Reform or Revolt?

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

The first half of a documentary video on the present-day crisis in Catholic liturgy has been uploaded to YouTube. This video explores the roots and history of the “Liturgical Movement” and the reforms/revisions that culminated in the promulgation of the modern Roman Rite by Pope Paul VI. It was filmed and produced and published by a man who claims loyalty and obedience to the Holy See and who is an active member of an FSSP parish. This is the same man, Steve Mahowald (head of Roman Catholic Sacramentals Foundation), who just this week uploaded one of his Low Mass videos to YouTube, which I pointed out in another thread. He worked hard on this documentary video – it took him two years to complete and publish, including time spent researching, filming, editing, etc. Here’s the link:

Reform or Revolt?
The Mass of Pope Paul VI

I won’t at this point claim to agree or disagree with any one particular idea, analysis, or conclusion presented in the video; nor will I comment upon it’s historical or factual accuracy; nor will I comment yet whether I think it gives a fair look at the sincere efforts of the so-called “new liturgical movment” to implement well and promote reform of the Pauline Rite. Yet, I’m hoping other CAF members will watch it, and that it will lead to some constructive exchange of ideas (in which I hope to participate).

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

The first half of a documentary video on the present-day crisis in Catholic liturgy has been uploaded to YouTube …

JMJ + OBT​

I should note that if enough interest is shown in the first half of this video – i.e. if enough people watch it on YouTube – then hopefully he will upload the second half of it.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

The first priest (the TLM) said Mass much too fast, IMO. Every time it showed him speaking, he ran all the words together as quick as he could with no pause. Don’t get me wrong–I love the TLM, but I have encountered that same thing before, too, where the priest does the Latin prayers as fast as he can and the altar servers almost stumble to keep up.

I guarentee that any non-Catholic watching that video would think that it was the exact same Mass except that the priest faces a different way and it is in a different language.

The commentator was also wrong in saying that there was only one Mass for the last thousand years. The NO and TLM are both the Roman Rite, but they are done differently, just as before Trent (and even after) there was the Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, ect. All part of the Roman Rite, but done a little differently.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Thursday1]

The commentator was also wrong in saying that there was only one Mass for the last thousand years. The NO and TLM are both the Roman Rite, but they are done differently, just as before Trent (and even after) there was the Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, ect. All part of the Roman Rite, but done a little differently.

I was going to call him on that as well. Though, he said for the last 1,500 years, an even more untenable position.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

Another error–Wycliffe was not the first to translate the Bible into English. Caedmon was about 700 years earlier.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

I’m sorry, I have to make another post. I’ve just finished watching this video, and I am quite upset at something that came up at the end. This guy is claiming that the Church forbid vernacular translations of the Bible. That is not true! We all know that…and how many times have you had to convince Protestants that the Church never did? I didn’t like that video…at the end of it, besides the completely untrue statement that the Church forbid vernacular Bibles, he spends a lot of time trying to say that we shouldn’t be able to have any translation of the Mass to read. Yes, God forbid we know what the prayers of the Mass are!

In Christ,
Rand

 

[netmilsmom]

I want to see the rest.

 

[whosebob]

This guy is claiming that the Church forbid vernacular translations of the Bible. That is not true! We all know that…and how many times have you had to convince Protestants that the Church never did? I didn’t like that video…at the end of it, besides the completely untrue statement that the Church forbid vernacular Bibles, he spends a lot of time trying to say that we shouldn’t be able to have any translation of the Mass to read. Yes, God forbid we know what the prayers of the Mass are!

JMJ + OBT​

I have some thoughts about the material presented in this video – and obviously I think there is something worthwhile about it or else I wouldn’t have started this thread – but I’m not going to write them out just yet, as I’m hoping more people will watch it and offer their reflections and insights over the weekend.

But I did want to respond to Rand’s comments in a brief manner.

(1) During the latter part of the video, whether the video’s author is speaking of translations of the Bible or Missal into the vernacular, he is not trying to say that we shouldn’t have them; rather, he is giving an historical account of the Church’s reaction to such in the context of the centuries surrounding (on both sides) the Protestant Reformation. [If the author was or is personally opposed to their production and distribution, why would he sell them on his website? He does; http://www.sacramentals.com/”]check for yourself.] Perhaps that fact isn’t as clear as it could be given that you’ve only seen the first half of the video (as have I).

