Detroit Free Press: Catholic youth choirs get acquainted with Latin

From the Detroit Free Press:

Catholic youth choirs get acquainted with Latin

BY NIRAJ WARIKOO • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • March 28, 2009

The classical sounds of the Latin language are to echo inside a Detroit cathedral today as children from across the region gather for a special mass featuring area Catholic youth choirs.

It's a sign of the growing interest in the Latin language among Catholics who are yearning for tradition.

About 100 children from parishes in Michigan and London, Ontario, are to practice and then perform during the mass with Archbishop Allen Vigneron at Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament, the seat of the Archdiocese of Detroit.

After the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, greater emphasis was placed on using English in masses so singing in Latin increasingly fell out of favor, said local Catholics.

"When I was young, we only sang in Latin," recalled Cindy Stempin, music director at St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Church in Livonia.

"Latin was the universal language of the church," she added. "They are going back to their roots."

Some of her students say they like it.

"It's pretty cool to be singing in a different language," said Alexa Orosz, a sixth-grader at St. Michael school. "When you get used to it, it's not hard at all."

Stempin helped about 25 children in third grade to eighth grade get ready for today's concert, which is organized by the American Federation Pueri Cantores, a national organization that promotes religious music among youngsters.

The children are to rehearse today under the direction of Paul French, a noted composer and conductor who directs William Ferris Chorale in Chicago.

Nancy Deacon, director of music at the cathedral, remembers hearing Latin sung as an elementary school student, and then noticed the changes after the reforms.

"It went from one extreme to the other," she said. Singing in Latin is "something that had been missing for a generation or so."

Thanks Ruth K!


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Latin-I Class to be Held at Assumption Grotto Starting January 30th

I mentioned the other day that Deacon Jim Wilder of Assumption Grotto will be teaching an "intense Latin-1 class". The start date for the 7 week class has been changed to Friday, January 30th. It will be held on Fridays from 4:30 until about 6:00 or 6:30, depending on how things are going. This leaves time to get to the 7:00pm Mass for those who want to assist. On Fridays, it is usually in the Extraordinary Form.

The cost of the class is $100 which includes materials. Deacon Jim says he will be working with Wheelock's books.

It might help to know a little about the instructor's background, so I inquired and the Deacon replied...

Taught Latin for twenty-five years, at least. Taught for seven years at Regina High School; at Grosse Pointe South High School for 12 years; taught at least ten years at Assumption Grotto Homeschool; and tutored Latin. Hold a Masters in Latin from Wayne State University and a major in Latin from the once Catholic University of Detroit.

He is tentatively planning on going from Latin-I through Latin-IV over the course of one year and will start the cycle again. If you don't get in now, it will be at least a one year wait before you can get in.

Sounds good to me. I'm there. Put my name on the list already along with 6 other people who have called.

How do you sign up? Call Jim at 586-776-7774 to register.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Latin Class at Grotto

From the Assumption Grotto homepage:

First Year Intensive Seven Week Latin Course for adults and children offered by Deacon Jim Wilder beginning Friday, January 23rd, 4:30 p.m., Grotto Rectory Basement. Course is $100, which includes text book and materials. Call Deacon Jim to register at 586-776-7774.

I need to find out how long it runs. I'm wondering if it isn't a two hour class which would end just ahead of the 7:00pm Mass.

I'll find out. I think I'm going to try to squeeze this in. After all, I've been prodding Fr. Perrone and Deacon Jim to offer something!

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Learning Latin - Self-taught

On this Divine Mercy Sunday, I want to pass along another tidbit for those interested in learning Latin. I've added this post and more to the sidebar section called, "Got Latin?"

I've actually had a desire to learn Latin since I was in my teens. I attempted once, but did not have the proper text for self-learning. I think that may have changed. I have the first book above and was trying to spend just 15 minutes daily with it, but ran into one problem: No way to check the answers. That is, until I found the answer book online....

