Saturday, June 20, 2009

The Liturgy Wars Aren't Just About Words

Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera is the not exactly progressive leader of the CDW who is overseeing the English translations of the Roman ritual.


I've been fascinated with the liturgy wars over the English language version of the Mass since the late 90's. My interest was never so much in how the new English version was worded, but in the people and faces whose clout transformed ICEL from a representational group from various English Bishops conferences to nothing more than Vatican rubber stampers. The politics behind the scenes have been intriguing to say the least.

The following is an excerpt from John Allen's recent comment on the appointment of Dominican theologian Augustine Di Noia, an American, as Secretary for the Congregation For Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, commonly known as the CDW. The CDW is the Vatican agency which is over seeing ICEL and the implementation of the new translation.

"During the 1990s, the Congregation for Divine Worship played a key role in a string of high-profile battles over liturgical policy, generally pushing bishops’ conferences around the world to adopt a more traditional, Roman-centered approach to liturgical translation and celebration. That effort forms part of a broader concern for revitalizing a strong sense of Catholic identity, which Benedict XVI and his advisors have identified as the top priority of this pontificate. (By 2001 this wasn't a Vatican push, this was a Vatican demand and for all practical purposes the respective English conferences had lost any meaningful input.)

The “liturgy wars,” as they came to be known, were especially intense in English-language zones, in part because of the broad influence of the English language around the world, including swaths of Asia and Africa. (It also had an awful lot to do with the fact English speaking conferences represent democratic societies with all their notions of liberty and equality.)

Among other things, the push on liturgy has resulted in a new translation of the Roman Missal, the main collection of prayers for the Catholic Mass. Having already approved several components of the Missal, the bishops will vote on several others in San Antonio and a few remaining items later this fall. Final Vatican approval of the entire Missal is anticipated in 2010.

The new Missal has long been controversial for what some see as its preference for archaic and unfamiliar language. Virtually every expert agrees that when it eventually appears, there will be a need for considerable education among both priests and people in the pews about how the text ought to be understood and applied, including the theological logic for the choices made. (It's probably not going to come as a shock that in some cases theologians consider some translations pretty close to heresy. The over all emphasis is one of personal devotion and not communal celebration.)

**************************************************


John Allen posted the above before the just concluded San Antonio meeting. This later post records some of what happened when aspects of the new translation were to be voted on. As happened last year, the bishops could not come to a majority and the issue will be decided by mail-in votes from the bishops who could not attend in person. It's pretty obvious these English translations are still a divisive issue amongst American bishops, and they are hardly the only English speaking conference for which this is true.

Back in November the new Mass translation was inadvertently put in play in South African parishes and the response was very negative from both pastors and people. Like my own objections, it wasn't so much about clumsy archaic English, but the imposition of a liturgical view loved by older conservatives in Rome but not shared by the entire church:

In a recent editorial, The Southern Cross said that since the changes were introduced in late 2008 the newspaper had received "a flood of letters."

"The anger of the people in the pews and many priests (and some bishops) seems to be rooted not so much in what they feel are anachronistic and clumsy translations - vexing though they appear to be to many - but in what they see as an arbitrary imposition of liturgical values that are foreign to them by faceless bureaucrats in distant Rome," the editorial said.

In a January 18 letter to The Southern Cross, Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg said his first reaction to the new texts "was that it was a purely arbitrary decision to demand that the English text had to faithfully represent the Latin in the first place, that many of the changes made no sense, and that some of the formulations were simply bad English."

"In view of fully conveying what actually happened, it must be understood that this new translation was imposed on us by the Vatican and the group with which it worked at that level," Bishop Dowling said."

Bishop Dowling is giving first vent to what will probably be the reaction of many US bishops. "We didn't ask for this. It was jammed down our throats, and now we have to jam it down your throats."
At least it will be an honest sentiment.
If you are interested in some of the history and an analysis (liberal) of some of the changes check out this link. What you will notice is that all the major community prayers have gone back to being I, me, my, statements. At the consecration of the wine you will also notice that Jesus no longer died for the sake of all people, just many people. Which I suppose will be taken by some to mean Jesus didn't die for divorced people, gay people, pro choice people, Jewish people, protestants, Muslims, Buddhist's, Hindus, or any other group who isn't a card carrying Catholic.

