Angry Priests And Laity....?

[Cam42]

From over at my blog [url="http://www.traddyiniowa.blogspot.com"]A Traditional Catholic in Iowa[/url]

The Liturgical Pimpernel writes:
(with my[b] comments [/b]and [u]emphasis[/u])

[quote=The Liturgical Pimpernel]Father Gaudium et Spes seems to be remarkably short of both in his retirement, which is sad. One wishes that the poor man did not have to suffer the continuing "iconic insults" he complained about so loudly of before Christmas.

Now Father has written another article in which he tells us that [u]"a vast crowd of priests and laity [/u][b](10, 20, 50, what constitutes vast?)[/b] who passionately love the church...are alarmed at having a [u]new and unsatisfactory translation[/u] of the liturgy about to be foisted on them due to power politics at the top." [b](Ummmmm.....no, this is not an unsatisfactory translation, it is slavishly accurate. That is the real issue. They want "dynamic equivalence" to remain the norm. It simply is a flawed outlook. It isn't accurate and conveys a message that is wrong.)[/b]

"This last confrontation" he warns us "may well backfire. [u]Many priests are simply not going to introduce the new translation.[/u] They say that if the Anglican newcomers and the Latin Mass groups can keep their liturgy, so can they." [b](This is open defiance of the wishes of Rome, based mainly on Liturgical norms.....What makes them any different than the SSPX, if they do this? We are not talking about a new Missale Romanum being promulgated here, we are talking about a new translation of the same Missale Romanum -- I'll talk about that more below.)[/b]

He may be on to something here. Priests and people of his generation may be unwilling or unable to change. We should be sensitive to them. [u]Why should they have to suffer an accurate vernacular translation of the Mass of Paul VI[/u] after all these years of using the ICEL version from the 1970’s, which has made them what they are, of course? [b](Because the Church is bigger than any one person or groups of people....The Liturgical Pimpernel is being facetious, I know.)[/b]Why not give elderly priests who would find it difficult to make the change permission to keep using the old ICEL Mass? Only in private, without a congregation, of course. [b](Because this isn't a new Missale Romanum and the cirucmstances by which the EF was retained was because there was a whole new form of the Mass introduced, which departed from the older form. That simply isn't the case here, we don't have any rubrical changes, to speak of.)[/b]

If there really is a “vast crowd” of laity who want this translation, [u]perhaps they could organise themselves into “The Old-ICEL Mass Society”? They could lobby the hierarchy for an indult to have public celebrations of the old ICEL Mass.[/u] After about fifteen years they could be given permission, but only on condition that this never took place in parish churches and didn’t involve any criticism of the new Mass, of course.

Perhaps they could try the outright disobedience warned about by Father? They could even found a “Priestly Society of Paul VI” which could set up rival chapels, clergy, and even bishops, to ensure the continuation of the old ICEL Mass into the future. But they would risk excommunication, of course. [b](Helllooooo.....I'd call them the Priestly Society of Pope Joan, though. We would want to be as fabricated as she was.)[/b]

They may even hope for a pope who would encourage bishops to be generous with the indult for the use of the old ICEL Mass, or for another one almost twenty years later still who, to promote reconciliation, would permit it to any group of the faithful who really wanted it, only on condition that they recognised it as “extraordinary”, of course. [b](Mark my words, the day is coming when the OF will become the EF and vice versa.)[/b]

Perhaps by then Father Gaudium et Spes may be enjoying its [u]fullness[/u] at last [b](fullness is a good word, but full of what?)[/b], but be looked back upon as a prophet who knew that the old-ICEL Mass of Paul VI had never really been abrogated. Or perhaps not. Time will tell, of course.[/quote]
I have a priest-friend who has told me that he will not celebrate the Mass with the new translation. He says the reason for the translation in the first place was to make the Mass easier to understand. If we are going to have this new translation, he says, we might as well go back to the Latin. They will be just as intelligible to the average Catholic in the pew. My response....OK!!!! Let's!!!! I'm all for it!!!! That would be more in keeping with the "spirit of Vatican Council II" anyhow. This whole ongoing problem of translation is really quite ridiculous. We don't need a translation, we need to have celebrations of the Mass in a language that is intelligible by all.

The only thing that libby dibby's and conservatives agree upon is that a hand missal/missalette is a good thing. So, if we can get along for almost 50 years with a hand missal then why can't we go back? Or better yet, why bother at all? The Mass isn't about understanding every last word, but rather, it is for uniting oneself to the mystery that is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. So, if we don't understand audibly, is that so bad, when we can understand with our soul, that a sacrifice is going on? Participatio Actuosa v. Participatio Activa is again the real question. Which is more intregal and authentic to the melding of soul and body to the liturgical action.

