The fruits of the “Spirit of Vatican II” are detaching from the vine.
There was an article the Australian site The Age, I believe of Melbourne, about some priests who claim they will refuse to use the new, corrected translation of Mass.
Church’s revamp of Mass sparks rebellion by priests
Barney Zwartz And Leesha McKenny
February 19, 2011THE Catholic Church faces open defiance over the introduction of its new Mass translation this year, with a dozen priests indicating they will refuse to use it and hundreds of others ”steaming” over a lack of consultation. [I wonder why Fr. Joe Bagofdoughnuts from Tall Tree Circle thinks he should have a say in this matter.]
The Mass has become the latest battleground in the culture wars between progressive Catholics and traditionalists suspicious of the reforms of the 1960s Vatican Council, [Doesn’t this introduce an irrelevant factor? Isn’t this about the translation of the Novus Ordo?] of which probably the most important was changing the Mass from Latin to the local language of worshippers. [Let’s not get started on the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium said that Latin was to be retained.]
The new translation is a more literal version of the 400-year-old Latin text, [400?] which changes what the faithful say and has been heavily influenced by a Vatican advisory committee headed by Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney.
Supporters say the new text is more elevated and reverent, while critics say it is artificial, uninclusive and stilted. [What is missing from this? They don’t touch on the issue of accuracy. The new translation is more accurate. Accuracy is not the same as “more literal” that they mentioned above.]
It will be introduced gradually in Australia between June and November and will be compulsory at every Mass in English.
National Council of Priests chairman Ian McGinnity said hundreds of his 1600 members were ”steamed up” at the Vatican’s lack of consultation, [First, I doubt very much that all 1600 members were angry. Second, they must be terrible impressed with themselves if they think they should have been consulted.] and were concerned that the unidiomatic language would alienate Mass-goers, most of whom had used only the present form all their lives. [Ah yes, the Lefebvrism of the left once again.]
He said most priests would not decide how to respond until they saw the changes, [The smart ones want to see the text.] but at least a dozen had told him, ‘I’m not changing.” [What do you want to bet most of them are at least 60 years old?]
When the church changed from Latin to English it accommodated those who dissented, [How many things, dear readers, are wrong with that statement.] and priests should be given time to adapt. [For pity’s sake. We have been dealing with the for years. There has been and there still is time to “adapt”.]
Asked what sanctions a local bishop could apply, Father McGinnity said: ”I really don’t know. I suppose he could suspend a bloke. But given the [priest] shortage, it’s unlikely.” [Perhaps bishops should suspend priests who refuse to use the new translation!]
Sydney priest John Crothers said he could not in good conscience use changes he believed were against the Vatican Council. [That battered old chestnut.]
He said he had told Cardinal Pell this at a clergy conference last year. ”I said at the conference, ‘I won’t be doing it, and where do I stand there?‘ [Sounds a bit like Luther.] And he’s just said that he expected all the priests will do it,” Father Crothers said.
In Ireland this month, 400 priests publicly denounced the new Mass as ”archaic, elitist and obscure” and urged their bishops to delay changes to the Mass for five years until the clergy and laity were consulted. [Consulted? To what end? Makes you wonder about the old “Interdict” option, no? The only problem is they probably wouldn’t care.]
Melbourne Archbishop Dennis Hart, vice-chairman of the international translation committee, said consultation had been extensive, but there would have to be ”dialogue and encouragement” for opponents. ”I think a lot of the criticism is really a fear of what we think the thing is, and when we get to the reality it’s not like that at all,” he said.
If they don’t like the new translation, there’s always Latin.
I can understand priests who get their back up about changes. At a certain age, priests tend not to like change.
I don’t have a huge problem with open criticism of the new translation. Make your arguments! Bring out your texts and your reasons! Have at!
But it is simply wrong to defy the proper authority of the Church and of the local bishops to whom they publicly promised obedience.
It is wrong to refuse to use the new translation.
What these men are doing is more damaging to their flocks and to themselves than implementing a translation allegedly so flawed that it should not be used.
Communicating concerns in private is one thing. Go ahead! Write letters! Have meetings behind closed doors! Beat your fists on the floor! Froth!
Going to the main stream media to express open defiance for ecclesial authority … another thing altogether.