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) has not only the Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin book by Collins at the Fraternity Publications page, but the answer book needed if you are engaging in self-study. It also has the Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin on the same page.

However, if you spend any time at the blog of Fr. Z, you will know that he says you should have a Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary as wel.

I would pay close attention to Fr. Z's PRAYERCAzT, which can help with proper accents and pronounciation. Puulllleeeeeeeaaase - don't Americanize it with the awful sounding Yayzooo Kwreeestooooo. Make it dignified with Yehzu Kdddistu (ok, so poke fun at my phonetic spelling! I've been rolling R's since I learned Croatian while living abroad for over 2 years and I can tell you, just think a string of d's and you will roll your R's. It prevents you from twisting your lips like you do in English. It's all a matter of making the dddd sound with your tongue).

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

***Support the Dominus Est Project***

Bp Trautman and his view of active participation

(Note: scroll down or click this link to see pictures from Grotto's 40 Hour's Devotion)

Something interesting has emerged at the blog of Fr. Martin Fox, who is listed in the sidebar section under blogging priests, religious and deacons. He shares a publicized address given by Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania. Bishop Trautman is also the chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Liturgy. His Excellency is probably the greatest proponent among US Bishops of banal translations and inclusive language in the liturgy.

What is often at the root of conflict in many liturgical matters is an understanding of the expression "active participation". In a very thorough look at the issue in a March 2006 post, Fr. Z explains the difference between the latin word actuosa and activa (emphasis mine in bold):

In the materials the seminarian sent me, especially a handout their loony liturgy instructor distributed, it was argued that exterior active participation was the first and primary thing that the Council Fathers were after. The prof observed first that the Council’s document Sacrosanctum Concilium never employs the term participatio activa. That is correct, of course. And he was correct that the use of actuosa rather than activa is very significant regarding the sort of participation the Fathers desired for “the people”.

snip

In philosophy, (not philology) philosophia activa refers to the practical, in contrast to philosophia contemplativa. NB: activa is contrasted with contemplativa. Activus contrasts also with spectativus (“speculative”). Activus and actuosus have connotations respectively of outward, practical activity on the one hand and, on the other hand, lively interior and spiritual activity. Make it simple. Activus = exterior. Actuosus = interior. This is why the Council Father’s chose to describe their goal of “active” participation as actuosa.

snip

Let’s put things together now.

By actuosa we mean primarily that interior receptivity which comes from the baptized person making an act of will to unite himself with the sacred action being wrought in the liturgy by the real “actor”, Jesus Christ the High Priest. This actuosa (“active” in an interior sense) is distinguished from activa (“active” in an exterior sense).

What the Church wants for us first and foremost is the interior participation, founded on our baptism, which integrates the whole human person and then comes to be expressed also in activa participatio.

This is all manifest in what happens during Mass. For example, we are actively receptive to the proclamation of the Gospel. We are not asked to read it aloud together with the priest. At the offertory there is a procession of gifts to the altar. Not everyone in Church comes to the altar. Everyone is then called upon by the priest, who as alter Christus is the Head of the Body of Christ gathered there, to unite their offerings and spiritual sacrifices to his. This they do interiorly, with an act of will, not by physically going up and grabbing hold of the chalice, etc.

I wonder how many "expert liturgists" were listening when Pope John Paul II said in his 1998 ad limina address out west. I have more in bold than not, so do read it slowly and carefully in it's entirety:

3. Only by being radically faithful to this doctrinal foundation can we avoid one-dimensional and unilateral interpretations of the Council's teaching. The sharing of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the Council's call for full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy; and in this respect a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land. But full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood; and this was not what the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.

Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to a verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship. Nor does it mean the suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious just as they speak to the conscious.

Now we come to some troubling words in an address given by Bishop Trautman, where he seemingly applies the errant understanding of active participation in the name of Vatican II.