And that of course is the whole point of this exercise in language and thought control--shoring up Catholic identity at the expense of global communion and inter faith ecumenism. The ironic thing is if the intent was to be true to the original words of Jesus the translation should have been from Aramaic to English. Instead we are getting a translation faithful to the Latin used at the Council of Trent. Maybe that's because so many of our conservative leaders still like the vestments from that particular period. ( Talk about the excesses of me, myself, and I. wow.)

18 comments:

  1. Please note that Di Noia was actually elected by his Dominican brothers to be their provincial but their superior general negated the election because he felt that Di Noia would have been too polarizing and adversarial and would have negatively impacted the Dominicans. This, from his own community. Now, he runs the church's liturgy wars???

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a linguist, I can say that my impression of the portions of the new translation that I have seen so far is not favorable. We are being asked to use a more literal and stilted Latinate translation of English. People will not understand this as well as the current translation. If the intention is a triumph of Rome-based authority over intelligibility by the faithful, then this new translation will do the trick. My thought is this: if you really want to return to the "fidelity" of the Tridentine translation, why not just get rid of the vernacular Mass and return to the Latin Tridentine Mass for all? Maybe I shouldn't say that; someone might just have that in mind!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous, I should have noted that, but I personally think Cardinal Canizares will be calling all the shots. De Noia appears to me to be an English speaking prelate whose appointment is intended to give some credibility to these translations.

    dtedac, I think the return to the TLM will come piece meal, and linguistically Latin will probably never replace the vernacular Mass. Catholicism could very well wind up with a rubric that is TLM in all things but language. At that point, if South Africa is any indication, the trads will have won the liturgy wars and the pews will be all but empty. I imagine the Evangelicals will swell with even more ex Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The ironic thing is if the intent was to be true to the original words of Jesus the translation should have been from Aramaic to English. Instead we are getting a translation faithful to the Latin used at the Council of Trent."

    This is to me really outrageous that they are openly not translating the original words of Jesus. It is simply an outrage.

    It just gives more proof that the institutional Church does not in any way shape or form represent Jesus Christ and is a FARCE having the appearance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it is the guidance from fundamentalist men with a political mission.

    The new Missals when they come out should be burned and people should refuse to say the words that are blatantly a LIE. People should keep their old missiles and say those words if they even care to go to a blatantly misleading Church that seems to resemble the antiChrist.

    I am so sick of this bull shit going on in the Church. What a bunch of liars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the link provided, Paul Collins says succinctly what the consequences of the proposed translations will be & who is driving such changes.

    This just makes me want to roll my eyes in bewilderment that "they are not interested in how many more people are driven out of the Church."

    In my lifetime I have witnessed the Church drastically change as a teenager from hearing a beautiful choir singing & the organ playing, but the words were in Latin & I had no connection to the words that were being sung or spoken by the priest. I didn't learn much by not understanding the words.

    When I returned to the Church in my forties I heard folk singing & guitar & the tambourine, but the words I could understand. And the rest of the Mass was in English so that was of tremendous benefit.

    The changes that really need to take place are at the heart of Christ and His Gospels and that's what is missing in all the changes. Where is Jesus? He's not in mistranslations. He's no longer dead on a cross. He's resurrected. He's Ascended into Heaven. He's not in Latin or ideologically driven literal translations. Why put ideologically driven literal translations in the new Missal?

    Translating from Aramaic to English sounds like a great idea.

    If the Church is going to survive it really needs to concentrate on getting the politics out of the Church and bring in Jesus Christ! For Christ sake already!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Until now, I had never grasped what was behind the 'for many/for all' controversy. Now I understand - and am horrified by the 'preferred' meaning which implies that Jesus died only for card-carrying Catholics. As if all else were 'disposable souls'!

    The core issue seems to be ideology, not linguistics. If it were the latter, then I would suggest that the Canon of the Mass be fixed in perpetuity......in either Hebrew or Aramaic:p

    ...well, at least that would be historical honesty! lol

    Obviously......painfully obviously, mass was said for centuries in the language which spoken in a particular region. Which ppl at least understood, if not spoke. It is also equally painfully obvious that MANY versions or rites of Mass were used at most given points in time prior to Trent!

    There is one - and ONLY one thing which makes a Mass valid. It is not how many teaspoons of incense are used. The highbrow quality of the LC/Regnum Christi or Opus Dei choir. The number of candles on the altar. Vestments. Correct folding of the Corporal. If the cassocks are tailored properly. The number of flowers.