Their grandstanding about defying authority does harm to the people of God. I fear they are also endangering their own souls. They are eroding the respect of Catholic people for ecclesial authority and placing themselves at the center of attention.
I hope that when The Day finally comes around for the new text to be used, these men will choose obedience. After all the stink they are raising now, a choice to submit to proper authority would help to repair the damage.
Loading ...
“If they don’t like the new translation, there’s always Latin.”
Maybe that’s the whole idea of trying to force another translation. :)
My bishop said in a conference that he gave to us seminarians about the new translations, when asked if the old translations would be invalid or illict, that the old ones would be illict. He said “don’t use them, just don’t. And if you do, I will find you.” My bishop, for one, is rather excited about the new translations.
Another fun (paraphrased) quote from that conference: If you translated your sentences the way they did for the Mass, and you gave it to the professor saying “Here’s my translation”, he’d say “of which sentence?”
PS – Fr. Z, can you pls update my profile to point to http://bymeansoforthodoxy.wordpress.com? I can’t seem to update myself.
Are these the same ones who don’t use the current translation? I suspect most would be angry at being forced to “say the black and do the red” with the current lame-duck translation.
Perhaps Fr Bagofdoughnuts should be instructed in the Anglican Use. He can hardly object to a “native” English liturgy as opposed to a translation from the Latin.
Can he?
To these brothers I ask:
Do you not remember your promise of obedience at your ordination?
Are you above acting in the person of Christ? “Not my will but yours be done?”
To their bishops I implore:
Take action now before they can do more damage than has already been done by their actions and words.
Explain the diocesan severance package and ask them what they want to do.
Of course, anyone who makes the “daring” decision to leave would likely be heralded a la Fr. Cutie for a few months. Oh, the costs of conscience!
Still, we are better off without such men than with them leading their congregations into error.
I will be interested to see if publishers of missals stop publishing the current version completely or if they will continue to keep the soon-to-be outdated version in print “for those congregations who prefer it.” I would hope that seminarians are only being instructed in the new missal at this point.
Here’s the question: are you in favor of the Second Vatican Council, or not?
If these priests (and their allies) consider themselves in favor of the Council, that means they were glad the world’s bishops got together and made the changes they did–including in the liturgy, right? They wanted those changes reflected in the Mass, right? So when, after the Council, the pope and the chosen experts fashioned a new version of the Mass, these folks consider that a good thing, right? Didn’t they favor that? I thought it was those terrible traditionalists who were opposed to the new version of the Mass, right?
So why would you want this new version of the Mass you favor so much, to be badly translated and distorted?
I was at a priests’ gathering, to hear a presentation on the improved translation, and one of the priests was grumpy because–as he admitted–the lame-duck translation presented ideas he thought better, even though it was plain from the presentation that it was a very poor translation of the underlying Latin prayer! My response was to say to him, “if you think the Missal itself needs to be fixed, that isn’t the job of the translators.” But that is precisely what these folks want: they want the translators to “fix” what’s wrong with the Mass, from their point of view.
But here is the thing: the Mass they don’t like is not the “old” Mass; it’s the Mass of Vatican II!
“The Mass has become the latest battleground in the culture wars between progressive Catholics and traditionalists suspicious of the reforms of the 1960s Vatican Council,”
The irony! This is about the accurate translation of the product of a committee in the late 1960s, and they intimate that the supporters of the accurate translation of this product are against Vatican II! Breathtaking ignorance or breathtaking mendacity, I don’t know which—though, after seeing this canard spewed by many intelligent priests over the years, I am now tending toward the latter.
Given that some priests are ‘steaming’ and some women are apparently ‘enraged’ by the new translation, I’d say those are some pretty rotten fruits and that this lot, whether the be in Oz or Eire, should concentrate on repentance and trying to maybe do penance than reacting against the new translation. The rotten fruits of a distinct lack of holiness and apostolic zeal is plain for all to see.
That’s not a bagofdoughnuts.
THIS is a bagofdoughnuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMn0EFhjOFI
I wonder if Fr. Bagofdoughnuts has ever atcually used the current translation exactly as written. Does he scrupulously adhere to the text, or does he take a few “liberties”?
There is something ironic if some priests refuse to use the new translation when they never really even used the old one either.
How will people know which translation he is not using?
