Cliffhanger vote on new translation at Bishops meeting

[frommi]

The Curia exists to implement the doctrine and discipline of the Church. Any organization needs a mechanism by which to funcion and these different congregations are needed to oversee the bishops throughout the world and to clarify matters.

Furthermore, when Cardnial Arinze is speaking and issuing documents in his capacity as Prefect, he is the final word on the particular discipline he oversees. Furthermore, his official actions have the Holy Father’s approval.

Documents like RS, LA and the GIRM didn’t occur in a vaccum. They came from a Congregation empowered by the Holy Father.

No indvidual bishops’ conference has the authority to override what the Congregations have ruled. That is why the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issues letters and statements, like the one that Cardinal Arinze wrote in 2006, it is not just the opinion of some bishop, but, a directive made by a Congregation that is the overseeing body of that particular curial department.

Thus, bishops are bound to obey those directives issued by the Congregation, which acts in the name (and by the authority granted by) the Holy Father.

It’s clear that no amount of theology or ecclesiology (sp) is going to clear this up for you. You are simply mistaken on how the church functions and what the purpose of a bishop is. The curia exists to maintain unity in our universal church, not to take a top down approach and force objectives onto the local ordinaries.

Everything you’ve mentioned (GIRM, LA, etc) was ultimately given confirmation and recognition by the Pope. Cardinal Arinze’s letter to the bishops conference was simply that, a letter…not an official document of the church.

In the case of this vote the bishops are exercising their competent authority to make decisions that have an effect on the entire episcopal conference.

I’m sorry that you disagree with the way they are executing their office and feel that they are being disobedient. This is why they have been charged with the spirit of governance and you and I have not.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s clear that no amount of theology or ecclesiology (sp) is going to clear this up for you. You are simply mistaken on how the church functions and what the purpose of a bishop is. The curia exists to maintain unity in our universal church, not to take a top down approach and force objectives onto the local ordinaries.

Everything you’ve mentioned (GIRM, LA, etc) was ultimately given confirmation and recognition by the Pope. Cardinal Arinze’s letter to the bishops conference was simply that, a letter…not an official document of the church.

In the case of this vote the bishops are exercising their competent authority to make decisions that have an effect on the entire episcopal conference.

I’m sorry that you disagree with the way they are executing their office and feel that they are being disobedient. This is why they have been charged with the spirit of governance and you and I have not.

I still maintain that you are wrong. The Holy See has already given the bishops a mandate regarding the translation. Cardinal Arinze was very clear on that. In fact, he specifically told them that they were to follow the guidelines listed in Liturgicam Authenticam. Cardinal Arinze’s directive came out as far back as 2006.

We have already seen what happened with A New Song to the Lord. The bishops were supposed to have completed thier task and have the necessary 2/3 vote to send this document to the Holy See in order to comply with Liturgicam Authenticam. That did not happen.

Something as important as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be treated with a true sense of urgency instead of spending time passing statements that will probably, and, unfortunately, be ignored.

The fact of the matter remains that the bishops failed to accomplish this important work during their last meeting.

 

[frommi]

The fact of the matter remains that the bishops failed to accomplish this important work during their last meeting.

You dont know that! They didn’t have the necessary quorum to pass or fail the document. That’s why there is a mail-in vote going on.

Why the rush? If these are supposed to be everlasting translations, there is no reason time should not be taken with them.

Frankly, if it leads to a little bit of a showdown with the curia, so be it.

You underestimate the collegial nature of bishops and curial officials I think.

There remains zero indication that the bishops are not following LA.

(I might also add that they did have 2/3rds support on the music document).

 

[tee_eff_em]

While gibbet usually refers specifically to hanging, in this prayer doesn’t gibbet simply refer to execution, in this case on a cross? IOW, you executed me on a cross. Some seem to interpret it as a specific part of the cross.

Gibbet could refer as well to the electric chair, the guerney of the lethal injection or the gas chamber, couldn’t it?

I really could not say. And while I admit the word “gibbet” had not been in the forefront of my vocabulary until this week (but if I’d encountered it in the Mass, I would have made a pretty good guess to its meaning (something you hang another thing on), and then looked it up at my leisure), I am more and more coming to like the word patibulum.