"My words to you in that address [i.e., on October 9, 1996] are still true today. I said to you then, and I say again: 'A pre-Vatican II liturgical theology and practice have no chance of speaking to a post-Vatican II world... The full, conscious and active participation of all the people is the goal in the reform and promotion of the liturgy.' Do we accept this teaching of Vatican II? If we do, we should not be calling for a retreat from the reform of the liturgy of Vatican II. There should be no backsliding" (bolding added).

There is no retreat from Vatican II, your Excellency, just a misunderstanding and misapplication of active participation in your foundation.

Some excerpts from the commentary of Fr. Martin Fox:

And since he brought it up, who exactly does he accuse of proposing to "retreat" from the Council's vision? This is a dressed-up version of a polemic one hears in parishes: "oh, you just don't accept Vatican II"--directed at people who: like bells at Mass; use "old fashioned" vestments; use Latin and chant; sing the prayers; don't sing the prayers; use incense and so forth. I'm sorry to say you hear it from priests, who should know better; but then, we hear a version of it here from a bishop who ought to know better. The truth is, what's actually going on is people label as "pre Vatican II" things they don't like, aren't used to, or associate with the past. The great irony is that any number of things I've seen or heard dismissed as "pre-Vatican II" are, if anything, post-Vatican II. I will give you two examples:

(a) A priest singing the Canon of the Mass. This simply was not done, in the Roman Rite, in the years leading up to the Council. Right or wrong, the priest said it sotto voce.

(b) Using a Scripture- and Missal-based chant refrain, either Latin or English, for the opening procession in preference to a vernacular hymn. Using vernacular hymns in place of the proper chants for the entrance, offertory and communion is a practice that long predated the Second Vatican Council, displacing chant--resulting in Pius X calling for restoration of chant; it was the Council that called for restoration both of chant and of a greater use of Scripture texts in the Mass.

snip

What I think we see here is exactly the sort of "hermaneutic of rupture" that the holy father has identified and faulted in relation to Vatican II. Of course, Bishop Trautman may be able to explain this better and who knows, maybe he will show up here and give that explanation; but it really looks like he has this idea that Vatican II marks the beginning of "full, conscious and active" participation.

Go read the post of Fr. Martin Fox on Bishop Trautman's address

h/t to Fr. Z on the same subject, with his comments and emphases.




Te Deum Laudamus! Home

Incredible: Michigan Bishop Mandates English Only

This one gets the, "I've got my head in the pile of banana peels" award.

Perhaps Incredulous may be more fitting of an expression.

Bishop Patrick Cooney of Gaylord, Michigan is mandating that Masses be in English only.

This came out prior to Summorum Pontificum, so it is not Bishop Cooney's response to that document. Ummmmm......then again, it did come out just prior to it as the hype ensued.

But, even if he were referring to a Latin Novus Ordo, for example, I question whether his statement would hold up at the Congregation for Divine Worship on appeal. I'm sure Cardinal Arinze would back any priest using Latin in the Liturgy (click here to read what he thinks of Latin in the liturgy). A priest can't be disobedient in the use of Latin in the Liturgy any more than a communicant can be considered disobedient for receiving Communion on the tongue, imho.

Similarly, I don't believe a bishop can arbitrarily restrict the Eucharistic Prayers in use to only Eucharistic Prayer #2 within his diocese because this would be in conflict with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) which allows for four Eucharistic Prayers (setting aside anything special).

Since Latin was never abbrogated, I don't see how a bishop can do so on his own.

Now, my take on this is that it is not aimed at restricting a Mass in Polish or Spanish, for example. Fr. Rob Johansen who initiated this blog story, seems to think along the same lines. In his words,

My first reaction on reading this was incredulity. Does anyone imagine, given the timing of this policy, that it is directed at restricting, say, Masses in Spanish? I don't think so. Should this be seen as a pre-emptive move against Latin liturgies? It sure looks like it. But surely the bishop must know that the Mass of the Roman Rite (Novus Ordo) is the Latin typical edition? As such, the bishop cannot forbid its use. It is simply beyond his competence. And it seems to me that, after September 14, when "Summorum Pontificum" takes effect, this instruction cannot apply to the Extraordinary Form.

