REFLECTIONS ON OUR FAITH AND ITS PRACTICES

Versione Completa   Stampa   Cerca   Utenti   Iscriviti     Condividi : FacebookTwitter
Pagine: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ..., 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 00:36
Dear Music...Your last sentence - that's what fascinates me, too, about the relic of John the Baptist, whom I always imagine as the boy Jesus's playmate as in a famous painting by Raphael.

I wish I had the time to go through almost a year of Roamin' Roman's blogs from Rome and the churches she has visited where there are relics, including entire bodies "preserved in the odor of sanctity" (i.e., incorrupt), on display.

Of course, the most 'famous' would be John XXIII whose body is on display at the Vatican under glass, but I do not know enough about it to tell whether it is in the state it is because of any embalming method that may have been used (as the Soviets did with Lenin and the Chinese with Mao) or whether it is due to celestial suspension of the laws of nature.

However, I think I read after JP-II's death that the Church never embalms the Pope. Truthfully, I kept expecting a report that an actual 'odor of sanctity' (described somewhere as an overwhelming scent of roses) was emanating from him as JP lay in state in the Basilica. But if he wasn't embalmed and his body 'kept' during the 4 days it was there unrefrigerated (forgive me for the matter-of-fact words), then that's something already!

Sorry, Benefan, about this kind of talk - but you can understand why I had wanted to invite reflections about relics and miracles.
Wulfrune
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 00:47
The hand of John the Baptist is one physical relic that I wouldn't mind seeing and reverencing, for the reasons cited here, the fact that it touched and baptised our Lord. Otherwise, the only physical relics I would feel happy with are locks of hair. Perhaps this is cultural, and reflects my northern-ness.

For myself, I feel more comfortable generally with 'thing' relics, such as a mitten of Padre Pio, or the Shroud of Turin (and the Sudarium, the head cloth, which I've only just heard about).
Discipula
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 00:58
My apologies about relics

Scritto da: benefan 13/06/2006 20.04

Discipula, I saw your post about relics a little while ago but, since I'm at work, I couldn't read it right away. I just went back to try to read the first part of it and it is gone! What happened? It really looked like a good explanation. After reading that post above it about John the Baptist's hand (with skin but minus 2 fingers--shudder), I really, really need to read your article. Help!



Dear benefan, I am sorry I deleted yesterday posts about relics without explanation, the fact is in the aftermath I realised the article comes from an Orthodox website, not a Catholic one, therefore as long as the explanation of the theological and spiritual meaning of relics is very thorough and accurate it may slightly differ from the Catholic doctrine. Since I realised I had made a mistake I thought it better to cancel what I wrote but since you asked, here is the article again for you: [SM=g27822] [SM=g27822]

WHY RELICS?

WHY IS IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF RELICS?
Understanding why icons and saints are so important to the Orthodox Faith (see the 2 previous articles) might seem easy compared to understanding the veneration of saints' relics (their bodies). Why do Orthodox Christians lay out the dead bodies of saints in "fancy" caskets (reliquaries), place them in prominent places in churches, travel great distances to where these bodies/relics are in order to venerate and kiss them, and to pray to the saints by their relics, and to participate in frequent prayer services (akathists and/or molebens) by these relics? Why are the saints' bodies important? This essay will seek to answer precisely these questions.

Frequently it can be difficult for Americans to understand the meaning and significance of relics, and their important role in traditional Orthodox life, for they have unconsciously adopted the secular and Protestant world-view of America, rather than having assimilated an Orthodox world-view. To some, relics might seem weird or even "ghoulish," while others might think that we should "let the saints go on to live in peace in heaven." Some people might even be put off by the concept of the veneration of saints' relics. ["What? People actually go around kissing the bones of dead people?"] However, much to our own loss, it appears that the most common attitude among Orthodox in America (other than in Alaska) is indifference towards saints' relics and their veneration . ["So what's the big deal? So there is this miniscule particle of the bones of some saint in this tiny metal and glass case. So what? Why should I care? What difference does it make to me?"]

Certainly, these seemingly prevalent attitudes in North America are sad and unfortunate, and of course, are totally un-Orthodox or even anti-Orthodox. (We might remind the reader that the rejection of the very concept of saints and the veneration of their relics was a significant element of the 16th century Protestant Reformation.) To a certain extent, however, it is understandable that these attitudes prevail today in America, for two major reasons.

1) Lack of experience and exposure to saints' relics in America

The first major reason for these prevalent attitudes towards saints' relics is the lack of experience and exposure in North America to the relics of saints. We have only very few full relics (by this we mean the entire, complete body) of saints in America, and most of those whom we do have, have been glorified as saints only quite recently. Father Herman of Alaska is the only complete relic whose holy presence has blessed us for a long time (since 1837), and not many people get to go to Kodiak Island, Alaska, where his relics are now (see photo below), having been brought there from Spruce Island, that is far more remote than Kodiak, at the time of his glorification in 1970. (Presently, there are also the complete relics of St. Alexis Toth at St. Tikhon's Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania, and St. John Maximovich in San Francisco.) Thus, most North American-born Orthodox have not grown up accustomed to the awesome and miraculous presence of the relics of saints that exists in traditionally Orthodox countries, such as Russia, Greece and Romania, (unless they have traveled to these other countries as Orthodox pilgrims). American Orthodox have not had the opportunity to become accustomed to making pilgrimages to the saints' relics, or participating in the saints' annual feast day celebrations. They have not had the opportunity and blessing of seeing and participating in this vital aspect of traditional Orthodox life. Therefore, they haven't yet acquired this gift of Orthodox vision --- of seeing the phenomenon of venerating saints' relics from an Orthodox perspective.

2) Lack of experience leads to lack of understanding about saints' relics

The lack of experience with saints' relics leads naturally to the second rather understandable reason for the apparently prevalent indifference to the saints and their relics, namely, the lack of understanding and knowledge about this important aspect of Orthodoxy --- for it can be difficult to understand something that is outside one's experience.

Having thus speculated about why it is difficult for Americans to understand the meaning and importance of saints' relics and their veneration, and having made an observation about the seemingly prevalent attitudes towards the saints and their relics, and why these attitudes might exist, let us now turn our attention to trying to explain precisely why veneration of the saints' relics is so important to Orthodoxy.

WHY IS THE VENERATION OF SAINTS' RELICS SO IMPORTANT TO ORTHODOXY?
1) The relics are a means of grace for us, the living

Why do we venerate saints and their relics? Certainly, the saints do not NEED to be glorified by us as saints. The only reason the Holy Orthodox Church glorifies saints is to help us. The Lord's saints manifest themselves to us who are still on earth in order to assist us. The Lord gives to us the relics of His saints as a means of grace for us --- a visible and tangible means of contact, and as a vehicle of innumerable miracles --- just as He gives to us icons and the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) as vehicles of Divine Grace.

2) The Biblical basis of relics and their veneration

(We will be developing this section.)

3) The relics bear witness to the validity of the purpose of the Orthodox spiritual life, and Orthodox theological and spiritual principles (We will be working on this section some more.)

a) Saints' relics and their veneration are very closely related to the concept of holiness and why there MUST be saints and MUST be icons. (See the other FIREBIRD Articles on this web site, Why Icons?, Prayers for the Journey along the Way), especially #4, "Holiness," and most particularly, Why Saints?) Relics affirm every single assertion made in the Why Saints? article.
b) The veneration of saints is vital to the life of the Holy Orthodox Church, because the existence of saints affirms that it is truly possible to fulfill the Christian vocation --- to become conformed to the image of Christ --- because every Christian is called to be a saint, for Christ commanded us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.
c) The theology of the icon is in part also the theology of the veneration of saints' relics and their frequent incorruption --- in essence, that the body participates in the process of transfiguration / sanctification / deification / theosis --- different words for the same process of salvation.
d) The veneration of saints' relics and their frequent incorruption affirm that the physical world indeed does have the potential for being transfigured and resurrected, as it participates in the restoration of humanity to the beauty of the Divine Image and Likeness. That the physical world participates in the process of sanctification is a fundamental element of Orthodox spiritual theology, and is an underlying principle in both the theology of icons and the theology of the veneration of saints' relics. In this, Orthodoxy diverges to some extent from Roman Catholic theology, and diverges enormously from Protestant theology, which vehemently denies the possibility of the deification (theosis) of humans or the sanctification of the material world. However, it is exactly these very principles (of theosis and sanctification of the physical world), that are manifested and achieved during the years of ascetic and spiritual experiences practiced by so many of the saints, that accounts for the widespread occurrence of the incorruption of saints' bodies. Basically, the saints bodies were so transfigured and deified by their sanctity, that even after their souls separated from their bodies, the elevated sanctity of their bodies remained, so that their flesh did not decompose, and their bodies exude a sweet fragrance. However, even for most of the saints, to whom the gift of incorruption was not given, their bones still exude the miraculous power of the first-fruits of the resurrection and of the Kingdom of God.
e) Incorruption of relics, like icons, affirm that the physical world indeed DOES have the potential for being transfigured and resurrected, as it participates in the restoration of humanity to the beauty of the Divine Image and Likeness. The sanctified and transfigured bodies of the saints, (whether or not they are incorrupt), are so powerful that numerous miracles occur by means of the saint's relics, or even by being annointed with oil from the lamps burning by their relics, or from soil from the ground where the saints are or were buried. Of course, most of the saints were also vehicles of miracles while they were yet in their bodies, and this miraculous grace continues to flow from them after their repose.
f) The physical world was created good and the process of the transfiguration of the world, which is the end purpose of the Orthodox Christian life and struggles, is part of the process of the transfiguration and salvation of each person. The incorruption of saints' bodies and the miracles performed through the relics of saints is a foretaste or firstfruits of the restoration of the world to the way in which God created it.

HOW DO WE EXPERIENCE AND ENCOUNTER THE SAINTS THROUGH THEIR RELICS?
Having briefly considered a few of the spiritual and theological principles that form the basis for the Orthodox veneration of relics, let us now briefly explore and describe the practical experience that Orthodox Christians have or may have with the saints by means of their relics.

1) Antimension/Antimins

First, all Orthodox Christians have a very close experience with the relics of the saints, except that they usually are not aware of it. From the very earliest Christian times, the Divine Liturgy has been celebrated on the tombs of the martyred saints, (those who bore witness to the Faith), where, on the anniversary of the saint's martyrdom, the faithful would go to the catacombs (in Rome) or other place of burial, and celebrate the Divine Liturgy. This earliest Orthodox Christian tradition has been maintained by the Church --- with a certain variation. Since we cannot usually go to the martyred saints' graves, one might say that the Church brings the martyrs' relics to us. How is this done? By means of an Antimension or Antimins. All Orthodox Divine Liturgies MUST be served on top of a special cloth, called an Antimins or Antimension, which is signed by the bishop and given by him to each church under his jursidiction (and occasionally to an individual priest). Upon each antimension is a representation of the entombment / lamentation of Christ, and into the antimension are sewn small particles of the relics (bones) of martyr-saints. Every church has at least one antimension, which permits the Liturgy to be served, under the authority of its bishop. Furthermore, when the full consecration of a temple and its altar is performed by the bishop, relics of martyr-saints are always placed into the altar (holy table) itself. Thus, every person present at each Divine Liturgy is actually participating in the veneration of relics, whether or not the person is aware of it.
2) Encountering the saints through their relics

a) Pilgrimages to venerate a saint's relics

The lively and awesome, even mind-boggling experience of encountering the saints by means of their relics is actually the crux of the whole question of the practical experience of the veneration of saints' relics. When one journeys as a pilgrim to the places where the bodies of the saints are buried, and approaches with faith, one can truly encounter the saint, and feel the saint's holiness and close presence. Generally the saints' relics are miraculous, and very often they are incorrupt. (Incorrupt relics means that the skin has not decomposed, but is still present around the bones, and usually there is a sweet fragrance around the body, rather than the stench of putrefied flesh. In other words, the saint's body is not just a skeleton, but a whole body, with all the skin still there. However, these are not "mummies," for there has been no embalming whatsoever, which has never been an Orthodox practice. There are enumerable examples of incorrupt relics of the saints.) Customarily, after a holy person has been glorified as a saint, either locally or universally, the relics of the saint are placed in a large coffin or casket-like reliquary, which sometimes can be quite ornate, and carried in a grand procession to a new place of honor, often in the main cathedral, that is readily accessible to people to venerate the saint's relics. (This "transferring of relics" is commonly translated in English as the "translation of the relics.") Frequently it has been the many miracles that occur at the site of a holy person's relics, sometimes combined with their incorruption, that creates the impetus to initiate the recognition of the holy person as a saint and leads to their universal glorification, often following long-time local veneration.

