The dissenting Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland, whom we treated here, are having a nutty over the decision of the Irish Bishops Conference not to conform to dissent but rather conform to will of Rome. These members of the ACP were the one who were obsessing over the wrong problem.
Now that the ACP has lost here is their latest public whinge. My emphases and comments.
Press Statement from ACP: Monday, March 28th
Press statement from the Association of Catholic Priests responding to our meeting with a Commission of the Episcopal Conference and their response to our submission, on the subject of the proposed new Liturgical Texts [The texts are not “proposed” now. They are “approved”. The ACP is operating, perhaps, on the foundation of fantasy.]
The Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) regrets the recent decision of the Irish Catholic Bishops, [And so they will make their regret public.] in response to a submission from the ACP, to press ahead with the implementation of the introduction of the new Mass texts as planned next November.
At a meeting in Maynooth on Monday, February 28th a delegation from the ACP met the Episcopal Commission of Worship, Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development. There were five members of the Bishop’s Conference and a number of others, including three women, present. [“including three women”…. LOL! Why make that point so pointedly?] The delegation from the ACP voiced the following concerns:
1. That the proposed texts [again with the “proposed”, as if they can now be derailed. Dream on.] are unsuitable and unacceptable in a number of respects:
(i) we believe that, as literal translations of the Latin, [No. They are literal. I work up “literal” translations all the time. The new, corrected translation is not “literal”.] they are too complex and too cumbersome. [This is another way of saying that they think people in the pews – priests as well – are too stupid to use the new texts.] The guidelines state that they should be ‘comprehensible even to the faithful who have received no special intellectual formation”. This is clearly not the case. [This is clearly not “clearly” the case. Moreover, we can’t know this before the new translations are implemented.]
(ii) we have reservations as to their theological veracity, for example at the very heart of the Eucharistic prayers, the new text states that Christ died ‘for many’ rather than ’for all.’ [This could be a) dumb or b) heresy. I don’t think you can say that something theologically doubtful is to be found in the Roman Canon without running the risk of being a heretic. As far as “dumb” is concerned, perhaps I should correct myself and say uninformed. I direct them to the Roman CatechismPart II, ch. 4 (264.7-265.14), not to mention the decision of Pope Benedict – the only one with the authority to approve translations of sacramental forms – that pro multis is to be translated properly.]
(iii) we fear that their introduction will damage the present fabric of worship in our parishes, dissuade people from active participation and introduce annoyance, discontent, resentment and possibly anger into the unifying ritual of the Mass [Certainly there have never been any liturgical abuses in those parishes. Nor is there any concern over the other problems that have abounded in the Church in Ireland… because of priests.]
(iv)we fear [There’s a good start. I fear that the Chicago Cubs might meet the Cleveland Indians in the World Series, thus sparking the Apocalypse. ] that the continued use of sexist language with its use of ‘man’, men’ and ‘brothers’ as generic terms will alienate some women and men, and is a very unfortunate reversal in an area where some progress had been made. [Man, what a good head of steam they have worked up!]
2. We believe that the process by which the texts have been drawn up is seriously flawed. There was no consultation with either priests or people and this is contrary to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Church. [As dull as an Ambrosian Chant Credo… this again? How would that “consultation” have taken place?] An instructive lesson the Church has learned in recent times is that decisions made by small groups and then visited on the Church as a whole without adequate consultation tend not to serve the good of the Church. [What small group is that? What on earth does this mean?]
While the Association of Catholic Priests recognises the need for a new and improved translation of the liturgical texts, we believe that the proposed new texts are unsuitable and inadequate. Many priests will struggle with them and many people will regard them as unnecessary and unusable. Consequently we believe it is unwise to proceed with them.
While the bishops listened to our concerns, we regret to say that, judging by their response, they failed to take on board what we said and did not furnish any reasons for not accepting the concerns that we raised with them. We do not regard this as an appropriate form of listening or dialogue. [Do you suppose this group will eagerly defend the rights of Catholics who desire the older form of Mass according to Summorum Pontificum?]
We remain convinced that introducing the new texts next November will have serious repercussions for parishes. While some priests may welcome them, it is clear that others will resist them, while many, maybe the majority, will accept them with a sense of resignation and without enthusiasm. In such circumstances it is, we believe, unwise to introduce them. [And they have every intention to sow as much dissent and as many misgivings as possible.]
We will convene a meeting of our members on Thursday, June 2nd , at 2.30pm, in the parish centre in Portlaoise to consider our response. In the meantime we encourage our members to continue to discuss this matter with their pastoral councils, and indeed their parishioners generally.