(2) It is true that the Catholic Church at the local level and at the universal level did at times in the centuries preceding, involving, and following the Protestant Reformation condemn particular translations of the Holy Bible into the vernacular. There are even instances where synods of bishops prohibited for certain periods of time (I don’t think any of which extended more than several decades), for the general public, the reading of Scripture in anything but the Latin language, in both private and public. And it is a fact that in that same general time-frame, at the local and universal level, the Church prohibited the Roman Missal from being translated into common languages: for private reflection, following along with the priest, or for celebration in the vernacular.

But the reasons for the Church responding in that way to those translations do make a lot of sense, in the broad scheme of things, even if it always remains possible to wonder whether and to what degree the Holy Spirit did and didn’t “win out” in certain matters of Church discipline (as opposed to doctrine). One of the means by which the Reformers and other dissenters and heretics spread their teachings was through translations of Scripture supplied with commentary that advanced their ideas; and also through various adaptations or re-inventions of liturgical worship, almost always in the vernacular, which departed from the beliefs expressed in the prayer texts of the universal Church. So how did She respond? By forbidding such things, and that probably was the only practical thing to do, at least in the short term. As I think you have in mind, it is, though, very important to point out that the Church has never in principle condemned the idea that reading the Scriptures or the Missal in the vernacular language was inherently evil.

I suspect that in the next half of the video, the author will further explain the Church’s sharp reaction and the transition to a time when the Popes themselves praised and called for latin-vernacular missals to be made readily available to the Catholic faithful.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[kleary]

Praise be to Jesus Christ!!!

Let them be exposed!

Ken

 

[TradyDaddy]

Even without the clowns and dancing girls, the two Masses side by side can be contrasted as night and day. I like the approach. No nonsense facts stand on their own. I like the point he makes about the pre-planned achitecture as though someone (or wrather a group of someones) knew that the “fix” was in and the “me” generation was going to get their way by hook or by crook.

I hope he puts the 2nd half of the video on soon.

Siskel and Ebert say 2

 

[whosebob]

I like the approach. No nonsense facts stand on their own …I hope he puts the 2nd half of the video on soon …

JMJ + OBT​

He uploaded the second half a little earlier this evening. (Thanks, Steve, if you’re reading this. *) Here’s the link:

Reform or Revolt?
Part 2

Siskel and Ebert say 2

Well, then, make sure you sign-up or sign-in with a YouTube account so you can give a rating to the video (i.e. as hosted on YouTube) and leave there a comment to the same effect.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

IC XC NIKA*

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

whosebob,

I know about local synods that at times banned Bibles in the vernacular for certain reasons, but he didn’t say that in the video. He also said that Wycliffe was the first person to translate the Bible into English. That is simply historically inaccurate. There were many other English translations before Wycliffe, as the writing of St. Thomas More and the preface to the 1611 KJV testify to. Also, the Cologne Bible, published in 1480 or 1485, was a Catholic German Bible translation that in its preface encouraged the laity to read the Bible either in Latin if they were educated or in German if they were not. That was long before Luther’s translation, which he gave the impression was the first German translation.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[gelsbern]

The commentator was also wrong in saying that there was only one Mass for the last thousand years. The NO and TLM are both the Roman Rite, but they are done differently, just as before Trent (and even after) there was the Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, ect. All part of the Roman Rite, but done a little differently.

In Christ,
Rand

The Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic rites are not part of the Roman Rite, they are all separate rites that were/are used by the Western Church in union with Rome. In fact there were many other rites out there prior to the Council of Trent, some which were questionable in their validity, which is what the council set out to correct. Under the decree of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V set out to standardize what Rite was to be used universally. The Roman Rite, had an almost 1500 year history before the council of Trent and so, that is what was set as the, if you’ll excuse the term, the normative rite for the Western Church, with exceptions being made for other rites that had existed for at least a specific amount of time.