Hmmm, I think there will be a minority of presiders who will refuse to use the VC2010 product. I doubt that the number will be significant. I suspect some bishops have been eager for such a peg upon which to hang the suspension of handfuls of troublesome priests. The bigger issues, IMHO, will be the countless inevitable excursions from the text. It will be much harder to draw the line with regard to sanctions with respect to excursions. Would a bishop attempt to suspend a presider who prays “for THE many,” instead of “for many?” Or who prays “cup,” instead of “chalice?” Or, what about presiders who attempt to tone down the exclusionary language of VC2010?
It will be the manifold excursions from the text, and not the small numbers of refusniks, which will be the real bain of the VC2010 promoters.
Some priests claim they will refuse to use the new English translation of Mass . . .
“If they don’t like the new translation, there’s always Latin.”
That’s right. These dissenters are really no different from the traditionally-minded dissenters who refuse to use either the old or new English translation of the Mass (or those who say they “hate the present translation”) or those who refuse to use the Ordinary Form of the Mass altogether. They really are no different from radical traditional laity who refuse these forms of the Holy Mass.
It is all ugly and inappropriate and uncharitable.
Bender: There is a bit of a difference with the “dissenters” who refused to use the new Mass after VII. Those “dissenters” desired to use approved texts of 1962 which we have recently learned, “were never abrogated.” In this case, the texts that the new crop of dissenters will lament over, are being abrogated.
@LeeAnn Balbirona said:
They are, at least at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, where my diocese sends for theology. This year’s Theology III (Diaconate) class is the first to be taught with the new Missal. Last year’s class was trained with the old (as they still had to use it) and will be trained into the new one with the rest of the priests. We will all get it now going forward.
On the one hand, we must be supportive and charitable to our priests. God gave them to us and we desperately need them.
On the other hand, the words of Christ “you brood of vipers” comes to mind. It strikes me that in order to be faithful to her Spouse, the Church must be prepared to be crucified along with Christ, in order to be like Him. If some priests struggle with matters small, but important like this, perhaps it is because we laity have not encouraged them by saying “you find this hard, so do we, but we must do it together”. If this happens, perhaps snakes will turn to doves and the thunderclap that is the Truth will roar from the pulpit and the public square.
If the priests still turn away, then what is done, is done.
Perhaps the “Chastisement” (Fatima) is upon us. I know of at least two priest that will retire rather than celebrate the new translation. There’s the door good Fathers, careful it doesn’t hit you on the way out.
If somebody is really having trouble with it, retirement is an honorable choice.
Announcing that you hate ICEL, hate the bishop, and are going to do whatever you feel like, isn’t an honorable choice. (Especially given the whole promise to obey the bishop, the pope, etc.)
OTOH, it sounds like a lot of priests’ private moaning and groaning is being aired in public by their priestly “friends” who want to moan and groan publicly. Everybody’s allowed to grumble to co-workers about changes; but co-workers aren’t supposed to call the newspaper about it.
LeeAnn asked: “I will be interested to see if publishers of missals stop publishing the current version completely.”
Since the old version is copyrighted, publishers will be breaking the law if they attempt to keep the old version in print without the Church’s permission.
frjim4321: ” … presiders who … presider who … presiders who …”
A layman all my many years, I was a “presider” at Mass back in the heady days of the 1960’s. As the presider, I stood at the ambo and led the people in their recitation of the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc. and all the dialogue responses, introduced the hymns, made the announcements, etc. To an innocent Protestant who wandered in, it probably looked like I was in charge of the whole thing, and that the celebrant of the Mass — the priest standing behind our new “table of plenty” — was merely my assistant.
Is this the kind of presider you have in mind? Thankfully, I haven’t seen one of these recently.
A little bit of “plus ca change …” for some relief:
http://scecclesia.com/?p=5100
“Is this the kind of presider you have in mind? Thankfully, I haven’t seen one of these recently.”
We have one in our parish…she’s a pretty, but rather large lady whose wing-span is at least 6.5 feet. We are told to turn off our cell phones “to preserve the sanctity of the Mass” when not even an earthquake could alter the perfect sacrifice of Christ renewed on our altars; she announces the hymn numbers even when they are clearly posted; she enjoins us to sing as “join at table”…etc…yes, it’s a relic of the 60s, and should be permanently retired!!
