tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post5985891621755952469..comments2023-07-01T00:39:39.762-07:00Comments on Father Geoff Farrow: Mass DeceptionFather Geoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03904564207135202567noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-28989341741915754762012-01-02T20:57:33.314-08:002012-01-02T20:57:33.314-08:00"The familiar "and peace to his people o..."The familiar "and peace to his people on earth" is changed to "on earth peace to people of good will." Not only is the latter far more awkward in English, but there's also a problematic sentiment implicit in the new phrase. Why are we only praying that people "of good will" receive peace? This seems to say that people who are without "good will" are not deserving of peace."<br /><br />## The text behind all this is Luke 2.14. The phrase in the Greek means "peace on earth to men of His good will" - it is *not* talking of human good will. The "GW" is the GW of *God* - it is not a Divine "best wishes", but the saving purpose of God; & this purpose is expressed by the Father's gift of Jesus to men.<br /><br />The problem is that the Latin text is a literal rendering of a Greek text which is using a Semuitic turn of expression - the Latin text does not do justice to the Evangelist's theology, so neither does the English translation of the Latin. The Latin of the liturgical text is accurate as rendering of the Greek words & Greek grammar - but it misses the meaning of the Semitic thought behind the Greek. And the same applies to the English translation of the Latin.<br /><br />The upshot of all this is, that the older translation of the English renders the thought of the Evangelist more faithfully than the Latin does. It is more faithful to the thought in Luke 2.14, though less faithful to the Latin words that render Luke 2.14<br /><br />The question is, what is to be the basis for the translation of the Latin liturgical text: the Latin, or the Greek ? The English varies according to the choice made.<br /><br />I hope that makes sense.Rat-biternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-18279708597696333732011-12-22T18:50:36.406-08:002011-12-22T18:50:36.406-08:00Dear Tal,
It is always a delight to read your com...Dear Tal,<br /><br />It is always a delight to read your comments. Yes, technically the Mezoarbic Rite still exists in a handful of Spanish churches; however, it has been practically suppressed.Father Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03904564207135202567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-81055810590989343762011-12-14T09:04:11.436-08:002011-12-14T09:04:11.436-08:00I certainly agree that the move to a technically m...I certainly agree that the move to a technically more perfect translation without vibrancy of language and community is a beggar's bargain. While the Latin deserves respect, I also agree that it shouldn't be driving the show (although unlike Erik, I don't think the Latin should be so easily ignored as a mere historical footnote). Ultimately, the language of the Mass must recognize the present, but in so doing, shouldn't ignore the importance of dignity and beauty to worship (the great sin of the US version of the Mass). So I prefer the new Mass. It generally hits the right notes, although its certainly not perfect and probably could benefit from one more hard edit. <br /><br />Unlike Erik, I think the new text makes the right call on "I believe." I understand the preference for "We believe," but both the Latin ("Credo") and Greek ("Pisteuo") translate directly as "I believe." Because that's what the Church Councils wrote, that's what we should say. "I believe" is also an important, personal affirmation of faith. No hiding in the crowd. You have to take responsibility. Also, I think it wrong to say there is no sense of community in the revised Creed. It's emphasized in the very body of the Mass, when recited by all. As such, the revised Creed balances the communal with the individual.<br /><br />I also disagree with Erik when he brands "consubstantial" as "ridiculous" or "bizarre." While the vernacular should generally be favored, when it doesn't have an adequate way to express a concept, then the right word, even if not in common parlance, should be used. And here, I think "consubstantial" is the right word, because the vernacular has nothing equivalent to "consubstantialem" (which is the precise equivalent of "homoousion" as used in the original Greek form of the Creed). "Consubstantialem," like "consubstantial," means the "same nature, essence or quality." Further, the phrase presently used in place of "consubstantialem"--"one in being"--is both a poor translation of the Latin/Greek and open to unorthodox implications. Other than "consubstantial," there is no single other word in the English language that accurately mirrors "consubstantialem-homoousion."<br /><br />Also, even if one were to agree with Erik on "consubstantial," there's still the issue of what the Creed means when it talks about the nature of Christ to God, as God? The underlying theology is complicated and subtle, developed over centuries, and still controversial between the first churches. I think "consubstantial" neatly puts a bow around it. Ultimately, Erik's point is that "consubstantial" is difficult. But then the Creed is difficult. Avoiding "consubstantial" doesn't do much to resolve the theological challenge posed to the believer. It does, however, make the text more accurate. And so I think again, is preferable to any of the vernacular formulations I've seen.