If you wanted to be correct in your statement you could say he Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc are used in the Westen Rite Churches, but they are NOT the Roman Rite.

newadvent.org/cathen/13155a.htm

I have watched the video twice and have not found any error in his history, and he seems very careful in using the proper terminology.

If one wishes, and perhaps this may be a thing for future use, instead of referring to them and TLM/NO or what not, since they are both the Roman Rite, perhaps they should be referred to as Old Roman Rite/New Roman Rite.

 

[gelsbern]

Pax vobiscum!

Another error–Wycliffe was not the first to translate the Bible into English. Caedmon was about 700 years earlier.

In Christ,
Rand

Hate to nit pick, but Caedmon is mentioned by Bede as one who sang poems in Old English based on the Bible stories, but he was not involved in translation per se and he never translated the whole Bible. Prior to Wycliffe, only parts of the bible were translated to english. Wycliffe translated the WHOLE bible, so he was the first.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic rites are not part of the Roman Rite, they are all separate rites that were/are used by the Western Church in union with Rome. In fact there were many other rites out there prior to the Council of Trent, some which were questionable in their validity, which is what the council set out to correct. Under the decree of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V set out to standardize what Rite was to be used universally. The Roman Rite, had an almost 1500 year history before the council of Trent and so, that is what was set as the, if you’ll excuse the term, the normative rite for the Western Church, with exceptions being made for other rites that had existed for at least a specific amount of time.

If you wanted to be correct in your statement you could say he Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc are used in the Westen Rite Churches, but they are NOT the Roman Rite.

newadvent.org/cathen/13155a.htm

I have watched the video twice and have not found any error in his history, and he seems very careful in using the proper terminology.

If one wishes, and perhaps this may be a thing for future use, instead of referring to them and TLM/NO or what not, since they are both the Roman Rite, perhaps they should be referred to as Old Roman Rite/New Roman Rite.

Pax tecum!

newadvent.org/cathen/13479a.htm

The Sarum Use, as the New Advent article refers to it, was part of the Roman Rite of the Church (the term “Dominican Use” is also used in that article). I know very well what Trent did.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Hate to nit pick, but Caedmon is mentioned by Bede as one who sang poems in Old English based on the Bible stories, but he was not involved in translation per se and he never translated the whole Bible. Prior to Wycliffe, only parts of the bible were translated to english. Wycliffe translated the WHOLE bible, so he was the first.

Pax tecum!

Scroll down to “English Versions”.
newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Also, the translators of the original KJV in 1611 even admit that there were English Bibles (not just parts) in existance before Wycliffe. St. Thomas More also mentions having seen them.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

He uploaded the second half of this video a little earlier this evening! Here’s the link:

Reform or Revolt?
Part 2

I’ve posted this notice twice in case people in hybrid or threaded mode don’t see it as given in a response I posted earlier, a few levels deep.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[gelsbern]

Pax tecum!

Scroll down to “English Versions”.
newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Also, the translators of the original KJV in 1611 even admit that there were English Bibles (not just parts) in existance before Wycliffe. St. Thomas More also mentions having seen them.

In Christ,
Rand

Do you have a link of the documentation from the 1611 KJV that says there were whole complete bibles translated into English? Please provide it as would like to see where you are drawing your conclusions from as opposed to my history of the catholic church classwork.

Oh, and when the 1611 version was written, there WAS a complete translation there might have been many of them, especially since almost 200 years had past since Wycliffe did the first full english translation of the entire bible, not just parts.

ENGLISH VERSIONS

What prevented the earliest English missionaries from translating the Scriptures into the vernacular, or what caused the loss of such immediate translations, if any were made, is hard to determine at this late date. Though Christianity had been established among the Anglo-Saxons in England about the middle of the sixth century, the first known attempt to translate or paraphrase parts of the Bible is Cædmons’s song, “De creatione mundi, et origine humani generis, et tota Genesis historia etc.” (St. Bede, “Hist. eccl.”, IV, xxiv). Some authors even doubt the authenticity of the poetry ascribed to Cædmon. The English work in Bible study of the following nine centuries will be conveniently divided into three periods comprising three centuries each.

