Unfortunately it is only a new French Perfume called Indult. How long before the French Bishops demand it be taken off the shelf? [Via Catholic Church Conservation]
The New Liturgical Movement posts an address by Cardinal Arinze to Institut Supérieur de Liturgie which was given on Oct 26, 2006. Here is just one snippet of a well worth reading article.
Many abuses in matters liturgical are based, not on bad will but on ignorance, because they "involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized" ("Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 9). Thus some abuses are due to an undue place given to spontaneity, or creativity, or to a wrong idea of freedom, or to the error of horizontalism which places man at the center of a liturgical celebration instead of vertically focusing on Christ and his mysteries.
Darkness is chased away by light, not by verbal condemnation. A higher liturgical institute trains experts in the best and authentic [theological]-liturgical tradition of the Church. It forms them to love the Church and her public worship and to follow the norms and indications given by the magisterium. It also provides appropriate courses for those who will promote ongoing liturgical formation for clerics, consecrated people and the lay faithful.
More on the translation front.
TORONTO, Canada (The Catholic Register) – The outgoing president of the North American Academy of Liturgy and a leading Catholic liturgist has told The Catholic Register the most recent translation of the Roman Missal is “a step backwards” for ecumenical relations.
“It’s going to feel like the ecumenical movement has taken a hit,” Father Paul Turner, pastor of St. Munchin Church in Cameron, Mo., and author of a half-dozen books on Catholic liturgy, said following an opening liturgy for the North American Academy of Liturgy annual meeting here Jan. 4.
New, more literal, translations from Latin of liturgical texts scheduled to hit parishes in two years are a departure from the Second Vatican Council’s movement toward common texts with Anglican, Lutheran and other churches, Father Turner said. Those common texts were a specific goal of council fathers in the 1960s, and non-Catholic scholars were consulted by Catholic liturgists and translators in the past.
“That same effort is not being made today,” he said.
While Father Turner regrets the ecumenical implications of the new translations, he supports the new texts generally.
“The words will be an improvement as a whole,” he said.
So not having identical translations is now a ecumenical threat? Plus considering that already Anglican and Lutheran churches already do not use the same wording in lectionaries this argument makes even less sense. Is the current translation anything like the much more beautiful language in the Anglicans Book of Common Prayer? Are there really Anglicans and Lutherans who would give up on ecumenism because of more accurate translations changes? If so then there wasn’t much chance of moving forward with them anyway.
What I never understand about the translation gripers is how narrow there view is. If they really think more accurate translations are a problem then they should be griping about the official Latin texts instead. If there is such a problem with the Latin texts in their view then they should be lobbying for them to change since they would affect all the other language translations – not just English.
Father Turner also warned that most dioceses in North America aren’t ready for the confusion and emotional reactions which will accompany a change in liturgy two years from now.
These snobs have the same view of the laity as John Kerry does for the military. "Halp us Fawther Turnr – We r knot able to adapt 2 littergikal chainges."
Update: This is not exactly what Fr. Richsteig suggested, but I think it fits.
Dale Price on Bishop Trautman’s Pro Multis criticism.
Bishop Trautman, bulwark against things Traditional, has issued another call to arms. Anyone else reminded how alpha-male baboons deal with challengers? So much to fisk, so little time.
So I’ll just jump on this little nugget:
“That change easily could be misinterpreted as denying the faith of the Roman Catholic Church that Christ died for all people,” the press release quoted Trautman as saying.
Translation: the Ordinary of Erie thinks you are a USCCB-Certified, Grade-A idiot. And by "you," I am saying those in Holy Orders as well as lay people. He’s assuming (1) pastors are faced with a theological conundrum equivalent to reciting from memory the canons of the Council of Nicaea, (2) said pastors are absolutely incapable of giving a three-sentence (maximum) explanation of the change, and that us dunsels in the pews are (3) lowing cattle mentally incapable of putting the round peg in the round hole and (4) are such delicate hothouse flowers we are sure to sprint from our parishes in tears upon hearing the change from "all" to "many."
We hear over and over that we are the "most-educated laity in the history of the Church." We have lay pastoral education initiatives out the wazoo. Adult education programs are a priority of the Church in America. But we simply can’t get this one. Right. I mean, just imagine the spontaneous combustions that will occur when us poor dears read that the Lord uses "for many" in the Last Supper narratives in Matthew and Mark.
Sounds like someone’s condescending ox is getting gored.
Bishop Trautman is sort of like a reverse liturgical parrot in a coal mine. That is if some form of liturgy starts to give him problems – it is near an infallible sign that it is good liturgy. If he feels comfortable run for your life and attend a different Mass. Dale is exactly right on this form of criticism. The argument would imply that all the centuries of the Latin Mass that nobody understood this theological point or for that any any current translation in any language that does not use a form of all.