But this directive certainly sends a signal, doesn't it? It telegraphs to every priest "Latin Is NOT Welcome in the Diocese of Gaylord". Given this directive, how many priests would be likely to request "permission" to celebrate Mass in the language of the Church? If any priest is inclined to do so, he is now placed on notice that he risks offending the Powers That Be.

The timing is indeed impeccable. The statement was released just ahead of the expected motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which provided priests and laity with the right to celebrate & assist at the old form of the Latin Mass, according to the 1962 Missal.

If I were in the diocese of Gaylord, I would already be penning my letter to Cardinal Arinze. I hope that dicastry is flooded with mail, with copies going to the Ecclesia Dei commission.

But, keep in mind, it's not just the old form of the Roman rite we are talking about here, but anyone wanting to use Latin in the Novus Ordo.

I don't know about anyone else, but I expect to see more of this younger generation of priests introducing Latin into the Novus Ordo as a way to bring about the reform of the reform. The hippy generation tried to suppress it, but in the end the Holy Spirit wins out as a new generation fully embraces it. How else can such a wide interest in Latin and all things traditional be explained? It just so happens that along with that desire for Latin and the traditional, comes fidelity to the Magisterium.

We don't challenge the Church's teachings, we follow them!

Deo Gratias!

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

Motu Proprio - It's at the Vatican Printer!

No sooner had Fr. Z mentioned he had a tip from a "well-placed source" - that the motu proprio is at the Vatican printer - and voila! Similar news shows up in the Italian news magazine, Il Tempo.

The Holy Father goes on vacation in early July and perhaps he is wanting it released before he leaves.

I think I heard a box of bubbly being wheeled into a few rectories around the world as anticipation grows. The smell of unlit cigars is also beginning to permeate the air. In fact, if you see a white puff of smoke going up, it won't be the election of a new pope, but a bunch of stogies being lit with the liberation of the Mass as it was experienced by many of the saints we know and love.

Whether you are interested or not in the Classical Roman Rite, casually referred to as the old Mass, or the Tridentine, this is a very historical moment. We also need to keep in mind that in some corners of the world, including here in the US, people of all ages have been yearning for a Mass that is solemn and reverent, not casual and folksy. This will provide an alternative.

OTHER RECENT DISCUSSIONS ON THE MOTU PROPRIO

Fr. Zuhlsdorf emphases prayer...

Fr. Z: Dumb article on old Mass in Boston Ledger...

Fr. Z: L’Occidentale: Why Pope Benedict would want to derestrict the “Tridentine” Mass



MORE NEWS RELATED TO THE CLASSICAL ROMAN RITE & LATIN IN THE LITURGY

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, recently ordained after converting, raises some honest questions about Latin in the Liturgy - questions many people may have. Shawn Tribe at the New Liturgical Movement responds with an excellent dialogue and in a tone respectful of those who are not quite comfortable with Latin yet.

I agree with Shawn as he explains how he will approach the questions and what kind of attitude we should have toward's such questions. I'll start you out here and then you can follow the link below to read the full article.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker has a few Latin Questions. We should recall that Fr. Longenecker has come from a tradition of beautiful English language liturgical prose. That must be remembered for context. He had the following questions about Latin in liturgical worship, which he obviously has some struggles with, and really about certain traditional liturgical ethos generally. I will respond to them in turn in bold.

He notes that he asks these questions in earnest, and I think everyone should take them in that light. We must keep in mind that such answers, particularly in our current liturgical atmosphere are most certainly not evident. In fact, it requires a considerable amount of 'counter-ecclesial-cultural' thought and research. I say "ecclesial" but of course, I do not mean officially, but rather practically on the parish to parish level.

