Three long selections follow, in their entirety.
Bill Slavick is a retired English professor who studied liturgy under scholars who contributed to the Second Vatican Council liturgical constitution and at St. Bernard Abbey. What follows is his reflection following a recently attended seminar on the Missal translations conducted by Anthony Rupp, O.S.B.
Erasure of Vatican II extends to new Missal—affecting 400 Million!
The three foremost developments in the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council committed it to engage the modern world are the largest exodus in 2000 years for lack of such engagement, the sex abuse scandal’s betrayal of children, and the relentless Vatican campaign to erase the Council. By 1997 this infidelity to Vatican II had led dozens of European theologians to judge the Vatican in schism in its rejection of collegiality: the Holy Spirit speaks to only one person.
Emblematic of this rejection of the highest Church authority was the Congregation of Divine Worship’s presumption to delay approval of the English-speaking Bishops’ Conferences’ (ICEL’s) excellent new Missal translation, l5 years in the making (available at misguidedmissal.com), to replace the hurried 1973 post-Council translations, and then, in 2001, to reject it. These translations had been approved in 1998 by all eleven English-speaking conferences, exercising authority the Council granted solely to the bishops’ conferences, by a 99.9 per cent Council vote. The CDW’s role was to check adherence to procedures.
The Council’ liturgical constitution calls for translations of “noble simplicity . . . short, clear [sentences] . . .within the people’s powers of comprehension,” that lead to “full conscious, and active participation in the liturgical celebrations” by “all the faithful.” The norms had emerged from over 50 years of liturgical scholarship.
The CDW’s Liturgiam Authenticam dumped Council norms and abandoned the universal use of dynamic equivalence in quality translation. For English prayers it required literal word for word translations from the New Latin Vulgate, even to grammar, syntax, punctuation, and capitalization, and through sacred vocabulary to evoke transcendence and mystery. One moment’s Latin vernacular translation, falsely claimed to have been endorsed by the Council of Trent (which occurred before it), with its now archaic sexist language, should now be the sole basis for 21st century translations in all languages!
The CDW then claimed right of approval of an all-new team of translators to work in secrecy and called an end to decades of ecumenical collaboration to produce common texts. Notre Dame theologian-historian-chant scholar Peter Jeffery calls LA “the most ignorant statement on liturgy ever issued by a modern Vatican congregation.”
The norms promised failure. Secrecy limited consultation; the substitute team lacked expertise. The result is a big step backward. The texts occasioned 10,000 proposed amendments and a new Vatican review group, Vox Clara, continued to make numerous changes even after bishops’ conferences, if reluctantly and under pressure, had given approval. Glaring errors remain—sentence fragments, redundancies, a cue treated as a prayer. The first Eucharistic prayer ends with “we offer you firstly” without a “secondly.” Profusis,, meaning “overflowing,” is translated as “overcome,” beclouding a joyous scene.
Style failures abound. One Eucharistic prayer sentence has 82 words. One Easter Vigil prayer cannot be readily understood. “When supper was ended, he took the cup” becomes “”He took the precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands,” three needless adjectives too many. Is anything gained by saying “incarnate of the Virgin Mary” and “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father” that warrants sacrifice of clarity and availaility to all? Bishop Donald Trautmann, a former U.S. ICEL chair, views “consubstantial,” “chalice,” “born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin,” etc., as reducing understanding rather than bringing Catholics closer to God. Apparently, no one remembered that these texts are to be heard, not read.
Ideology deep-sixed this fine 1997 Collect for the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time: “Almighty and eternal God, Whose bounty is greater than we deserve or desire. Pour out upon us your abundant mercy; forgive the things that weigh upon our consciences. And enrich us with blessings for which our prayers dare not hope.” All new ECEL prayers were discarded.
Why a wooden loyalty to a single undistinguished Latin translation at the price of clarity and intelligibility? Liturgists see traditionalist resistance to clear, simple prose in liturgy; hostility to inclusive language, and an imperious rejection of Council collegiality. Forget prayability and those for whom English is a second language, accented speakers, and children.
Bishop Arfthur Serratelli, current US Bishops’ CDW chair, identifies dissatisfaction with these translations as rising from contemporary individualism which rejects institutional authority in favor of freedom--do-it -yourself liturgical originality, creativity, and diversity. But innovative excesses and efforts to curb them have not been associated with the 1997 translations nor these. Complaints have focused on the illicit imposition of translations at odds with spoken English prayer.