At the mentioning of “Lefebvrism of the left ” and the state of the situation described, I wonder if in the future there will be a group we will call “sedevacantist of the left”? Or maybe these dissenters will create their own parishes much like the ones wymn “priests” and “homosexual priests” already have been, and then picket the Vatican.
The link made by William Tighe is fascinating. How curious that ‘a dozen Priests’ were rebelling in 1970 – the same number as in today’s article. And to think The Tablet criticized the New Mass translation in 1970 and a Jesuit called it bordering on the heretical. As he says – plus ca change.
@Henry Edwards: I am happy to see I am not the only one for whom the term presider is an unpleasant one. Perhaps it is simply my age showing, but celebrant is the term with which I was raised, and if it was good enough then, it’s good enough now. It seems to me that celebrant helps to make plain that no, Mr. John Parishioner, you cannot assume that role.
Actually, much, nay, most of the Book of Common Prayer from which the Anglican Use’s The Book of Divine Worship largely draws its texts, is translated from the historic Latin liturgy of the West, in particular from the Sarum Use, the translations having been made by Dr Cranmer or under his supervision. See, for example, here and here. So I guess he can object.
Though the new translation will be an immense improvement over the old—not that high a hurdle to clear, admittedly—I should have been pleased if those responsible had simply lifted Dr. Cranmer’s work whole and entire, to the extent that consonance with orthodox doctrine permitted, and dropped it into the new. And where there was nothing to lift, I should have liked a slavish, slavish adherence to his style and manner.
Can you imagine the cacaphony when a faction of worshippers insists on using the prayers and responses authorized by the Church while a similarly determined faction led by the celebrant insists on using the outdated transalations?
As a matter of fact, I can recall there were a few who persisted with Latin responses even with the vernacular ordinary form of the Mass. Eventually they gave up.
“If they don’t like the new translation, there’s always Latin.”
Exactly. :) edp.
It occurs to me that many don’t really use the current Missal anyway. They wing parts of it that should be set, and change language to inclusivize it as they see fit. If forced to use the new translation, Fr. Bagofdoughnuts will do his own hackjob, I’m betting.
Henry Edwards, I think you meant “commentator.”
This is where the bishop matters. A number of local malcontents threatened to do the same thing here, but when it was clear the Archbishop(s) were fully on board with implementing the translation, the resistance effectively stalled out.
Maybe I’m just looking at all of this way too simplistically, but it seems to me that the root problem of this and all the other problems with the Church is no fear of God. We, as Catholics, are members of the 2000 year old church founded by our Saviour and Creator, the Church that Christ himself promised would never be overcome by the gates of hell. We are the product of those who willingly and with love beyond our understanding spilled their own blood to help preserve it. Who are we to think we “know better” than 2000 years of history, flawed though it may be. Who are we to question a liturgy that down through the millenia has produced probably millions of saints? I am still amazed at those who tinkered with the Mass 40 or 50 years, thinking they could somehow improve it.
The need for prayer and reparations is inexhaustible.
400-year-old Latin text? What?
perhaps this the time for Rowan Williams to issue his moto proprio Romanorum Coetibus! Basically that is where most of that crowd belong!
THis sort of stuff has been going on in Australia for a LONG time. Some of it is directed at the head of Vox Clara also.
Yes, the door is wide open for these arrogant priests to leave the Church.
Striving to dialogue with them is a waste of time since they will never be satisfied.
Indeed they look as Luther’s sons.
I remember our old pre-VATII parish priest who taught us catechism by the end of the fifties:” The first virtue of a Catholic faithful is OBEDIENCE.”
We were given a booklet last week which takes you through the changes in a very rudimentary way – really just spelling out what they are, and why they’re better than what we’ve got know, without too much history, theology, and so on (which I would have preferred!). Thumbing through it with a friend, no liturgical conservative, she said she wasn’t sure about the ‘new’ Confiteor (no-one likes change, even at the age of 23), and asked me what it was it Latin. After the “mea culpa…mea maxima culpa,” she said, “Y’see, it just sounds better in Latin.” You could have knocked me over with a feather!
FrJim4321,
I have no doubt that there will be priests–perhaps not a few–who will resist the upgraded translations. It is a bit short-sighted, however, to assume that the changes are only directed at them. Future seminary formation will produce priests trained not only to use these translations but also influenced by Latin liturgy. So the priests you refer to who are rigid and object to change will sooner or later disappear.