<br /><br />On an historical note, the Council of Trent didn't extinguish the Mozarabic, Ambrosian and other truly ancient Western rites (all rites in use 200 years or more before the Council were preserved). But the Council did bar later innovations, which were generally added to the Roman rite by various communities; complicated ornaments and rituals the cluttered the Mass. The Council of Trent (probably with a nod to Luther and other reformers--although they'd never have admitted it) brought uniformity and simplicity to the Mass, emphasizing the community of the whole Church. This began a shift away from empty ritual and towards the Word and Sacraments. Vatican II in many ways completed Trent's work.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the article Fr. Geoff. This was a fun one.Talhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10370831725911688642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-27733613162603566092011-12-02T17:02:55.675-08:002011-12-02T17:02:55.675-08:00Maybe the Bishops like the new confiteor, since &q...Maybe the Bishops like the new confiteor, since "my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault" doesn't constantly remind them of the recent sex scandal like saying "what I have failed to do."Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199986867747205479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-83004997807425391802011-12-02T10:31:58.468-08:002011-12-02T10:31:58.468-08:00Dear JCF,
In his essay Eric correctly points out ...Dear JCF,<br /><br />In his essay Eric correctly points out that in antiquity liturgies organically developed out of local communities. In medieval Europe, for example, Spain and Portugal used the Mozarabic Rite, France used the Gallican Rite and England the Sarum Rite. The ancient Patriarchal Sees each developed their own Rites. Some of these are still exist as liturgies in the Orthodox and various Eastern Churches. Essentially, all of these contain a liturgy of the Word modeled on Jewish worship and a liturgy of the Eucharist. <br /><br />In the West, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) suppressed the various western Rites and replaced them with the Roman Rite. At Vatican II there was a move towards acculturation of the liturgy. This followed naturally with the replacement of Latin by the various vernacular languages. With the imposition of this new Missal, there seems to be what many fear is a reversal of the movement towards the ancient practice of local organic liturgies. This instead is replaced with a homogenized centralized liturgical format that, as Erik points out, is the product of experts in Rome. <br /><br />Personally, I like the new translation “and with your spirit” far better than the previous, “and also with you.” Not because it is more faithful to the Latin, but because it underscores the fact the each of us are primarily spiritual beings. Our physicality is what is transitory. That does not diminish or in anyway negate our physical reality. However, taken to its logical conclusions the fact that each of us is an immortal spirit should serve to place our current physical reality in a greater context. Hopefully, that serves to view each other, as well as our life decisions, with greater sensitivity and charity. <br /><br />Yes, I was born in Cuba and this significantly shaped my childhood and young adult development. I allude to this in the last posting. Nationality/culture is one of the components that shapes our identity. My Mom tells me, “When I lived in Cuba, I was called a Spaniard. When I flew to America, I instantly became a Cuban. Now, when I visit Spain, I am called an American.”Father Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03904564207135202567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-45459387865201983872011-12-02T10:21:57.162-08:002011-12-02T10:21:57.162-08:00The best explanation I have read about the new Lat...The best explanation I have read about the new Latin Mass (as I no longer frequent the Church). It actually sounds very much like the first English Mass when it was first introduced. The more colloquial English Mass that we used for a long time was understandable but not necessarily eloquent. This new translation seems to be two steps backward and, well, I am not surprised.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04058312079036935995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-68072297587758592762011-12-02T01:26:38.171-08:002011-12-02T01:26:38.171-08:00In my Episcopal tradition (Book of Common Prayer, ...In my Episcopal tradition (Book of Common Prayer, 1979), we have Rite I and Rite II.<br /><br />In Rite I, the greeting of the people to the priest is "And with thy spirit."<br /><br />...the difference is, I believe, that people KNOW the language is archaic. If that's what you prefer, you can probably find a parish using it. But more commonly at the early (less well-attended) service.<br /><br />And that's the thing. Rite I is an OPTION, NOT an imposed mandate!<br /><br />Every once in a great while, I enjoy Rite I. It makes me think.<br /><br />But week in/week out, My Daily Bread, give me Rite II: "The Lord be with you." "And also with you!"<br /><br />[How does "of one being with" NOT accurately translate "consubstantialem"? English is still PREDOMINANTLY Anglo-Saxon! The Vatican has forgotten this. :-X]<br /><br />P.S. Never knew you were Cuban, Geoff! (Such a Celtic name!)JCFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2850096231666604.post-49999382198670140712011-12-01T22:24:39.931-08:002011-12-01T22:24:39.931-08:00I very much agree with much of the critique provid...I very much agree with much of the critique provided in this post by you and Erik. In addition to the points about the Mass parts themselves, the one text they totally destroyed is the Exsultet at the Easter Vigil. They even changed "risen from the grave" to "raised from the underworld."Br. Anselm Philip King-Lowe, OSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02153443604460189234noreply@blogger.com