Writing in the July 15 Commonweal, Rita Ferrone sees the thrust of the CDW and Liturgiam Authenticam as the basis for disapproval. Vatican II reforms “that invited aggiornamento and engagement with the world” are sacrificed for a “liturgy reimagined as an event taking place in some sacral space outside of our world, rather than the beating heart of a world made new.” The shadows of John Paul II, who extended the old Latin rite over near-unanimous episcopal objection, and Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, who faulted lack of doctrinal precision in the first vernacular translations, figure in answering why.
When Anthony Rupp, a conservative Benedictine liturgy scholar realized that an unsatisfactory translation was being imposed in violation of the English-speaking bishops’ authority and tempered his promotion, he was dismissed. He now observes that when he thinks of that process and “then of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity. . .I weep.”
The Irish Association of Catholic Priests reject the translation as “archaic, elitist, and obscure, and not in keeping with the natural rhythm, cadence, and syntax of the English language,” a style so convoluted “that it will be difficult to read the prayers in public.” LA actually declares linguistic norms detrimental to the Church’s mission!
Others fault abandonment of the first principle of effective translation into English, to use Anglo-Saxon rather than Latinate words whenever possible and the straitjacket of literal translation in obscuring meaning . The most criticized literal Vatican translation, “Christ died for many,” illustrates; the Latin “the many” is a nuanced way to say “all”!
Prof. Jeffery faults the apparently unqualified translators as “not familiar with the treatment of Greek and Semitic words in the Latin scriptures and liturgies,” “unacquainted with the history of the Credo and the Kyrie,” “use Aquinas as a source of proof texts without regard for what he was actually saying,” “do not understand the relationship between the New Vulgate and the traditional Vulgate,” “seem unaware of the other Latin Bible texts used in the Roman tradition,” and “show no sign of ever having read any patristic exegesis” etc. “The tradition is bursting with vitality,” he observes, “LA is rigid with prohibitions.” “Why would anyone choose the thorns over the roses?” he asks. _________________________________________________________________________________________
New First Sunday of Advent Collect 1997 Opening Prayer
Grant your faithful, we pray, almighty God, Almighty God,
the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ strengthen the resolve of your faithful people
with righteous deeds at his coming, to prepare for the coming of your Christ
so that, gathered at his right hand, by works of justice and mercy,
they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom. so that when we go forth to meet him
Through the Lord Jesus Christ your Son . . . he may call us to sit at his right hand
And possess the kingdom of heaven.
. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .
New Postcommunion 1997 Postcommunion
May those mysteries, O Lord, Lord,
in which we have participated, Grant that in our journey through this passing world
profit us, we pray we may learn from these mysteries
for even now, as we walk amid passing things, to cherish even now the things of heaven
you teach us by them to love the things of heaven and cling to the treasures that never pass away.
And hold fast to what endures. We ask this in the name of Jesus, the Lord
Through Christ our Lord
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The new translation offers some felicities. Ferrone notes the response, “It is right and just,” at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer, which is crisp, easily understood, and avoids the present sexist pronoun. “From the rising of the sun to its setting” is restored in Eucharistic Prayer 3. The prayer before Communion harks again to the Latin “I am not worthy to have you under my roof” but using the Latin subjunctive---“that you should enter under my roof”” strips meaning and poetry.
The Vatican-directed translations will be introduced on the first Sunday of Advent following promotion as a “precious gift” that “delves more deeply into the mystery of Christ” and better reflects the faith (without explaining how). Extensive promotions, from the USCCB to parish bulletins ignore the excellent 1997 translations scuttled by the Vatican and hijacking of translations authority. They compare only the hurried1973 and present translations; ignore serious inadequacies and wide disapproval, and some lob off these translations as if the licit 1997 ones or claim them they further Council objectives they reject. Neither do they mention near uniform reports from the premature South Africa use of the translations that reveal “opposition bordering on outrage,” leading to calls to reconsider use elsewhere and pleas for letters to bishops.
When Cardinal Francis George bullied ICEL to change its norms “or be finished” (Archbishop Denis Hurley chided him for being uncollegial), the fix was in, the bishops’ powers soon taken. Now, Rome claims a right to make its own translations.
Fortunately, the heavy Vatican hand has, so far, fallen only on some 400 million English-speaking Catholics.