RbtBrn – – –
I assume you are referring to the so-called “biological solution.” Indeed there is an attitude out there (I have heard it from bishops) that the progessive clergy will eventual die out (or retire) and then all will be well. To me that’s a short- sighted approach. Let’s say moderates in the clergy are mid-fifties now. They have at least twenty years to minister. (Who thinks retirement age will stay at 70?)
Meanwhile, if you believe the CARA data, mid-fifties Catholics are leaving the church in droves. Not any-old-Catholics, but Catholics who sacrificed mightily for the Church in the ’80’s and ’90’s and into the new millentium. The three-times-per week choir people, committee people, significant contributors. They are leaving. Here is some admittedly anecdotal data. I know three mid-fiftes Catholic couples and one mid-sixties Catholic couple who toiled for the Church. But they can’t take it anymore. They are no longer going.
Fifty and sixty year old Catholic who cease being active aren’t being replaced on a 1:1 basis. Twenty- and thirty-somethings aren’t altruistic as were their parents and grandparents. Dioceses across the country know this; they are tripping over themselves running “capital campaigns” to fill up their coffers while the generations with an altruistic bent are still living. After them, there’s no more golden goose.
There’s also an attitude out there that, okay, we’ll just have fewer but more faithful people. Just like Jesus of Nazareth wanted. (Not.) We’ve heard bishops with that attitude. But is that REALLY what the new evangelization is about?
So, while the trads are promiting the biological solution that will save the church, the non-ordained are heading for the doors. So, I wouldn’t promote the biological solution as the “fix” for what ails U.S. Catholicism.
Last one to leave, turn out the lights.
Strange, Animadversor, but a friend, who is a convert, has often said to me that when the Mass was put into English, all that should have been done would have been to take over the Anglican usage, because it is, generally, a faithful translation of the Latin.
Indeed, when we say the Our Father, apart from the odd word here and there, we use the translation of the Latin which was done by Cranmer in The Book of Common Prayer….
Our Father (which) who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done (in) on earth as it is in heaven….etc..
frjim4321,
I believe my eyes. In my area of the country, the ranks of Catholics are increasing, not decreasing. The numbers of seminarians exceeds the necessary replacement rate for retiring priests, and they’ll be much better priests than the ones they replace. New churches are being built. The dynamism is with the young, not the old. The restoration of the Church is underway. The “new springtime” is in sight, not over the horizon somewhere.
But I agree about the tired and graying church you describe. Last one out should definitely turn out the lights. The sooner the better.
Hey stop riding off my name tee hee!
frjim you’re very clever and think outside the box. Thanks for your contribution. Keeps us on our toes.
Well, that is good. I don’t want you to reveal your location, but I find that very interesting. If it’s around Arlington I could see that. Anyway . . . I don’t see this in the Midwest.
FrJim,
Why are these couples leaving the church? With what are they unhappy?
“How will people know which translation he is not using?”
Good question. 10 bonus points for amenamen.
All these dissenting Priests are doing is teaching us lay people that it is OK to disobey and disrespect the Pope and the Vatican. Fine example, all because they do not agree with a new translatin. That is unbelievable. Imagine if they were told to turn around and face God when saying Mass. I can’t imagine their parishes when people see this. It will be scandal. How will they continue to teach the Catholic Faith with one of its’ principal and central beliefs is in the Magesterium and trust in our Holy Father. After some time passes and they see the rest of the world getting on with it, it will appear extrememly hypocritical to then turn around and teach about love, and obedience to Rome. And who consulted us lay people? Maybe if we were in on the consultation process too, the millions of us, it may be shown that we want the new translations afterall.
Fr Jim, I’m not seeing middle-aged Catholics leaving in droves. The churches that are almost empty on Sunday and derelict the rest of the week are the old mainline denominations — the United Methodists, the ELCA Lutherans, and especially the Episcopalians are the ones that are struggling for members and living on their endowments. In fact, we’re part of the exodus from the ECUSA lunacy.
