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

This interesting post about The Golden Compass by the atheist Pullman is over at the Bonfire.

My emphases and comments.

 ‘My books are about killing God.’

Parents can’t always keep up with popular culture—and when a movie is promoted as a fun adventure, featuring children riding enchanted polar bears, all in time for the Christmas season, what’s not to like?

Unfortunately, the film’s makers have an agenda. The film is based on the works of author Phil Pullman, who has written a series of entertaining stories called "His Dark Materials." In his own words: "‘I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I was doing the devil’s work’" (from the Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2001). And, "I’ve been surprised by how little criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s been taking all the flak…. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God" (from the Sydney Morning Herald, Dec. 13, 2003). Now that he is getting criticism, Mr. Pullman is telling a very different story.

And for whom are Mr. Pullman’s books—and now, this movie, The Golden Compass—intended? Children.

I am aware the bishops’ film office gave this a thumbs’-up. [What were they thinking?]  But that may change; several years ago, the same office initially praised Brokeback Mountain, until someone with more sense pointed out the obvious moral problems in that movie.

Some will say, "but it’s just a story." Don’t underestimate the power of a story. Stories are powerful ways we form our moral imagination and how we shape the "lens" through which we see the world. Particularly for children.

Yes, it is frustrating when we have to say "no" to popular things. But as followers of Christ, we are not surprised our culture often works against our Faith, and we sometimes have to take a stand. Instead of the $20-50 you may spend at the theater, stay home with a good video and have pizza; you’ll have money left over, you can give to the hungry. That will be a golden lesson that will point your children in the right direction.  [Nice line.]

Fr. Martin Fox at the Bonfire hit a dinger with this post.

I received this via e-mail.  The English is not perfect, and I have cleaned up some obvious errors that don’t alter the sense.  The one who sent it has interjected comments, but they are clearly defined. My emphases and comments:

A rather garbled translation of Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja SJ pastoral letter declaring that Summorum Pontificum does not apply to the Archdiocese of Jakarta.

THE 1962 MASS PRIOR TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

Position of Jakarta ArchBishop


1. Missale Romanum which was officiated by Pope John XXIII in the year 1962, and used during The Second Vatican Council, is the one which Pope Benedict XVI declared can be used in [his] "motu proprio data" on 7 July 2007. It is true that legaly there was never any restriction on its [ie. 1962 Mass] usage, even after The Second Vatican Council there was a change on Missale Romanum 1970 which was officiated by Pope Paul VI and renewed by Pope John Paul II in two new editions. This new Missale Romanum is the one we use up until now.

2. The Pope encourage us not to view [the current change set by Summorum Pontificum] as having two on going rites. He encourages us to view that there is only one rite which in its growth there is a difference in form between the old and the new. "In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture." The new form which is what we currently used, is called by the Pope as the ordinary form (forma ordinaria) while the old form of 1962 he calls non-ordinary form (forma extraordinaria). (note: yes, that’s how His Eminence + Darmaatmadja phrase it, "non-ordinary" instead of "extraordinary")

3. Why Missale Romanum 1962 was declared usable? Despite that there was never any restriction on its usage, there was a need by certain faithful in certain area whom still wish to enjoy the value in it, including amongst Pius X’s faithful which was instituted by Lefebvre. [Note this carefully, for it is important later: the writer says that the Pope provisions aim at people who are attached to the older form of liturgy.  Among those people, some are attached to the SSPX.  A group within a larger group.]  Although the reason for seperation by the Lefebvrist is more fundamental. And as a consequence of its [ie. Pius X group] position to still use the 1962 Missale Romanum, many faithful join the Pius X group only because [their] eucharistic celebration is still using the old form. For the sake of reunification and reconciliation on 1984 Pope John Paul II allowed the Lefebvrist to use the form of 1962. But because outside of Pius X group there are some who wish to use this [old] form, Pope John Paul II on 1988 published [his] motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei" to the bishops, to use their authority to give permission to those who wants it. Pope Benedict XVI repeats again [the permission] [That is not quite it.   Summorum Pontificum says that priests with faculties to say Mass also have automatically the faculties to use the older books.  It is not a separate permission.] with giving detail notes for broader audience with "motu proprio data" 7 July 2007. But without reducing the authority which the bishops has in moderating the liturgy in their area.

4. As a bishops which authority is also recognized in "motu proprio data", I affirm that what is currently practiced now is the only [one] officialy practiced for the Arch Diocese of Jakarta. Until there are special condition which force this ruling to be reviewed.