This is an important issue and one that merits discussion amongst the faithful. If our priests are going to revolt, we should be faithful to Rome. Rome is the final answer for matters of discipline, not aging priests who are upset at the fact that they didn't get their way.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

(Please check my blog too....)

[KnightofChrist]

I was worried about such a rebellion, rebellion is how leftist in the Church have gotten their way since Vatican II. Communion on the Hand, women not veiling, Priests facing the people, etc. For them it seems that to just rebel do what they want and they'll force the Holy See into giving an indult to justify their errors.

[Cam42]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1294784068' post='2199099']
I was worried about such a rebellion, rebellion is how leftist in the Church have gotten their way since Vatican II. Communion on the Hand, women not veiling, Priests facing the people, etc. For them it seems that to just rebel do what they want and they'll force the Holy See into giving an indult to justify their errors.
[/quote]

They are a product of their time....their societial response was to rebel against everything (Whether it be the Church, the government, the military, etc....), but to those of us living in the real world, that is so passe and unrealistic. Rebellion gets one to a point of leadership. But if all one knows how to do is rebel, then the leadership is not possible. The only response to outright rebellion is anarchy, unless one wants to eventually submit. But this generation of priests and laity don't have that capacity. It is fortunate they are becoming irrelevant, they don't know how to lead (Whether it be the Church, the government, the military, etc....).

[Mr.Cat]

Curious that this was posted on the debate table.

Honestly, a Catholic who is not loyal to the Church, I'm not so sure why they want to be Catholic. People who go into diatribes about the importance of the Church, even condemning others for the slightest disagreement with an obscure opinion of some ancient Pope, but so vigorously ignore and deny the current opinions of the Pope and Church...

I don't get it. It seems completely contradictory to me. Perhaps that is why sociologically I see it as a fundamentalism.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1294784888' post='2199103']
Curious that this was posted on the debate table.

Honestly, a Catholic who is not loyal to the Church, I'm not so sure why they want to be Catholic. People who go into diatribes about the importance of the Church, even condemning others for the slightest disagreement with an obscure opinion of some ancient Pope, but so vigorously ignore and deny the current opinions of the Pope and Church...

I don't get it. It seems completely contradictory to me. Perhaps that is why sociologically I see it as a fundamentalism.
[/quote]

Not really....there are those out there who would disagree with the position that the new translation is better. That is the point of the article. And if I post it here, then they are free to discuss without reservation of "be don't lame."

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294785313' post='2199109']Not really....there are those out there who would disagree with the position that the new translation is better. That is the point of the article. And if I post it here, then they are free to discuss without reservation of "be don't lame."[/quote]Yeah! I sort of suspected that...

I am just trying to ignore someone's romantic glazing of history.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1294785556' post='2199110']
Yeah! I sort of suspected that...

I am just trying to ignore someone's[b] romantic glazing of history[/b].
[/quote]

This is a key statement and that is all I will say concerning that. : )



The new changes coming in Advent are a blessing. But, there is no reason to be fighting or bickering nor pointing out who 'disagrees' etc. Of course some people will not sit with it correctly and others are cheering it on.

Personally, I was Catholic before the new translation and it'll be the same thing after that. Just as Vatican II, people had problems with the changes then (some still do) yet the Church was brought into the new century and there has been blessed fruit coming from that Council.

The fact that other Catholics that want to pick apart other positions and speculate on the reception of the changes is more or less disgusting, since it resembles a lot of how politics function in Washington D.C. with new policies and etc.

Just let God move in His Church and live without worry about if someone else's holiness (or unholiness) is cramping your faith, goodness.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294784399' post='2199101']
They are a product of their time....their societial response was to rebel against everything (Whether it be the Church, the government, the military, etc....), but to those of us living in the real world, that is so passe and unrealistic. Rebellion gets one to a point of leadership. But if all one knows how to do is rebel, then the leadership is not possible. The only response to outright rebellion is anarchy, unless one wants to eventually submit. But this generation of priests and laity don't have that capacity. It is fortunate they are becoming irrelevant, they don't know how to lead (Whether it be the Church, the government, the military, etc....).
[/quote]

Your right. Thankfully the Church will prevail, and not the gates of Hell. Anyway I agree with your statement that the OF will become the EF, and the EF the OF. That appears to be the way the Church is now trending, love for tradition is rising whist the power of modernist is slipping. It may take close to 100 years though, but I believe it will happen, the whole faithful will return to Tradition and the reform of the reform will happen.

