From Fr. Tucker.
Some people are making a lot of noise about how disruptive such changes will be. Perhaps. But what I think we’re seeing is mainly the nostalgic response of older people, for whom the current translations have become "traditional" — even if that tradition goes no further back than a few decades. Maybe they can petition Rome for a special Indult by virtue of which Mass can be said (oh, maybe, in one church in each Province) according to the current translation, for the sake of those who are nostalgic for "And also with you." Perhaps Rome might even promote Bishop Trautman, and bring him to Rome to oversee the "And also with you" Indult?
Ha! Great idea if it actually followed the model of the Tridentine indult of being fairly rare or nonexistent in most diocese. It would be great fun telling those who liked the 60’s ICEL translation that they were just pining for an old-fashioned liturgy. That they are resistant to change and just want the Mass they grew up with. That they are not being open-minded in accepting adaptations to the liturgy and accommodating to progress. To top it off you could tell them that if they really want the old translation they can go to a Mass 200 miles away offered at 6 in the morning once a month during leap years in mausoleum chapel at a Catholic cemetery.
Though I wonder what are the real arguments for retaining a inaccurate translation? So far they seem to fall mainly along the changes being disruptive and that people are use to the current one. It seems many liturgist severely underestimate the laity. In their view they are always being confused by something. For example some liturgists suggested that the tabernacle be removed behind the altar so that people would not be confused between Christ sacramentally present in the tabernacle and Christ becoming sacramentally present during the consecration. As if people were blowing up like Star Trek robots in the pews. Or that the communal meal aspect of the Eucharist must be promoted over the sacrificial aspect so as to not confuse people. Yet somehow they expect people get the deep nuance of liturgical dancers and how it relates yet they’re too stupid to understand various levels of Christ being present. That we can’t understand that when we go back to the "I believe" that we can’t understand that the recitation of the Nicene Creed is both a personal and a communal affirmation of the faith.
You would think with as many times that Catholic bring up the whole "it not either/or but both/and" that we just might realize the truth of that statement. Though as a side I must admit to being bored by the term both/and. Can’t we just come up with our own word and get it over with. How about boand?
Though maybe to accommodate those who like the less accurate translation we can print Interlinear Study Missals. That is with the new and better translation on one side of the page and the inferior one on the other. So at any time they can translate the text more in line with the official Latin texts with the more agenda driven texts of the ICEL translation.
Now as for the tongue-in-cheek suggestion by Fr. Tucker about giving Bishop Trautman a position in the Vatican to promote the "And also with you" Indult I have some other ideas. In line with Monty Python’s Ministry of Silly Walks, why can’t we set up curial positions to assign some bishops and cardinals to? Bishop Trautman could head the Congregation of Unnecessary Liturgical Changes, Cardinal Mahony "Not so Divine Worship and the Lack of Discipline of the Sacraments" or possibly the "Department for Neglect of Vocations." Though maybe with his experience of presiding over liturgical dance the "Ministry of Silly Walks" would truly be in order. There probably are several U.S. Bishops that could be assigned to the "Congregation for giving out stones instead of bread." And with all the emphasis on disordered sex education promoted within the USCCB there must be some that could be in charge of some curial position on sex education. Though what would you call it? Talking about Touching wouldn’t fit. How about "I’m curia yellow."
6 comments
It was painful watching Trautman try and defend his position on the liturgy during the portion of the USCCB meeting that EWTN aired.
What did he do/say?
“Yet somehow they expect people to get the deep nuance of liturgical dance and how it relates . . .”
A friend once told a liturgical dancer at a Newman Center: “That was lovely. Unfortunately, that particular dance was Psalm 51, while the liturgical text was actually Psalm 83.”
🙂
You guys MUST listen/watch the re-run of Raymond Arroyo’s World Over Live. It featured extensive coverage from the floor of the USCCB conference as they discussed the translations. It’s on Monday at 10am or 11pm Eastern, or Tuesday at 1pm Eastern.
(watch it on broadband at http://www.ewtn.com/audiovideo/index.asp)
It was a perfect example of how Bishop Trautman and the BCL is determined to recommend a “no change” course of action to ICEL over and above the wishes of the Bishops as expressed in the survey responses they provided to the BCL on these very points.
In other words, who cares what the Bishops say. The BCL has its own agenda.
It was pointed out that, in recommending to ICEL that it not adopt the “And with your Spirit” change, the BCL could be seen to be choosing to undermine one of the key drivers behind Liturgiam Authenticam in the first place.
The interventions by Bishop Vigneron, Archbishop Chaput and one other (whose name I’ve forgotten) were brilliant. As were the comments by ICEL executive secretary Msgr.Bruce Harbert.
In responding to the “fear” that these changes will rattle the faithful, Archbishop Chaput said let’s bring it on! Let’s use this as a time to catechise the faithful! Yo!
So when can we get the secular progressives out of the top levels of our heirarchy?
Glad to hear the spine-possessing Bishops are speaking up. Good on them.
This is a great post and sort of like what goes around in life comes around, etc etc
So what I am to understand is that the Bishops, many of them for that matter, would rather worship incorrectly and not as TRADITION and the Mass dictates, just to keep things easy, etc
Are these really our Leaders? Does anyone wonder why the church cant get more people into the priesthood? A friend of mine who I talk to occassionally is a priest in the Diocese here in NY and he tells me some of what goes on and it is amazing and you have to really wonder is this still the church Our Lord founded, his Bride?
I am sure the church had some dark moments at the time of the reformation with corruption and alike and I am sure that today we are not in the same darkness, but one has to wonder if the infiltration stories one reads
And these are the men who are supposed to lay their lives down for their sheep? Doubt it