Digression: In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon makes a funny, backward etymology:

Langdon was always surprised how few Christians who gazed upon “the crucifix” realized their symbol’s violent history was reflected in its very name: “cross” and “crucifix” came from the Latin verb cruciare-to torture.

(Leaving aside that any Christian who is unaware of “the scandal of the cross” hasn’t been paying attention) I can assure you that the Latin word for “one thing transversing another thing”, crux,crucis, etymologically precedes the Latin word for “to torture someone [by hanging him on one of those *crux,crucis things]”, crucio,cruciare,cruciavi,cruciatus.

But (my point): The Latin word *patibulum *(which my various dictionaries define as “a fork-shaped yoke, placed on the necks of criminals, and to which their hands were tied; also, a fork-shaped gibbet” [Lewis & Short] and “yoke, gibbet, ignominy” [Stelten]) seems surely do derive from the Latin verb patior,pati,_,passus, “to suffer”. ie It is “an instrument imposed to cause suffering”! What a cool, cruel word to associate with Our Lord’s passion!

:twocents:
tee

 

[MikeDunphy]

I still want someone to explain to me what the word gibbet adds to the Mass that it is important to have it in there.

The word brings to mind the public exposure and humiliation our Lord endured while he was being crucified.

As a verb, to gibbet means: 1. To execute by hanging on a gibbet. 2a. To hang on a gibbet for public viewing. b. To expose to infamy or public ridicule.

Now compare:

Matthew 27:39-44
Mark 15:29-32
Luke 23:35-37

 

[SenorSalsa]

The word brings to mind the public exposure and humiliation our Lord endured while he was being crucified.

As a verb, to gibbet means: 1. To execute by hanging on a gibbet. 2a. To hang on a gibbet for public viewing. b. To expose to infamy or public ridicule.

Now compare:

Matthew 27:39-44
Mark 15:29-32
Luke 23:35-37

Thanks but, I already changed my opinion to for gibbet

my post stating such is a page or two back

 

[didymus]

From Fr. Erik Richsteig at Orthometer:

 

[frommi]

Well, one could do without the mocking done through photoshop…but that would probably be expecting too much.

Alas, Rocco over at Whispers has the text of ICEL’s response to Bp Galeone

whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/06/orlando-redux.html

This is the kind of debate we’ve needed all along…

 

[benedictgal]

Leave it to Raymond Arroyo to sum up what many of us have been feeling regarding this translation debacle:

Many wrote of their desire to hear language at Mass that “uplifts” and “challenges.” One woman said, “It shouldn’t sound like the conversation we have over coffee after Mass. We are there to seek God, not each other. The prayers should sound different.” I am inclined to agree.

A good number of our correspondents suggested that we simply scrap the endless translating and simply celebrate the new Mass in latin. But presumably you would still need a standardized English translation of the scripture for reading from the pulpit.

One of the funniest reflections on the translations of prayers currently used in the Mass came from a pastor who wrote: "As a priest I sometimes scratch my head wondering if even God can figure out what we’re asking. A couple of examples: The Collect for the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time asks God to “help us seek the values that will give us lasting joy in this changing world” and one of the Collects in Advent asks God to “open our hearts in welcome.”

I have a copy of the first stab at liturgical translation. It dates back to just after the changes were made. It has Cardinal Spelling’s imprimatur. The wording was beautiful. Why we just didn’t stay with that is beyond me.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Well, one could do without the mocking done through photoshop…but that would probably be expecting too much.

Alas, Rocco over at Whispers has the text of ICEL’s response to Bp Galeone

whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/06/orlando-redux.html

This is the kind of debate we’ve needed all along…

I like this depiction of my Bishop better. While I already stated I would support Gibbet, I think it makes a point that this wasnt his main complaint, but rather the gramatical structure of sentences. As the article put it, an argument far more intellectual than most all previous. I get the sense that Bp really studied these texts intensely for the preperation of the vote, as where the one article made it sound like it would pass becuase the Bishops were simply too lazy to try to change it

 

[frommi]

Well, the confirmation isn’t coming…the gray book is back to the drawing board…

Full USCCB release:
The U.S. bishops failed to approve the English translation of the Proper of Seasons prayers from the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, at the June general assembly of the United States Conference of Bishops, in Orlando, Florida. A two-thirds majority of Latin rite members of the Conference is needed for approval of the translation. The vote at the meeting was inconclusive and subsequent mail ballots from absent members kept the measure from passing.