St. Xenia of St. Petersburg (St. Petersburg)
Pilgrimages to the relics of saints is not just something historical, belonging to the past, as it tends to be for Roman Catholics and to the West in general, but is very lively and active today in Orthodox countries and in Alaska (which is the closest thing to an Orthodox country in the Western Hemisphere). For example, countless thousands of people flock daily to the chapel over the relics/grave of Blessed St. Xenia of St. Petersburg (see photo to the right), located in the Smolensk Cemetery in St. Petersburg, Russia. (See the FIREBIRD Saints' Lives photo-article, The Life of St. Xenia.) People pray inside the chapel during services that go on throughout the day, lighting candles and venerating her grave. And people pray outside also, walking around the chapel, praying on each side, and praying fervently while leaning their heads against the wall behind which is the grave of the Blessed One. This has been occurring without stop for the almost two centuries since her repose (around 1803).

St. Sergius of Radonezh and St. Innocent of Alaska (Sergiev Posad)
About 45 miles northeast of Moscow, in the city of Sergiev Posad, similar thousands of pilgrims flock to the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra Monastery (see the FIREBIRD photo-article, Beautiful Russia: Sergiev Posad) in order to venerate the relics of St. Sergius of Radonezh (see photo to the left), which are located in the Holy Trinity Church (see the FIREBIRD photo-article, The Life of St.Sergius). In Russia today many of the relics of saints that had been confiscated by the communists, have been recovered and returned to their traditional resting places, including such beloved saints as St. Seraphim of Sarov (see the FIREBIRD photo-article, The Life of St.Seraphim), St. Alexander Svirsky and St. Innocent of Irkutsk (see the photo at the top, and see the FIREBIRD photo-article, The Life of St. Innocent of Irkutsk). The relics of two of our own recently glorified American-Russian saints, St. Innocent of Alaska (see the FIREBIRD photo-article, The Life of St. Innocent of Alaska) and Patriarch St. Tikhon (see theFIREBIRD photo-article, The Life of Patriarch St. Tikhon), have been moved from their original burial sites to a prominent place in a proper reliquary so they can be venerated by the faithful: St. Innocent's relics (see photo to the right) are located by the left front pillar of the Dormition Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Monastery (see the FIREBIRD article, Beautiful Russia: Sergiev Posad), and Patriarch St. Tikhon's relics are in a similar fine reliquary by the left front solea in the main cathedral of the Donskoi Men's Monastery in Moscow.

St. Herman of Alaska (Kodiak)
In North America, numerous pilgrims journey to Kodiak Island, Alaska, each year for the annual feast day celebration and pilgrimage commemorating the glorification of St. Herman on August 8th-9th. Included in this pilgrimage, weather permitting, is the frequently difficult trip to Spruce Island where Father Herman lived for the latter part of his life. (See the FIREBIRD photo-article, The Life of St.Herman). This has been, and always will be, the number one holy place in America, where we can really encounter the presence of a true saint who lived in our own land (and whose full relics are still here), encountering him by means of his holy relics (see photo to the left), in addition to being present where he lived and walked and was buried.
It has been a very strong and ancient Orthodox tradition for the faithful to go on a pilgrimage at least once a year to a holy place (holy, usually because a saint lived and was buried there, or where there is a miraculous icon). Frequently the pilgrimage is made for the saint's feast day, when many thousands may come for the celebration. Usually there is the Vigil for the saint the evening before the feast day, and then the Divine Liturgy is served on the feast day, followed by a Moleben or Akathist to the saint, frequently in conjunction with a procession with an icon of the saint. At the burial-site of specially beloved saints, it is common to sing an Akathist to the saint weekly, as is also done sometimes in parishes when they are blessed to have a small particle of a saint's relics, especially if it is the parish's patron saint, or a saint of the region.

b) What does one do when one venerates a saint's relics?
People venerate a saint's relics in much the same manner as on Holy and Great Friday/Saturday, one venerates the Holy Shroud of Christ's Entombment (the plashchenitsa [Slavic] or Epitaphion (Greek)]: one makes three complete prostrations, and kisses the feet and the hands, and either the Gospels book (on the Holy Shroud), or the mitre or cloth over the head. Usually people venerate a saint's relics through a protective metal and/or glass cover of the reliquary; sometimes this interior cover is all glass, and at other times the interior cover over the lower part of the body is metal, with glass over the head. It is an extraordinary and rare blessing to have the interior cover opened up so that one is able to kiss a saint's holy body itself. There are numerous places throughout Orthodox lands where thousands of pilgrims journey to venerate their local saint or other specially beloved saint. By venerating the saint, not only does one convey one's love for the saint, but also, one may bring into oneself and one's life the holiness and the blessing of the saint, dependent on one's faith and receptivity; and at times various miracles may occur. To be able to venerate the full body relics of the saints where they are buried is an awesome, overwhelming and mind-boggling experience, and an incomparable blessing that words cannot begin to describe.
c) If we can't go to the saints, the saints may come to us

Now, what about the veneration of saints through their relics for all those who cannot go to where the bodies of specially beloved saints are located? In a way similar to the Antimensia, when we cannot go to the saints relics, the Holy Church helps us by allowing the relics to be brought to us. This is usually done by the bishop in whose diocese a saint's relics are located, who takes a small particle of the saint's bones, and puts it into a specially prepared wax mixture which both protects and preserves the bone, and then places this relic-in-wax into a small round mini-reliquary, usually metal with glass. (A common type is like a silver star-burst, such as is attached to the icon of St. Innocent of Irkutsk, to the left.) This mini-reliquary can then be brought to a local church as a special blessing for that church and its people. (Relics are not to be kept in people's homes, but only at church.) It is very common that such small mini-reliquaries will be attached to an icon of the saint (as we see in the three icons shown here: St. Innocent of Irkutsk--to the right; St. Alexis Toth of Wilkes-Barre, PA--below to the left; and St. Herman of Alaska--below to the right), although sometimes they are put into a glass-covered case.

Certainly, it is true that it is more awesome, overwhelming and mind-boggling to be present by the saint's full-body burial casket-reliquary to most fully encounter the presence of the saint. We see a similar phenomenon in daily life, where people go the grave of a loved one to especially communicate with the person and feel the loved one's presence. But if we cannot go to the grave, we might gaze at a photograph of the loved one. Similarly, if we can't go to the beloved saint's burial casket-reliquary, we can gaze at an icon of the saint, through which we can encounter the saint, and we can venerate a little particle of the saint's relics, as though it were the entire body of the holy one, and encounter the entire presence of the saint. Yes, it takes a little more effort on our part to realize that the saint's entire presence is truly in the small particle of his body, but the reward is more than worth the effort. Perhaps we can understand this more vividly, if we reflect how there is a parallel to the experience of receiving Holy Communion: no matter how small a piece of the Body of Christ that we receive in Holy Communion, Christ's Presence exists fully and completely. And thus, in a similar way, if we are blessed to have available to us even the smallest particle of a beloved saint's relics, we can make the conscious choice to approach with faith and venerate that particle as though we were venerating the saint's full body in the saint's casket-reliquary. Furthermore, just as we must neither refuse to approach at all, nor to approach the chalice of Christ's Body and Blood and receive Holy Communion with indifference, so likewise, we must neither refuse to approach at all, nor to approach with indifference the precious relics (and icons) of Christ's Friends, His Holy Ones, His Servants --- the Saints. Let us take full advantage of all the grace which Christ and His Saints offer to us by means of the relics of Christ's Holy Saints, by approaching with reverence, faith and love, and venerating the relics of the Christ's Holy Saints, no matter how large or how small the relics may be.

THROUGH THE PRAYERS OF YOUR HOLY SAINTS,
LORD JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD,
HAVE MERCY UPON US AND SAVE US!


Source: www.firebirdvideos.com

[Modificato da Discipula 14/06/2006 1.03]

Music of Lorien
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 01:23
THE SUDARIUM OF OVIEDO
Wulfrune:

For myself, I feel more comfortable generally with 'thing' relics, such as a mitten of Padre Pio, or the Shroud of Turin (and the Sudarium, the head cloth, which I've only just heard about).



Wulfrune: have you seen Janice Bennett's books? I just started "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image", about the Sudarium of Oviedo, and am completely amazed at the wealth of information and depth of her research. She is a fascinating speaker too, last year she was on EWTN's "WORLD OVER LIVE", interviewed by Raymond Arroyo.

FROM IGNATIUS PRESS:
Inspired by her profound interest in Spanish literature, culture and relics, Janice Bennett has written two books on sacred relics, and is currently working on a third. Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo was originally published in 2001 and then redistributed by Ignatius Press in 2005. It unfolds the historical, scientific, cultural and Biblical investigations surrounding the Sudarium of Oviedo (the ancient blood-stained cloth believed to have covered the Head of Christ after the crucifixion).


P.S. Wulfrune: how "Northern" are you? Generally speaking, of course. (I'm a Lancashire lass). [SM=g27821] [SM=g27822] [SM=g27823]

benefan
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 01:24
DISCIPULA, Thanks so much for re-posting the article. I plan to read it this evening AFTER I eat dinner. And thanks for explaining why you removed it. I hate it when things disappear without a trace on this forum.

[Modificato da benefan 14/06/2006 4.35]

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 01:28

WOW! Thank you, Discipula. Even if the article is from an Orthodox viewpoint, it is very informative, and I do not think that Catholic belief about relics would be much different. With a beautiful explanation for incorruption....

Much food for thought here...And maybe we can eventually find an equally informative Catholic source on the subject.

Once again, thank you! I will be better prepared as I try to collect and set down my own thoughts about relics and their value.
Wulfrune
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 02:43
The Sudarium
Music - yes I saw Janice Bennet talking about the Sudarium on EWTN and I ordered up her book. It is fascinating!!!! She's done one on the Holy Grail (apparently that too exists) but it's expensive so I haven't read it. The Sudarium book is really amazing stuff, however.

My 'nick' on this forum refers obliquely to my place of birth. Wolverhampton was founded by a woman, Wulfrun, in the Anglo Saxon era. I was something of an Anglo Saxonist at university so was delighted my original hometown was founded at that time. I live in Surrey now, however.

Sorry to digress.
Music of Lorien
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 03:58
Relics and Miracles
Wulfrune: great 'nick'! Maybe, in addition to one favorite Professor Ratzinger, we might share another favorite prof, Tolkien: Anglo-Saxon at Oxford [SM=g27823]
Ooooh to have been a student [SM=g27822] (I moved too, to Texas.)

Teresa: thanks for opening up this discussion, especially since our dear Papa has already been mentioned in connection with a miracle, little Victor. Let's pray for continued healing for the little lad.

Discipula, thanks for the great article.
benefan
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 04:27

Music, not to butt in but what part of Texas? I'm next door in Louisiana and I have a daughter in Austin and a sister in Plano. They like Papa too but, of course, not on the scale that we do.


Discipula, I had dinner long enough ago that I think it is safe for me to read your article now. Thanks for posting it and then resurrecting it. I am still amazed at how quickly you posted it after my initial comments about having a problem with venerating body parts or even looking at them, saintly though they may be.





TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 12:53
WHAT'S TURNING OFF MEN FROM GOING TO CHURCH?
I am re-posting here an article posted by Benefan earlier in ODDS AND ENDS because it makes some interesting observations but not, I think, everything that can be said on the subject, which definitely invites comments and discussion!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Empty Pews: Where Did All The Men Go?
Gender Gap Threatens Churches' Future

By Kristen Campbell and Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Washington Post Online


Men don't need pirates in the pews. Then again, the presence of such swashbucklers might not be the worst thing to happen to a Sunday morning.

So goes the thinking of David Murrow, author of "Why Men Hate Going to Church."

"We don't have to have hand-to-hand combat during the worship service to get men there," Murrow said. "We just have to start speaking [their language], use the metaphors they understand and create an environment that feels masculine to them."

Today's churches, Murrow argued, just aren't cutting it.

"My background is in marketing and advertising, and one day I was sitting in church, and all of a sudden it dawned on me that the target audience of almost everything about church culture was a 50- to 55-year-old woman," said Murrow, a Presbyterian elder who's now a member of a nondenominational congregation in Anchorage.

The gender gap is not a distinctly American one but it is a Christian one, according to Murrow. The theology and practices of Judaism, Buddhism and Islam offer "uniquely masculine" experiences for men, he said.

"Every Muslim man knows that he is locked in a great battle between good and evil, and although that was a prevalent teaching in Christianity until about 100 years ago, today it's primarily about having a relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally," Murrow said.

"And if that's the punch line of the Gospel, then you're going to have a lot more women than men taking you up on your offer because women are interested in a personal relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally. Men, generally, are not
."

Concern about the perceived femininization of Christianity-- and the subsequent backlash-- is nothing new.

In the middle of the 19th century, two-thirds of church members in New England were women, said Bret E. Carroll, professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus. Portrayals of Jesus around that time depicted a doe-eyed savior with long, flowing hair and white robes.

Then, around the 1870s and 1880s, came a growing emphasis on making religion attractive to men. The movement known as "muscular Christianity" extolled manliness and had its heyday from 1880 to 1920, according to Clifford Putney, author of the book "Muscular Christianity."

Around the same time, fraternal orders grew exponentially among the urban middle classes, according to an online article by Mark C. Carnes, author of "Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America."

Not only did the groups provide men with opportunities to cultivate business connections, Carnes writes, but they appealed to some who "found satisfaction in the exotic rituals, which provided a religious experience antithetical to liberal Protestantism and a masculine 'family' vastly different from the one in which most members had been raised."

Fast forward to the late 20th century, when Promise Keepers experienced enormous-- if somewhat fleeting-- popularity. Determining the lasting influence of this or any other movement in men's spiritual lives proves difficult.

But the Rev. Chip Hale, pastor of Spanish Fort United Methodist Church in Spanish Fort, Ala., said he believes "real strides" have been made with Promise Keepers and other men's movements. Mission trips and hurricane relief work have also helped to make faith become real for some.

"These guys have really come out because it's something they can do," Hale said. "They feel like they've made a contribution. . . . I think men like to do things that they feel comfortable doing."

Yet come Sunday morning, "we're going to sing love songs to Jesus and there's going to be fresh flowers on the altar and quilted banners on the walls," Murrow said.

Men aren't the only ones alienated by such an environment. According to Murrow, young people aren't that keen on it either. Both groups are challenge-oriented and appreciate risk, adventure, variety, pleasure and reward-- values some churches "ignore or vilify," according to Murrow.

Murrow said "it would look like the rapture" if women didn't come to the typical church one Sunday.

"The whole thing would grind to a halt," said Murrow, who said he wrote the book for laywomen in particular. "They're the ones who are suffering most from this gender gap. A lot of women feel overworked and underappreciated in our churches today because they are carrying the load."

At Jerusalem Baptist Church at 2600 P St. NW in Georgetown, more women than men show up even when the church holds a men's event.

"I have never known us to have more men than women," said the church's pastor, the Rev. R. Clinton Washington, who estimates about 80 percent of his church members are women. "I don't know any church that does."

Women in the historic black congregation say they pray for the husbands and young men who don't join them in the pews, but they don't allow the statistics to stifle their faith.

"It doesn't bother me," said Jean Lucas, a longtime member, gathered with other women in the back of the church after a recent two-hour service. "Women run the church. They have to. . . . We don't have any men."

Churches have to help men and women use their gifts, not just fit them into old religious molds, Murrow said.

"There has to be some stretching and risk or you're not going to get men, and I think you're not going to get the upcoming generation of women either," he said. "We're ripping women off by making the church so much about nurturing and caring and relationships, and they're missing that component that they need."
Music of Lorien
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 15:59
Benefan (to answer your question from above) - near Houston.
I remember you are 'next door' from posts at the RFC after the hurricanes last year [SM=g27819] and also here you have kept us informed of the recovery, work of Catholic Charities and the aid sent by Pope Benedict. Judging from his recent address to the youth assembled at Blonie Field in Krakow, the aftermath of Katrina is still very much on his mind.

[Modificato da Music of Lorien 15/06/2006 0.22]

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 16:10
SPEAKING OF RELICS...
The Holy Father at the general audience today referred to a "distinguished relic of St. Andrew" which had been kept at St. Peter's Basilica until Pope Paul VI 'returned' it in 1964 to the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Patras, Greece, the place where Andrew was crucified, as a token of ecumenism.

I haven't had time to look it up but if anyone knows anything about the relic (body part or part of his Cross?, please share it here.
Discipula
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 17:05
Re: SPEAKING OF RELICS...

Scritto da: TERESA BENEDETTA 14/06/2006 16.10
The Holy Father at the general audience today referred to a "distinguished relic of St. Andrew" which had been kept at St. Peter's Basilica until Pope Paul VI 'returned' it in 1964 to the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Patras, Greece, the place where Andrew was crucified, as a token of ecumenism.

I haven't had time to look it up but if anyone knows anything about the relic (body part or part of his Cross?, please share it here.



Teresa, I don't want to make benefan shudder but I reckon the relic our Holy Father referred to during this morning audience is no less than St. Andrew's head, anyway since I am not sure I'll try to find something more about it. [SM=x40792] [SM=g27822]
benefan
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 18:11

Discipula: "Teresa, I don't want to make benefan shudder but I reckon the relic our Holy Father referred to during this morning audience is no less than St. Andrew's head..."


Benefan: Discipula, you've got to be kidding. Good grief! Why can't we just bury these poor saints and build a nice shrine over their body part instead of passing around their head or 3-fingered hand with shriveled skin or whatever.

Of course, this discussion would come up just when I am trying to eat a mid-morning croissant and cup of coffee. Whose idea was it to start talking about relics, Teresa???
Discipula
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 23:17
Re:

Scritto da: benefan 14/06/2006 18.11

Of course, this discussion would come up just when I am trying to eat a mid-morning croissant and cup of coffee. Whose idea was it to start talking about relics, Teresa???



[SM=x40791] [SM=x40791]

In case anyone is interested, today I’ve been ffz-speaking about relics with my “know-it-all” friend Regin from the main forum and she told me she agrees with Teresa as how differences between Catholic and Orthdox Faith concerning the veneration of Saints’ body parts should be very little since the cult of relics dates back to the first millenium, therefore before the Oriental Church Schism. [SM=g27829] [SM=g27821]

[Modificato da Discipula 14/06/2006 23.20]

Discipula
00mercoledì 14 giugno 2006 23:40
Re: WHAT'S TURNING OFF MEN FROM GOING TO CHURCH?

Scritto da: TERESA BENEDETTA 14/06/2006 12.53
I am re-posting here an article posted by Benefan earlier in ODDS AND ENDS because it makes some interesting observations but not, I think, everything that can be said on the subject, which definitely invites comments and discussion!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Empty Pews: Where Did All The Men Go?
Gender Gap Threatens Churches' Future

By Kristen Campbell and Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Washington Post Online


Men don't need pirates in the pews. Then again, the presence of such swashbucklers might not be the worst thing to happen to a Sunday morning.

So goes the thinking of David Murrow, author of "Why Men Hate Going to Church."

"We don't have to have hand-to-hand combat during the worship service to get men there," Murrow said. "We just have to start speaking [their language], use the metaphors they understand and create an environment that feels masculine to them."

Today's churches, Murrow argued, just aren't cutting it.

"My background is in marketing and advertising, and one day I was sitting in church, and all of a sudden it dawned on me that the target audience of almost everything about church culture was a 50- to 55-year-old woman," said Murrow, a Presbyterian elder who's now a member of a nondenominational congregation in Anchorage.

The gender gap is not a distinctly American one but it is a Christian one, according to Murrow. The theology and practices of Judaism, Buddhism and Islam offer "uniquely masculine" experiences for men, he said.

"Every Muslim man knows that he is locked in a great battle between good and evil, and although that was a prevalent teaching in Christianity until about 100 years ago, today it's primarily about having a relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally," Murrow said.

"And if that's the punch line of the Gospel, then you're going to have a lot more women than men taking you up on your offer because women are interested in a personal relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally. Men, generally, are not
."

Concern about the perceived femininization of Christianity-- and the subsequent backlash-- is nothing new.

In the middle of the 19th century, two-thirds of church members in New England were women, said Bret E. Carroll, professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus. Portrayals of Jesus around that time depicted a doe-eyed savior with long, flowing hair and white robes.

Then, around the 1870s and 1880s, came a growing emphasis on making religion attractive to men. The movement known as "muscular Christianity" extolled manliness and had its heyday from 1880 to 1920, according to Clifford Putney, author of the book "Muscular Christianity."

Around the same time, fraternal orders grew exponentially among the urban middle classes, according to an online article by Mark C. Carnes, author of "Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America."

Not only did the groups provide men with opportunities to cultivate business connections, Carnes writes, but they appealed to some who "found satisfaction in the exotic rituals, which provided a religious experience antithetical to liberal Protestantism and a masculine 'family' vastly different from the one in which most members had been raised."

Fast forward to the late 20th century, when Promise Keepers experienced enormous-- if somewhat fleeting-- popularity. Determining the lasting influence of this or any other movement in men's spiritual lives proves difficult.

But the Rev. Chip Hale, pastor of Spanish Fort United Methodist Church in Spanish Fort, Ala., said he believes "real strides" have been made with Promise Keepers and other men's movements. Mission trips and hurricane relief work have also helped to make faith become real for some.

"These guys have really come out because it's something they can do," Hale said. "They feel like they've made a contribution. . . . I think men like to do things that they feel comfortable doing."

Yet come Sunday morning, "we're going to sing love songs to Jesus and there's going to be fresh flowers on the altar and quilted banners on the walls," Murrow said.

Men aren't the only ones alienated by such an environment. According to Murrow, young people aren't that keen on it either. Both groups are challenge-oriented and appreciate risk, adventure, variety, pleasure and reward-- values some churches "ignore or vilify," according to Murrow.

Murrow said "it would look like the rapture" if women didn't come to the typical church one Sunday.

"The whole thing would grind to a halt," said Murrow, who said he wrote the book for laywomen in particular. "They're the ones who are suffering most from this gender gap. A lot of women feel overworked and underappreciated in our churches today because they are carrying the load."

At Jerusalem Baptist Church at 2600 P St. NW in Georgetown, more women than men show up even when the church holds a men's event.

"I have never known us to have more men than women," said the church's pastor, the Rev. R. Clinton Washington, who estimates about 80 percent of his church members are women. "I don't know any church that does."

Women in the historic black congregation say they pray for the husbands and young men who don't join them in the pews, but they don't allow the statistics to stifle their faith.

"It doesn't bother me," said Jean Lucas, a longtime member, gathered with other women in the back of the church after a recent two-hour service. "Women run the church. They have to. . . . We don't have any men."

Churches have to help men and women use their gifts, not just fit them into old religious molds, Murrow said.