I am reminded of those little dogs behind their fences. They must always have the last word. Bark. If you look, and then look away, they bark again. Respond with a word or grunt to each bark, they match each time but with diminishing fervor. Finally all they muster is a muted “woof” lacking in conviction. But they will have the last word.
Fine. I hope they enjoy their meetings. The new translation is coming, nolens volens.
Loading ...
“There were five members of the Bishop’s Conference and a number of others, including three women, present.”
—————
I suppose they would call that a “stable” group. ;) o{]:¬)
Does “whinge” mean the same as “whine”? I thought it was a typo but it keeps coming up, so I think it’s a word I don’t know.
Yes, the new translation is coming, and nothing can be done about it. Deo gratias! The fact that these priests are so actively bold and defiant is amazing to me. They wouldn’t have been so back in the days when the Irish bishops were truly “lords” of the nation.
Sadly, because of The Scandal and other issues, today it seems that respect for authority in the Church is at an all time low. That said, the big question remains, and that is this: WHAT will the bishops do if these priests (and priests in other English speaking countries) simply ignore or refuse to implement the new translations or only incorporate certain parts of the new translations in their parishes? Given the dire shortage of priests in Ireland where parish priests are staffing two or three parishes as well as the distances between small towns, how are bishops going to enforce compliance? Drive around from parish to parish correcting them? (Talk about the liturgical police!) Suspend them? Put them in the diocesan jail (an idea not necessarily as preposterous as it sounds)? As it stands now, we can’t get priests (and even bishops) to “say the black and do the red” with the current translation and rubrics. How is after the First Sunday of Advent going to be any different?
I’m as supportive as anyone about the new translations; however, I also live in reality where, in the words of the great Cardinal Arinze, “the do-it-yourself-Mass” is far from over. In fact, unfortunately, I think it may only be beginning all over again.
“Association of Irish Priests”…hum, sounds like a union. Watch out they don’t bring in some thugs to enforce their will. What in the heck happened to the concept of obedience in the Church?
If the ACP don’t like the new translations then they can just use these ones (never abrogated, and presumably still valid).
“Episcopal Commission of Worship, Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development”
What a thoroughly disgusting mouthful! Why oh why can’t bishops speak like normal people?
Does ANYONE else actually speak like this?
Using the words ‘renewal’, ‘pastoral’, ‘development’, ‘vibrant’, ‘inclusive’, ‘dialogue’, ‘being (church)’, etc. should surely be an excommunicatable offence.
The ACP’s complaints about the new translation is a bit rich given that their own prose is full of bloated buzzwords.
“Does “whinge” mean the same as “whine”?”
Yes.
“Given the dire shortage of priests in Ireland where parish priests are staffing two or three parishes as well as the distances between small towns, how are bishops going to enforce compliance? Drive around from parish to parish correcting them? “
Well, for an island that’s about 350 miles long and 175 miles thick (sorry, old joke – 175 miles wide) that has a decent road & highway system and is divided into 22 dioceses – is anybody really so very far from their bishop?
Charivari Rob: I wouldn’t call the roads in rural Ireland “decent,” although they have recently a dreadfully modern motorway from Dublin to Limerick is nearly completed. While, yes, it is a very small country, I doubt you are going to see a bishop riding circuit from town to town on a Sunday morning making sure his priests are doing what they are supposed to do. Although, it wouldn’t be a bad idea.
“…in recent times is that decisions made by small groups and then visited on the Church as a whole without adequate consultation tend not to serve the good of the Church.”
For some reason Bugnini dropped in to my train of thought at this point.
Wow. If my kids started whining at me like that, they would be in timeout ( blackout, grounded, or the likes) so fast, I wouldn’t have to hear the second sentence.
Reason number 47328 for Romanorum Coetibus?
I’m probably wrong, but shouldn’t the relationship between a priest and a higher ecclesiastical authority, i.e., bishops or Rome, be something like that of a soldier and the president? When I was in the Marines, we were never allowed to publicly speak ill of the President of the US, or any other superior for that matter. Neither were we allowed to publicly say that “as a Marine, I support such and such political cause.” Privately, this was a different matter. Why is it that priests are permitted to publicly dissent from just authority? Yes, I know that the Church is not the military, but there are laws which govern her order, and if they have a problem, they should follow the legal path. No?
When is the rumored Romanorum Coetibus going to be released, and will it apply to Ireland?
Insubordination and scandal.
Both of these issues should be dealt with swiftly and decisively. This is not only scandal, but one in which they clearly intend to deepen in every way they can think of.
Why is this intentional damage inflicted upon the Church tolerated? Those involved should be suspended and gagged. Their return should be conditioned on their public apology and a public statement of unconditional support for the approved translation.