It’s standing room only around our parish — the fire marshal says we can seat 880, and we have four Masses on Sunday and one Saturday evening. The Vigil Mass was fairly lightly attended – I saw some empty seats – as is the 8 a.m. Sunday Mass. But 10 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. were stuffed to the gills with people kneeling in the narthex and the fussy babies in the bride’s room. We’ve got folks of all ages too — we’re in our fifties (and are really just a wee bit too young to have been part of that hippy generation), but there are lots of older folks and LOTS of young families with children. On Saturday evening a lovely family with six children – a girl and five boys, who all went down in size like the steps of a stair, sat right in front of me. They were all adorable and quite well behaved.
And if you want to be at church every night of the week or all day long, there’s something going on. We have a fabulous Scripture study program that meets three mornings a week, two daily Masses, Eucharistic Adoration, mini-retreats, various courses taught by our priests, Sunday school classes . . . the activities fill four or five pages of the weekly bulletin, not to mention the website.
I’m sorry that things are so dreary in your neck of the woods. Are you sure you’re not talking about the Episcopalians?
I went to the NO on Tuesday last week, and the priest, who is about 65, made up the entire Eucharistic Prayer, except for the Consecration of the Eucharist. I mentioned this to the person I went to Church with and she said she didn’t know the forms well enough to hear the errors. Years of this has made people lax and expecting change.
As to the graying of the priests and a biological fade-out of liberalism, this is unlikely, as so many of the young men going in, at least in the Midwest, are of the same ilk. I am sorry to burst people’s bubbles about the next generation, but except for the few, and those young men who go into the trad orders, it is same old, same old. Many of the trad seminarians I personally knew, left last year or the year before, despite my begging them not to leave the arena to the liberals. Some were just worn down by criticism and not being able to be themselves.
The Church is Australia has been more liberal, but also smaller, and therefore, the impact is greater.
JARay & Animadversor,
The Cranmer 1662 book, with a few suitable alterations, could serve as a reverent, scholarly, accurate, poetic translation.
The Anglican Use folks in our neck of the woods are using the 1662 book with alterations . . . unfortunately the alterations are in the ICLE lame duck English and most unsuitable. I have proposed before that a solid committee, with some good Latin scholars as well as a few specialists in 17th century English, could render a new seamless translation from the Sarum Rite. . . . something Cranmer almost certainly would have done if he hadn’t gotten caught up in the Spirit of the Age. . . .
I’m also in the Midwest, Henry, and I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. I’m seeing fewer Catholics and I know many also who have left the Church. Maybe it’s a Midwest thing, but I don’t think so.
I do know why many of them leave. The Church has ceased to make sense to them, and in large part, that’s the fault of those in charge who REFUSE to teach what the church has always taught, preferring to substitute their own flavor of modernistic B.S. instead. There really is rather little sense in rolling out of bed to go listen to what you know is a wooden nickel. People aren’t stupid.
frjim4321,
If no one wants to deal with the situation described above in a proactive way, then yes, the biological solution will have to suffice. That’s not a bad thing. The truth always wins out, given enough time. That’s how things work, like it or not.
Supertradmom,
You said, “she said she didn’t know the forms well enough to hear the errors.” Yes, that was part of the regimen. It’s one reason why the missalettes skewer the lyrics to hymns all the time. Sing a new church and all that rot, you know. (That, and the fight to retain copyrights. $$$$$)
I’m not expecting “supertrad” seminarians, and I don’t know that we need that really. I am seeing, however, even here in the Midwest, seminarians and new priests who are not tree-hugging left-wing quasi-hippies like some of the older priests I know. The younger ones seem to be a better and more sensible lot, even if they aren’t very well-educated as a rule. They’re trying, which is more than I can say for some of the older ones. JMHO.
How much do you wanna bet that these so-called (but not by me) “Lefebvrists of the left” will not be suspended, punished, scolded, or removed from office in any way, shape, or form? The new translation will simply add dozens more iterations to the possible masses that you may hear on any given Sunday in any given parish.
The disobedient ‘lefties’ will not be punished. The Church doesn’t roll that way. Only the “trads” are punished for ‘disobedience’ for continuing to use a missal that “was never juridically abrogated, and therefore, was always permitted.”
Curious about something: To what geographical area do people refer by “Midwest”?
Perhaps I’m biased, but I’ve always found it quite confusing to hear someone refer to the Midwest, then mention Chicago. I’ve usually thought of “Midwest” as being just that: Midway across the country from east to west, about halfway in between. (I’m a Nebraska native.) Granted, having visited Ohio twice, I suppose culturally and landscape-wise, it’s relatively similar. All the same….
