|
Post by shane on Mar 30, 2011 16:54:42 GMT
One would think that this would give all our priests and bishops food for thought; can they dump a magisterially approved translation for a new translation from Rome that has not been magisterially approved? Yes. Most bishops didn't even read the translations before rubber-stamping them. That in itself says a lot.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Mar 30, 2011 20:11:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 31, 2011 17:03:24 GMT
Fr Longenecker does make some interesting criticisms (unlike Fr O'Leary, who in the linked post just throws a hissy fit). We'll see how it works out. Here is a more positive view by Fr Zuhlsdorf (just for the record) wdtprs.com/blog/2011/03/on-the-new-corrected-translation-wherein-fr-z-rants-and-reacts/but note some commenters who are presumably not liberals agree that while the new translation may be more accurate it is just plain ugly and could have been done better. I don't know what Brencel means when he says the new translation is not magisterially approved, unless he takes the view that approval by a curial official is not equivalent to approval by the Pope personally. That is not how the magisterium works - the officials act with the Pope's delegated authority, it would be impossible for him to supervise everything personally. Rome has been heavily involved in preparing the new translation. The ACP and the Tabletistas, in contrast, seem to want a situation where local bishops' conferences produce their own versions of the liturgy without reference to Rome. Now that really would be questionable behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by brencel on Mar 31, 2011 21:14:17 GMT
www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/03/25/revising-the-mass-texts-is-this-the-real-issue/“I don't know what Brencel means when he says the new translation is not magisterially approved.” Read my post again, hibernicus, I did not say “the new translation is not magisterially approved”, I was referring to what Fr Mike Fallon wrote (see link above). Here are some relevant paragraphs from Fr Fallon’s letter: “My understanding is that the people responsible for authorising any given translation are the bishops in the local churches concerned at the level of Episcopal conference. This authorised translation is then passed to the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome whose role it is to give the translation a “recognitio”: in other words, a statement that the translation is free from error. However, the translation in English of the Roman Missal which is being printed at this very time has not followed this process – not by any means. The translation currently being printed and scheduled for use later this year has in fact never been authorised by the English-speaking Bishops of the world, in accordance with their established responsibilities. Indeed, the text agreed by the responsible English-speaking Bishops, as the proper authority, has been altered quite substantially by a committee named “Vox Clara”, This is an entirely advisory body which has no locus whatsoever in terms of the magisterial teaching authority of the Church. It certainly has no authority to override a text previously agreed by an Episcopal conference without re-submitting the text to that conference for further approval or rejection.” He then highlights that the proper magisterial teaching authority of the church has been bypassed in this case: “This irregular procedure has bypassed the proper magisterial teaching authority of the Church which is vested in the College of Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome rather than in any committee, Dicastery or Congregation or indeed the sum total of them.”
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 1, 2011 15:39:58 GMT
Fr Fallon appears to hold that the Bishops' Conferences are the final authority in such matters, that the pope's role is limited to approving or rejecting what they present to him, and that he cannot make any initiative without their say-so. This seems a very minimalist interpretation of Papal authority.
NOTE - and he also seems to assume that the Curial officials cannot be seen as sharing in the Pope's authority which he delegates to them for certain purposes.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 11, 2011 9:45:05 GMT
The current issue of CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT (May 2011) has a nice piece by James Hitchcock about about how the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER and similar liberal-Catholic complain pleas for the authorities to hold civil dialogue (with them) and strident denunciations of everyone who disagrees with them as timeservers, mediocrities, misogynists etc. This strongly reminds me of the ACPI and their pals. Anyone near Veritas Dublin in Abbey Street can buy the CWR and judge the comparison for yourself!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 4, 2011 16:28:27 GMT
Yesterday's IRISH TIMES had a piece headed "Catholic priests revolt against new missal". You had to read to about the third paragraph to see that this meeting of the ACPI had 100 attendees of whom sixty were priests, the rest being lay members of Pobal and We are Church. The fact that there was no mention of invitations being sent to equivalent "conservative" lay groups gives a pretty good idea of ACPI's real agenda. All the bishops were invited and one attended "in a personal capacity" - Bishop Kirby of Clonfert. One of the meeting's prominently reported gripes was that while "generous provision had been made for the Latin Mass" (i.e. the Extrardinary Form) no equivalent provision had been made for the "much larger number of priests and laity" who objected to the new translation of the Missal. This is rather rich considering that Bishop Kirby presides over the only diocese in the country which has never given permission for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form, going right back to Bl. John Paul II's original indult in the 1980s! Perhaps the ACPI thinks this constitutes "generous provision for the Latin Mass" - may they have it meted out to them by the same measure.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 15, 2011 20:15:07 GMT
ACP show many traces of a real clericalism.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Jun 16, 2011 1:22:23 GMT
I'm afraid I have to agree with Fr O'Leary below (who is himself a member of the ACP). The new texts are extremely unsatisfactory and are an insult to the very principles of translation. Vox Clara should have kept its paws off the 2008 translations. The more I study this fiasco the more I think the Vatican should get out of the liturgy business altogether. While bishops conferences may not be much better, could they really do a worse job than 20th century popes? The liturgical reforms of Pius XII and Paul VI were a disaster, but both of those popes were vastly more capable and competent than Benedict XVI, who seems to want a hybrid rite, with a common calendar and lectionary. The Council of Trent and associated centralization bear much of the blame for our liturgical crisis. Within a generation the Sacred Congregation of Rites would be established and organic development in the Roman Rite abolished forever. Part of the solution may well involve restoring competency over the liturgy to what is arguably its proper overseer: the local diocese. Rome has already done enough damage. josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/06/those-horrible-new-translations-proceed-on-their-merry-way.html
* The debate about the quality of the imminent new version of the liturgy in English has been waylaid by controversy about single words or phrases, such as 'consubstantial' and 'for many' and 'dewfall'. But the problem is more pervasive, affecting every part of the new texts. The tin ear of the translation team reflects a decline in linguistic culture in both church and society.