This association of dissidents should also be disbanded.
I recently assisted at a N.O Mass in which the new translation was used (it was primarrally the Bishop was the main celebrant with Priests from the Diocese concelebrating although there were a couple of lay people present) and its SOOO much better; not quite up to EF standards but getting there
shane: If the ACP don’t like the new translations then they can just use these ones (never abrogated, and presumably still valid).
HOLY MASS
The official text of the English to be used in the Mass
As from the First Sunday of Lent 1965
Approved by the Hierarchy of Ireland
Seems to me that this should provide sufficient authorization for any of these priests whose fidelity impedes their use of modern ICEL translations.
“The Ordinary of the Mass [in the 1965 missal] remains essentially the same as the 1962 Missal but with the (partial) introduction of the vernacular and the omission of the Last Gospel and Psalm 42 in the prayers at the foot of the altar.”
Incidentally—for the benefit of those readers here who are not familiar with Lux Occult ( http://lxoa.wordpress.com/ )– let me commend you for a valuable service In putting some of these important historical documents on line.
This is all very interesting. These are the same types who preached obedience to those who had the current translation foisted upon them.
I never attend the NO, but I’m seriously considering it on the first Sunday in Advent because I want to witness justice being done. In fact, I live 2 hours from Erie and would consider making the drive if I knew where a certain bishop would be celebrating Mass that day.
If the bishops of Ireland would suspend these priests until they come into line, which means the laity would go without the Sacraments for a few weeks, I bet things would turn around in no time.
An instructive lesson the Church has learned in recent times is that decisions made by small groups and then visited on the Church as a whole without adequate consultation tend not to serve the good of the Church.
Well, at least the ACP got something right. Assuming that they were thinking of the fact that Catholics high and low—from pew sitters to bishops and cardinals who had attended Vatican II—were given to understand that the so-called “1965 missal” (which preserved the traditional Roman Mass with very modest simplifications while providing optionally for the vernacular in “people parts” but not in the Roman canon, as I recall) was the final definitive form of the revised Mass specified by Vatican. Not knowing that a small group was continuing to work secretly on a “new order”, which in 1970 was suddenly visited on the Church as a whole, with no consultation whatsoever, other than being previewed and roundly rejected by a selected group of a couple hundred bishops on a single occasion. And, finally, which some would say has not in the past forty years tended to serve the good of the Church.
If the ACP had been explicit in their apparent intent—which I have attempted to insert in their support above—then their case might have been more convincing.
Don’t like the new translation? Then use the original Latin!
“The guidelines state that they should be ‘comprehensible even to the faithful who have received no special intellectual formation’. This is clearly not the case.”
There’s a difference between being understandable by the laity and having the laity think they understand when they don’t. As a child, and long into adulthood, I thought the Catholic faith exposed Deism because of such “easy to understand language”.
Take the creed for instance. What does “one in being with the Father” mean? I understood at as meaning “Jesus was someone who is with the Father” in the same sense as “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you”. If I had been introduced to the proper translation “consubstantial with the Father”, I would have known that I had no idea what I just confessed to and be forced to ask questions or look it up.
There are hundreds of places in the current translaton where this sort of “help” is similarly harmful. I don’t know if the new translation would have prevented by faulty understanding (I was very poorly catechized and was not even told I should be confirmed or that all religions are not the same), from the little I’ve read, I am confident that it would have made me see that I didn’t know the Catholic faith as well as I thought I did. That knowledge would have forced me off the fence. I would have to make a choice, to stay willfully in ignorance, to learn and accept the faith, or to learn and reject the faith.
There are currently far too many people in my position who think they are faithful Catholics but are nothing of the sort, they’re only faithful to their misunderstandings of the Catholic faith. The current translations (and the secularized church buildings and music) are chiefly to blame.
With all due respect, I don’t care if they are not going to be enthused, just as I am certain that they don’t care for my two cents in the matter. I am relieved that for one instance at least, the attempts to “dialogue and/or consult” were politely declined. In all honesty, if this group lacks credibility in one area, then, I don’t find the input to be that much more convincing in another area. So ends this press release…
This is all so typical. How much you want to bet these guys are of a certain age and formation?
Father, I think the small group the writer is referring to is the priests(Bishops) who did the Irish Apostolic Visitation. It seems clear that there’s a bit of boo-hooing going on as I have heard of many priests who “feel” they weren’t asked for input.
If only the mothers of these Irish “Spirit if V2” priests were alive, they’d probably get a kick in the behind and be told in no uncertain terms to get with the program.