Unfortunately, because of people's frustrations in the face of the 'liturgical establishment' they can be tempted to react flippantly or emotionally to such questions, as though all who question such things do so ideologically. What must be remembered is that such is not the case. Many have been formed to think in such a way, and they have known nothing else. Others come from different traditions and so they look for explanations so they might at least understand.

...Continue reading Latin in the Liturgy at The New Liturgical Movement...


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

Great Translation News...Consubstantial...Dew....and more!

Some really good news on the ICEL translation front. There is a draft floating around out there, with some excellent changes. Fr. Z writes on several of them in these posts.


NICENE CREED - CONSUBSTANTIAL

"Consubstantial" is now in the latest draft, and rightly so.

You may recall a rather interesting and enlightening debate between bishops on the matter. I provided a link to this dialogue, found on the Adoremus website, last year. On one side were several members of the USCCB asking that the literal translation for "consubstantialem" be used. On the other side, were Bishops Donald Trautman and Sklystad, pushing through the "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood" version - one we are more familiar with from memory, "...one in being with the Father"

To my mind, the word consubstantial is far better as it provides an opportunity to discuss this from the pulpit to catechize people on the meaning. While the words "one in being", each in isolation, may be easy to understand, it is a concept which must be grasped.

Go read Fr. Z's post on consubstantial


EUCHARISTIC PRAYER CHANGES:

Fr. Z writes on the change he sees in the draft to EP-2, in which the word "dew" has rightly made this round.

There are also changes to EP-1 - several that Fr. Z discusses in a more lengthy post.


OTHER SIGHTINGS IN THE LATEST DRAFT BY FR. Z

"...enter under my roof...."

"...through my most grevious fault...


OTHER BLOGGERS ON TRANSLATION ISSUES

Fr. Tim Finigan

New ICEL - First Reactions
Full Text of this Draft (NEW)

FUMARE Blog

The Next Great Threshold of the Liturgical Renewal (a lecture given by members of the ICEL committee working on the new missal – Archbishop Coleridge of Canberra (Benedict’s first Australian appointment) and Monsignor Bruce Harbert, Executive Director of the ICEL Secretariatz)

Problem in Sacramentum Caritatis 23

This is very sad to see, but I'm grateful it is coming to light so quickly. As the faithful, we have a right to proper translations - unedited by the translators themselves. May God help anyone who, not by lack of skill or human error, is hindering the Magisterium and providing us with watered down documents.

Here is yet another disturbing example of an "error" found in the English translation of Sacramentum Caritatis - the recent Exhoration by Pope Benedict.

This time, it concerns paragraph 23. Fr. Zuhlsdorf writes:

Par. 23 deals with the priest who acts in persona Christi in the Eucharistic liturgy. This is a central point for Benedict because the priest is a manifestation, in a personal way, of the High Priest Jesus Christ who is the true Actor in the liturgical action (actio). Because the liturgy is always first and foremost Christ’s and not our personal possession, even the alter Christus the priest, acting in persona Christi, must not hijack the liturgy and impose his own person on it. By his fidelity to the Rite, to the rubrics, the priest gets himself "out of the way", as it were, so that Christ is more apparently the true Actor.

Leaving aside the bulk of par. 23, I ask you to consider the following:


LATIN
Quod peculiari modo in humilitate exprimitur quacum sacerdos actionem ducit liturgicam, in oboedientia erga ritum, cui corde et mente respondet, omnia vitans quae speciem praebere possunt alicuius propriae importunae actionis.

ITALIAN
Ciò si esprime particolarmente nell’umiltà con la quale il sacerdote guida l’azione liturgica, in obbedienza al rito, corrispondendovi con il cuore e la mente, evitando tutto ciò che possa dare la sensazione di un proprio inopportuno protagonismo.

OFFICIAL ENGLISH (2-4-2007)
This is seen particularly in his humility in leading the liturgical assembly, in obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart, and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality.