5. I made the ruling because of consideration that the reason for the [re]establishement of the 1962 Missale Romanum is not relevant [!] for the Arch diocese of Jakarta. There are no Pius X group, the lefebvrist group. There is no reason for reconciliation in the Church in the Arch diocese of Jakarta, [Remember that, above, the writer clearly stated that those attached the SSPX movement were not the only ones for whom Summorum Pontificum was issued.  Thus, the Archbishop of Jakarta has simply brushed aside those who have never had and questionable unity.  He is inconsistent. ] which has become the reason [Completely sidestepping what Summorum Pontificum says.] for "motu proprio data" 7 July 2007. With the currently practice Missale Romanum, still opens the possibility of Gregorian songs being sung. Therefore I decided for the whole ArchDiocese of Jakarta to follow the ordinary [which is] the newest form of Missale Romanum, in order to follow the latest development, [a development] which was made after the second Vatican council.

 

There you have it.   The Archbishop of Jakarta has openly stated that the PAPAL juridical document affecting all the priests in the Latin Church doesn’t apply to his diocese. 

Even considering the problems of translation, I think this might be the most blatant act of defiance I have seen to date.

Under another entry some folks are discussing the possibilities of the vernacular for the TLM.  According to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum it is possible to do the readings in the vernacular in an approved translation.  What is yet to be clarified by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is whether the readings must be in Latin before they are then read in the vernacular.  I am confident we will have a clarification on this.

However, I did get an interesting e-mail from a priest which, with some editing, I can share with you.  It is germane to the topic I mentioned above:  My emphases and comments.

Fr. Z -

As a priest who celebrates the 1962 Mass once a month, I often wonder why that Mass cannot be said in the vernacular.  We do the entire Mass in Latin except for the Readings and the homily, in accord with SP. [With due respect, I believe until there is an official clarification about this, it would be better to do the readings in Latin, as is normal, and then read them in English before the sermon.]  I am the pastor of two churches, one big and one medium, my time alotment for study is limited but I do the best I can to brush up on my latin.  Having learned classical nearly 20 years ago I find it difficult to learn Eccesicastical.  Never the less I do the best I can.  [This is precisely why I started the PRAYERCAzT audio projects!  To help men like you get the Latin into your ears and tongue.  Even though it means more work, I beleive the readings ought to be in Latin first.]

When we met, the people of my parish perfered that the readings be done in English and the homily- so we have no division on this issue. [With great respect, people can’t decide for themselves how Mass is going to be.]  Some have inquired why the entire Mass cannot be celebrate in the Vernacular and quite frankly I agree.  After all the reason it is in Latin to begin with is because latin was the Vernacular, as Greek was before it.  [More on this point, which is not really precise, below.] I see no obstacles to the Mass being celebrated in English.  [You mean… other than the Church’s rubrics and liturgical laws?] It is a beautiful Liturgy and it is a shame more people cannot have access to it,  By this I mean many are deterred by the use of Latin because they do not understand it. We also have beautiful Novus Ordo liturgies, in the vernacular, so I think this may be why our parish is content.  [I am very glad you have this flexibility.  That can only be of advantage to everyone.]

The real issue in the Church today is a beautiful liturgy.  [I entirely agree!] I have been to TLM Masses that are said so fast one wonders how that is reverent?  The illusion of reverence is present only because it is in a language that cannot be understood and therefore by extension must be mysterious.  [A good point.  There is more to the encounter with Mystery than Latin, or anything else that is simply obscure.] I think if people understood the language and then heard the priest plow through the Mass they would not find it terribly edifing. I have not been edified by how fast I have heard the TLM prayed.  It takes me one hour and fifteen minutes to say low Mass, [Ouch!  I hope you mean a private Mass.  That strikes me as a little long for a low Mass for the parish, but … whatever…] I say it very reverently and do not ‘speed pray’ the prayers.

In summation I would like to see the Rites of 1962 in the Vernacular where everyone has total access to the Mass and clear understanding.  [This might be the point that needs deeper consideration.  I am not sure that "total access" and "clear understanding" does not lead to the trap that twisted the progress of the Liturgical Movement in the middle of the 20th century, when the desire for "didacticism" and "immediacy" was asserted by certain Benedictines and Dominicans.] Prayer by it’s very nature ought to be intelligilble and understandable.  [Yes, but I am not so sure that we are seeing the terms in the same way.  There are different kinds of intelligibility.] We use Latin/English Booklet Missals from Coatlition in Support of Ecclesia Dei and their English translation of the prayers is very beautiful.  I am not advocating changing the 1962 Liturgy simply making it more accessible to a wider audience.  [However, it does seem as if you are advocating changing the 1962 Liturgy.   Changing to the vernacular is a change, and that is exactly what you are advocating] It’s gestures, postures, and prayers ought to be available [I don’t know what that means, unless it perhaps means "intelligible".] to the wider Catholic Community.