I think these priests need desperately to read Bishop Samuel Aquila’s speech on obedience. Is there any way to get it to them?
Also, their argument about “all” versus “many” in the Eucharistic prayer is something I hear all too often. Those who argue about this are those who believe in universal salvation. I know a priest who believes in universal salvation with all his heart – he once said in a homily that the first thing Jesus did when he got to heaven was hug Judas. My husband almost fell out of the pew.
I’ve been to several Maronite rite masses locally and I notice something–the words, gestures and liturgy markedly give the sense that you have entered sacred space–then the music starts up. Shutte’s “Here I am Lord” and Haugen/Hass. In a word, junk. The disconnect between the liturgy and the music could not be more glaring (I have not been there in a while, so I don’t know if anything has changed).
So resistance to the new translation is to be expected. Once people start hearing more sacred and reverent language, they are going to start noticing it does not jive with the usual happy-clappy nonsense and then the dominoes will start falling.
comprehensible even to the faithful who have received no special intellectual formation
I am curious just what this is from? I did a google search on the phrase and it only came back here and another blog. Is this from a Church document? If so, it confuses me, and clearly isn’t itself “comprehensible even to the faithful who have received no special intellectual formation.”
How, for instance, if this is intended to be understood in anything like a literal sense, could it ever be implemented? The Our Father, in its standard use everyday, doesn’t meet this qualification. Neither does the Hail Mary or just about any other prayer in the Church. I would like to think we should expect to be lifted up by the prayer of the Church, and led into greater understanding of the sacred, rather than having the prayers never challenge us or require any “special intellectual formation.”
The dissident’s say “we have reservations as to their theological veracity” in regard to the many/all issue.
I wonder if Byzantines Catholics and Orthodox know there are theological problems with the way they do the Divine Liturgy (i.e. they use “for many”)? Maybe the Irish ACP should go down to Mt. Athos and straighten them out. :-)
“Whinge.” Wonderful! I love learning new words. That’s a great one!
Seems like ACP is a fringish kind of group, only representing a small minority of Irish priests. Not unlike VOTF.
That being said, they are making some valid points. Clearly the VC2010 is a badly damaged product. That there are still English-speaking bishops who don’t seem to understand that what we’re getting isn’t what they voted for. That is indeed frustrating. Perhaps this open letter will at least results in some hierarchs realizing that VC hijacked the ICLE2008 with some very unusual results.
Does “whinge” mean the same as “whine”?
If it does, then my Dad (RIP) was being redundant when complaining about us kids “whingeing and whining”!
The dinosaurs bleat helplessly from their 1973 tar pit.
Their fantasies of “Dancing a New Church into Being” are sinking faster than Mee-Maw’s stockings at the last Hootenanny Mass.
They are desperately afraid that Catholics in the pews will discover the fullness of our Tradition and throw millstones ’round their elitist necks.
To the quarry! To the quarry!
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
There is a pretty decent guide “Understanding the Revised Mass Texts” by Paul Turner (LTP). It struck me while perusing it that this is an excellent teaching moment for Catholics to learn a little more about their Faith. Isn’t this what all priests should hope for in their flock?
What the ACP is locked into seems to be what I call the “Poodle Skirt Syndrome”.
It was a fad. Yes, bright prinary colored felt circular skirts with a big fuzzy poodle on the front that little girls loved to twirl and twirl and twirl around in. Then…in a few months….the fad died. Must have just got too dizzy. Maybe with lots of prayer the dissidents will realize its time for a change of clothes.
If it does, then my Dad (RIP) was being redundant when complaining about us kids “whingeing and whining”!
Or he was engaging in the rhetorical figure of hendiadys, literally, in Greek, “one through two”, expressing a single concept with two different words. I always enjoy pointing out examples to my students when reading Cicero et al.. Effectively, we do the same thing in the current (Lame Duck) English translation of the liturgy when we say, “God of power and might”.
@anilwang: yes ‘one in being with the Father’ can be problematic. I don’t understand why they picked ‘consubstantial’ rather than ‘of one being’ though. I think ‘consubstantial’ is at least as problematic as ‘one in being’ because in modern English “substance” does not mean the same as Latin substantia … translating the ‘substance/substantial’ based terms relating to the Trinity directly into English sounds rather like you are saying the Trinity is made of matter. The Aristotelian-derived concept of substance is barely known anymore.
As for pro multis … well, “for all” is clearly not the right translation. But any English translation is going to lose something, as the Latin (due to Latin’s lack of articles) has an inherent ambiguity which can’t be preserved in any translation into English — there’s a distinct difference in connotation in English between “for many” and “for the many”.
frjim: Clearly the VC2010 [the corrected translation being implemented this coming Advent] is a badly damaged product.