BTW, we are referring to the Midwest United States..right?
I don’t know what to think about Mass attendance and age actually.
I’ve been to Mass in three separate states and two continents; it always seems fairly the same to me: You’ll have people under 20 coming with their parents and people over 50 coming on their own. Depending on the parish though, I don’t see many 20-somethings, 30-somethings (like myself), or 40-somethings that much, unless they’re there with their families.
As a side note, I would have to argue against the idea that the 1962 missal was always legal. I’m no legal expert, especially not in regard to canon law, but if a local ordinary says that you may not use a particular missal, isn’t that binding upon the priests in that diocese?
Isn’t that precisely why Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum? Precisely to enable priests of all stripes to learn and use the missal (et al) for the Extraordinary Form?
jflare,
I think catholicmidwest and I are both in Iowa, which is very much the Midwest. Here, we call Ohio, the East…
Supertradmum,
What part of Iowa? I’m just across the river in Omaha….. :)
(Though I’m originally from Grand Island. Interestingly, I’ve never heard anyone contest that as “Central Nebraska”, though it’s roughly 1/3 of the way across the state.)
LeeAnn asked: “I will be interested to see if publishers of missals stop publishing the current version completely.”
Since the old version is copyrighted, publishers will be breaking the law if they attempt to keep the old version in print without the Church’s permission.
I asked Jerry Galipeau (chief editor WLP) this very question a few days ago. He emphatically answered that this (using the old translation) cannot and would not be done by any publishers of “renewable” resources.
Hard- Bound Hymnals with the Order of Mass contained therein are a different question as they will, in many instances, remain “in the pews” for several years if they have been replaced recently. The old (current) ICEL Text of the Mass will no longer be “licensed for use” under the terms of the purchase contract of these books, and there will apparently be “inserts” sent out to all who have purchased such books in the last (5?) years with the new Order of Mass. All new Hardbounds produced as of the date of approval (this past January) contain the new texts.
That’s where it stands in regard to that issue, and from a very good source.
Supertradmum: I think catholicmidwest and I are both in Iowa, which is very much the Midwest. Here, we call Ohio, the East…
I recall a faculty party for newcomers in Princeton many years ago. An older faculty wife, originally from Boston, asked a young man where he was from.
“From Iowa”, he said. “Where?” she asked. “From IOWA”, he replied.
“Oh, my dear,” she replied, “Back here we pronounce it OHIO.”
frjim4321,
Like AAM, I’m in the South. But I’ve spent time in parts of the midwest and northeast, and know what you mean. In areas where Catholic laity have suffered through several decades of lukewarm priests and bishops, the results as you describe are not so surprising. What was it the Cure de Ars said? Something like …. After twenty years without a faithful priest, people will wind up worshiping mammon, or themselves, or whatever?
RbtBrn – – –
I assume you are referring to the so-called “biological solution.” Indeed there is an attitude out there (I have heard it from bishops) that the progessive clergy will eventual die out (or retire) and then all will be well. To me that’s a short- sighted approach.
How can it be short-sighted if it refers to years in the future?
Meanwhile, if you believe the CARA data, mid-fifties Catholics are leaving the church in droves. Not any-old-Catholics, but Catholics who sacrificed mightily for the Church in the ’80?s and ’90?s and into the new millentium. The three-times-per week choir people, committee people, significant contributors. They are leaving. Here is some admittedly anecdotal data. I know three mid-fiftes Catholic couples and one mid-sixties Catholic couple who toiled for the Church. But they can’t take it anymore. They are no longer going.
That’s more evidence of what I’ve said for years: The Liberal Church, which you have defended here, has been a pastoral flop.
Fifty and sixty year old Catholic who cease being active aren’t being replaced on a 1:1 basis. Twenty- and thirty-somethings aren’t altruistic as were their parents and grandparents. Dioceses across the country know this; they are tripping over themselves running “capital campaigns” to fill up their coffers while the generations with an altruistic bent are still living. After them, there’s no more golden goose.
I agree about one capital campaign after another. IMHO, like recruiting permanent deacons and EMHC’s, they are the product of a state of denial about the pastoral failures of the vernacular Church and its versus populum liturgy.
