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

The Catholic Register in Toronto reports that the Holy See has granted a recognitio for a Lectionary with the NRSV, which has inclusive language.

My emphases and comments.

The Catholic Register: After years of inclusive language war, Bible gets Vatican recognition
By Michael Swan
9/6/2007

TORONTO, Canada (The Catholic Register) – Eighteen years into a sometimes divisive debate, the Vatican has put a final stamp of approval on the Canadian lectionary – granting a recognitio to the inclusive language of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible in English.

“That this has come is obviously a positive thing, not just for women but for all people,” said feminist theologian Doris Keiser, a lecturer in theology at the University of Alberta’s St. Joseph’s College. “When we’re moving forward in the world and allowing our understanding to open up, everyone benefits.”  [Everyone except, perhaps those who want to hear what the texts really say.]

Canadians have been reading the NRSV at Mass since 1992, when the first edition of the new Sunday lectionary was published with approval from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Canadian NRSV lectionary for weekdays was published in 1994. It was only then that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith objected to NRSV translations.

The NRSV uses inclusive language, referring to both men and women, when the text refers to people. References to God in the NRSV use the pronoun “He.”

In the Pauline letters, this sometimes results in forms of address to a group of people which reads “Brothers” in Greek rendered “Brothers and Sisters” in the NRSV.

Without the recognitio, Canadian Mass texts were left in the position of being the only approved texts for English-language Masses in Canada, but at the same time lacking final Vatican approval. At World Youth Day in 2002, Pope John Paul II used the Canadian lectionary.

“The main issue was not the question of inclusive language,” Archbishop James Weisgerber, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops vice president, told The Catholic Register.

The Vatican’s concern over NRSV translations has been a matter of technical issues and accuracy, said Archbishop Weisgerber.

“There is a concern that when you try to make the scriptures speak inclusively it’s important to be accurate,” he said.

A special committee of Canadian bishops has been meeting regularly with Vatican officials working on the details of the text since 2003. With the recognitio in place, the bishops can begin publishing a second edition to the books already in use, starting with Year B, Nov. 30, 2008.

Though it’s been a battleground between right and left in the church for almost a generation, Archbishop Weisgerber doesn’t think most Catholics will even notice the changes.

“The ordinary person in the pews, the ordinary celebrant, would not even notice it,” he said.  [Doesn’t think beg the question?  Who really wanted inclusive language?]

With most of its inclusive language intact, and an 18-year fight behind it, theologians were careful about the question of who won the language war over the Canadian lectionary.

“I don’t know who won and who didn’t,” said Archbishop Weisgerber. “I actually think it’s kind of a compromise, and kind of a happy compromise between our tradition and more modern kinds of translation.”

“The big question is how it affects people in the pews, because it’s their lectionary,” said theologian Keiser.  [Ummm…. Noooo…. it’s the CHURCH’s Lectionary.  The Church is more than English speaking Canadian people in the pews.]

“It’s an encouraging kind of decision,” said St. Paul University theologian Cathy Clifford.

The slow pace of decision making between the conference of bishops and the Vatican should surprise no one who really knows the church, said Keiser.

“The reality is that the church is not a fast-moving entity. Things take time,” she said. “Even though in my life time 20 years is a long time, in the life of the church it’s a drop in the bucket.”

With the question of which Bible we read in church out of the way, the left and right in the church will likely find new topics for debate, said Archbishop Weisgerber.

“I suspect other issues will emerge and we will divide in similar ways,” said the archbishop.

“If we can’t have that conversation, then there’s something wrong with the way that we’re perceiving ourselves as faithful persons,” said Keiser.  [Does no one use "people" anymore?]

Michael Swan is the associate editor of The Catholic Register.

Blech. 

This is an odd piece from Christian Today.

My emphases and comments.

Vatican Representative Plays Down ‘One True Church’ Statement
European Church leaders iron out concerns over the Vatican’s recent ‘one true church’ statement at the Third European Ecumenical Assembly currently taking place in Sibiu, Romania.
by Maria Mackay
Posted: Thursday, September 6, 2007, 10:51 (BST)

The Vatican’s President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, has played down concerns among Europe’s Protestant Church leaders following the Vatican’s recent statement asserting that the Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

The 16-page July document, ratified by Pope Benedict XVI, stated that the Roman Catholic Church is “the one true Church of Christ”.

It also claimed that “communities emerging from the Reformation” – the Protestant and Anglican Churches – are “not Churches in the proper sense of the word”.

Cardinal Kasper attempted to qualify the assertion at the Third European Ecumenical Assembly, currently taking place in Sibiu, Romania.