* In 1966 Irish people were given a beautiful literal translation of the Roman Canon. I am not sure how widely it was used. At that time the Irish were exceptionally attuned to good prose, as the staple of education in English was memorization, imitation, and emulation of classic passages in English prose (Addison, Lamb, de Quincey, Burke, Newman).
* The 2010 translators just do not have a clue about elegant sentence structure and musical rhythm — sentences should sing, should propel one forward, should have their depths and heights, their modulations linking one to the next, and what our translators have given us instead is take-it-or-leave-it clunky crudities, leaden, dispiriting, and dead.
* Or rather, the new translations are not English at all, and thus not deserving of criticism in terms of any pretense at being English. They are gobbledygook not composed by any human beings, but assembled by distracted bureaucrats following various prescriptions, inconsistently to boot.
* The operation is so weird that it might invite comparison with the composition of technical manuals, but cannot be considered a serious effort to produce a text bearing a relationship to the rhythms of human speech. And that such a text is designed precisely to be spoken, to be spoken in the name of a praying community, to be spoken to God! — is an irony that borders on the obscene and the blasphemous.
* Salus animarum suprema lex. The salvation of souls is the highest law (as canon law itself emphasizes). It will be our duty as bishops, priests, and laity not to use this dreck in our worship. What does not proceed from faith is sin. The conscious choice of mediocrity is sin.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Jun 16, 2011 1:40:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jun 16, 2011 19:32:33 GMT
I think Father O'Leary, as much as I disagree with him, has a point. I got pretty afraid for the situation in the English Mass, when I saw this: tuamarchdiocese.org/2011/05/irish-language-liturgy-committee-for-the-new-missal/There is not one serious scholar of Modern Irish on this committee. There is only one member of this committee with extensive pastoral experience in the Gaeltacht areas - that is Bishop Brendan Kelly and he only represents one of the three major dialects of Irish. Bishop Boyce is a native Irish speaker from the Donegal Gaeltacht, but he has neither academic background nor working experience in the language. Archbishop Neary and Bishop Boyce have significant theological scholarship. This contrasts poorly to the committee who drafted the original Irish language Mass, who between them had significant background in Modern and Old Irish, Ancient Classics, Hebrew, Theology and other languages and who represented each of the seven main sub-dialects of Irish and indeed more (Rev Brendan Devlin, MA, DD, was a native speaker of Irish from the now almost dead Sperrin Mountain Gaeltacht in Co Tyrone). BTW - the original Irish is much closer to the Latin proto-Mass than the English Mass is. My point - if this is how the committee for the liturgy in Irish is constituted, how will it go with other languages.
|
|
|
Post by loughcrew on Jul 9, 2011 14:19:45 GMT
Similar associations of 'progressive' priests were greatly encouraged by newly the formed communist governments in eastern Europe post WWII as a means to attack the power of the Vatican and to localise control over organised religion and likewise the Catholic Patriotic Association in China was formed to usurp the Vatican's authority and to conform with the 'progressive' policies of the Chinese Communist Party.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 16, 2011 21:06:37 GMT
There is quite a long modern tradition of governments trying to use liberal/schismatic/conciliarist dissidents to weaken Papal authority. During the Kulturkampf of the 1870s Bismarck tried to use the "Old Catholics" (schismatic opponents of papal infallibility) in this way; the French Revolutionaries had their Constitutional Church, and both French republicans and American nativists tried to use state power to force the Church to move away from papacy and hierarchy towards a congregationalist style of government. (This does not mean of course that all those who advocated such changes were simply stooges - but the effect of such views is to weaken and dissolve the witness of the church.) The Papal magisterium provides a litmus test of orthodoxy; without it we would be like the mainline Protestant churches in which everything - even the basic definitions of classical Christology - is up for debate. That is why we must always stand by the Papal office even if (God forbid) the Pope himself were a bad man.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Jul 17, 2011 20:41:49 GMT
We need to pray and offer sacrifices for all our priests bishops and pope with generosity of heart. Without them we have no sacraments. They and we are one body. They are under constant attack from all sides including false friends. I was glad to see that they have promised not to comply with any attempt to force them to break the sacramental seal of confession. Daniel O'Connell got us Catholic Emancipation back in 1829. Is it not still in force?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 23, 2011 21:40:41 GMT
Yesterday's IRISH TIMES (22nd July) had a piece by Fr Flannery the Redemptorist lauding Enda's speech, though he noted not all ACP members agreed with him. Par for the course. The same IRISH TIMES edition BTW had a Martyn Turner cartoon showing Inda as the new broom flinging open the Vatican windows and clearing out the bishops (presented as vampire bats wearing purple skullcaps, with their black robes as wings). The VOLKISCHE BEOBACHTER would have admired this style so much...
|
|