    Here is the X-factor: the sincere & correct intention of the priest to achieve Transubstantiation. This is neither guaranteed by ANY rite, by Ordination, Seminary training, use of a Cilice, Celibacy, nor by keeping the thumb & index finger touching, or his personal sanctity.

    This is a spiritual matter. He must INTEND to do this. It must be consciously projected. And the matter to be transubstantiated must be right before him - not yard away. Not on some side table.

    How many large masses are said in which some or many of the elements are NOT consecrated? Many.

    Go to some vast Cathedral or one of the mega-parishes. With 1000, 1500, 2000 at each mass. Where are ALL those 'consecrated hosts' coming from?

    Two clues: a) they do not multiply like the loaves & fishes, b) there is no tabernacle large enough to hold all of these.

    "Oh...but they were consecrated at a previous mass". Really? Which one?

    For those willing to think clearly, the alarm bells should be sounding....

    ReplyDelete
  7. anonymous, you have half the equation correct when you say:

    There is one - and ONLY one thing which makes a Mass valid. It is not how many teaspoons of incense are used. The highbrow quality of the LC/Regnum Christi or Opus Dei choir. The number of candles on the altar. Vestments. Correct folding of the Corporal. If the cassocks are tailored properly. The number of flowers.

    "Here is the X-factor: the sincere & correct intention of the priest to achieve Transubstantiation. This is neither guaranteed by ANY rite, by Ordination, Seminary training, use of a Cilice, Celibacy, nor by keeping the thumb & index finger touching, or his personal sanctity.

    This is a spiritual matter. He must INTEND to do this. It must be consciously projected. And the matter to be transubstantiated must be right before him - not yard away. Not on some side table."

    The other half of the equation is the recipient. It matters not to me if the Host I receive is from the ciborium or some side table. I too intend Christ to be present and therefore He is. I also share in the priesthood of the Catholic church and I know what that means. It means I am half of the magic of the priesthood as are you. It's not a one person show.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Butterfly you are so right:

    "The changes that really need to take place are at the heart of Christ and His Gospels and that's what is missing in all the changes. Where is Jesus?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The other half of the equation is the recipient...."

    While I might express the idea differently, I understand & agree in principle. The operative term here is: 'Communion', which is not a one way thing.

    After all, if you - in the privacy of your home - make a 'Spiritual Communion', asking Jesus directly to visit you Sacramentally - without the physical Sacrament - it really happens. And He comes to you because you WANT Him. You do NOT need a priest for this.

    Communion - either way - is the intimate reception of Jesus as your 'guest' in your heart. You must want Him to come to you. And it is a two way interaction...intangible to a third party, yet very real to the human who receives Him.

    To make a distinction: the confection of the Sacrament of the Altar requires the action of the ordained priest for Transubstantiation. The reception of Jesus in Communion is what YOU must willing desire & initiate....and then hold a two way conversation. But to reinforce what you have said: the action of the priest is assisted by you in the pew by desiring Him to be there in the Sacrament. And by praying the mass along WITH the priest - not as a mute spectator! The performance of a public mass depends on the very real participation of the laity, as you indicate.

    The only time mass is a one man show is when a priest says private mass.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can't help but add this: "Whenever two or more of you gather in my name, there I am among you." What is there to stop a family for example who is gathering together in His name from asking Jesus, who is now truly present, to consecrate the bread on our table?

    Would He refuse? Why does the Church insist on a middle man, an ordained priest, to do what we can already do? The priest seem to be replacing the curtain that was torn in two.

    The moment Jesus died on the cross the Temple curtain was torn in two, and the separation from God and man was torn in two and now we no longer need a priest to stand between us and God. This is based on what is written in scripture to be what is meant by the Temple curtain being torn in two. No more separation, but direct contact with Jesus to the Father. "No one comes to the Father except through me." Those are Jesus' words.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If American bishops dislike the new translations why the heck did they not say so when they had a chance? What inducements or blackmail prompted them to sign on Rome's dotted line?

    ReplyDelete
  12. That photo is a drag queen's delight!

    I am SO VERY GLAD that they only let Real Men into the priesthood.

    Jim (Bubbles) McCrea

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Whenever two or more of you gather in my name, there I am among you." What is there to stop a family for example who is gathering together in His name from asking Jesus, who is now truly present, to consecrate the bread on our table?"

    In all honesty, this is a difficult question to answer. And not because I wish to cling to this or that 'doctrine'.