In reiterating that other communities “were not churches in the proper sense, we did not mean that these others were somehow false churches”, [?] he told reporters. “We meant that the EKD (Evangelical Church in Germany) or the Church of England, for example, have a different understanding of what the church is.”  [ummm… different than…what?  Different than what the Catholic Church teaches a Church is?]

Bishop Wolfgang Huber, chair of the council of the EKD, said he regretted the negative phrasing of the Vatican’s statement in deeming some churches to be “not churches in the proper sense”. He added, however, that he was encouraged to hear Cardinal Kasper’s more positive description of communities having their own understanding of what it means to be the church.

“We continue on our journey together,” said Huber, “with the Holy Spirit leading us.”

The President of the Conference of European Churches, the Rev Jean-Arnold de Clermont, also dismissed fears over the Vatican statement.

While noting that the statement did not reflect a Protestant view of the church or of Protestantism, De Clermont said the Vatican’s assertions were “nothing new” and should not be given too much weight.

“Ecumenical life does not issue from the summit, but from the base of the church,” he said.  [?]

Folks… if you are going to write a comment, write something useful.  Don’t just vent or spew.

Damian Thompson has an interesting piece in The Spectator about resistance to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

My emphases and comments.

An exciting time to be Catholic

This is a true Catholic revolution

Damian Thompson

The enemies of the old Latin Mass are so horrified by Summorum Pontificum and its accompanying letter that they have either pretended that it does not exist or have misrepresented its contents. The key points are as follows. From next Friday, priests do not need to ask permission to say the traditional Mass privately, and lay people can attend these private celebrations. More important, if a group of the faithful — no number is given, but it need only be a handful — ask their parish priest to provide a public Sunday celebration of the traditional Mass, he is to do so. [That might be just a little too strong a way to put it.  It is certainly a possible interpretation, and far more probable than general attitude the enemies have shown.] He does not have to say it himself — most priests have no idea how to celebrate it — but if he cannot find a qualified priest then his bishop will draft one in. And if the bishop decides to throw a spanner in the works, Rome will intervene.

Even more striking than these provisions, however, is the new liturgical landscape in which the Motu Proprio will be applied. From Friday, there will be no Tridentine Rite, no New Rite. The pre- and post-Vatican II Masses will no longer be referred to as separate Rites, but as the ‘extraordinary’ and ‘ordinary’ forms of one Latin Rite. The traditional Mass will not be called after the Council of Trent, but after the Pope who issued the most recent (1962) revision of it, Blessed Pope John XIII. For anyone who enjoys the sight of liberals squirming, [Ehem… Damian… cf. Rule 2] that is the nicest touch of all: the former Tridentine Rite now bears the name of the man who convened Vatican II. Why not? It was the only Mass he ever knew. The vernacular Mass was entirely Paul VI’s doing.

‘The Pope is not a trained liturgist,’ squealed the right-on Catholic magazine the Tablet [Read this.] after the Motu Proprio was published. On the contrary: he is a liturgist and theologian of genius. And what he is trying to achieve with Summorum Pontificum and the forthcoming new English translation of Paul VI’s Missal is to move beyond the liturgical squabbles of the past.

‘In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,’ said St Paul. ‘Nor traditionalist nor liberal,’ adds Benedict. [On a very deep level, St. Paul was right.  On a practical level, we know there are still Jews and Greeks.  We know there are traditionalists and liberals too.  But we are called on to go deeper.] The Pope knows that the vast majority of Catholics wish to worship God in their own language — but he also knows that the communities that use the Missal of John XXIII are among the most dynamic in the universal Church. [A good point.] Summorum Pontificum tore down the liturgical veil separating the old from the new; now the social barriers must be removed.  [Traditionalists are no longer to be locked up as the the "nutty aunt" in the Church’s attic.] For that to happen, former traditionalists will have to stop thinking of themselves as a spiritual elite; [cf. Rule 2] and former liberals must turn their eyes towards the astonishing treasures that this greatest of modern Popes has reclaimed from the rubbish heap. As I said, this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.

 

I received an interesting e-mail from a reader.  It concerns a "delay" in the implementation of the older form of Mass in a major diocese of the USA.  

Here is the letter.  I have edited out the identifying details.

My emphases.

Dear Fr. Z:

I am really bewildered and it was suggested that I contact you for some advice.  This evening I presented a letter with 25 signatures to our Priest Administrator requesting a Latin Mass.  ...  Almost 2 years ago our "former" beloved Priest changed the orientation of our Church to where we now have the proper worship space conducive with the Latin Tridentine Mass.  With our new Priest, this is his first Church and he has told us we will have to wait until the November date (the one in the letter from our [bishop]) and we will know more then.  Well, I am concerned that this is just a way to stall us.  We didn’t present our request unprepared.  We already have a Priest with 31 years in the Priesthood who knows the Latin Mass. He has agreed to offer a weekly Latin Mass.