"There has to be some stretching and risk or you're not going to get men, and I think you're not going to get the upcoming generation of women either," he said. "We're ripping women off by making the church so much about nurturing and caring and relationships, and they're missing that component that they need."



Teresa, this article is really interesting and thought-provoking! [SM=g27811]

Before now I had never realised that Christian theology sounds more suitable to women instead of men as well as I had never realised that theologies in other religions are, on the contrary, made preferably for men.
I would like to translate the article myself and have it posted also in the main forum but I am not sure I'd be able to do a good job, I know you are very busy but if you could find some time pleeeeease ... [SM=g27824] [SM=g27822] [SM=g27823]
benefan
00giovedì 15 giugno 2006 18:04

Bishops may alter the words of mass

Changes to be more faithful to Latin text

By Margaret Ramirez
Chicago Tribune religion reporter

June 15, 2006

Words of worship that have been familiar for three decades in America's Roman Catholic churches could change if U.S. bishops meeting in Los Angeles this week approve a new English translation of prayers and blessings used to celebrate mass.

Perhaps the most noticeable revision would be heard after the priest says, "The Lord be with you." The response of the people would change from "and also with you" to "and with your spirit."

The proposed changes follow strict rules for liturgical translation set by the Vatican in 2001 under the late Pope John Paul II that are meant to be more faithful to the original Latin text of the Roman missal, the book that guides the mass. Though many of the changes are slight, they nonetheless alter parts of the mass that Catholics hold close to their hearts.

The profession of the faith known as the Nicene Creed, for example, would change at the beginning from "We believe" to "I believe." The line that says "one in being with the Father" would switch to "consubstantial with the Father." In addition, "He was born of the Virgin Mary" would become "by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary."

The new translation has inspired intense debate--dubbed "the liturgy wars" by some observers--among bishops over whether to approve, amend or reject it. The translation needs a two-thirds majority vote before it can go to Pope Benedict XVI for final approval.

Purists praise the new translation as a more dignified, literal reading of the Latin. Others criticize the new translation as needlessly archaic, arguing that the familiar, more pastoral text should remain in place.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago was the U.S. representative to the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, the panel of bishops from 11 English-speaking countries that prepared the translation.

In addition to concerns about language, George said many bishops have expressed fear over disrupting the mass as leaders work to restore trust damaged by the sexual abuse scandal.

"Liturgy is what the church is all about, so no matter what the question is, liturgy inspires intense debate," George said in an interview.

"Everybody knows that this translation is far more faithful to the Latin," he said. "Whether or not it is a good example of the receiver language, English, is one consideration. Whether or not, no matter how good it is, is this the time to change anything, is another consideration. Those are the two arguments going back and forth as the bishops struggle with whether or not to pass this."

Approving a new "Order of Mass," which includes the prayers and blessings commonly repeated at every service, is the first step in a long process of translating the entire book of prayers for the mass, known as the Roman missal.

New Latin missal

The need for new translations arose after Pope John Paul II approved a new Latin edition of the Roman missal in January 2000. Other portions of the missal are currently being translated, George said, and the new language would probably not be used in parishes for another two to three years.

"The reason we have to do the translation is that we have a new edition of the Roman missal, and we have to start using it pretty soon," George said.

In the Chicago archdiocese, early discussions have already begun on developing brochures and leaflets for parishioners that explain the changes in the mass.

"These are changes that every single Catholic will notice," said Todd Williamson, director of the archdiocesan office for divine worship. "There is the potential for disruption, so we have to do all we can to help people understand."

Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., has been one of the most outspoken critics of the new translation, calling it "too rigid" and saying it emphasizes fidelity to the Latin original at the expense of language that is more meaningful to the people. Trautman, chair of the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, said an internal poll showed bishops are split on the matter, with 52 percent favoring the new translations and 47 percent judging them "fair or poor."

"Liturgical language must not just be faithful and accurate, but intelligible, proclaimable, dignified and reflective of the contemporary mainstream of the English language as spoken in the United States," Trautman said during a lecture at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress.

Despite the opposition to the new translation, a Vatican official warned last month that liturgical translations not in accord with Roman rules would not be approved.

In a strongly worded letter, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, told Bishop William Skylstad, president of the U.S. bishops' conference, that the American church would not receive special permission to continue using defective texts.

"It is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past 30 or 40 years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes," he wrote.

Most see need for revision

Though bishops are divided on the effectiveness of the new translation, most agree on the need for revision. Catholic scholars have said the current translation was done in haste as part of the sweeping reforms of the Second Vatican Council, resulting in inaccuracies.

George also noted that some of the changes would bring the English-speaking church in line with the rest of the Catholic world. For example, when the Catholic mass is said in Spanish, the response for "The Lord be with you" already includes the word espiritu to recognize the spirit of Christ. The choice of "And also with you" in English was meant to make the translation more personable, George said.

"We're the only major linguistic group that chose not to translate the 'spirit,'" George said. "That's the problem when you get a translation that's too close to a particular generation or too close to a zeitgeist. It picks up the desires or proclivities of a particular group and is forgetful that popular culture itself changes very, very rapidly. So, a lot of the problems that we've got right now ... are the result of choices made before that was a consideration. And they're embarrassing."

Some Catholics say they are pleased the bishops will consider a translation more faithful to the original Latin.

"That's fine with me," said Peter Owen, 27, after attending an afternoon mass at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago this week. "I think the language we have now oversimplified much of the original Latin."

Ed Kestler, 75, said small changes in language would not impact his faith.

"Whatever they come with, I'll support them," said Kestler, a retired accountant. "I've seen so many changes throughout my lifetime ... and it hasn't weakened my faith."

- - -

Retranslating words of worship

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops will vote on whether to approve a new English translation of the Order of Mass, a move that could change the familiar prayers and blessings that have been recited in churches for 30 years.

Some proposed changes to the Order of Mass

FROM THE PENITENTIAL RITE

All: I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do.

PROPOSED ADDITION

. . . through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.

FROM THE PRAYER BEFORE COMMUNION

Priest: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.

All: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.

PROPOSED REVISION

Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

FROM THE SECOND EUCHARISTIC PRAYER

Priest: Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

PROPOSED REVISION

Therefore, make holy these gifts, we pray, by the dew of your Spirit . . .

FROM THE INTRODUCTORY RITE

Priest: The Lord be with you.

All: And also with you.

PROPOSED REVISION

And with your spirit.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 16 giugno 2006 01:37
THE PROPER LANGUAGE FOR THE MASS
From the site of the US National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the full text of the address today by the Chairman of the international committee on the English-language translation of the Mass text to the US bishops who are to vote on the proposed changes.

All I've read in the blogs so far indicate it will be a close call - i.e., that at least half as many bishops in the United States think that the translations that have been used for the past 40 years are just fine and need no tinkering with.

Having been raised on and loving the Latin rite in the first 15 years of my life, I am, of course, highly prejudiced in favor of the Latin text whenever possible...But I cannot understand bishops who say that to make any changes at all in the English translation of the Mass texts would discombobulate the congregation!

If you do not expect your own congregation to follow a rule that is laid down by the Church in something as relatively minor as how to translate "Et cum spirito tuo" or "ut intres sub tectum meum" ('that Thou shouldst come under my roof' - and as you can see, in my own mind, I still have the 'Biblical English' translations I grew up with) - then obviously, you would also let them have their way in the more important things, such as divorce or abortion or euthanasia, you name it! Aren't bishops supposed to be leaders of their flock?


Anyway, Bishop Roche might be addressing himself here directly to US bishops like Bishop Trautman.....

---------------------------------------------------------------

Address to the US Bishops’ Conference
Right Reverend Arthur Roche
Bishop of Leeds
Chairman of ICEL


Los Angeles
15 June 2006

First of all I should like to thank you for this kind invitation to join you today. It is an honour to be here, and I sincerely hope that my small contribution to your debate will be of some assistance. It will not be possible to address every issue, but I will endeavour to address those issues that seem to be of concern.

We have all have heard the old chestnut, ‘What is the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist?, but I had no idea at all when I was elected chairman of ICEL, four years ago, that what, at first, seemed to me to be a reasonably straightforward task would be the forum for such controversy.

What a shame it would be if the most important tool we have for formation and worship was reduced to politics, as if the highest or only form of discourse we can manage in the Church (or society) is political discourse.

I stand before you, as you know, as the representative of 11 bishops who themselves represent 11 countries, including your own. The Order of Mass now before you is the fruit of our work.

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking you, the bishops of the United States, for your involvement in this work. You have sent us a huge quantity of comments on the successive drafts that we have offered you. Indeed, the notable scholarship from among the members of your own Conference has greatly contributed to and enhanced this whole project. ICEL has done its best to take all your comments and observations into account and produce a version that will respond to your wishes.

At the same time we have also been listening to comments from bishops of our other ten member countries as well as the directives of the Holy See, particularly those expressed in Liturgiam authenticam. But all of that you are aware of, because you yourselves approved our statutes when ICEL was being reconstituted four years ago. Needless to say, those statutes included working under the guidance of Liturgiam authenticam.

I have sometimes wondered, as we have progressed this work, how is it possible to respond to so many voices? Indeed, how can we produce a single version of the Roman Order of Mass for use in so many countries? Does not the English spoken in the United States differ so much from that spoken in, say, New Zealand, that we need more than one version of the Missal?

I am also aware from some of the comments that we have received from you that within the United States itself there is already considerable, well-documented linguistic variation. Some of you will speak of soda, some will say pop, and others will say cola; with their drink some will eat a hoagy, some a grinder some a hero and some, to the astonishment of British ears, a submarine!

I would guess that there is not a person in this room who cannot tell his own story about a Southerner visiting the North who was unable to make himself understood. In my own country it is often the other way round – the people in the South tend to find those of us from the North unintelligible. You, too, may be more appreciative of that by the time I get to the end of this address!

These examples, of course, do not indicate that the United States is a modern Tower of Babel. Far from it. Alongside the regional variations there is an American Standard English by means of which people from all over the country communicate with each other. Its use is reinforced by Television and Radio.

I noticed that in the early stages of our consultation on the Order of Mass, voices were raised in the South objecting to the use of ‘you all’ in the priest’s greeting because of the way in which those words are used in the South. Later, this objection was not heard, presumably because one linguistic area cannot determine the language of the whole country: ‘you all’ is not used in American Standard English as it is used in the South and, as far as I am aware, nobody suggested that the South should have its own separate Missal.

The same principle can be applied internationally. There is an International Standard English, which we encounter when we buy a piece of equipment with instructions in many languages and only one English version.

Research on regional variation in English tends to show that the common ground among the regions is far greater than differences between them. English is still a single language. One of the leading linguistic scholars of our time, David Crystal, has written this:

"It is difficult to predict the shape of international English in the twenty-first century. But it seems likely that more rather than less standardization will result . . . We may, in due course, all need to be in control of two standard Englishes - the one which gives us our national and local identity, and the other which puts us in touch with the rest of the human race. In effect, we may all need to become bilingual in our own language." (1)

Does this sound familiar, I wonder? Fifteen hundred years ago, Latin continued to be used while the Romance languages were growing out of it. Moreover, Latin became a vehicle of culture and faith for those who spoke Germanic languages. It was by means of Latin that the faith was preserved and transmitted in Western Europe. It needs to be remembered now that in many parts of the world it is English that will be called upon to play a similar rôle.

Also in many countries where English is not much spoken, the English version of liturgical texts plays an important function, because it is used as a guide to translating the Latin.

There are, of course, some languages with speakers or scholars fluent in Latin. For instance, in New Zealand earlier this year I met a scholar who is translating the Mass from Latin directly into Fijian. In Maynooth, Ireland, a team is at work translating Latin texts directly into Gaelic.

But in Norway and many parts of Africa and Asia, for instance, the translators rely heavily on the English version. I imagine that may be the case here, too, when the Mass is translated into Native American languages. We clearly have a responsibility to these people.