    From what I have read (and I will look more into this...) it would seem that from the earliest Apostolic times (pre-Constantine)there was a division of roles which the members of the Church performed. These would have included different conceptions of the diaconate then at present - much less 'Eucharistic Ministers'. Some members focussed their 'work' entirely on the collection & distribution of alms, etc. to the poor (where ALL was given to the poorl not a token amount!).

    BUT - it would seem that everybody took some sort of active role, even if a small one. They were not mute pew sitters.

    Frankly, there is very little GENUINE research material out there on HOW the earliest form(s) of the mass were celebrated....and specifically by WHOM. I have been able to piece together snippets of the 'how' as indicated elsewhere. But the WHOM remains elusive.

    We know there were 'bishops', but they were elected by ALL the people, often by acclamation. Democracy for sure! Rule & decision making were by consensus.

    Now as to HOW someone was chosen to perform the mass - I have no clue. If you want my wild guess: those interested received some nominal instruction, from a pool of interested volunteers. Perhaps it was even on some sort of rotating basis. We also know that there was a type of passing on of the spiritual power given to the Apostles via the laying on of hands.

    There was not the vast divide between the 'priestly caste' & the people.....as there was no priestly caste. There was a sense of equality, sorely lacking since the 4th century!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous, thanks for your input and thoughts. Everything hinges on faith in Jesus and in my book of life I think that is all anyone needs. The faith leads to hope and hope leads to love and that all adds up to a lot of life. The goal seems to be about life, a fruitful and loving one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. dtedac, "We are being asked to use a more literal and stilted Latinate translation of English."

    We are not being asked, it is being jammed down everyone's throats.

    Anonymous, I'll have to reread sections of Hans Kung's History of the Catholic Church again to refresh my memory of the early Church. It would seem correct that there would have been a democracy because the people are of the faith in Jesus and as in communion at Mass in which the intentions of the priest are as important as the intentions of the body of Christ, the people, so too the importance of the laity's input in decisions as a body of Christ.

    The current system of clerics in a dictatorship like government of hierarchy really does in my opinion sever parts of Christ. The Church as it currently stands is without its own legs and has circulation problems everywhere else, including clogged arteries.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is a good discussion, and I have a few thoughts about how it might have gone in the early Church. But first a word to "bubbles" McCrea.

    We are so on the same wave length about some of the photos I post. I keep thinking about the thread I posted awhile back about the homoeroticism in Catholilicism. Seems to me there's quite abit of transgenderism as well. Projection, projection, projection.

    As to the original priesthood, I think it might have been based on perceived spiritual/psychic ability analagous to the way Indigenous people choose their spiritual leadership. Since this tends to be genetic, I imagine the celebratory priesthood became something of a family business.

    In this context, by the time of Constantine a 'family' business type of clergy would not have been viable for a large Christian population. It's not surprising then that the emphasis on celebratory priesthood would have evolved from one based in personal talent to one based in institutional ordination, coupled with a theology that the power was safe guarded with in the tradition and institution itself. As a side effect, forced celibacy would have insured that personal talent stopped with the one ordained individual. Effectively killing off any chance that spiritual talent would be seen as a given human ability and not nedessarily solely a product of divine intervention.

    I've found it most interesting that in this year of the priest Benedict has given John Vianney and Padre Pio as his two exemplary priests, both of which demonstrated a great deal of psychic ability. In some cases the psychic was mixed with a lot of pyschotic, but that's the way these things tend to go. Living between two world views, which tend to be both contradictory and inner dependent, is not easy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Note to all - this may or may not be 'news', but please bear this in mind when you read ANYTHING John Allen writes:

    He is Opus Dei.

    Rather like Rocco Palma (Whispers in the Loggia).......you can learn much of what is REALLY going on in the Church, Vatican in particular, if you read these two between the lines.

    Also remember that the Opus has had the Curia firmly in their hand for quite some time now & have been replacing/inserting bishops into local dioceses who are either members, or are in compliance to the Opus leadership as Collaboratos or Cooperators (without formal membership).

    It is important to know who is calling the shots. And while they will have occasional 'internal family squabbles', all may not be as it seems.

    After all, Cardinal Bernadin was VERY cooperative with the Opus in Chicago.

    All is not as it seems.......

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous, what's your evidence that John Allen is Opus Dei, other than the book he wrote which is generally favorable?

    Oh, and the fact he moved to Denver.

    ReplyDelete