Amy Welborn also makes some excellent comments in reference to this and other arguments by Bishop Trautman.
BEND — More than a year ago, Pope Benedict XVI issued his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est or God Is Love. That letter, issued on Christmas Day 2005, is not necessarily an easy read, and yet I believe it is a document that bears reading. I choose to spend a little time with this document today because I do believe it has something significant to offer to our modern society and to us.
The Holy Father, early in the encyclical, identifies a major problem with love. He writes: “Today the term ‘love’ has become one of the most frequently used and misused of words, a word to which we attach quite different meanings.” He then goes on to discuss two specific forms or types to which this single word “love” might refer. The terms he chooses, or rather draws from Greek and Christian cultures, are eros and agape.
He identifies “eros as a term to indicate ‘worldly’ love, and agape, referring to love grounded in and shaped by faith. The two notions are often contrasted as ‘ascending’ love and ‘descending’ love.” In other words, one is a love that seeks to receive and the other a love that is intent on giving.
In a very surprising way, the Holy Father then points out the essential connection between these two forms of love. In our society the differences between the two are readily obvious. They are as distinct as the eros of simply living together and the agape of a faith-filled committed marriage.
The difference is even seen in approach to liturgy or Mass attendance. On the one hand the love of eros inclines one to attend Mass because of what one receives, how it makes one “feel,” while the love of agape inclines one to attend Mass out of a self-giving desire to love and serve the Lord.
Eros inclines us to seek our own good, whereas agape inclines us to seek the good of another. Many people respond to the “eros love” of Christmas and Easter but a much smaller number respond to the challenge of the “agape love” required for weekly or even more frequent Mass attendance. Many married couples seek the “eros love” of the marital embrace, but far too many reject the “agape love” of genuine openness to children.
This is from the beginning of a column by Bishop Robert Vasa who is always a joy to read. He goes on to give other examples and further looks into what the Pope is saying. [Via Domincan Idaho]
You can subscribe to Bishop Vasa’s columns here.
Today being the Memorial for The Holy Name of Jesus I was thinking about my many years as an atheist how my favorite curse words were all religious in nature. As an atheist to be consistent when blaspheming I should have used words and phrases that were sacred to me. A hammered finger should have received an exclaim of "Charles Darwin", getting cut off on the freeway should have elicited "Primordial Soup!", other incidents perhaps "millions and millions of years" in my best Carl Sagan accent. G.K. Chesterton already wrote on this phenomenon in Heretics.
Blasphemy is an artistic effect, because blasphemy depends upon a philosophic conviction. Blasphemy depends upon belief and is fading with it. If any one doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor. I think his family will find him at the end of the day in a state of some exhaustion.
Wikipedia says this about the memorial.
The veneration of the Holy Name was encouraged by the example of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who apostrophized it in many sermons. But the greatest promoters of this devotion were St. Bernardino of Siena and his follower St. John Capistrano. "They carried with them on their missions in the turbulent cities of Italy a copy of the monogram of the Holy Name, surrounded by rays, painted on a wooden tablet, wherewith they blessed the sick and wrought great miracles. At the close of their sermons they exhibited this emblem to the faithful and asked them to prostrate themselves, to adore the Redeemer of mankind." (Catholic Encyclopedia) The practice of showing the monogram of Jesus over gates and above doors largely begins with their exhortations, which had an unorthodox air that brought Bernardino before the tribunal of Pope Martin V. But St. John Capistrano defended his master so successfully that the pope not only permitted the veneration of the Holy Name, but also assisted at a procession in which the holy monogram was carried. The tablet used by St. Bernardino is venerated at the basilica of Santa Maria in Aracoeli at Rome.
And of course there is this passage in Philippians 2:9.
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.
Unless of course if you live in the Diocese of Orange.
This has to be one of the worst hymns ever conceived by man:
Any hymn with the words "economies" and "sewage" in it has to be awful.
[Via Fr. Robb]
Last night we went to a Mass at other than my normal parish and experience something new. This parish had never been on my list of places to go for good liturgy, though normally during Christmastide you at least get Carols instead of the usual dreck.
At the end of the Mass the priest was going to bless some blankets that had been made for the sick of the parish. The blankets though had been left somewhere else and they had forgotten to bring them into the main Church. The priest then did the blessing anyway and had everybody else hold their right arms out at the same time as he read the blessing.
I could hardly believe what I was seeing. My wife looked at me strangely wondering about this behavior as we both did not follow along. She later told me she was close to laughing seeing this and I was more amazed than amused. We were in pews towards the back of the Church and what we could see was all these people holding their right arms out in what looked pretty close to a Nazi salute.
Now I don’t know enough about sacramental theology as to whether a priest can actually bless an object in another building. I know you can receive an indulgence by listening to the Pope’s Urbi et orbi message live or that you can receive blessings live over the radio, so maybe the blessing of blanket that weren’t there is possible.