At a meeting of the Presidents of English-speaking Episcopal Conferences in Rome, in October 2003, many Episcopal Conferences requested ICEL to share with them our scholarship in order to help them with their own translations. This is readily made available.

I often hear it said that objections to ICEL’s recent work are really objections to Liturgiam authenticam. Allow me to offer you a few thoughts on that document which is welcomed by some and rejected by others rather like the annual government budgets.

It is to be remembered, however, that Liturgiam authenticam is a child of Pope John Paul II’s document Vigesimus quintus annus, marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of Sacrosanctum concilium, which called for an opportune stock-taking, not least in the area of faithfulness in translation.

Its stipulations differ markedly from those of the earlier document known as Comme le prévoit. That was issued in 1969 by the Consilium with the responsibility for putting into effect the Council’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. We need to note, however, that these two documents do not have the same status: the earlier document was issued by the Consilium, the latter by the Congregation.

At the heart of Comme le prévoit was the idea of ‘dynamic equivalence’, achieved when a translator detaches the ‘content’ of an utterance from the ‘form’ in which it is expressed.

We have an examples of this in our current Mass-texts. For example, in the Third Eucharistic prayer when we say so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made. The proponents of dynamic equivalence tell us that "from east to west" conveys the same information as 'from the rising of the sun to its setting’, which we now propose. And so it does, in the dry language of the cartographer.

But the meaning of this phrase is richer: it has a temporal dimension as well as a spatial one. We could have made both meanings explicit by saying from east to west and from dawn to dusk, but I would claim that by staying closer to the form of expression that we find in Malachi 1:11, and I quote:

"See, from the rising of the sun to its setting all the nations revere my Name and everywhere incense is offered to my Name as well as a pure offering."- we have produced a richer and more evocative version, bringing to the mind of the worshipper the beauties of the sunrise and sunset and the closeness of these texts to Sacred Scripture.

Another example is found in the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer in the phrase "the fruit of the vine" in the Institution Narrative. Currently we say "he took the cup filled with wine", as you know, and some argue that "the fruit of the vine" means the same as the single word "wine", and that the simpler expression should be preferred. But we hear the words "the fruit of the vine" on the lips of the Lord himself in all three synoptic Gospels – which I would consider as being more than enough reason to respect their form.

Moreover, though the two expressions refer to the same substance, they do so in an entirely different way. The difference between the single word and the richer phrase is the difference between reading the label on the bottle and actually enjoying a glass-full of the wine itself.

Furthermore this phrase has a powerful salvific resonance because of the symbolic value accorded to the vine plant and the vineyard in scripture, as recalled by Jesus’s elaboration in John 15 of the image of Himself as the true vine, His Father as the vinedresser, and ourselves as the branches.

This picks up on an even earlier usage in Isaiah 5 – the famous “Song of the Vineyard” - and the Lord’s lament at the degeneracy of his once choice vine in Jeremiah 2.

Of course, the word wine connects with this scriptural patrimony, but it does so less evidently, less directly than does the phrase "fruit of the vine" which, upon each hearing, encourages us in our imaginations to see the particular Eucharistic event as part of the unfolding of God’s universal plan within history to rescue us from the destruction and chaos occasioned by our sinfulness and bring us into communion with Himself and with each other in Christ.

Dynamic equivalence has become an outmoded idea: even its originator, Eugene Nida, ceased to use it in his later writings. Over the last thirty years specialists in language have become more aware that the form we choose for an utterance is itself expressive of our purpose in speaking. This is particularly important when we make requests.

It is one thing for me to say "turn on the light" and another for me to say "would you turn on the light"? Both utterances convey the information that I want the light to be turned on by you. But we speak not only to inform, but also to persuade.

Much of our liturgical language consists of requests made to God. Sometimes, these are expressed very simply and directly, as in the Collect for the first Friday of Advent:

Stir up your power, O Lord,
and come to our aid with mighty strength
. . . (A22co)

But some are more elaborately expressed, as in the Collect for Tuesday of the same week:

Be moved by our pleading, Lord God, we pray,
and in our trials
grant us the help of your compassion
. . . (A12co)

This might be called the ‘courtesy’ of the Missal. Liturgiam authenticam, insisting that translators respect the forms of expression found in the Liturgy, encourages us to speak humbly and courteously to God.

But forms of courtesy vary from region to region: you know, for instance, how bishops are addressed differently in different countries. Courteous requests are often made in the form of questions like would you turn on the light? which do not seem appropriate for the Liturgy, since while Hebrew prayers often ask questions of God, Latin ones do not. In consequence, deprecatory language, which is necessary for a faithful translation of the Liturgy, does not come readily to hand.

Translators have found that they need to stay close to the Latin in order to remain faithful to it, and users of these texts will be learning a new language of liturgical prayerful courtesy.

Often, the form of a liturgical utterance will convey a doctrinal message. An important instance of this is the link between the Epiclesis and the Institution Narrative in the Eucharistic Prayers. In the First and Second Eucharistic Prayers, these form a single syntactic unit. In the Third and Fourth they are joined by the conjunction enim, which we have translated with the English word for. For example, in the third Eucharistic Prayer:

Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you:
make holy by the same Spirit
these gifts we have brought to you for consecration,
that they may become the Body and Blood
of your Son our Lord Jesus Christ
at whose command we celebrate these mysteries.
For he himself
on the night he was handed over
took bread …


It seemed imperative to respect the form of the Latin text in order to show a link between the action of the Holy Spirit and the action of Christ.

‘Formal equivalence’ is the name often given to the goal recommended in Liturgiam authenticam. Its methods need to be used carefully and flexibly, and we have tried not to use them slavishly. The Holy Father himself is reported as saying recently that the purpose of Liturgiam authenticam is not to produce a word-for-word translation, but a faithful translation. And that is what we have tried to do.

I often share with my brother English and Welsh bishops an insight that I have gained through being involved with this work. It is this, and I say it with the greatest respect, but the more I go through this process the clearer it is to me that very many of us need to revisit the theological reasoning behind the various parts and components of the Mass, as well as considering the theological sources from which the texts of the Mass have been culled. In the main, these are the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church.

In this regard I would like to make a general point, but one I believe to be highly important for our consideration. The prayers of the Mass, including the Anaphoras, are mainly inspired and formed from Sacred Scripture, and the Commission of ICEL has accepted one very important point found in Liturgiam authenticam and accepted it as being crucial, namely the significance of the language of Sacred Scripture in our translation of the Mass.

One good example of this is the translation of the Domine non sum dignus as, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof," with its reminiscence of the Centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant.(2)

The link between the Liturgy and Scripture, on which Liturgiam authenticam lays emphasis, seems so obvious, important and valuable. I find it quite interesting to note the issues that can arise in this regard. Let me take one example, the use of the word dew in the Epiclesis of the Second Eucharistic Prayer:

Therefore, make holy these gifts, we pray,
by the dew of your Spirit . . .


It has been objected that this translation ‘does not resonate or communicate with contemporary Christians’. But surely, dew still exists. I noticed an advert on the street yesterday for a drink called Mountain Dew!

Dew has a unique set of natural and scriptural associations: it speaks of freshness, new beginning, water (and hence life), beauty, descent from above (and hence divine blessing), and manna (Exodus 16:13-14) (and hence Eucharist). It still appears on the ground in the morning as it did in the time of Moses on the journey through the desert.

American people know what dew is - rather better, I suspect, than Europeans, since so many of you get out of bed earlier than we do! It is true that in some pronunciations, dew can be confused with the word for a Hebrew person, but I am unaware of any representations from the Anti-Dfamation League objecting to the frequent use of the expression ‘dew point’ in the weather forecast!

Contemporary Christians are not puzzled when they hear at Mass these words from the Book of Exodus:

In the morning a dew lay all about the camp (Ex 16:13)

Or when they hear Isaac say to Jacob in Genesis:

May God give to you of the dew of the heavens (Gn 27:28)

Or when they hear Elijah prophesy:

during these years there shall be no dew or rain except at my word (1 Kgs 17:1)

We do not scratch our heads when in the Liturgy of the Hours we make our own the words of Moses:

(May) my discourse permeate like the dew (Deut 32:2)

Or when with the Psalmist we compare unity to the

dew of Hermon coming down upon the mountains of Zion (Ps 133:3).

In the New American Bible, from which I have taken all these examples, the word ‘dew’ occurs 41 times, all of them in the Old Testament.

Christian writers developed the idea of the ‘dew of the Spirit’. Saint Ambrose gives that name to the waters of baptism, while for later writers such as Saint Bernard, the dew of the Spirit is the grace of God which descends upon the soul to nourish and enliven it. Hildegard of Bingen says that the dew of the Spirit came down on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost.

And indeed on both sides of the Atlantic most of us will have heard sung or said the Sequence of Pentecost which rendered riga quod est aridum by translating the stanza thus:

Heal our wounds, our strength renew;
On our dryness pour your dew;
Wash the stains of guilt away
. ()

That same day, in the Office of Readings, we read in the text from St Irenaeus:

If we are not to be scorched and made unfruitful, we need the dew of God. Since we have our accuser, we need an Advocate as well. ()

Forgive me if I have laboured this point, but I do so simply to exemplify how a reasonably commonplace and simple word can sometimes be embroidered with a complexity it does not merit.

Finally, let me consider with you the translation of et cum spiritu tuo. As you know, the translation of this as "nd with your spirit" is required by Liturgiam authenticam. However, this translation cannot be understood without reference to St Paul, who will often address a person, for example Timothy, by referring to your spirit rather than simply to you.

What is the significance of this? Well, he is addressing someone close to God who has God’s spirit. So when we reply "and with your spirit" we are indicating that we are part of a spiritual community, it is God’s spirit that has gathered us together.

A further point that I would like to make with you, which resonates with many of the interventions at the recent Synod of Bishops, is that scriptural catechesis is central to liturgical catechesis. It was said of St Bernard that he knew the Sacred Scriptures so well that his language was biblical – he began to, as our young people would say today, 'speak bible.' My point is that in using a translation that is more faithful to Sacred Scripture we are teaching ourselves and our people to speak bible! Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I was taken recently by an article in one of our Catholic weeklies at home. In fact, I was more taken aback by it. It presented to its readers the 100 most influential Catholics in Britain today. Needless to say there wasn’t a bishop amongst them! The following week, in the Letters’ column, a woman wrote in saying:

"You left my mum off your list! For me, she is the top Catholic in the country. She has attended Mass faithfully at least once a week for over 83 years. She sacrificed a good career (as a midwife) to raise eight children and she’s now a devoted grandmother and great-grandmother. She has given very generously to every collection in our parish, sometimes going without herself. Both her and my late father served the Church faithfully for years, never questioning [and this, to me, was the pertinent phrase] and always listening to the words spoken from the altar. Her name is Anne and she is like thousands of Catholic mums in this country, the very backbone of the Church."

I cannot help but think that what is being asked of us bishops today is no less vital than what was being asked of Paul when, in the face of the cacophonous Church at Corinth, he wrote:

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'" (5)

So many people with so many ideas, but in the end it is we bishops, in union with our Holy Father, who have the responsibility of faithfully handing on to them what we have received from the Lord.

Paul returned to that theme once again, when writing to Timothy:

"Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (6)

The version of Mass that we currently use is clearly far from perfect. Those of you who celebrate Mass in both Spanish and English will know only too well the difference in richness between the two texts.

The then bishops of ICEL recognised that from the beginning, and they knew that a revision would be needed. There was an urgent feeling in the early 1970s that the liturgy should be made available to the people as soon as possible, and the work was rushed.

The revisiting of this was delayed for practical reasons, but also for ideological ones that caused many bishops grave concern, and that is sometimes forgotten. The chief preoccupation in many minds was, of course, that the liturgy be brought closer to the people.

This aim could, and sometimes did, obscure the other aim, which was to preserve and transmit our inherited liturgical tradition and bring our people closer to that.