By the time I’d read this allegation for perhaps the hundredth time, parroted repetitively back and forth among the relative handful regular participants at a certain pretty terrible blog devoted to dissent from all Vatican decisions, I’d begun to assume that there must be some serious basis for it.
But then I adopted as a Lenten project this year to print for each day the three propers — collect, prayer over the gifts, and postcommunion — in Latin-on-the-left, new-English-translation-on-the-right format on a card to carry around in my prayer book, using all three as multiple closing prayers for each hour of the Liturgy of the Hours that day. Thus reflecting both studiously and prayerfully on these new translations a half dozen times during the day.
So far, I’ve compiled all these for every day from Ash Wednesday through Saturday of this Third Week of Lent. That’s 25 days, thus 75 consecutive propers that will appear in the new English Roman Missal. Having for some time been familiar with most of them, in the original Latin and (in many cases) in Father Z’s slavishly literal translations.
Thus far I have not found a single example of arguably inaccurate translation or infelicitous English expression. Not a single one that fails to seem beautiful in its own way. Not one that fails to read smoothly. Above all, not one that falls short of such enormous improvement over the lame-duck ICEL version imposed on us for forty years as impugn the sincerity of anyone who claims otherwise. Although, admittedly, I occasionally see that I could have improved one a bit further if the Vatican had had the prescience to consult me. Not to think of what Father Z could have done.
But if these 75 consecutive prayers from the new Roman Missal were a scientific random sample, then I would be forced conclude that these “badly damaged product” whiners were either mendacious liars or were so ill-informed that an ordinary sense of self-respect ought to keep them quiet about it.
Henry, are you up to speed on the (d)evolution of the VC2010 vis-a-vis the ICEL2008 whitepaper for which the bishops votes?
This cannot go unchallenged:
(“There was no consultation with either priests or people and this is contrary to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Church.”)
There was consultation. There was consultation for many years. There was endless consultation. Everything that the ACP is saying now has been said before. They are not saying anything new. Every single “objection” that they are raising at this late date has been raised before, and it has all been carefully considered. In fact, there has been so much consultation, among priests and laity, that all of the “objections” raised by the ACP were rejected years ago. They were rejected with conviction. They were rejected in detail. Please read Liturgicam Authenticam. It was published exactly ten years ago, on March 28, 2001.
(“While the bishops listened to our concerns, we regret to say that, judging by their response, they failed to take on board what we said …We do not regard this as an appropriate form of listening or dialogue. “)
This is a remarkable admission: “The bishops listened to our concerns.” Even now, the bishops continue to listen to the same few people saying the same things. What remarkable patience. But the ACP does not consider this listening “an appropriate form of listening.” Evidently, it is not true “consultation” unless they agree with the ACP?
Hello Fr. Z,
This script is read so many times that we can start generating the lingo ourselves.
This is another way of saying that they think people in the pews – priests as well – are too stupid to use the new texts. Curious, isn’t it? We’re told this is the “most educated” generation of Catholics there ever was, and yet they’re still mostly incapable of understanding “ineffable” and “consubstantial.” The inconsistencies pile up, and it’s usually because it’s a smokescreen for their real agenda. And their real (immanentist) theology. For example:
” we have reservations as to their theological veracity, for example at the very heart of the Eucharistic prayers, the new text states that Christ died ‘for many’ rather than ’for all.’
There’s no question that the Incarnation redeemed all. But it’s hard to shake the feeling that these priests really also believe all men are also saved. Or virtually all, save for perhaps Hitler and blokes who don’t recycle. No doubt this is why so much of the language in the ancient sacramenteries referring to the Four Last Things has been stripped out and watered down in the 1970 missal and even further in its current (“dynamically translated”) ICEL translation.
But this is of a piece with the complaints about inadequate dialogue. The only adequate dialogue for such dissenters is, alas, dialogue that ends with a surrender to their position. I don’t envy their bishops.
Hello PhilipNeri,
The dinosaurs bleat helplessly from their 1973 tar pit.
Funniest thing I’ve read here all week.
frjim4321 says:
That being said, they are making some valid points. Clearly the VC2010 is a badly damaged product. That there are still English-speaking bishops who don’t seem to understand that what we’re getting isn’t what they voted for. That is indeed frustrating. Perhaps this open letter will at least results in some hierarchs realizing that VC hijacked the ICLE2008 with some very unusual results.
It might very well be a damaged product, but it’s probably still better than than the drivel that we’ve been subjected to for 40 years. And it’s not just the liturgy. The Scriptural translations are often pitiful.