SLAVISH ENGLISH FROM THE LATIN
Which is expressed in a special way in the type of humility with which the priest leads the liturgical action, in obedience in respect to the rite, with which he complies, avoiding all things which could present the appearance of some unsuitable actio of his own.

The concept actio is critical for understanding what His Holiness is expressing in the Exhortation. The English version entirely erases the concept actio.

Read the rest of Fr. Z's post here...

Leading the liturgical assembly? Huh? This must have been translated after lunch and a little too much wine at the Enoteca Antica.

Forgive me for asking, but why have "experts" translating things when you could have amateurs doing it with better accuracy? Without the editing of the official documents, perhaps such things wouldn't take as long to get out the door! (scroll to the bottom of this article - right before the footnotes begin - by Vatican Watcher Sandro Magister, who explains the translation frustrations in Rome)

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering how such blatant things don't result in "reassignments" until they have a department or team capable of straightforward translations that have not tampered with original meaning?

The internet is totally blowing any cover things like this once had with the passing of time. In darkness such things prevail. In the light, they can be seen for what they are.

One can only imagine why the motu proprio hasn't been released just yet. Perhaps Papa Bene is going over the translations himself before that gets messed up.

Finger paint anyone?

Sacramentum Caritatis - English Translation Corrected!!!

Fr. Zuhlsdorf reports that the English translation of Sacramentum Caritatis, has been corrected with the following:

Fr. Z writes:

Now it seems that the official English version has been revised and corrected, at least in respect to par. 62.


The Latin: exceptis lectionibus, homilia et oratione fidelium, aequum est ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina.

The OLD official English: with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin.

The NEW official English: with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin.

It seems that the English translation and that of other languages is being carefully scrutinzed right now and hopefully, we can expect to see what is owed us: Genuine translations.

Here is an excellent example of how good the internet can be. It was less than 10 hours following the release of the Exhortation that this particular watered-down translation was spotted. Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog was crashing the server with so much sudden traffic. Other bloggers picked up what he was providing, and what other Latinists were finding was being shared publicly. It comes as a welcome surprise that by making these things highly visible, as they should be.

Just think, before the internet age, even if a Latinist found an error, how could he get the word out to create such an outcry? There are many forms of "gatekeepers" and the old guard, with it's banalization of the faith and the liturgy is simply not going to get away with it any longer.

Go read Fr. Z's post

EDIT: You may want to read the followup post Fr. Z has made: Who's guarding the guards?

Exhortation: Knowing and using Latin

At the blog of Fr. Zuhlsdorf (aka, Fr. Z), we are getting some ongoing discussion about translation and how it applies to the exhortation: Sacramentum Caritatis. This is interesting, in general, on the issue of Latin translations, even aside from the exhortation.

Keep in mind that Fr. Z's website is being inundated with hits - to the point that it has taken the server down. To prevent his hosting service from shutting him down completely, Father has been putting up a one-pager asking people to visit in non-peak hours. I have had no problem reading his site at 4:30 or 5:00am, but can't get in during regular working hours. He is continuing to work on a more permanent solution to fix the problem caused by so many interested people visiting his site.

All I can say, is just keep trying at different times. Perhaps he will continue to put one or two of his last posts up on that one pager as I saw this morning.

Lenten Series by Fr. Zuhlsdorf

Father John Zuhlsdorf - aka, "Fr. Z" at his blog, "What does the prayer really say?", is in the midst of a Lenten series which examines the prayers of Holy Mass a little closer. Visit the WDTPRS Homepage each day to read his latest translation, and lenten reflection.

Here is an excerpt from the First Wednesday in Lent:

Sometimes it helps for us to identify ourselves with the gifts placed on the altar for consecration. Moments before the Super Oblata prayer, we are invited by the priest to unite our sacrifices to those he offers in his manner of offering. We all have both burdens and reasons to rejoice. These we can consciously place into the chalice as the priest prepares it for their own change and elevation and "completion". In a way, the water can be like our own human and earthly portion being joined, absorbed and changed into the wine (the divine), even before they are stupendously raised as the Eucharist.

