I have to admit that since watching articles about literal translations, such as those written by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf in the Wanderer (What does the prayer really say?), I cannot believe how desensitized the ICEL translations are. They are so banal and strip the prayer of it’s original beauty and intent.
This is what happens with translation by committee. And one of the major problems with the post-Conciliar Church. Committees, commissions, study-groups, conferences, synods…in other words, bureaucracy run amok. Instead of tackling a problem head on, we must appoint a commission of some type to study the problem and propose solutions, which must then be approved by another committee, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.
Well, Latin has no articles (the,an, & a) so I guess that would make it harder. But with Benedict, I’m sure we will get a good translation in the next few years.
In this area, I think the point may be missed. I think the translations were made with a specific agenda in mind namely ecumenism. Example for years the Church explicitly taught that outside of the Catholc Church there was no salvation. Cut and dried. That teaching is not as severe today and in fact salvation is available to all, as long as they have “some connection” to the church. A very tenuous proposition.
This is what happened when people are only partially taught the faith. The Council did NOT mandate mass in the vernacular, or in fact call for a new mass. This was something that occurred after the council via a buraeucratic push within the Vatican. In fact when the draft mass was presented to the bishops a majority rejected it but it went ahead anyway. And it was only the direct intervention of Pope Paul that prevented the old Roman canon from being consigned to history. If you think that "the Cardinals determined … that the faithful needed a change then you have bought into a lie.
I believe it was Martin Luther who popularised the phrase the “priesthood of all believers”. The Church was quite clear and the Council affirmed that the Church has a sacramental priesthood that is set aside and consecrated to the work of Christ. All God’s people are called to holiness not all are called to the priesthood. This is protestantism pure and simple.
I was told as a young University student by a priest there that we had to introduce the vernacular and modern music or the Church would become irrelavent. My observation after 40 years of being relavent is that we are less relavent now then we were 50 years ago. On the other hand counter-cultural protestant sects continue to grow exponentially and among the young yet. Draw your own conclusions.
I agree, but that does not mean She will be free of all error. Only that hell will not prevail in the long run.
Hmm … the sin of uncharitableness perhaps??
Frankly I think the faithful were just as involved pre Vatican II. Church socials, Legion of Mary, Sodalities, school functions. And as far as being more involved in the mass, most just turn up, mouth the phrases and leave as soon as Father says “Go”.
Actually they didn’t. having studied the Anglican reformation and the histroy of their prayer book I can add something to htis discussion. The so-called Northern position is unique to Anglicanism. When Henry separated from the Church he of course kept the Catholic mass but under Edward VI the Somersets attempted to enforce a strongly protestant worship. As part of this they attempted to introduce the "post service’ communion service where those who wished to have communion would go up into the quire and the altar would be moved into the quire longways so that the faithful were ranged down both sides and the priest would be at the top or "northern’ END of the altar (using liturgical directions) facing down the table towards the communicants.
Indeed, but the orthodox also have ther iconostasis which is closed at various times during the service. If we use our eastern bretheren to justify versus populum then by rights we should restore the iconostasis but in fact we removed even the altar rails to open the sanctuary to the people. So we can’t use that argument either. Different traditions for different rites. To compare is not to privilege one over the other.
All five of them that still go to mass I assume. If you mean by “the people” the whole body of Catholics then I would suggest that at least 75% of Catholics don’t have a “closer relationship” as they don’t have any relationship at all with the Church.
I will agree on this one as there is much less of the wandering around that used to go on while the priest “did his thing” at the altar. On the other hand there is much less reverence in dress and demeanour, especially from those receiveing communion. So I guess it is 50/50 on that one.
I would be interested in your evidence to back this up. No-one can say that the decline would not have happened if we had kept the latin mass but equally no-one can prove that we would have had less with the latin mass. This is pure unsubstantiated assertion as there was no latin mass to compare it to in most parishes. The persistance of the SSPXers and the Indult congregations however would suggest that latin was not the issue many ‘liturgists’ thought it was.
I didn’t mean that the Anglicans copied the northern position.
I meant they copied the westward postion. The westward position was not at all widespread in Anglicanism until around 4-5 decades ago. Mostly, the Catholic wing took the eastward position, the Protestant the northward.I wasn’t attempting to use the Orthodox to justify versus populum. The liturgy of St. James is the most infrequently used in the Byzantine tradition. My main point was that one can’t label everything as ‘Protestant’ jsut because it doesn’t happen to be ‘Catholic’
Ah, now I understand. Yes, it is sadly true that the “broad church” (the majority sadly) siezed on our new protestanised mass with alacrity and even pushed it further. At least the Anglos and Evans stuck to their guns and their positions.I didn’t mean that the Anglicans copied the northern position.
Again I agree. But as someone said in an eralier post we are in the main Latin rite Catholics and should love and esteem our own rite which is just as much an ancient rite as the various orthodox rites - so I aplogise for being touchy on this subject. Nonetheless, despite some later attempts to justify the changes by reference to Eastern rites, the driving force behind the changes was a desire to draw closer to the protestants, especially the various “first generation” protestant bodies on Northern Europe. It is interesting that the changes to the mass were in the main in those areas criticised during the reformation and which Trent had most decisively rejected - namely vernacular languages, priesthood of all believers, memorial versus sacrifice. Of course most were hoping that a few cosmetic changes would help the cause of reunion but “lex orandi, lex credendi” those changes altered perceptions of the mass. Trent was correct in this - that to alter the mass would be to alter the faith. Many, with a lack of a sense of history, felt we could change the accidents and keep the substance (if I can be forgiven a Eucharistic analogy) but the two are intimately connected (hence the miracle of transubstantiation) and cannot be so easily separated.
Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may
also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them(1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned
in Article 22:2, must in this matter, carefully and prudently
consider which elements from the traditions and cultures of
individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine
worship. Adaptations which are considered useful or necessary
should then be submitted to the Holy See, by whose consent they
may be introduced.
(2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the
circumspection necessary, the Apostolic See will grant power to
this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and
direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary
experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups
suitable for the purpose.
(3) Because liturgical laws usually involve special difficulties
with respect to adaptation, especially in mission lands, men who
are experts in the matters in question must be employed to
formulate them.
Exactly!
I’ve often thought the same things. I don’t and never have understood the opposition of having the two rites exist side by side. Both would fall under the full authority of and owe allegiance to the Holy Father so what could possibly be the problem? The Church already has a number of other such rites, each distinct and with its own ecclesiastical structure.
IMO, too many people will stop going to innovative NO masses and go on to the TLM.
The vast majority of those educated in the US and Europe DID read and understand Latin.