____________________________________________
Belgian Catholics issue reform manifesto
John A. Dick, an American historical theologian, has lived in Belgium for 30 years. He is currently visiting professor of religion in American society at the University of Ghent. This report in the National Catholic Reporter includes some information from Catholic News Service
The week before the start of Advent, four Flemish priests issued a church reform manifesto that called for allowing the appointment of laypeople as parish pastors, liturgical leaders and preachers, and for the ordination of married men and women as priests.
By the week's end more than 4,000 of publicly active Catholics had signed on to the "Believers Speak Out" manifesto. By Dec. 1, the number of signers had reached 6,000.
Among the supporters are hundreds of priests, educators, academics and professional Catholics. Two prominent supporters are former rectors of the Catholic University of Leuven, Roger Dillemans and Marc Vervenne.
"These are not 'protest people.' They are people of faith. They are raising their voices. They hope their bishops are listening," said Fr. John Dekimpe, one of four priests who launched the manifesto.
"Some people are fearful about approaching church leadership," said the priest, who lives in Kortrijk. "Is this being a dissident? I don't think so. The Belgian church is a disaster. If we don't do something, the exodus of those leaving the church will just never stop. ... I really want the bishops to reflect deeply about the growing discontent of so many believers."
Among the manifesto's demands, made "in solidarity with fellow believers in Austria, Ireland and many other countries," are that:
· Parish leadership be entrusted to trained laypeople;
· Communion services be held even if no priest is available;
· Laypeople be allowed to preach;
· Divorced people be allowed to receive Communion;
· "As quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood.
So far there has been no official reaction from Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, the Catholic primate of Belgium, any of the other Belgium bishops, or the Vatican. Privately, and off the record, one Belgian bishop has applauded the manifesto.
Jürgen Mettepenningen, a Leuven theologian and former press officer for Léonard, told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen that he hopes the manifesto can lead to a well-thought-out church reform. "When I reflect on what I have written and said over the past years, I can only say that the spirit of the manifesto is the very same spirit in which I have been trying to work to make the church more credible: true to the faith."
Last year, after reports of abuse rocked the Belgian church, an independent commission discovered sexual abuse in most Catholic dioceses and all church-run boarding schools and religious orders. The commission said 475 cases of abuse had been reported to it between January and June this year.
In one of the more prominent cases, Bruges Bishop Roger Vangheluwe was forced to resign after admitting to years of abusing his nephew. In April of this year, he told Belgian television that he had molested another nephew and that it had all started "as a game."
The full text of the manifesto, "Believers Speak Out":
Parishes without a priest, Eucharist at inappropriate hours, worship without Communion: that really should not be! What is delaying the needed church reform? We, Flemish believers, ask our bishops to the break the impasse in which we are locked. We do this in solidarity with fellow believers in Austria, Ireland and many other countries, with all who insist on vital church reform.
We simply do not understand why the leadership in our local communities (e.g., parishes) is not entrusted to men or women, married or unmarried, professionals or volunteers, who already have the necessary training. We need dedicated pastors!
We do not understand why these our fellow believers cannot preside at Sunday liturgical celebrations. In every active community we need liturgical ministers!
We do not understand why, in communities where no priest is available, a Word service cannot also include a Communion service.
We do not understand why skilled laypeople and well-formed religious educators cannot preach. We need the word of God!
We do not understand why those believers who, with very good will, have remarried after a divorce must be denied Communion. They should be welcomed as worthy believers. Fortunately, there are some places where this is happening.
We also demand that, as quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood. We, people of faith, desperately need them now.
____________________________________________
Joe sent the following letter to me. I don’t know where it first appeared.
Venerable Bishops,
Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active.
I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.
I deeply appreciated that the pope invited me, his outspoken critic, to meet for a friendly, four-hour long conversation shortly after he took office. This awakened in me the hope that my former colleague at Tubingen University might find his way to promote an ongoing renewal of the church and an ecumenical rapprochement in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.
Unfortunately, my hopes and those of so many engaged Catholic men and women have not been fulfilled. And in my subsequent correspondence with the pope, I have pointed this out to him many times. Without a doubt, he conscientiously performs his everyday duties as pope, and he has given us three helpful encyclicals on faith, hope and charity. But when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken: Missed is the opportunity for rapprochement with the Protestant churches: Instead, they have been denied the status of churches in the proper sense of the term and, for that reason, their ministries are not recognized and intercommunion is not possible.
