From the blog St. Louis Catholic comes a good note about an article in the New York Times the other day which I started working on for an entry here, but finally shrugged and gave it up as dumb, much like the even worse, even dumber article in the recent number of TIME (perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever read). But back to the point. St. Louis Catholic made this observation about the article in the NYT:
A universal church, they say, should have the closest thing possible to a universal missal.
The above sentence is taken from this story in the New York Times, [By Laurie Goodstein, always ready to give the Catholic Church a swipe.] which details the intent of the schismatics of the left to disobey (what, again?) the Holy Father and to disregard the new English translation of the Paul VI Missal. The new translations are defended, though with much needless hand-wringing, by Church officials in the U.S.
The Times sums up the position of “Church leaders” with the line above. I semi-successfully prevented a spray of iced tea from my monitor, and ruefully chuckled to the effect that WE. ALREADY. HAD. ONE.
And still do, for that matter.
You have to make the adjustment in your head that here “universal church” really means the Latin, Catholic Church. Maronites are obviously not going to be using the Roman Missal.
\\You have to make the adjustment in your head that here “universal church” really means the Latin, Catholic Church. \\
I really wonder. You’d be surprised how many cradle Catholics are totally unaware of the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’ve met many such.
I wouldn’t expect a secular paper such as the NYT to be aware of them at all.
This publication is aiming to go paid online subscription, and evidently the editorial decision was made to reach out to prime those whom they believe will actually pay good money to continue to read anti-Catholic nonsense. There are so many sources of news in the English-speaking world that it simply is no longer necessary to read this publication to stay fully aware of events and rational discourse. With respect to issues about the Church, it is totally out of touch with reality. If the only things available to read were this publication, newsweek or time, when it comes to matters of the faith, I would rather have a chat with my neighbors, Catholic and of every denomination. It would be much more edifying and in tune with what’s happening. When it comes to matters of religion, I don’t know who they expect they are writing for exactly because it never reflects the basic concerns of the people. It seems theirs is the “atheist yet spiritual and despises Catholicism” viewpoint (bigotry) and I don’t find that the reporting is original or anything I can’t find out from a multitude of other sources.
I am glad, Fr. Z that you did not waste your time and energy fisking Hell’s Bible this time. You need to maintain your energy for the much more important needs the Church has ahead of her.
And I like too how St.LouisCatholic also chose to give us the high(low)lights with hilarious retorts. Bravo!
You wouldn’t believe the nightmare for publishers who wish to produce such a (vernacular) missal. Everything is governed and decided on the national episcopal level. Nightmare…
If the current translation is so ineffably wonderful, why is that so many of these same liberal brethren insist on making up the text as they go along? If they can’t be bothered to read what’s there now, how will new text make any difference?
After the new translation, we will continue to have only one universal missal, i.e. the 1962 missal. The OF missal isn’t one but many, given that one is written and approved for every language spoken by Catholics. Of course, the Latin is the guide for any translation, but a missal for some language need not be a strict translation of the Latin. Thus it is possible for OF missals in different languages to be different in content–not much different, but different, all the same. The Latin OF Missal is not even first among many–in practice, no one is bound to consult or use it once they have a missal in their own language–but one among many. In fact, for most Catholics the latin OF Missal might as well not exist.
This may be playing the pedant, but… even the Latin Rite doesn’t have a single Missal (even now): the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites are all still in use, and some still make use of the Dominican and Carthusian Missals. Of course the Book of Divine Worship is technically a use rather than a distinct Rite, but it’s still not the Missale Romanum.
\\ With respect to issues about the Church, it is totally out of touch with reality. \\
This is not limited to the NYT. I know a little Orthodox Church that presented its Holy Week schedule to the local paper–not quite in words of one syllable, but very nearly. The paper STILL got it wrong.
You make such a worthy point about cradle Catholics knowing next to nothing about the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. I am ashamed to admit it but I too knew next to nothing until about 2 years ago. I read a book called Introduction to Christianity by the then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger and started to investigate for myself the ideas and theology he was presenting. It opened up a whole “other world” and I believe I am a better Catholic for knowing the richness of the early Church and the theology of the Eastern Churches. I have to say, although I am technically still a Latin Rite Catholic, my heart ever since has belonged to the East.
By the way the Holy Father’s General Intention for the month of November is for the Eastern Catholic Churches “That the Eastern Catholic Churches and their venerable traditions may be known and esteemed as a spiritual treasure for the whole Church. “
Do you know of a computer program that will automatically change the word “dumb” to “stupid”? You continuously use the former, when you mean the latter. The same happened to Cardinal O’Connor, and this just after celebrating the annual Mass for the dumb at St. Elizabeth of Hungary.
The use of “dumb” is a genteelism, attempting to avoid the correct term. You like exactness in language. Try this.
As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never had just one universal missal. The closest we’ve ever come to it was the version in 1962, which was in Latin. The closest we have to it now, and it’s not very close at all, is the Latin N.O. I’m not talking now about all its translations-there’s one of those for every language group, no. I’m talking about the Latin missal from which they all come.
If the NYT yearns for a universal translation, then they’re yearning for the nearest thing to it, the 1962 TLM. Maybe someone should inform them of this. ;)
PS. They couldn’t pay me to subscribe to a NYT pay service. Why, oh why, would I pay when I don’t even particularly care for it when it’s free? It’s biased, it’s slanted, it’s oldschool in the worst kind of way, and it’s snotty. Just plain leftist arrested development in 2nd grade, pick your nose and then pick somebody else’s, fight on the playground, snotty. I have better things to do than ponder the perversion that is the NYT in the 21st century. There are other, far better places to get the news.
Is Goodstein a Christian or even a Catholic?
She writes copiously about Catholicism and still uses “church leaders”? Commissar-speak. Everything done by committee (with
carefully correctfavorable demographic selection, natch). Conjures an image of the people whom Zhivago confronts — make that is confronted by — upon his return home.
All the Maronites around here seem to use the Ordinary Form, replete with elevator music… including the monastery.