A. Eighth to Tenth Century

In the first period extending from the eighth to the tenth century we meet: (1) St. Bede’s translation of John, i, 1-vi, 9; (2) interlinear glosses on the Psalms; (3) the Paris Psalter; (4) the so-called Lindisfarne Gospels; (5) the Rushworth version; (6) the West-Saxon Gospels; (7) Ælfric’s version of a number of Old-Testament books.

(1) The proof for the existence of St. Bede’s work rests on the authority of his pupil Guthberht who wrote about this fact to his fellow-student Cuthwine (see Mayor and Lumby, “Bedæ hist. eccl.”, 178). PARTIAL - Only covered I John 1:1-6,9 for a total of 7 verses

(2) The “Glossed Psalters” have come down to us in twelve manuscripts, six of which represent the Roman Psalter, and six the Gallican. The oldest and most important of these manuscripts is the so called Vespesian Psalter, written in Mercia in the first half of the ninth century. PARTIAL - All Psalters at most contain the complete work of psalms only.

(3) The Paris Psalter advances beyond the glosses in as far as it is a real translation of Ps. i, 1-l, 10, ascribed by some scholars to King Alfred (d. 901), though others deny this view. Cf. William of Malmesbury. “Gesta regum Anglorum”, II, 123.PARTIAL - Again just a Psalter

(4) The Lindisfarne Gospels, called also the Durham Book, the Book of St. Cuthbert, present the Latin text of the Gospels dating from Redfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721), with the so-called Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels, added about 950 by Aldred. Cf. Dr. Charles O’Conor, “Bibl. stowensis”, II (1818-19), 180. PARTIAL - Just the Gospels

(5) The Rushworth version of the first Gospel, with glosses on the second, third, and fourth Gospels, based on the Lindisfarne glosses. Faerman, a priest of Harewood (Harwood), made the translation of St. Matthew and furnished the glosses on St. Mark, i, 1-ii, 15; St. John, xviii, 1-3; the rest of the work is taken from Owun’s glosses. PARTIAL - Portions of the Gospels

(6) The West-Saxon Gospels are a rendering of the Gospels originating in the south of England about the year 1000; seven manuscripts of this version have come down to us. Cf. W.W. Skeat, “The Gospels in Anglo-Saxon etc.” (Cambridge, 1871-87). PARTIAL - Just the Gospels

(7) Ælfric himself states in his work “De vetere testamento”, written about 1010, that he had translated the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith, and the Books of the Machabees. The translator frequently abridges, slightly in Genesis, more notably in the Book of Judges and the following books; he adopts a metrical form in Judith. Cf. Nieder in “Zeitschrift für historische Theologie” (1855-56). PARTIAL - 12 books of the Old Testament

 

[gelsbern]

B. Eleventh to Fourteenth Century

The second period coincides with the Anglo-Norman time, extending from the tenth to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. During this time, French or the Anglo-Norman dialect reigned supreme among the upper classes, and in academic and official circles, while English was confined to the lower classes and the country-districts. The Bible renderings during the twelfth, thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries were in French, whether they were made in England or brought over from France. Before the middle of the fourteenth century the entire Old Testament and a great part of the New Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period (cf. Berger, “La Bible française au moyen âge”, Paris, 1884, 78 sqq.). As to English work, we may note two transcripts of the West-Saxon Gospels during the course of the eleventh century and some copies of the same Gospels into the Kentish dialect made in the twelfth century. The thirteenth century is an absolute blank as far as our knowledge of its English Bible study is concerned. The English which emerged about the middle and during the second half of the fourteenth century was practically a new language, so that both the Old English versions which might have remained, and the French versions hitherto in use, failed to fulfil their purpose.

C. Fourteenth Century and After

The third period extends from the late fourteenth to the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, and has furnished us with the pre-Wyclifite, the Wyclif, and the printed versions of the Bible.