Missed is the opportunity for the long-term reconciliation with the Jews: Instead the pope has reintroduced into the liturgy a pre-conciliar prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews, he has taken notoriously anti-Semitic and schismatic bishops back into communion with the church, and he is actively promoting the beatification of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of not offering sufficient protections to Jews in Nazi Germany.
The fact is, Benedict sees in Judaism only the historic root of Christianity; he does not take it seriously as an ongoing religious community offering its own path to salvation. The recent comparison of the current criticism faced by the pope with anti-Semitic hate campaigns – made by Rev Raniero Cantalamessa during an official Good Friday service at the Vatican – has stirred up a storm of indignation among Jews around the world.
Missed is the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims in an atmosphere of mutual trust: Instead, in his ill-advised but symptomatic 2006 Regensburg lecture, Benedict caricatured Islam as a religion of violence and inhumanity and thus evoked enduring Muslim mistrust.
Missed is the opportunity for reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America: Instead, the pope asserted in all seriousness that they had been “longing” for the religion of their European conquerors.
Missed is the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV.
Missed is the opportunity to make peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research.
Missed is the opportunity to make the spirit of the Second Vatican Council the compass for the whole Catholic Church, including the Vatican itself, and thus to promote the needed reforms in the church. This last point, respected bishops, is the most serious of all.
Time and again, this pope has added qualifications to the conciliar texts and interpreted them against the spirit of the council fathers. Time and again, he has taken an express stand against the Ecumenical Council, which according to canon law represents the highest authority in the Catholic Church: He has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions – bishops who were illegally consecrated outside the Catholic Church and who reject central points of the Second Vatican Council (including liturgical reform, freedom of religion and the rapprochement with Judaism).
He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation.
He refuses to put into effect the rapprochement with the Anglican Church, which was laid out in official ecumenical documents by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and has attempted instead to lure married Anglican clergy into the Roman Catholic Church by freeing them from the very rule of celibacy that has forced tens of thousands of Roman Catholic priests out of office.
He has actively reinforced the anti-conciliar forces in the church by appointing reactionary officials to key offices in the Curia (including the secretariat of state, and positions in the liturgical commission) while appointing reactionary bishops around the world.
Pope Benedict XVI seems to be increasingly cut off from the vast majority of church members who pay less and less heed to Rome and, at best, identify themselves only with their local parish and bishop.
I know that many of you are pained by this situation. In his anti-conciliar policy, the pope receives the full support of the Roman Curia. The Curia does its best to stifle criticism in the episcopate and in the church as a whole and to discredit critics with all the means at its disposal. With a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic “Vicar of Christ” who combines the church’s legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict’s policy of restoration has failed. All of his spectacular appearances, demonstrative journeys and public statements have failed to influence the opinions of most Catholics on controversial issues.
This is especially true regarding matters of sexual morality. Even the papal youth meetings, attended above all by conservative charismatic groups, have failed to hold back the steady drain of those leaving the church or to attract more vocations to the priesthood.
You in particular, as bishops, have reason for deep sorrow: Tens of thousands of priests have resigned their office since the Second Vatican Council, for the most part because of the celibacy rule. Vocations to the priesthood, but also to religious orders, sisterhoods and lay brotherhoods are down – not just quantitatively but qualitatively. Resignation and frustration are spreading rapidly among both the clergy and the active laity. Many feel that they have been left in the lurch with their personal needs, and many are in deep distress over the state of the church. In many of your dioceses, it is the same story: increasingly empty churches, empty seminaries and empty rectories. In many countries, due to the lack of priests, more and more parishes are being merged, often against the will of their members, into ever larger “pastoral units,” in which the few surviving pastors are completely overtaxed. This is church reform in pretense rather than fact!
And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries. And to make matters worse, the handling of these cases has given rise to an unprecedented leadership crisis and a collapse of trust in church leadership. There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).
During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope.
Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed “urbi et orbi” by the dean of the College of Cardinals.
The consequences of all these scandals for the reputation of the Catholic Church are disastrous. Important church leaders have already admitted this. Numerous innocent and committed pastors and educators are suffering under the stigma of suspicion now blanketing the church. You, reverend bishops, must face up to the question: What will happen to our church and to your diocese in the future?