Edited January 11, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1294784068' post='2199099']
I was worried about such a rebellion, rebellion is how leftist in the Church have gotten their way since Vatican II. Communion on the Hand, women not veiling, Priests facing the people, etc. For them it seems that to just rebel do what they want and they'll force the Holy See into giving an indult to justify their errors.
[/quote]

There are some Catholics who receive Communion in the hand who have greater love for the Eucharist than those who receive it on the tongue who are simply stuck in their old ways. Just because I don't wear a veil in Church does not mean that I am sinning, unworthy, or disrespectful. Man looks at outward appearance, while the Lord looks at the heart. It's kind of ridiculous to say that those who don't adhere to traditional ways are doing so for the sake of rebellion. It is not our right to judge anyone. Only God can do that. The Lord does not love a woman in church wearing a veil more than He loves me or anyone else for that matter. In my personal situation, if I were to wear a veil, people in my Church would be distracted. I'd rather not have that happen and have them focus on the Mass instead.

We are all One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Rather than tearing each other down for their ways of worship, we should build each other up for the common love of the truth in the Catholic faith and the Eucharist. I don't see what's so hard about that..

Edited January 11, 2011 by AudreyGrace

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294789047' post='2199129']
There are some Catholics who receive Communion in the hand who have greater love for the Eucharist than those who receive it on the tongue who are simply stuck in their old ways. Just because I don't wear a veil in Church does not mean that I am sinning, unworthy, or disrespectful. Man looks at outward appearance, while the Lord looks at the heart. It's kind of ridiculous to say that those who don't adhere to traditional ways are doing so for the sake of rebellion. It is not our right to judge anyone. Only God can do that. The Lord does not love a woman in church wearing a veil more than He loves me or anyone else for that matter. In my personal situation, if I were to wear a veil, people in my Church would be distracted. I'd rather not have that happen and have them focus on the Mass instead.

We are all One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Rather than tearing each other down for their ways of worship, we should build each other up for the common love of the truth in the Catholic faith and the Eucharist. I don't see what's so hard about that..
[/quote]

I merely point out the historical facts of how those practices began in modern times. Communion on the Hand as it is practice today began in open rebellion of the norms of the Church, until out of an act of mercy the Holy See gave an indult to allow it. Before the new Code of Canon Law the practice of not veiling was open rebellion against the law of the Church. The practice of Priests facing the people was in like manner rebellion because it became the norm rather than the exception as it was intended. Also because of this new practice many High Alters were ripped out of churches so new table alters could be installed.

By pointing out these historical facts was by no means to tear down anyone personally. Only to point out that the practices began in rebellion and that such a truth must not be forgotten.

I would also suggest not receiving the Blessed Lord in ones hand, particles break apart when He is placed on ones hand and then those particles fall to the floor. Which are then stepped upon by those behind the individual. Also the Church allows us to receive on the hand, but receiving on the tongue is how the Church asks us to receive, it is the norm we should obey.

Edited January 11, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1294789677' post='2199135']but receiving on the tongue is how the Church asks us to receive, it is the norm we should obey.[/quote]Wrong, the norm for receiving Holy Communion in the United States is on the hand, if you like it or not.

I choose not to comment on the rest of your rant.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Maximilianus]

...

Edited January 12, 2011 by Maximilianus

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294783132' post='2199093']
I have a priest-friend who has told me that he will not celebrate the Mass with the new translation. He says the reason for the translation in the first place was to make the Mass easier to understand. If we are going to have this new translation, he says, we might as well go back to the Latin. They will be just as intelligible to the average Catholic in the pew.
[/quote]

I understand that the new translation will be more faithful to the Latin, but your friend makes it sound as if the entire NO Mass is getting a make-over. I guess I am asking - how much of a change in language will we see? I just thought it was going to be a few sentences here and a few sentences there.

[Maggyie]

I think there are legit pastoral concerns with introducing the new translation. Changing the responses, etc is bound to be quite an adjustment for people, especially the 50-75% of people who only show up on major holidays and may be blindsided by the changes, regardless of how much prep work the parishes do. You hate to alienate people who already feel like they don't have a place in the church, or that a relationship with the Church isn't important. This could all have been avoided if the original translators of the liturgy weren't so intent on giving us raw carp the first time around.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I don't particularly care if one likes the new translation or not... it really doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact of the matter is that it is being instituted. And to refuse to use it is simply causing division in the Church, plain and simple. To refuse is prideful and placing one's personal preferences above one's love for God.

At some point the question of whether or not this is a "better" translation needs to just stop. Doesn't matter any more. What is best is to submit to Holy Mother Church in her decision regarding how the Church as a whole worships.

Edited January 12, 2011 by TeresaBenedicta