 

First, of all, I am delighted that this diligent priest is doing so much for the people of his parish.  He listens to them and tries to see to their spiritual needs.   I suspect a great many people would like to have this fellow as their pastor.

Second, I agree that Mystery should not be reduced to the obscure.  At the same time, Mass is not a didactic moment.  Sure, we can learn things during and through the sacred action of the Mass, but the real point is to learn those things which can only be apprehended at a deeper level. Also, if we aim at immediacy, and so forth, for everyone, we will inevitably have to dumb-down pretty much everything. 

Lastly, the mention of Latin being used now only because Latin was a vernacular that pushed out Greek back in the day, needs clearer thinking.  The history of the introduction of Latin into the liturgy of Rome, is used as an argument for the use of the vernacular today: Latin was the vernacular back when, so it is the vernacular that counts, not the Latin. 

Yes and no.

Yes, Latin was the vernacular.  However, the kind of Latin used in the liturgy was not at all the way people spoke.  Liturgical Latin really wasn’t the vernacular, in that sense.  Liturgical Latin was highly stylized, far removed from the way people spoke.  Also, the ancient Latin prayers contain concepts that were "available" only to the well-educated.  That is part and parcel of liturgical pray as well: not all of it is going to be understood immediately and by everyone.  The language and the concepts are special.   That doesn’t mean that all prayer has to be difficult, of course. This is however why the Council Fathers said that some vernacular, especially for readings, could be used occasionally but why Latin was to be retained in the Latin Church.

A very thought provoking e-mail for which I am grateful. 

In the past, we have seen day by day the Collects for all the days of Lent according to the Novus Ordo.  I thought I would do something similar with the prayers for Advent.

I won’t make references to the lame-duck ICEL renditions.  They aren’t worthy of our attention.

So we can turn our attention to the

COLLECT (2002MR):
Fac nos, quaesumus, Domine Deus noster,
adventum Christi Filii tui sollicitos expectare,
ut, dum venerit pulsans, orationibus vigilantes,
et in suis inveniat laudibus exsultantes.

LITERAL VERSION:
We beseech You, O Lord our God, cause
us anxious ones to await the Coming of Christ Your Son,
so that, while He will have come knocking,
He will find us being vigilant in prayers and rejoicing in His praises.

The prime images here are Christ, on the move and coming to the door, where He stands knocking.  We, on the other hand are within, keeping vigil.  Thus, it is dark, late night, early morning.  So, there is an interesting tension in the prayer.  It compresses three distinct moments: Christ in motion, coming to the door.  Christ at the door knocking.  Christ entering through the door and finding the state we are in.  The use of the present participles makes this tension possibles.

This prayer is from a very ancient source.  It is adapted from an oration in the Gelasian Sacramentary.   Here is the ancient text with the main differences underscored.

Fac nos, quaesumus, domine deus noster, peruigiles atque sollicitos aduentum expectare Christi filii tui domini nostri, ut dum venerit pulsans, non dormientis [sic] peccatis sed vigilantes et in suis inveniat laudibus exsultantes.  That dormientis is like dormientes, an alternate form.

Do you see any theological difference?  The text is slightly rearranged, but that doesn’t make too much difference.  The main thing is that the snip-pasters of the Novus Ordo cut out the concept of sin: "so that when He will have come, He will not find (us) sleeping in sins, but waking…".

This gives us a little more insight.  Remember that during Advent was have the constant cry to "Wake up!"   In ancient times (and in the 1962MR and in the 2002MR) the lesson for Sunday, yesterday, was from Romans 13 where Paul says

Brethren, knowing that it is now the hour for us to rise from our sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. The night is past and the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy: but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the Novus Ordo Gospel from Matthew 24 for Sunday Jesus says: "Therefore, stay awake!"

In another place the Lord describes how wise servants stay alert even during the night when the master is gone and must come home to find them ready to open the door to him.  In Matthew 24 Jesus speaks of the need for the master of the house to be vigilant against the enemy, the thief who would steal what is precious: our eternal happiness. I find it interesting that Christ speaks of the need for both master and servants to be vigilant. There is a measure of shared responsibility. In fact, the master will serve the servants. In Luke 12 we read:
“Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.”
 

And not forgetting that the season of Advent is about the Coming of the Lord at the end of things to judge the living and the dead, we can consider also the Book of Revelation 3:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this: ” ‘The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation, says this: “I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, ‘I am rich and affluent and have no need of anything,’ and yet do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and chastise. Be earnest, therefore, and repent. ” ‘”Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, (then) I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me.

Roman blog readers should get hold of me.  Perhaps we can get together.