My question is, who should I appeal to next?  Our group is almost ready to go, but we feel pressured to wait.  I know you said be patient and kind and not prideful but we just want to begin our preparations to offer this Mass weekly and we are feeling this is exactly what is going to happen across the U.S., stalling, hoping we will go away, and that isn’t going to happen.  We could be ready MUCH sooner than when the [bishop] is planning on allowing a Parish to begin.  This is horrible and we want to move forward.

To whom should I appeal to next?

Friend, I know this is frustrating for you and the others involved.  However, I need to point out a couple important things.

First, the priest at your parish is NOT a pastor, not a parochus.  He is an administrator.  That means that he does not have the full abilities to make decisions according to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.  The Motu Proprio says that pastors can make the decisions about public celebrations.

Second, be very careful with your priest, who seems to be well-disposed.  If you put him between your zealous group and your local bishop, you have effectively placed him between an anvil and a hammer.  You might want what you want, and you want it now, but you could really hurt that priest.  If he is pressured by you to do something against the prescriptions of the bishop, no matter how unreasonable they may be, you might delay that priest actually being appointed as pastor, rather than administrator.  I think you need a little charity and prudence here.

Third, a couple months seems like a long time, but after all this time… well.   Perhaps the time could be used for good training of a choir and servers for something big.  Perhaps you could invite the bishop to be the celebrant. 

Fourth, by all means save every scrap of correspondence.  If it will be necessary, and think it won’t be if you are patient, then you could have recourse to the Pontifical Commission in Rome, which will have competence to help in these situations.

Fifth, if you are talking about a regularly scheduled Mass with the usus antiquior at your parish, remember that no priest will need permission to Mass privately, that is not on the official parish schedule.  It might be that quite a few people might by chance be at church when Father intends to say Mass privately.  It might be that Father will have a soft heart and let a few extra fellows serve.  Maybe Father will consent to change his plans from saying a private low Mass because he just can’t say no to people who spontaneously asked to attend his private Mass, spontaneously to sing some parts of the Mass.  He might spontaneously decide to use the incense the servers in their enthusiasm spontaneously fired up in the sacristy.  All of this would be spontaneous, of course, and not scheduled in any way.

No matter what, friend, do not do anything to put this priest in a difficult situation. 

Be patient.

I got this very interesting e-mail from a priest friend. 

Here is the priest’s concern:

As far as I could tell from the picture you posted of the Mass in Vermont, the bishop was celebrating not a Solemn Mass but a Missa Cantata. Furthermore, though surrounded by assistants, he was celebrating this Mass in the manner of a priest: altar cards instead of the Canon Missae, no candle by the book, six rather than seven candles on the altar, etc.

As far as I can recall, permission for bishops to celebrate a Missa Cantata and to omit the prescriptions of the Ceremoniale Episcoporum date from 1965 or later. [Interesting.] What do you think? Is this an issue worth bringing up? Is it like Communion in the Hand? [I think not.  Communion in the hand is now something that cut across both uses of the Roman Rite now.  However, when the older use is celebrated, the 1962 rubrics ought to be followed.] This is not the first time I have observed this practice by some American bishops celebrating the Extraordinary Use. I have never seen pictures from Europe or elsewhere indicating the same phenomenon.

We can insist on 1962 rubrics all we want but the fact is that in traditional Benedictine Monasteries with the permission of the EC Commission the conventual Mass is celebrated with some but not all of the 1965 rubrics.  On the other end of the spectrum I continually note the use of pre-Pius XII rubrics and rites for everything from Holy Week to the Consecration of Churches. 

It will be interesting to observe how this develops.

Organically?

Father raises an excellent point.

The provisions of Summorum Pontificum say that we will be using the 1962 Missale Romanum.  Not 1965, not any edition before 1962.

We as yet have no clarifications from Rome about this other issues.

I very much like Father’s subtle comparision of the bishop celebrating in the manner of the priest with Communion in the hand.  Think about it.  In 1962 a bishop celebrating as a priest, somewhat common now, would have been an abuse.   It eventually came to be approved.  Communion in the  hand was an abuse.  It eventually came to be abused.

Organic development?

Once I get some images together maybe we can have a little vote.

UPDATE: We might need another also with possible variations:

1.

2.

 

3.

 

4. 

 

5.

6.

 

7.

 

8.

 

9.

 

Volato.