Of course, the solution would be to follow John XXIII and Vat II and put the liturgy in Latin.
No one would have to whinge if the mass was in Latin
“Sexist language”???
“God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.”
If it was good enough for God, how is it not good enough for us?
I will certainly agree with RobtBrown RE: the Lectionary.
HyacinthClare, we Irish ‘whinge’ whereas you Americans – I’m presuming you’re American – ‘whine’. Father Z is being culturally sensitive [LOL].
Charivari Rob: Ireland has 26 dioceses, though there is speculation that the number may be reduced.
The Association of Irish Priests is not, per se, a dissident body. Fewer than ten percent of the priests in Ireland are members. I disagree totally with their position on the new translation but it is only if a priest refuses to use it when it becomes official that he can be described as ‘disobedient’ or a ‘dissident’. It can be argued that a priest who uses the new translation where it has not yet been implemented by the bishop(s) is ‘disobedient’ and a ‘dissident’.
The bishops of Ireland have no grounds whatever for suspending any priest who expresses an opinion on the new translation, for or against its use, since it has not yet become the official one. Pope Benedict has recognized that the change will not be easy for everyone. Change never is. But the Church in Ireland has been proactive about the matter.
Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas of Lingayen-Dagupan here in the Philippines has already implemented the new translation of the responses [http://rcald.org/?p=321], though I haven’t heard of any other bishop doing so. [English is an official language here. However, I think it is used far too widely in the celebration of Mass, as it is not the mother-tongue of the vast majority.]
That statement about “consultation” has me scratching my head, as it appears, everyone else is doing. I would’ve thought that, if these REALLY want something based on wide consultation, they would’ve rebelled against the ICEL translation decades gone. For my understanding, THAT had far less consultation involved than the new one did.
Consultation must only be useful if they can get the answer they want.
I would’ve thought that, if these REALLY want something based on wide consultation, they would’ve rebelled against the ICEL translation decades gone. For my understanding, THAT had far less consultation involved than the new one did.
Consultation must only be useful if they can get the answer they want.
Bingo! Dialog has taken on the meaning: “We keep beating on this issue until you knuckle-draggers cave.”
But what a coup. I’m actually surprised at the lack of energy from the resistance. It’s downright perfunctory. They’ve lost the language war; and since the whole progressive project has been about warping language, for them to lose this is a strong indicator that the movement is truly dead.
frjim: Henry, are you up to speed on the (d)evolution of the VC2010 vis-a-vis the ICEL2008 whitepaper for which the bishops votes?
I’m aware of the issue, though I haven’t compared in detail the 2008 version (submitted by the bishops to the Vatican for the recognitio) with the final 2010 version that resulting after tweaking–the extent of which apparently is debatable–by the Vox Clara committee appointed by Pope Benedict to oversee the translation process (as I understand it).
I have spot checked some differences. Although I reported above on a swatch of the 2010 translations that evidenced no problems, I conclude that one can ferret out isolated infelicities in both versions. As is surely to be expected in such a mammoth process with so many cooks in the kitchen–allegedly, 7000 people at all levels (from lay to bishop) consulted on various parts.
In what I have seen, there are some 2008 prayers that would suit my personal taste better, and some 2010 prayers that do. I haven’t seen enough to guess how it balances out.
However, my point would be that these differences make little difference to English-speaking priests and lay as a whole. Because the 2008 and 2010 versions are both so vastly superior to the 1973 lame-duck ICEL that the differences between them are inconsequential for faith and worship. Both (aside from any isolated missteps) are accurate and preserve the traditional ethos and faith of the Rome rite, as the 1973 version did not.
So seems apparent that the strident opposition to the 2010 version–and passionate support of the 2008 version–on the part of people who for years typically saw little or no need at all for an accurate new translation, and in particular decried Authenticam liturgiam from the start, is based primarily not on grammatical and linguistic or stylistic differences, but on differences on theology and/or ecclesiology.
Some of the proponents evidently disagree with the traditional doctrine and theology expressed in the Latin liturgy—which was thoroughly obscured by the 1973 version, and preserved by both 2008 and 2010. Most disagree with the process and its control by the Vatican, favoring instead control by local bishops. But for us in the pews–and for most at the altar, surely–this is inside baseball of no practical consequence for our worship and liturgy, which can only be harmed by protracted argument and dissent now that the Church’s final decision has been taken (by whatever means).
biologistforlife says:
@anilwang: yes ‘one in being with the Father’ can be problematic. I don’t understand why they picked ‘consubstantial’ rather than ‘of one being’ though. I think ‘consubstantial’ is at least as problematic as ‘one in being’ because in modern English “substance” does not mean the same as Latin substantia … translating the ‘substance/substantial’ based terms relating to the Trinity directly into English sounds rather like you are saying the Trinity is made of matter. The Aristotelian-derived concept of substance is barely known anymore.