(1) Pre-Wyclifite Translations

Among the pre-Wyclifite translations we may note:

* The West Midland **Psalter**, probably written between 1340 and 1350; some attribute it to William of Shoreham. It contains the whole Psalter, eleven canticles, and the Athanasian Creed, and is preserved in three manuscripts (cd. Bülbring, "The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter", I, London, 1891).
* Richard Rolle's (d. 1349) English version of the "**Commentary on the Psalms**" by Peter Lombard spread in numerous copies throughout the country (cf. Bramley, "The Psalter and Certain Canticles...by Richard Rolle of Hampole", Oxford, 1884).
* Here belongs** a version of the Apocalypse** with a commentary; the latter was for some time attributed to Wyclif, but is really a version of a Norman commentary from the first half of the thirteenth century. Its later revisions agree so well with the Wyclif version that they must have been utilized in its preparation.
*** The Pauline Epistles** were rendered in the North Midlands or the North; they are still extant in a manuscript of the fifteenth century.
* **Another version of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter (only the first) **originated in the south of England somewhere in the fourteenth century (cf. the edition of A. C. Paves, Cambridge, 1904).
* A scholar of the north of England translated also commentaries on the **Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.**
* Several manuscripts preserve to us a version of the **Books of Acts and the Catholic Epistles**, either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary **Southern version of the Pauline Epistles and part of the Catholic Epistles**, mentioned under (5). Cf. A. C. Paues, "A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version", Cambridge, 1904.
* Besides these versions of particular books of Holy Scripture, there existed numerous renderings of the Our Father, the Ten Commandments, the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, and of the parts read on Sundays and Feastdays in the Mass. In general, if we may believe the testimony of Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the Preface to the Reims Testament, the whole Bible was to be found in the mother tongue long before John Wyclif was born (cf. "American Ecclesiastical Review", XXXII, Philadelphia, June, 1905, 594).

 

[gelsbern]

(2) Wyclifite Versions

The Wyclifite versions embrace the earlier and the later version of this name.

The Early Version was probably completed in 1382, the Later Version about 1388 (cf. Madden and Forshall, “The Holy Bible . . . made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his Followers”, Oxford, 1850; Gasquet, “The Old English Bible and other Essays”, London, 1897, pp. 102 sqq.). It is quite uncertain what part Wyclif himself took in the work that bears his name. As far as the New Testament is concerned, Wyclif’s authorship of the Early Version is based on his authorship of the “Commentary on the Gospels”, the text of which is said to have been used in the Early Edition; the style of this text is claimed to resemble the style of the translation of the Book of Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse. But the style of the text of the “Commentary” resembles that of the Later Version rather than that of the Early Version; besides, passages from both the Old and the New Testament of the Early Version are quoted in the “Commentary on the Gospels”. It would be folly, therefore, not to assign the authorship of the “Commentary” to a time posterior to the Early Edition. As to the Old Testament, the translator’s original copy and a coeval transcript are still extant, but both break off at Baruch, iii, 19, with the words: “explicit translacionem Nicholay de herford”. It is claimed that the similarity of style and mode of translating shows that Nicholas of Herford translated the Old Testament up to Bar., iii, 19. It is claimed, furthermore, that the remaining portion of the Old Testament was translated by one hand, the one who made the version of the New Testament. But both these claims rest on very slender evidence. The extant translator’s copy is written in not less than five hands, differing in orthography and dialect. Nicholas, therefore, translated at most only the portion ending with Bar., iii, 19. Besides, the magnitude of the work renders it most probable that other translators beside Wyclif and Nicholas took part in the work, and that already existing versions were incorporated or utilized by the translators.

The Early Edition was complete indeed, as far as the translators considered the books canonical, but it was soon found lacking in the necessary qualities of style and English idiom. It is at times unintelligible and even nonsensical from a too close adherence to the Latin text. A revision was, therefore, found necessary and taken in hand shortly after the completion of the Early Version. The principles of the work are laid down in the prologue of the so-called Later Version. We do not know either the revisers or the exact date of the revision. John Purvey, the leader of the Lollard party, is generally assumed to have taken a large part in the work. The style and idiom of the Later Version are far superior to those of the Early, and there can be little doubt as to its popularity among the Wyclifites. But the Lollards soon introduced interpolations of a virulent character into their sacred texts; violence and anarchy set in, and the party came to be regarded as enemies of order and disturbers of society. It is small wonder that the ecclesiastical authorities soon convened in the Synod of Oxford (1408) and forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the provincial council.