This text, the “Gray Book” draft translation prepared by the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL), was submitted to the bishops of English–speaking countries for approval. A “Gray Book” is the second draft proposed by ICEL after the bishops of the participating English-speaking conferences have had the chance to review the initial draft (or Green Book). The Proper of Seasons is the second of twelve sections of the full text of the Roman Missal.

Bishop Arthur Serratelli, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship indicated that the Committee will now present the Gray Book to the bishops for renewed consideration, including the usual Conference process that allows bishops to submit modifications to the text for consideration. The Committee intends to present the text again for a vote at the November 2008 meeting in Baltimore. Should the text then receive an affirmative vote of two–thirds of the Latin Rite members of the USCCB, the text will be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for subsequent confirmation recognitio].

In addition to the Proper of Seasons, the Committee on Divine Worship plans to submit two additional “Gray Book” texts for consideration and vote this fall, in hopes that the USCCB will keep pace with the actions of other English–speaking conferences. If the texts receive an affirmative vote by the body of Bishops, the original timeline will still be maintained, and the final text of the complete Roman Missal will be presented for approval in November 2010.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Well, if they cannot accept English, perhaps the Holy See could insist on praying in the Latin *editio typica *until the US bishops can get their act together? (cf. [thread=251321]Pope weighing changes in Novus Ordo[/thread])


tee

 

[benedictgal]

Well, if they cannot accept English, perhaps the Holy See could insist on praying in the Latin *editio typica *until the US bishops can get their act together? (cf. [thread=251321]Pope weighing changes in Novus Ordo[/thread])


tee

Having been to an Anglican-Use Mass, I must say that their English version, for lack of a better term, is light years better than what we have. It is beautiful, rich and noble. It doesn’t have the commonality that we have.

I personally find the comment that one of the bishops made rather insulting. He said that the translation should be in a language that John and Mary Catholic would understand.

Give me a break!

The language that we use to pray to God should be our very best. It shouldn’t be common nor should it be trivial.

 

[frommi]

The language that we use to pray to God should be our very best. It shouldn’t be common nor should it be trivial.

Ya know…it’s not an ‘either/or’ proposition.

 

[Joysong]

Frommi:

Translation presented —> translation voted on by bishops —> translation approved —> translation confirmed by Rome.

This document explains the function of the CDWDS in Pope John Paul II’s document Pastor Bonus.

Art. 64 — § 1. By effective and suitable means, the Congregation promotes liturgical pastoral activity, especially regarding the celebration of the Eucharist; it gives support to the diocesan bishops so that the Christian faithful may share more and more actively in the sacred liturgy.

§ 2. It sees to the drawing up and revision of liturgical texts. It reviews particular calendars and proper texts for the Mass and the Divine Office for particular Churches and institutes which enjoy that right.

§ 3. It grants the recognitio to translations of liturgical books and their adaptations that have been lawfully prepared by conferences of bishops.

You were correctly saying what the procedure is: Bishops gather and vote, then present their work for approval. I seriously doubt the CDW would arbitrarily refuse to grant what has been decided upon by a 2/3 majority. The only reason to do so would be if something was particularly objectionable.

The first article suggests that the CDW’s function is to “support” the diocesan bishops, not rule over them to deny their united promulgations of the conference.

If anything is ‘iffy’, I would imagine the CDW would collaborate with the Pope, who would then render his final decision.

 

[Joysong]

I was reviewing a side by side sample of the changes to the missal from the old wording. I can’t imagine any of us believing the old text is preferable, for we never pray in this wording. When the request for translation was made many years ago, I believe what was envisioned was a greater simplicity to have the prayers understood, while maintaining nobility.