It is not my intention to sketch out a new program of church reform. That I have done often enough both before and after the council. Instead, I want only to lay before you six proposals that I am convinced are supported by millions of Catholics who have no voice in the current situation.
1. Do not keep silent: By keeping silent in the face of so many serious grievances, you taint yourselves with guilt. When you feel that certain laws, directives and measures are counterproductive, you should say this in public. Send Rome not professions of your devotion, but rather calls for reform!
2. Set about reform: Too many in the church and in the episcopate complain about Rome, but do nothing themselves.
When people no longer attend church in a diocese, when the ministry bears little fruit, when the public is kept in ignorance about the needs of the world, when ecumenical co-operation is reduced to a minimum, then the blame cannot simply be shoved off on Rome. Whether bishop, priest, layman or laywoman – everyone can do something for the renewal of the church within his own sphere of influence, be it large or small. Many of the great achievements that have occurred in the individual parishes and in the church at large owe their origin to the initiative of an individual or a small group. As bishops, you should support such initiatives and, especially given the present situation, you should respond to the just complaints of the faithful.
3. Act in a collegial way: After heated debate and against the persistent opposition of the Curia, the Second Vatican Council decreed the collegiality of the pope and the bishops. It did so in the sense of the Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter did not act alone without the college of the apostles. In the post-conciliar era, however, the pope and the Curia have ignored this decree. Just two years after the council, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical defending the controversial celibacy law without the slightest consultation of the bishops. Since then, papal politics and the papal magisterium have continued to act in the old, uncollegial fashion. Even in liturgical matters, the pope rules as an autocrat over and against the bishops.
He is happy to surround himself with them as long as they are nothing more than stage extras with neither voices nor voting rights.
This is why, venerable bishops, you should not act for yourselves alone, but rather in the community of the other bishops, of the priests and of the men and women who make up the church.
4. Unconditional obedience is owed to God alone: Although at your episcopal consecration you had to take an oath of unconditional obedience to the pope, you know that unconditional obedience can never be paid to any human authority; it is due to God alone. For this reason, you should not feel impeded by your oath to speak the truth about the current crisis facing the church, your diocese and your country. Your model should be the apostle Paul, who dared to oppose Peter “to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong”! ( Galatians 2:11 ).
Pressuring the Roman authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be permissible and even necessary when they fail to live up to the spirit of the Gospel and its mission. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy, the changes in the regulations governing mixed marriages, the affirmation of tolerance, democracy and human rights, the opening up of an ecumenical approach, and the many other reforms of Vatican II were only achieved because of tenacious pressure from below.
5. Work for regional solutions: The Vatican has frequently turned a deaf ear to the well-founded demands of the episcopate, the priests and the laity. This is all the more reason for seeking wise regional solutions.
As you are well aware, the rule of celibacy, which was inherited from the Middle Ages, represents a particularly delicate problem. In the context of today’s clerical abuse scandal, the practice has been increasingly called into question. Against the expressed will of Rome, a change would appear hardly possible; yet this is no reason for passive resignation. When a priest, after mature consideration, wishes to marry, there is no reason why he must automatically resign his office when his bishop and his parish choose to stand behind him. Individual episcopal conferences could take the lead with regional solutions. It would be better, however, to seek a solution for the whole church, therefore:
6. Call for a council: Just as the achievement of liturgical reform, religious freedom, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue required an ecumenical council, so now a council is needed to solve the dramatically escalating problems calling for reform. In the century before the Reformation, the Council of Constance decreed that councils should be held every five years. Yet the Roman Curia successfully managed to circumvent this ruling. There is no question that the Curia, fearing a limitation of its power, would do everything in its power to prevent a council coming together in the present situation. Thus it is up to you to push through the calling of a council or at least a representative assembly of bishops.
With the church in deep crisis, this is my appeal to you, venerable bishops: Put to use the episcopal authority that was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. In this urgent situation, the eyes of the world turn to you. Innumerable people have lost their trust in the Catholic Church.
Only by openly and honestly reckoning with these problems and resolutely carrying out needed reforms can their trust be regained. With all due respect, I beg you to do your part – together with your fellow bishops as far as possible, but also alone if necessary – in apostolic “fearlessness” ( Acts 4:29, 31 ).
Give your faithful signs of hope and encouragement and give our church a perspective for the future.
With warm greetings in the community of the Christian faith,
Yours,
Hans Küng