During the initial stages of consultation on the third edition of the Missale Romanum, two theologians wrote to me, quite independently, and shared with me their belief that the Mass texts we currently use had severely diminished our appreciation of the richness of Eucharistic theology. This is clearly something to which we, as bishops, should be sensitive. The Holy Father said something similar during the course of last year’s Synod of Bishops.

Of course, if you try to carry a cup of coffee across a room too quickly, much of the contents may spill. This time, we have tried to keep the coffee in the cup.

We are at a very important moment in the whole of this process. If the bishops of the English-speaking countries can agree on a single version of the Mass, what a sign of catholicity that will be. But more than that, it will be a guarantee of catholicity for the future, not only in our own time, and not only in our own countries.

Clearly I, and all my brother bishops of ICEL, believe that you, the bishops of the United States, have a most important role of leadership to play in just that. Thank you for giving me your attention.

1. Quoted in Tom McArthur, Oxford Guide to World English (Oxford, 2002), 445.
2. Mt 8:8; Lk 7:6
3. Lava quod est sordidum, Riga quod est aridum, Sana quod est saucium
4. Contra Haereses Lib.3,17,1-3:SC34,302-306
5. I Corinthians 11:23-24
6. 2 Timothy 2:14-15

---------------------------------------------------------------

I truly pray that the US bishops may make the enlightened choice for a language of prayer that is above the commonplace. Liturgy is a celebration, an act of worship. We cheapen it by insisting that we should only use simple, direct, matter-of-fact, everyday words to express our worship of God.

I daresay our personal prayers - our intimate conversations with God when we talk to Him about all our problems and worries and Hopes and joys - are said (or thought) in simple, direct everyday language.

But does not a communal, ritual and richly symbolic celebration of the Lord and His gifts deserve a step up from that?

When John Paul II added the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary, I found myself using as my personal 'meditation' for the fifth luminous mystery of the Eucharist, the centurion's words, which I learned to love saying in Latin as a 7-year-old girl who tried to show my college's chaplain that I could learn the Mass responses in Latin faster and better than my boy classmates:

"Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea," said three times, with the gathered fingers of my right hand thumping on my ribcage (where my heart is) everytime I say it.

And the faithful English translation that I learned then is just as beautiful: "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof; say but the word, and my soul will be healed." [As a child, I always imagined that 'roof' to be literally the roof of my palate under which the Host initially rests!]

The pro-prosaic Mass language US bishops should know there's a reason why the King James Bible is considered literature and why, on the other hand, their New American Bible is often ridiculed.

There's a time for plain talk and a time for worship, as Ecclesiastes might say.


[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 16/06/2006 5.16]

benefan
00venerdì 16 giugno 2006 03:59
Catholic Bishops Approve New Translation of Mass


By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and CINDY CHANG
New York Times
Published: June 16, 2006

Roman Catholic bishops in the United States voted yesterday to change the wording of many of the prayers and blessings that Catholics have recited at daily Mass for more than 35 years, yielding to Vatican pressure for an English translation that is closer to the original Latin.

The bishops, meeting in Los Angeles, voted 173 to 29 to accept many of the changes to the Mass, a pivotal point in a 10-year struggle that many English-speaking Catholics had dubbed "the liturgy wars."

But the bishops made substantial changes to the text that the Vatican wanted, and those changes could still be rejected by Vatican officials.

Some of the changes they did adopt are minor, but in other cases Catholics will have to learn longer and more awkward versions of familiar prayers. For example, instead of saying, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," in the prayer before Communion, they will say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."

The reason for the change is a Vatican directive issued in 2001 under Pope John Paul II that demanded closer adherence to the Latin text. But some bishops in the English-speaking world were indignant at what they saw as a Vatican move to curtail the autonomy of each nation's bishops to translate liturgical texts according to local tastes and needs.

The new translation is likely to please those traditionalists who longed for an English version more faithful to the Latin in use before the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's. But it may upset Catholics who have committed the current prayer book to heart and to memory and who take comfort in its more conversational cadences.

"This translation will affect the worship life of every Catholic in the United States and beyond," said Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., chairman of the bishops Committee on the Liturgy and a vocal critic of the Vatican's translation who insisted on amending it.

The translation must go to the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI for final approval. It could still take as much as two years until the new text is published and put into use in American churches, Bishop Trautman said in an interview.

Some Catholics welcomed the changes. Leon Suprenant, president of Catholics United for the Faith, a conservative group in Steubenville, Ohio, said, "When the Mass was first celebrated in English shortly after Vatican II, some of the translations took liberties with the original, and we lost some of the beauty and dignity of the original."

Mr. Suprenant said, "Certainly we're in favor of the new translation, which is a more faithful literal translation of the Latin, and we are a Latin rite church."

The bishops rejected about 60 of the changes proposed by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, the panel of bishops from 11 English-speaking countries that prepared the translation. For instance, the committee wanted to change the phrase in the Nicene Creed "one in being with the Father" to "consubstantial with the Father."

But the bishops kept the current version, noting, " 'Consubstantial' is a theological expression requiring explanation for many."

The Rev. Lawrence J. Madden, director of the Georgetown Center for Liturgy in Washington, said: "In hewing to the Latin more closely, it's making some of the English awkward. It isn't the English we speak. It's becoming more sacred English, rather than vernacular English."

Father Madden said, "That's one of the reasons why a large number of the bishops up to this point have been opposed to the translation, because they're afraid this is going to distance the liturgy from the people."

Other changes were easier for the bishops to accept. The familiar exchange of greetings between the priest and congregation: "The Lord be with you/And also with you," will be replaced by "The Lord be with you/And with your spirit." This version is already used in Spanish-language Masses, and many others.

The changes apply only to the "Order of Mass," which includes the prayers and blessings recited at every service — not the scripture readings and prayers that are recited only during feast days and holidays.

American bishops went into the meeting in Los Angeles under pressure to put an end to the controversy. Bishops in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales had already voted to accept the Vatican-backed translation.

And just last month, Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship, sent a letter to the president of the U.S. bishops' conference, Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., saying the American church ultimately must accept the changes.

"It is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past 30 or 40 years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes," Cardinal Arinze wrote.

The Vatican directive in 2001, known in Latin as Liturgiam authenticam, was a turning point in the process. It said that in any translation, "great caution is to be taken to avoid a wording or style that the Catholic faithful would confuse with the manner of speech of non-Catholic ecclesial communities or other religions."

The burden of introducing the new translation to parishioners will fall on the priests, said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a former editor of the Jesuit magazine America, who has followed the debate.

"The priests are going to be the ones on the firing line who will have to explain this, and most of them don't see any advantage in this new translation," Father Reese said. "They're going to have to defend something they don't even like."

The Rev. Robert J. Silva, president of the National Federation of Priests Councils, said of the priests he represents: "We're not real anxious to have changes. There's real concern because a lot of us are saying, Is this really a theological and Biblical issue? Is it really to upgrade the language, or is this something that's a little more ideological?"

Father Silva said, "It's probably a little of both."

TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 16 giugno 2006 05:13
SCORE ONE FOR THE VATICAN!
Well, thank God the vote came in the way it did! The liberals sure had me scared for a while - they made it sound as if at least half the bishops in America were benighted clods without a touch of poetry in their souls!!!

And it is obvious that priests like Reese and Silva have not really bothered to read Liturgiam authenticam nor listened to Bishop Roche's speech yesterday.

Who are they to say that the mass (ie, the greater majority) of the faithful will quibble with word changes, especially if these are properly and simply explained to them the way Bishop Roche did, as a) more close to the sense of the Scriptures and b) more appropriate language for worship?
benefan
00venerdì 16 giugno 2006 23:11

Medjugorje 25 years later: Apparitions and contested authenticity

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- Twenty-five years after six children in Medjugorje, a village in what is now Bosnia-Herzegovina, began reporting apparitions of Mary, pilgrims are still flocking to the site and church officials are still cautious about the authenticity of the events.

Marian experts continue to debate the significance of Medjugorje, and several have published books -- ranging from enthusiastically supportive to skeptical -- to coincide with the anniversary.

In Medjugorje, Franciscan pastors are preparing for overflow crowds on June 24-25, the dates on which the alleged apparitions and messages began in 1981. They insist, however, that no special commemorations are planned.

"Everything's been booked solid for more than a year, and we're expecting thousands of pilgrims. But we're not putting on any spectacle or festival -- just the usual program of prayer," Franciscan Father Ivan Sesar, pastor of St. James Parish in Medjugorje, said in a telephone interview.

Of the six children who originally reported visions from Mary, sometimes daily, one says she still receives messages from Mary on the 25th of each month. They are published online, eagerly awaited by a large network of Christians dedicated to Medjugorje.

According to Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno, whose diocese includes Medjugorje, the messages now number more than 30,000, a fact that only increases his own skepticism about the authenticity of the apparitions.

Bishop Peric discussed Medjugorje with Pope Benedict XVI earlier this year during a visit to the Vatican. In a summary of the discussion published in his diocesan newspaper, Bishop Peric said he had reviewed the history of the apparitions with the pope, who already was aware of the main facts from his time as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"The Holy Father told me: We at the congregation always asked ourselves how can any believer accept as authentic apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?" Bishop Peric said.

Bishop Peric noted that Yugoslavian bishops in 1991 issued a statement that "it cannot be confirmed that supernatural apparitions or revelations are occurring" at Medjugorje.

Bishop Peric said he told the pope that his own opinion was even stronger -- not only that a supernatural element cannot be proven, but that "it is certain that these events do not concern supernatural apparitions."

Other priests and bishops have spoken favorably about the apparitions, saying there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the visionaries or the spiritual effects among pilgrims.

At Medjugorje, the debate over authenticity has been largely set aside by the Franciscan friars who minister to pilgrims and keep in contact with the visionaries.

"We are not here to give a judgment about whether the apparitions are true or not. We're here to follow the people who come, to hear their confessions, to give them pastoral care," said Father Sesar, the 39-year-old pastor.

Father Sesar said that, while early pilgrims to Medjugorje may have been drawn there by curiosity or a thirst for supernatural signs like rosaries turning different colors, that is less true today. Much more significant are the long lines for confession that form every day, he said.

"The biggest things in Medjugorje today are prayer and the sacraments. It's no longer a place where people come to see miracles. They are coming for spiritual growth," he said.

Considerable attention, however, is still given to the apparitions and messages which one of the visionaries, Marija Pavlovic-Lunetti, says she continues to receive. She now lives with her husband and children in Italy.

The message from May 2006 strikes a pious tone typical of most of the thousands of alleged communications over the last 25 years: "Decide for holiness, little children, and think of heaven. Only in this way will you have peace in your heart that no one will be able to destroy. Peace is a gift, which God gives you in prayer."

At the Vatican, officials said they are still monitoring events at Medjugorje, but emphasized that it was not necessarily the Vatican's role to issue an official judgment on the alleged apparitions there.

More than once in recent years, the Vatican has said that dioceses or parishes should not organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje. That reflects the policy of the bishops.

But the Vatican has also said Catholics are free to travel to the site, and that if they do the church should provide them with pastoral services.

That has left a margin of ambiguity among Catholics. Adding to the confusion have been claims that the late Pope John Paul II strongly supported Medjugorje in various private statements; the Vatican has never confirmed those statements.

After Pope Benedict was elected, it was rumored that as a cardinal he had once traveled incognito to Medjugorje, and that as pope he could be expected to officially approve the site as a Marian shrine.

In his February visit to the Vatican, Bishop Peric said he spoke to the pope about these rumors, and that the pontiff only laughed in surprise.

Pope Benedict, who headed the doctrinal congregation for 24 years, once said the multiplication of Marian apparitions was a "sign of the times" and should not be discounted. But he has also counseled prudence, even when it comes to apparitions officially recognized by the church, like those at Fatima, Portugal; Guadalupe, Mexico; and Lourdes, France.