I think you’re assuming–incorrectly–that the contemporary scientific use of “substance” by chemists is incompatible with its philosophical/theological use in “consubstantial”. In fact, both refer to an object having a certain existing unity, a “whatness” whose existence persists through certain changes.
With these kind of priests, I suppose those two (parishioners and pastoral councils) are exactly the same…
@robtbrown: I am not assuming or suggesting some philosophical incompatibility of the two uses; I am merely expressing a qualm about whether using “substance”-based terms to describe the Trinity is likely to be misunderstood given the *common* use of those words in English.
There is the argument that ‘consubstantial’ is *obviously* hard and so it will get people to look it up, and so the doctrine of the Trinity will become better known. This is quite a strong argument. I am just troubled by what the attempts to explain ‘consubstantial’ will look like…
But I’m not sure how seriously I should be taken here… until I found this blog, I had never considered that “one in being with the Father” could be interpreted in a non-Trinitarian sense; it seems to me to be exactly identical in meaning to “consubstantial with the Father”. Interpreting it to mean “Jesus is with the Father” seems to do severe violence to the grammar. I can see how it could be parsed as “Jesus is one with the Father in that they share the quality of being”, but while this is allowed by the grammar, this strikes me as a profoundly unnatural parsing. (I wonder, then, if there is a dialectal/regional usage difference in play?)
I certainly believe both that when these texts are approved, they should be used, as a matter of obedience; and that they are a vast improvement over the current texts.
To perhaps clarify why I have that qualm:
@robtbrown: “In fact, both refer to an object having a certain existing unity, a “whatness” whose existence persists through certain changes.”
I agree that connection is the historical reason why ‘substance’ has come to have its modern meaning. I would disagree, however, that the average modern English-speaker is conscious of that aspect to the word; it normally means ‘what something is made of’, ‘a kind of matter’, or even ‘stuff’. If philosophical categories are relevant at all, “substance” is in modern English almost equivalent to Aristotelian “material cause”.
The only time, except actual discussion of Aristotelian/Scholastic philosophy, when modern English preserves the older meaning is that one can say things like “the substance of the point at issue is…”. But I would argue this has become essentially an idiomatic or figurative use.
How is this language more difficult for the Faithful than, off the top of my head:
1. The doctrine of the Trinity;
2. Transubstantiation
3. Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son;
4. The Filioque understood as an expression of the mediation of Spirit through the Son, and therefore a Single Procession (have I got this right?);
5. Dyothelitism and Duophysitism, versus the heresies of monophystism, monthelitism, and monenergism (can anyone explain the last two in layman’s terms?)?
Surely, to be a Catholic requires a certain degree of “intellectual formation” to ‘get’ some deeply complicated Greek philosophy?
“I never attend the NO, but I’m seriously considering it on the first Sunday in Advent because I want to witness justice being done”
The Mass is not about ‘justice being done’ any more than it is about you or me. It is about one thing alone.
PhilipNeri:
“Their fantasies of “Dancing a New Church into Being” are sinking faster than Mee-Maw’s stockings at the last Hootenanny Mass.”
No, no – it’s the Divine Liturgy of St Cybele the Tambourinist.
Abiologist/anilwang: Here in the UK, the ICEL translation gives “of one Being with the Father”. I was told once that “in one Being” is at least skidding close to heresy, but I’ve forgotten why. Could a kind soul remind me?
Errata: monoenergism and monothelitism, not monenergism and monthelitism. Apologies.
Fathers of ACP: For me, a regular OF Mass goer, sappy, modern hymns dissuade me from active participation. Watching swarms of EMHC’s storm the altar introduces annoyance. Listening to the lame duck ICEL prayers breeds discontent. A lack of Latin and chant creates resentment. And priests who ad-lib the Eucharistic prayers cause anger in the unifying ritual of the Mass.
Sorry, Fathers, you can’t win ’em all! Corrected translation in. . . in 7 months, 26 days, 8 hours, 2 minutes!
We remain convinced that introducing the new texts next November will have serious repercussions for parishes.
I can only hope that they are right.
St. Patrick, please reach down from heaven and give a ‘wee smackdown’ to these errant priests!
This is why I have issues with democracy. Read Thomas Paine’s works and you will see that the ACP is pretty faithful to his ideas.