[The Preface of the Holy Trinity and all Sundays which have no appointed preface:]

P: It is truly meet and just, right and profitable, for us, at all times, and in all places, to give thanks to Thee, O Lord, the holy One, the Father almighty, the everlasting God: Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord, not in the singleness of one Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For that which, according to Thy revelation, we believe of Thy glory, the same we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or distinction; so that in the confession of one true and eternal Godhead we adore distinctness in persons, oneness in essence, and equality in majesty: Which the angels praise, and the archangels, the cherubim also and the seraphim, who cease not, day by day crying out with one voice to repeat: [Sanctus]

The new change:

[The priest then reads the Preface, which varies according to the Season or Feast. An example is given, following that of Sundays of the Year I:]

P: Father, all-powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks through Jesus Christ our Lord. Through his cross and resurrection, he freed us from sin and death and called us to the glory that has made us a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart. Everywhere we proclaim your mighty works for you have called us out of darkness into your own wonderful light. And so, with all the choirs of angels in heaven, we proclaim your glory and join in their unending hymn of praise: [Sanctus]

Another strange word I came upon was “vouchsafe.” This is not typical of our language today. Many of the changes, while some may not agree, are truly for the better. I think Jesus’s words to come to Him as a child demonstrate His love for common people with simple hearts. Never would He refuse one of our prayers if they happened not to be filled with esoteric, high-sounding vocabularies. Our bishops were very wise to sense the Spirit’s move in this direction.

P: We beseech Thee, O Lord, by the merits of those of Thy saints whose relics are here, and of all the saints, that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to pardon me all my sins. Amen.

 

[Phemie]

This document explains the function of the CDWDS in Pope John Paul II’s document Pastor Bonus.

You were correctly saying what the procedure is: Bishops gather and vote, then present their work for approval. I seriously doubt the CDW would arbitrarily refuse to grant what has been decided upon by a 2/3 majority. The only reason to do so would be if something was particularly objectionable.

They have rejected a translation before.

 

[Joysong]

Phemie:

Joysong:

The only reason to do so would be if something was particularly objectionable.

They have rejected a translation before.

Thank you for the link showing the ‘particularly objectionable’ items from the CDW. I was aware of a handful of points in dispute from reading Catholic News reports and online discussions in the past; but I had not been aware there was quite the volume as cited in your link.

If I were the bishops reading this, after having collatorated extensively together on the work, I am certain I would feel demoralized. Might this be the reason so few were in attendance at the last gathering?

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_7__article_115.htm

Fr Ignacio Calabuig captured the mood of many liturgists. Departing from his text, the Catalan turned to Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Nigerian head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW), and in a trembling voice said (in Italian):
*"I feel I must tell the Prefect that the devastating impression the Congregation [CDW] *seems to be spreading, that people of great culture in their own lands are not capable of translating liturgical texts into their own mother tongue, is causing great discontent and concern in the Church.”

The entire audience of 600 people clapped for so long that Cardinal Arinze felt compelled to join in. In his 39 years in Rome, wrote the veteran Jesuit liturgist Fr Robert Taft in a Christmas letter: “I never saw anything like it before.”

 

[benedictgal]

A priest friend of mine gave me a copy of a Roman Missal that had been published immediately after the Second Vatican Council. Comparing the two (that one and what we have now), there are certainly a lot of deficiencies in the way ICEL handled the translations.

This is the Gloria from the first translation:

Glory to God in the highest.
And on earth, peace to men of good will.
We praise you. We bless you. We worship you. We glorify you. We give you thanks for your great glory.
Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty.
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father.
You take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
You take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
You, who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For you alone are holy.
You alone are the Lord.
You alone, O Jesus Christ, are most high.
With the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father.

Compare this to what we have now:

Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father.
We worship you. We give you thanks. We praise you for your glory.
Lord, Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father.
Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, hve mercy on us.
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For you alone are the holy one.
You alone are the Lord.
You alone are the most high Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father.

Now, here is the Creed, again from the first translation:

I believe in one God.
The Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.
Born of the Father before all ages.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God.
Begotten, not made,
of one substance with the Father.
By whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.
And he became flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary:
and was made man.
He was also crucified for us,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried.
And on the third day, he rose again,
according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and of his kingdom there will be no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; and who spoke through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And I await the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now, look at the Creed we have today:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Quite a different story between the two prayers. One is rich in beautfful language while the other sounds common. That is why the Holy See has been adamant about authentic translations from the Latin Missal.