There’s also an attitude out there that, okay, we’ll just have fewer but more faithful people. Just like Jesus of Nazareth wanted. (Not.)
You might want to look at the 6th Chapter of the 4th Gospel. After Jesus speaks of the Eucharist, many of his disciples left, and it doesn’t say that He called out to them not to leave.
We’ve heard bishops with that attitude. But is that REALLY what the new evangelization is about?
Like all evangelization, the new one is concerned with teaching people to live the Faith and the moral precepts taught in the light of the Faith.
So, while the trads are promiting the biological solution that will save the church, the non-ordained are heading for the doors. So, I wouldn’t promote the biological solution as the “fix” for what ails U.S. Catholicism.
Same ole liberal whine. If the faith is actually preached, then people will leave. Places like the Lincoln, NE, KC, MO, Clear Creek Abbey, and the FSSP seminary are evidence that Ubi Petrus Ibi Vocationes.
Last one to leave, turn out the lights.
I agree. That’s why I am enthusiastic about the reform of the Church.
It is interesting to note how churches minister. Next door to my parish is a liberal RC parish which does well on Sundays, but the weekdays are not well attended. In fact Mass is celebrated 3 weekdays a week. I had the occasion to attend one during the weekday; frankly it was an interminably long half an hour. On the other hand down the road a mile from it is another parish which is much more traditional. It has 4 Masses every weekday, A Tridentine Mass on Saturday evening at 6PM. Every Mass is well attended judging by the cars in the parking lot. A young, vibrant, family oriented, pro life community from all over the Greater Detroit area flock to this parish. I am very close to the clergy and people there, and feel most at home with them. By the way they are rejoicing in the new translation. I think they have the text memorized.
Some of you may remember that not long ago, Fr Z asked us to provide input regarding what the upcoming (eventually) instruction regarding Summorum Pontificum would declare.
I can’t help but think that our Papa will provoke bishops to reorganize their time just a little, thus placing greater emphasis on the traditional practices of the Mass.
Just two nights ago, I got a surprise to discover that a parish in my area seems to have “converted” to offering the TLM exclusively. Last I’d known–right after Summorum Pontificum–they’d only offered the TLM on weekday mornings. Apparently, they’ve changed to offering it exclusively.
I may consider attending there a few more times, become better acquainted with the traditional Mass.
I suspect other bishops will soon have cause to provoke these kinds of things too…..
jflare,
….”if a local ordinary says that you may not use a particular missal, isn’t that binding upon the priests in that diocese?”
NOPE. That decision is reserved to the Holy See. The bishop doesn’t have jurisdiction over some things believe it or not, and deciding what the form of the Mass is isn’t one of them. He can’t change the deposit of faith either. Nor can he edit Holy Scripture.
jflare, technically the Midwest begins at the Allegheny River, think of the history of when the northern part of Ohio was the Connecticut Western Reserve. There is no real concensus as to the western boundary, but usually it is considered the eastern boundary of the Great Basin. Some say the foothills of the Rockies is the western boundary.
Therefore, Ohio is midwestern, Chicago definitely is. Pittsburgh is just barely Eastern.
Henry Edwards,
Love the Iowa-Ohio reference. I have heard the mistake before in conversation, but with less emphasis and humor. As to the boundaries. I think really Ohio is part of "The Old West", before the rest was discovered in its glory. Chicago is definitely Midwest, as are Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and places west, until the Great Basin. I consider Colorado as in the West, and I think the demarcations are geographical, as well as environmental, the Midwest being the Bread Basket and the West being more desert and mountain terrains. I know older geography books had clear distinctions on these terms, which as children, we loved and thought were so cool-such as The Mid-Atlantic States, which sounded so foreign to us growing up on the bank of the Mississippi. Wiki has a great article on the Great Basin Divide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Basinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Basin
frjim4321 says:
Meanwhile, if you believe the CARA data, mid-fifties Catholics are leaving the church in droves.
….
Actually, CARA data shows that that only 2.3% of people who stopped thinking of themselves as Catholic did so from age 50 or older. Bring in 40 or older, we are just at 7.4% (CARA 2008 REPORT, “The Impact of Religious Switching and Secularization on the Estimated Size of the U.S. Adult Catholic Population”
I doubt that 2.3% can be called ‘droves’