Behind the Vatican's careful approach is a basic church teaching: that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, and that no private revelation, however interesting, will add anything essential to the faith.

Yet some, like Msgr. Arthur Calkins, a Vatican official and a member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy, believe that while apparitions do not furnish new truths of faith, they can help Catholics understand them better.

Private revelations recognized by the authority of the church "may serve to bring home to the faithful truths which are already known, but not fully appreciated," Msgr. Calkins said in an interview.

"The apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, for example, brought home to the faithful the need for prayer, penance, conversion of heart, reparation for sins. All of this expands on the doctrine of the mystical body of Christ," he said.

Like several other experts at the Vatican, Msgr. Calkins declined to offer any opinion about Medjugorje.

Marian expert Donal Foley, in his new book, "Understanding Medjugorje," reviews the public evidence, particularly from the early days of the reported visions, and says that, "sadly, the only rational conclusion about Medjugorje is that it has turned out to be a vast, if captivating, religious illusion."

In a phone interview, Foley listed several factors that make him dubious: contradictions over how long the apparitions would continue, the excess number of messages, their questionable and sometimes "silly" content, excess focus on inexplicable "signs," and the credulous local culture in Medjugorje.


Foley said it was obvious that some Medjugorje pilgrims have experienced spiritual awakening. But he said part of this could be attributed to a "charismatic element that grabs people's emotions."

Another factor, he said, is that Medjugorje may appeal to Catholics confused by changes after the Second Vatican Council.

"It's a sad reality that some people have had to go to Medjugorje to get priests who were enthusiastic about confession, and to get the things they used to be able to get in the church in the West," he said.

Other writers have used the 25th anniversary as an occasion to celebrate Medjugorje. Elizabeth Ficocelli's "The Fruits of Medjugorje" offers more than 200 pages of what she says are "stories of true and lasting conversion."

In a special anniversary edition of "Medjugorje, The Message," Wayne Weible says that more than 30 million people have made the trip to Medjugorje, where what is "arguably the greatest apparition in recorded Marian history" is still going on.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 17 giugno 2006 12:24
MAKING USE OF 'LECTIO DIVINA'
Stoking Rome's Faith:
Local "Lectio Divina"

By Catherine Smibert

ROME, JUNE 15, 2006 (Zenit.org) - The regenerating experience of reading Scripture is dear to the heart of Benedict XVI. He has pointed out that the four rungs of lectio divina -- reading, meditating, praying and contemplating -- "was the ladder by which the Carthusian monks ascended from earth to heaven."

Before his papal election, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger helped a local Roman parish lead its evenings dedicated to this monastic technique of prayer.

The parish Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, located just down the road from St. Peter's Basilica, offers special programs for meditating on the Word of God every second and fourth Friday at 7 p.m.

The pastor, Carmelite Father Bruno Secondin, began the meetings 10 years ago.

"The idea to hold these encounters was born of a series of my own long experience of spiritual retreats and academic interest," he told me.

"We have gradually developed our own custom methodology which you witness today," said this professor of spiritual theology at Gregorian University.

The format includes a reflective antiphon accompanied by soft music; silent pauses; symbolic gestures; and the display of artworks.

"Everything we do is to promote the centrality of the Word," explained Father Secondin. "At the conclusion of every meeting we give a synthesis of the discussion, accompanied by icons and illustrations to assist the reflections."

I asked the Carmelite what the essential elements for a good reading would be.

"The first element is the sense of faith," Father Secondin said. "We find ourselves before the Word of God at the same time we are being confronted by his deep revelations and actions. You also need a docile and humble heart which is ready to listen in order to obey and not just for the sake of curiosity."

He added: "We must have an ecclesial sense. The community around us can help us better understand the truths of the Scriptures and perhaps there will be someone who has at least a minimal awareness of the varying biblical languages as well."

Father Secondin places the summaries of each event on the Web, in Italian.

"To put the Word of God online, especially in the mode as presented in 'lectio divina,' is a rich undertaking," the priest pointed out. "It helps the inspiration go beyond just our local parish community … something the Holy Father has told us to do."

Maturing in the Spirit

One of the new ecclesial entities that came to Rome for the vigil-of-Pentecost meeting with Benedict XVI used the opportunity to discuss a key question: Where to go from here?

Back in 1967, a group of students and teachers at Duquesne University, in Pennsylvania, gathered together with the aim of opening up their hearts more fully to the Holy Spirit.

Since then, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has touched 120 million people. One of the CCR leaders who came to Rome recently was Patty Mansfield, an original attendee at the 1967 gathering.

Mansfield told me how encouraged she felt witnessing the lives that have entered into a deeper relationship with Christ via the Charismatic Renewal.

"And here we are today," Mansfield said, "trying to be faithful to the gifts and charisms given to us by the Holy Spirit in the beginning, always accepting them with obedience and gratitude as Pope John Paul II told us to as well."

The CCR promotes an experience of the first Pentecost, and a renewal of the fervor of baptism and confirmation, via an experience known as "baptism in the Spirit."

It is what Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa explains as not being a sacrament, "but that's related to several sacraments."

"The baptism in the Spirit," says the preacher for the Pontifical Household, "makes real and, in a way, renews Christian initiation. At the beginning of the Church, baptism was administered to adults who converted from paganism and who made […] an act of faith and a free and mature choice."

Mansfield said the CCR provides the context for this experience today and pointed to this meeting as an opportunity to clarify "what role the CCR has in revitalizing society's experience of the Church today."

Organized by the Vatican-based International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services (ICCRS), the meeting was characterized by discernment and humility.

ICCRS President Alan Panozza told me: "We've had a chance to reflect on what we've done right but also on our mistakes that we've made over these years."

Reports from dozens of countries told of stories of conversion, rises in vocations, healings, ecumenism, prayer meetings, life-in-the-spirit seminars and social ministries. What emerged was a call to adapt the enthusiasm of CCR to a more developed social awareness.

Father Bart Pastor of the Philippines gave a fiery homily last Saturday where he challenged the leaders to "move beyond merely bringing Churches alive."

He urged them to "add a charismatic flavor to community outreach with actions that express zeal." The priest further cautioned them not to "turn in on ourselves but always outward."

ICCRS President Panozza added: "But we can't underestimate the potential of our prayer groups and Bible studies back home. Our primary call is to help convert hearts using the same spirit of Pentecost; then lives are naturally changed."

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/06/2006 12.26]

TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 17 giugno 2006 13:09
One of the most charming features in Gerald Augustinus's blog
closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/
is what he calls "Grandpa Binder Pictures" taken by his camera-bug grandfather who lives in Austria and whom he describes as 'Church-hating' (having grown up, it is explained,m in a fascist pre-Hitler Austria where everyone was virtually forced into the Catholic Church).

That hasn't stopped the old man from taking pictures of churches and church activities to pass on to his grandson. Here are some pictures he took of the Corpus Domini (Frohleichnam in German) procession at a little village outside Vienna. To frame the sacrament in a leafy wreath is a most charming idea!




I am fascinated by folk practices in connection with standard elements of the Catholic faith, and it would be nice to have more of it represented in this thread.

I have tried to do it with my recollections of Catholic folk practices in the Philippines but have not yet figured how to get pictures to illustrate some of it.

And I just realized that I had intended to do a little piece about the Marian practices in my country for the month of May but did not get to do so because of other more immediate obligations on the Forum.

One of them has to do with an elaborate pageant-procession we call the 'Santacruzan' (based on the Spanish words for Holy Cross, Santa Cruz) which originally was intended to commemorate the finding of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem at the initiative of the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine - but which has ended up being a homage to Mary, in which various historical and Biblical personages as well as various aspects of Mary (think of her different titles in the Litany) are represented in costume! If one lives in the right community, May is a beautiful and memorable month for a Catholic in the Philippines.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/06/2006 13.17]

TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 18 giugno 2006 15:14
REFLECTIONS ON 'CORPUS DOMINI'
Thanks to Fr. Jim Tucker at Dappled Things for the lead to this beautiful sermon
www.theadvent.org/sermons/ab061506.htm
from the site of the Anglo-Catholic Church of the Advent in Boston. I am posting it in full in this thread because it not only makes references to Church practices but above all, it is a beautiful meditation on Corpus Domini.


The second picture is actually on the church's home page, with the caption "The Church cats welcome you". Gemuetlich idea!

SERMON PREACHED BY THE REV. DR. ANDREW C. BLUME
THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2006, THE FEAST OF CORPUS CHRISTI

I grew up in New York City and when I was a teenager I went to church quite regularly with my best friend whose father was the rector of a parish that consisted of two churches - a rare “joint benefice.”

One was Calvary Church on Gramercy Park, a lovely early Gothic revival building in the French style that celebrated the Eucharist in a generally High Church, English Cathedral sort of way with processions, incense, Eucharistic vestments, and a surpliced choir.

The other was St. George’s on Stuyvesant Square, a great barn of a Civil War-era church that had fallen upon hard times and had seen a revival through the adoption of an Evangelical style that was not at all to the taste of this sixteen-year-old young fogey.

Some people prayed with their arms in the air, they said the “New” Lord’s Prayer, they sang hymns I did not know from School, and they gathered in a circle for the celebration of the Eucharist.

One Sunday my friend’s father told us to come to St. George’s that morning and he would take us out to lunch afterwards. Never ones to turn down a good Sunday lunch, we agreed. The service was, as we expected, all that we loathed, and afterwards we complained bitterly to the priest about it.

After a while, he interrupted our tirade and said, “you know, someone is always unhappy with a church service. Today, a woman came up to me angry,” - and I will never forget this expression - “angry as only a religious fanatic can be angry, and demanded to know why we did not have an altar call today.”

First, we had to ask what an altar call was. Then, when we found out that it was that moment, in an Evangelical service, when the minister invites people to come forward to proclaim that they have been born again, saved, and now have a personal relationship with Jesus, we were a bit taken aback. Finally we had a really good laugh about it: an altar call in an Episcopal Church! Can you imagine such a thing?

This story has stuck with me over the years. It has always amused me - and for different reasons at different stages of my life. Recently, I began to think about this idea of the altar call and why it does seem so antithetical to the Catholic expression of Anglicanism. On the surface, I think it is probably because many of us - myself included - are uncomfortable with this kind of affective, deeply personal and individualistic expression of devotion.

More deeply, however, I believe that we do not need an altar call because as Catholic Christians we already have a weekly expression of wholehearted response to God: the Eucharist in which we recognise and accept Christ incarnate with us today, here and now, in the sacramental meal of bread and wine.

Indeed, each time we hear the priest proclaim “the gifts of God for the people of God,” we are presented with an invitation. And with that invitation comes the choice of whether to say “yes” or “no.” It is a real choice, a life-and-death choice that we are completely free to make.

Will we choose to unite ourselves with God and with all other Christians? Will we choose to participate in what God is doing in the world? To participate in the loving activity of a God who is in the process of reconciling all things to himself?

Or will we turn away from all this and say that we do not want to share in a life at the very heart of God? Or, will we follow a third path, and simply just wander up to the rail and stick out our hands without considering the awesomeness of our participation in the Eucharist?

In the Sacrament we are offered no less than the love of God who is, as St. John always reminds us, Love’s very self. It is no less than the love that looked down at us from the Cross, looked down at us at our worst moment and still said, “I love you and offer you my love.”

It is the love that overcomes death and finds, in the midst of the greatest tragedy, hope and resurrection, life. And we are free to accept or refuse. In fact, this truly radical freedom to respond to the love God offers us is one of the signs that we are created in God’s image, that we share with God in the capacity for real love, freely given.

Love is that fundamental quality of God that can not be forced upon us. We cannot be coerced into loving and we know this from our own experiences of human love. So much more then, God cannot force us to love him. God cannot force us to love each other. God can persuade us. God can and does continually offer us opportunities to respond to the love we are offered and for us to act in love.

