely the point. When Vatican II permitted translations of the Mass in 1963, it spoke of translating into the "mother tongue," not into everyday speech. (YES! YES!) Contrary to widespread belief, there has never been a tradition of the vernacular in Christian liturgy, if by "vernacular" you mean the language we speak on the street. Many of the earliest Masses were offered in a language the congregation could understand, but not in the language that could be heard in the marketplace. Before a native language was used in divine worship, it was first "sacralized"—its syntax and diction were gingerly modified, archaisms were deliberately re-introduced and even new rhythmic meters and cadences were invented. All of this was done in order to produce a distinctive mode of communication, one that was separate from garden-variety vernacular speech and capable of relaying the unique mysteries of the Gospel.

Thus, if English is to convey sacred mysteries, there should be a "sacred English." The very word we use for everyday speech, "profane," comes from pro-fano, "outside the temple." If Catholics wish to make the world Christ’s temple, as Pope Benedict recently put it, they must first be careful not to make Christ’s temple the world.

While the bishops made important progress last week, their improvements fell short of the ideal. Approximately 60 of the proposed changes were rejected, we are told, including the recommendation to replace the nebulous line in the Nicene Creed "one in being with the Father" with the more precise "consubstantial with the Father." According to one report the bishops kept the former version because "’consubstantial’ is a theological expression requiring explanation." Quite so, but isn’t explaining theological expressions one of the reasons we have priests and bishops?  (Okay… I just got shivers.  Take THAT smack)

Since the process is far from over (it could take years before final implementation), Rome may yet prevail in convincing the American liturgical establishment to leave more of its street talk at the temple door. In the meantime, Catholics jaded with all this tinkering to the Mass can be grateful that at least some changes are for the better.

Mr. Foley is a professor of patristics at Baylor University and the author of "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

Here is an image for you.




In the Litany of the Sacred Heart we pray: "Jesus, meek and humble of heart… Make our hearts like unto Thine."

This certainly must be the aspiration of all Christians. 

Perhaps you might take a moment today to pray that the hearts of bishops and priests be conformed to the Sacred Heart in the manner of this evocative picture, that is, especially while saying Holy Mass.

Let their hearts be meek in regard to the Church’s rubrics and texts, and humble in regard to the rights of the people to have Holy Mass celebrated the way Holy Church intends.

We have been looking extensively at "dew".  Another of the controverted proposed translations for the texts of Mass concerns the words before reception of Holy Communion: "I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof… Non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum".  To quote a recent editorial "What does that mean"?   Perhaps the Fathers of the Church can help us understand this phrase.

The great Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine (+430) begins his Exposition of Psalm 46 with an interesting phrase, revealing his deep reverence for Scripture and its power in us.  Before we get into the "roof" stuff, this is how he begins his sermon to his flock:

1. Through the holy book that make up His Scriptures, the Lord our God has poured out for us the faith in which we live, and on which we live; and he has done so in a great variety of different modes.  He constantly varies the words He uses, and these words are laden with mysteries;  but he commends to us one same faith through them all.  The same thing is expressed in many different ways so that the mode of expression may always seem fresh and never bore us, but the underlying truth be held firmly and maintain our hearts in unity….   When God laid down regulations about animals that chew the cud being classed as clean, he meant to teach us by this reference to rumination that each of us should consign what we hear to our hearts, and not be slow to mull over it afterwards….  This is why the same truths are spoken in different ways, giving us the opportunity to find delicious new flavors in what we already know, and enticing us to listen to them again with delight; for when the idiom is diversified, the ancient truth seems ever new as it is presented differently.

Did you catch the echo of Augustine’s description of God in the Confessions as “beauty ever ancient, ever new”?  For Augustine, Christ Himself is speaking in the words of Scripture.  Sometimes Christ as the Head of the Body is speaking to the Father.  Sometimes Christ speaks to the Father as the Body.  At other times Christus Totus, Christ whole and entire speaks.  We can see what happens in Holy Mass as being according to the same paradigm.  More on this later.

Let us look at what Augustine says about the Centurion and his words about the Lord entering “under the roof” of his dwelling.

Augustine has been talking about how the Jews, as the children of Abraham were told by the Lord to do the “works of Abraham” if they were indeed his children.  He addresses himself to the phrase “princes of the peoples… principes populorum”.   He moves from the attitude of the “princes” among the Jews to the “princes” among the Gentiles who are also being gathered together under the God of Abraham.  Among these “princes of the peoples” are, according to Augustine, the Centurion of Matthew 8 and Luke 7.

Augustine is sitting and preaching with the scroll of the Scriptures upon his lap.  He reminds the people listening of the events recounted in the Gospel, about how the Centurion came to the Lord asking Him with humble confidence to pray for his servant who was gravely ill.

Here is Augustine En. ps. 46, 12:

Just say the word, then, and my servant will be healed, for to receive you into my house is an honor I do not deserve.”  He trembled at the thought of bringing Christ within his four walls, yet Christ was already in his heart.  The Centurion’s heart was already Christ’s throne, for he who was seeking out the humble had already taken his seat there.

Augustine knows that his flock cannot merely remain on the surface of the mysteries, whether the sacramental mysteries celebrated in the Eucharist or the sacramenta verborum in Scripture.  The sacramenta while distinct are nevertheless in unity.  We cannot merely remain on the surface of these mysteries but must let them enter into us so that we can enter more deeply into them.  Augustine’s imagery is that of Scripture as food, as nourishment which we must chew over and mull and consider and think about and reflect on.  That food in turn becomes what we are.  However, with the mysteries of Scripture and the Eucharist we encounter a food which changes us into what They are.

At Holy Mass, think about the words we use.  Think about the verbal dimension of active participation at Mass.

First, Christ is the true Actor in the sacred action of Mass.
Second, we able enabled to participate in the mysteries because of our baptismal character.
Third, as participants in Christ’s Priesthood (albeit in different qualities), we can raise our sacrifices (in our different ways) to the Father.
So, Christ is acting in us when we act at Mass.  We are “in action” first and foremost through reception of what Christ gives, and then also, in what we offer.

When it comes to the words, the texts of Mass, we all have our time to speak.  Using the Augustinian paradigm of Scripture I spoke of above, maybe we can see our roles more clearly.

There are times when the priest alone speaks.  He is not speaking to the congregation.  He is speaking to the Father.  The priest, who is alter Christus … another Christ, participates in the priesthood of the High Priest not only by baptism but by sacred ordination.  When the priest speaks, Christ speaks in Him as the Head of the Body. 

There are times when the congregation speaks responses.  By the character imposed in baptism the true Actor is acting in the baptized who are present, provided they are receptive to His actions.  When the congregation speaks, Christ the Body raises His prayers to the Father.

There are times when the priest and people pray together.  Christus Totus prays.

By this I do imply that there are not other ways to see this.  Using the Augustinian paradigm for Scripture can open up for us other ways of seeing what our responses at Mass can mean for us.  The responses are important, not just as MY PERSONAL responses.  Mass is not about “me and Jesus”, or even about “this congregation”.  The actions of Mass transcend localities and even times.

When Christ comes to us, ready and willing to be received by us, we should tremble in confident humility.

I understand from Amy Welborn’s über-blog that Art Bell dediced he wants to convert.  He married a woman from the Philippines.

It makes perfect sense!  Not only should all people become Catholic, it will now be far easier to score interviews with Vatican assassin vampires.

I would tell you all more about this, but then I’d have to…. well… you know the drill.

Biretta tips to Amy and Lofted Nest    o{]:¬)