What really annoyed me is that once again the difference between the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful was minimized or apparently eliminated. That an act of community once again trumped sound theology and practice. We keep blurring these lines to the point that we know neither the power of the priesthood or the power of the priesthood of the faithful. That a priestly blessing becomes no different than one from the laity. It seems we will do anything for a sign of community except teach sound theology in this regards.
At Mass today there was quite a long long for confession stretching over halfway between the confessional in the back and the sanctuary. We have confession available before every Mass and there is always somewhat of a line, but today being a Holy Day of Obligation those working downtown take advantage of both the location of the Church and the access to confession. As the line would shorten more people would start to get in line. If you have it they will come according to a paraphrase of the theology of Kevin Cosner and in this case I would agree with him.
For me there is something joyful about seeing such a line. Not that people have sins to confess, but that they will be forgiven of their sins and as the Psalmist wrote there sins will be as far away as the East is from the West. This sacramental action of Christ through the priesthood is really something wonderful to behold. I also love attending the Easter Vigil to see the adult converts who have never been baptized to get baptized for the first time. In a fell swoop of the Trinitarian formula and the use of water not only are all their sins forgiven, but all temporal punishments due to sin. You can quite well understand why some in the early Church put off baptism as long as they could to take advantage of this fact, but it is well and good that this practice has long since disappeared.
We can easily look at the Immaculate Conception and think that Mary got off quite easy as if this in and of itself prevented her from sinning. She was very much in the same type of state as Adam and Eve, yet they managed to sin. She had no concupiscence, but she could have chosen to disobey God just as Adam and Eve did. Her yes to God was a real and resounding yes that was not just something programmed into her by the grace of the Immaculate Conception. Though we also are given great gifts of grace also. Baptism, Confession, the Holy Eucharist and of course the other sacraments based on are state of life. Though we lack the exactly same gifts Mary received we can obtain the same goal and she will even help us out along the way. Hail Mary full of grace.
Via Rich Leonardi
What we’re trying to do is bring out all that Vatican II was asking," he said, quipping that before the 1960s, "The church kind of discouraged rhythm because people were going to move their body and that was going to lead them into sin. Then the spirit revealed that maybe it really wouldn’t be that bad."
…
"
If this is the highest form of praise, then we should treat it that way, right?" Stephan remarked. "This is the moment we should really try to do our best." He added that on a personal level, singing is his way of expressing his love for God in a more impassioned manner than prayer recitation allows.
Yet many congregants don’t share his exuberance, leaving him to dub such folks "the chosen frozen." One way of breaking the ice, so to speak, is to engage them in "call and response," in which the congregation repeats the musicians’ lines. For example, Stephan cited the song "You Are Worthy of My Praise": "I will worship (I will worship)/with all of my heart (with all of my heart)/I will praise you (I will praise you)/with all of my strength (with all of my strength)."
Creating a spark among church-goers may or may not involve clapping.
"You have to use good judgment," he said, adding that in helping the congregation find its voice, "we can’t force anything." He suggested having musicians sit in the pews, imagining themselves as congregants and the personal situations they may be facing such as divorce, having a baby and drug addiction: "Who are we singing to?"
As Rich quipped Count me among the "frozen chozen"
Who are we singing to? I would suggest the object of the congregation in singing is to God. Normally the object of worship is, dare we say, God. The Angels constantly singing Holy, Holy, Holy understand this. Why though would they have to imagine themselves as congregants? Last I checked members of the choir are in fact part of the congregation.
One of the major mistakes liturgists make is confusing active participation with just external actions. I find myself, more often than not, in prayerful attention at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at my normal parish where liturgy is untouched by liturgists. When I go to Mass at other parishes where exuberance is the norm I rarely find myself at prayer. In fact sometimes I am even tempted to heckle the choir because of the choices they make. I experienced a real strange dichotomy recently where the priest said the Mass very reverently and he used incense only to be backed up by a choir that included a bass player who was bobbing about as he played with even almost head banging gestures. The dissonance was like what would happen if Pantera backed up Peter, Paul, and Mary for the soundtrack of the Passion of the Christ. At the end of Mass they handed various noisemakers to children so that they could shake along as the happy-clappy rhythmic song to the beat of clapping was inflicted. I am also tempted if I go back to this church to bring a supply of for example copies of Musicam Sacram, Sacrosanctum Concilum, and Gregorian Chant CDs to place on the windows of all the cars so that these might come to attention of those involved in music ministry. I am charitably inclined to believe it must just be ignorance on their part on what the liturgical documents say and the rich heritage of sacred music in the Church.
Note to liturgists: Just because we might not be moving around or saying something in response does not mean we are not doing anything. We might actually be praying. Plus good intentions do not automatically equate to good results.