More News on "Pro Multis"....

The Tablet (UK) is carrying an article written by Bishop Donald Trautman (head of the USCCB's committee on liturgy - BCL) in which he criticizes the Vatican's decision to translate "pro multis" to "for many" - a change from the "for all" to which we have grown accustomed to hearing.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf responds. Go to Fr. Z's blog for his response and Bishop Trautman's original speech, including a link to The Tablet article.

I'm rather disappointed, but not surprised, to see a US Bishop publicly criticizing the Holy See on a matter which has been spelled out in writing in Prot. n. 467/05/L by His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze. It's very unfortuante that the opportunity to speak publicly was not used for catechesis as the Prefect points out in bullet "d" within that document:

3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" (pollvn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said "for all" (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is "for many", and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

Related posts:

The Great News: It's pro multis!
Vatican speaks: Pro multis = for many
More on Vatican's decision regarding pro multis

Bishop Trautman: Encouraging Dissent on Translations?

The war over translations used in the liturgy just went up a notch with a speech given at the Catholic Academy of Liturgy on January 4, 2007, by Bishop Trautman, Chairman of the Bishop's Committe on Liturgy for the USCCB who was the keynote speaker.

I'm going to lead you to two, detailed analyses of the speech and the first is by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf of What does the Prayer Really Say? He brings us the press release with Bp. Trautman's comments and gives us his own commentary in typical Fr. Z fashion.

Fr. Z calls out something in the speech that disturbed me days ago when I had read about it. (Fr. Z's commentary in red, and the emphasis is also his):

Bishop Trautman challenged Catholic liturgical scholars of North America to assist the bishops in promoting a liturgy that is accessible and pastorally aware. [Can a liturgy be "aware"? Scary.] He urged them, in a spirit of respect and love for the Church, to be courageous in questioning [dissenting from…] those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible and betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). [Is this where we mention that the Council wanted LATIN to be retained as the language of the liturgy?]

This is also called out in the commentary I lead you to next....

Anthony Esolen of Touchstone Magazine dissects this issue with precision in a blog affilliated with the magazine called, Mere Comments. If you are unfamiliar with Touchstone, it is a Christian journal which features content that is conservative in doctrine and has an authorship and readership of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. The post made by Anthony Esolen is entitled, By the Waters of Babylon. Do read it!

Here is one sample from Esolen, first quoting the press release in italics.

Trautman argued that the proposed changes of the people's parts during Mass will confuse the faithful and predicted that the new texts will contribute to a greater number of departures from the Catholic church.

He meaneth, forsooth, an even greater number of departures. You're sinking in quicksand and there's a willow branch over your head. Don't grab hold of it -- it might snap. By the way, let it be noted that solicitude for the feelings of Catholics in the pews was never very high among liturgical innovators, who didn't care at all, say, whether anybody would be confused by revisions of well-known Christmas carols. Then the rubes had to learn their lessons. Call it the post-Vatican II Eat Your Peas ecclesiology.

I want to recall something for newer readers of this blog who may not have seen it. It is a copy of the debate bishops had over ICEL translations in July-August of 2006. What is of particular interest is that which begins with this:

Archbishop Hughes: I would propose a return to the ICEL text in the Creed, which translates consubstantialis “consubstantial”. I am addressing really the same issue in the three amendments: 11, 12 and 13. And I recognize the pastoral reasons that could be offered in support of remaining with the text we have been using: “one in being”.

But “consubstantial” is a very significant term in the history of Christological controversy. It does express a profound truth that I think is important for us to preserve in the liturgical text. And as we return this to the liturgical text, it provides an opportunity for catechesis of our people.

Follow the dialogue at Adoremus to see how many bishops, and which bishops supported the position of Archbishop Hughes in What the Bishops said...