@Medieval Peasant: Do you mean democracy in the Church, or democracy in secular government?
There will be millions and millions of Faithful worldwide who are going to be just fine with this translation, use it and adjust to it with barely a whimper, and many with joy. The vocal few who are going to do most of the complaining will be the ones who in a few short months time will be left behind. Their progressive nature will stop short in its’ tracks as they become traditionalists in favor of the continued use of the abrogated translations of the Pauline Missal.
“I never attend the NO, but I’m seriously considering it on the first Sunday in Advent because I want to witness justice being done. In fact, I live 2 hours from Erie and would consider making the drive if I knew where a certain bishop would be celebrating Mass that day.”
That’s right, he does turn 75 this year, doesn’t he? Well, it may be some months before his resignation actually lands on HH’s desk and is accepted, so unless he goes away on some “unavoidable” business I would expect HE Bp. Trautman to be at his cathedral. If he is, please don’t snicker … just enjoy the moment.
@TNCath:
I’ve driven those roads, large and small. I didn’t claim they were consistently great. They are, at least, decent (most of them) and some of them excellent. As a system, it is (at least) decent.
I did not claim that a bishop would ride the circuit (like they did when my mother and her siblings received the Sacraments). The small area of the dioceses combined with a decent road system means a bishop could visit any of his priests (or summon them) and it’s a matter of only an hour or two of travel – not like some huge territory or lack of roads where travel takes days and requires planes, canoes, or pack animals.
@ Father Sean Coyle:
26 dioceses, not 22? Thank you. I don’t know where I got my number. Is 26 the number for all Ireland, or just the Republic? I had read in a couple of places the rumor/expectation that several dioceses would/could be consolidated.
For a group that against things that “too complex and too cumbersome”, their statement provided me with a great example of it! Thank you, ACP!
“We will convene a meeting of our members on Thursday, June 2nd , at 2.30pm, in the parish centre in Portlaoise to consider our response.” Wait, wasn’t this it? You mean I can look forward to more ACP-goodness? Yay.
Sigh. Reading groups/people who talk like this make me feel they think I’m very stupid.
“too cumbersome” Father Fast’s Mass is ended he will have to take longer. Thanks be to God
abiologistforlife says:
@robtbrown: “In fact, both refer to an object having a certain existing unity, a “whatness” whose existence persists through certain changes.”
I agree that connection is the historical reason why ‘substance’ has come to have its modern meaning. I would disagree, however, that the average modern English-speaker is conscious of that aspect to the word; it normally means ‘what something is made of’, ‘a kind of matter’, or even ‘stuff’.
The basis for philosophical and theological knowledge is analogy. Because we are composite creatures, all our knowledge must begin in the senses (nihil in intellectu sine prius in sensu). Any concept we have of substance must be grounded in concrete experience. Thus the analogy for the ontological understanding of substance (even spiritual substance) is related to what can be said about material beings.
Now substance and essence are not exactly the same thing, the former referring primarily to the substance of change, the latter to what is understood. They must, however, have a common element, or else the mind is not adequate to knowledge (adaequatio intellectus ad rem). Thus the distinction between primarily and secondary substance, and between essence understood widely and narrowly (i.e., the nature of man and the nature of a particular man).
And so we can say that the phrase “what something is made of” can be analogously applied both in chemistry and in metaphysics: We can say that what God is made of is Deitas, and what Man is made of is humanitas.
If philosophical categories are relevant at all, “substance” is in modern English almost equivalent to Aristotelian “material cause”.
Agree, but you’re assuming that material cause and formal cause (which for our purposes can be understood as essence or secondary substance) are not analogously related. They have an intrinsic relationship.
And so we can say: The substance of God is Deitas–it is what God is made of. Man is made of humanitas.
The only time, except actual discussion of Aristotelian/Scholastic philosophy, when modern English preserves the older meaning is that one can say things like “the substance of the point at issue is…”. But I would argue this has become essentially an idiomatic or figurative use.
Completely disagree. These concepts are analogous, not metaphors.
Further:
1. The use of substance (whether hypostasis or ousia) in the Nicene Creed predates the life of St Thomas (thus the introduction of Aristotelian categories by about 800 years.
2. BTW, the official Ecclesiastical introduction of the word “Transsubstantio” also predates the life of St Thomas. St Thomas was born in 1225, but the word is found in Lateran IV (1215). And obviously, its use precedes that Council. Although various Ecclesiastical documents employ the word “substance”, I know of none that defined what it is.
PhilipNeri: The dinosaurs bleat helplessly from their 1973 tar pit.
Father, that is so funny!!! Thank you (no sarcasm). You just rescued my morning.