But for the love of God to be real, for it to operate in us, it must be accepted freely. This is the love - freely and continually offered - that is pulsing in the very Body of Christ, in the bread and in the wine that, being brought forward and placed upon the altar, is transformed by the Eucharistic actions of thanking, remembering offering, and invoking the Holy Spirit into God’s self-giving love present with us, and then made available for us.

It is our decision whether or not to carry in ourselves, make a part of our physical being, and bring into the world the love and very presence of God. And in deciding to come forward, using the freedom God has given us in Creation, we know that the Eucharist is not merely something that we take, something to which we are entitled, but rather that it is a gift we are given.

As we come forward and decide to accept this love, this new life, into our own bodies, we open ourselves to the possibility of being transformed by it and changed into that which we have received: the very Body of Christ alive in the world.

In this way we pass along the gift God has given us in the Sacrament to the world through the actions of our transformed lives. This decision and the action of reception are our acts of faith. It is a faith that is not an intellectual ascent to a doctrine or idea, but the true, corporeal response to the love of God offers us. Our faith is something we Catholic Christians do.

On this feast of Corpus Christi, we celebrate this most fundamental aspect of our Christian faith, that very action that the Church has done from the beginning, that celebration we have had long before we had a canon of four Gospels and a New Testament, that event that Jesus left us to make him always present with us.

This is why it is so wonderful that rather than having the Corpus Christi procession before our Eucharist, as directed in the Medieval books, today we make our journey into the streets at the end of Mass, after the consecration of the Sacrament and after we have made the sacrament part of ourselves.

It is only then - after God has made love available and we have said “yes” - that we will line up and form our procession taking the Sacrament and ourselves out into the World, out among the unsuspecting people of Beacon Hill, as a living, breathing, incarnation of God’s love, offered to the World, active in the World, and ready to change the World.

We show the World what we all now are - the very Body of Christ abroad in Creation - and mark this symbolically by carrying the Sacrament with us, housed in the Monstrance. We make the outrageous claim that who we are is summed-up in that little wafer we carry with us.

And while this may look quite ridiculous to those who may not have experienced the deep and abiding love God offers his people in the Sacramental life of Christian community, we who hear the invitation and make our truly free profession of faith in receiving it, know its power.

To us, that little bread that we all share, that is available to every member of the Church, of which there is always enough, is life sustaining, life enhancing, and truly nourishing. It gives us from the very heart of God the power and strength that is none other than the power to love God and to love each other.

Today we also mark in a special way that our participation in the Eucharist, in the fullest expression of Christian community is something not just of the mind, not just of the soul, but of our whole earthly, physical being.

Indeed, although Thomas Aquinas tells us that all our senses, save hearing, are deceived in the sacrament, nonetheless our full participation in the richness of worship today is a real sign that our participation in the life of God involves all our senses.

In the Middle Ages, when this feast was devised and added to the Calendars of Churches across Western Europe, for lay people special emphasis was placed upon seeing the Host, seeing Christ present in the community with us and knowing that he is there to protect and love us.

Today we not only see the Host offered for us, we also walk forward to accept it, taste it, are transformed into it, and then we are able to see the Sacrament out in the world, both in the host we carry aloft with us in procession and in each other. It is no wonder that Corpus Christi is one of the highlights of the Church Year.

Right now, in Columbus, at General Convention, the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music are considering a proposal to explore “multi-sensory worship.” By this they mean worship that employs new technologies of power point and multi-media devices.

When I read about this, I was astonished that in choosing the term “multi-sensory worship” they were implying that the Church in its two thousand year history was somehow bereft of worship that involves all the senses.

Today we are fully able to experience just how “multi-sensory” worship can be. We smell the incense and the sweet richness of the wine. We hear the music, the prayers, and most importantly the invitation to Communion. We see the colours of the vestments, and the poetic movement of the ministers, and again most importantly, we see the Sacrament lifted high for us to recognise as something so much more than mere bread.

We touch our brothers and sisters in the exchange of the peace and we touch the very Body of Christ we take into our hands. And the things we taste in the bread and wine are none other than God’s love, offered to us and full of the power to make us divine lovers. Our multi-sensory worship is a sign of the possibility of multi-sensory God-oriented lives at the very heart of God’s rich and beautiful Creation.


So today, when we hear that invitation to Communion, let us all act like this is a true life-and-death decision. Let us act consciously to come to the love God offers us and take it into ourselves. Then, when we form our part in the procession, let us be filled with the knowledge and an awareness that we are bringing God’s love into the World, showing it to a World that may not know it needs it, and showing that this love is there just by accepting it.

And finally, when we leave tonight let act as if we have been transformed by God into bearers of love, reconciliation, and hope. Tonight and tomorrow and for as long as we can, let us act as if God were truly dwelling in us and that we are united with all those who have received the Sacrament into one family, one Church, capable of giving ourselves up to God’s unfailing purpose of ever expanding love. I know we will like the results, and, more importantly, God will, too.

Amen.
Crotchet
00domenica 18 giugno 2006 19:58
Corpus Christi sermon
Quote from the marvellous sermon above:

I was astonished that in choosing the term “multi-sensory worship” they were implying that the Church in its two thousand year history was somehow bereft of worship that involves all the senses.

Why would people want to add to the already typical Catholic multi-sensory Liturgy, I wonder. It is like scratching where it doesn't itch.

Thank you for posting this inspiring and enlightening sermon. I now understand the motivation and symbolism of the Corpus Dominus procession and the "theology" behind it bowled me over. Wonderful.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 19 giugno 2006 00:02
Dear Crotchet (Mag6 it is, right?) - I've REALLY missed your participation these past few weeks, and I am glad you finally succeeded in registering! WELCOME BACK!

When I saw your first post elsewhere, I somehow expected you might be among the first to react to this wonderful sermon, and I see I was right.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/06/2006 0.03]

TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 19 giugno 2006 04:51
MASS LANGUAGE CHANGES? GET USED TO IT!
Fr. Guy Selvester at shoutsinthepiazza.blogspot.com/
has a lot to say to people like Bishop Trautman or Thomas Reese who seem to be fanatically invested in the slapdash English translation of the Mass that followed Vatican-II and object to the proposed changes (for the better, most would agree).

----------------------------------------------------------------

So the translation of the Missal passed the vote by the USCCB. Are you really surprised? No...really? I'm not particularly thrilled with all of the changes but, by and large, I am not surprised by them or that they were adopted. But what I cannot fathom is why some think this will be so horribly disruptive.

An AP article said this: "The nation's Roman Catholic bishops signed off Thursday on a new English translation for the Mass that would change prayers ingrained in the memories of
millions of American parishioners."

Well, who said the the prayers are supposed to be ingrained in your memory? I'm serious. Hasn't it occured to anyone that part of the reason too many Americans find mass a boring exercise each week is that they have learned it off by rote and just parrot it out each week instead of paying attention and actually praying it?

Every now and again I like to see who really is paying attention and I use the second form of the penitential rite (you know the one where the response to the second verse is, "And grant us your salvation"?) About 90% of the congregation says nothing while a few mumble the correct response. Why? Because they've learned the mass by rote and since so many priests do the exact same thing at every single mass many of them don't even know that form of the penitential rite exists! So much for all the rich diversity that was supposed to be in the liturgy after Vatican II.

We used to have a mass where things could only be done one way. Now we have a mass where there is much more freedom to use various forms and most priests still do things only one way. So, the people have come to see the mass in the same light.

And what of the form of the liturgy that was ingrained in the memories of millions of Catholics prior to Vatican II? There were HUGE changes made then and we adapted. Bishop Trautman of Erie even alluded to this in his remarkes when he said,
"It will take some adapting, but it is not earth-shattering when you think of the changes we went through 40 years ago."

And at that time we didn't have the benefit of a long and thoughtful translation which was debated over and over by various Conferences of bishops and then voted on by each of them. Instead we had a slap-dash translation and little or no catechesis foisted upon us by the Consilium.

The Fathers of Vatican II called for the introduction of the vernacular into the mass and the retention of Latin as the mother-tongue of the Church. Instead, Latin was thrown out in a move that was the mother of all "given-an-inch-take-a-mile" moves. And, yet, we're still here.

Thomas Reese, SJ said the new translations would "cause chaos and real problems". If there is no proper catechesis I agree that there will be problems.

However, it is simply the most idiotic argument possible to assert that a re-wording of several texts will cause chaos because, after all, we've been using them for 36 years.

No one seemed to care about the chaos when they illegitimately threw out the texts used for over 400 years in favor of the banal, quasi-Protestant texts we've been using since 1970. So what are we to make of that? NOW all of a sudden we are supposed to retain texts that are 36 years old because it will be inconvenient and confusing to change them?

That sort of argument doesn't say much for what some people think of the intelligence level of the people sitting in the pews.

Practically speaking what might this mean?

It will mean a well prepared catechesis on the diocesan and parish level to prepare people for the changes.

It will mean (like in the 1960's) the scheduling of demonstrations for the people to see the changes demonstrated in front of them.

It will mean (like in the 1960's) the introduction of a commentator who will help the congregation in their responses.

It will mean a return to the people using a missal of their own to follow the liturgy instead of sitting in the pew, empty-handed, waiting to be entertained as though at a theatrical performance where they have their part memorized.

It will mean people will have to sit up, pay attention and follow what's happening at mass for a change.

It will also mean a lot of patience.

I think we learned from the last major changes in liturgical texts that it is better to go slowly and get it right. So, we will have to become comfortable with implementing these approved changes slowly.

One other thing...it remains to be seen but it should mean zero tolerance for priests and people who simply decide, "we're going to stick with the old translation". That's precisely the attitude that the reactionaries adopted toward the current text. How many people respect that view? Not many.

The old missal may be used with special permission but not too many in the Church think highly of those who wish it. This is why I am still convinced there will be no "universal indult". It is the same gang who had no sympathy for clergy and people who disliked the so-called "new mass" in 1970 who are the ones who will scream the loudest about using these new texts.

Tough. If it was OK to throw the baby out with the bathwater 36 years ago and tell everyone it was for the best because this is what the Church has decided, then that same argument holds true now. This is what has been decided. Get over it. Just as before...we'll survive.

Besides, it was always part of the Church's plan to re-visit the texts after a while and make more changes. Unfortunately, not all the changes voted on today are to everyone's liking. Nevertheless, their adoption should not be a surprise. The Lord be with you...and with your spirit.

Get used to it.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 23 giugno 2006 20:51
UPDATE ON TRANSLATION WOES (AND WARS)
John Allen in his 6/23/06 WORD FROM ROME interviewed two key American bishops who played a role in coming up with the proposed American amendments to the ICEL work in progress towards a revised, more appropriate and faithful English translation of the Mass text from Latin.

Happy are the Italians, French and Spanish who could more easily and faithfully translate from Latin, the mother root of their languages. I wonder how the Germans did, and other non-Romance languages.

English has been particularly problematic because the English-speaking world has a wide range of spoken English, and the current project is to come up with an English translation that is acceptable to the bishops in all English-speaking countries.


----------------------------------------------------------------
After a lengthy and, at times, contentious debate over recent years about a new English translation of the Order of Mass, which relies more heavily on a sacred vocabulary closer to the Latin originals, some observers were surprised by the relatively anti-climatic nature of the vote of the American bishops last week in Los Angeles. Following a fairly brief discussion, the bishops approved the translation by an overwhelming vote of 173 to 29.

Several factors no doubt help explain the result, including a recent letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze of the Congregation for Divine Worship to Bishop William Skylstad, president of the American conference, which made adoption of the text seem inevitable, and the general fatigue many bishops feel with the "liturgy wars" which have rocked English-speaking Catholicism since the mid-1990s.

One key element, however, was the support of Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., chair of the Bishops' Committee on Liturgy, widely seen as the leading critic of the translation principles underlying the new text. In the end, however, Trautman supported the translation in amended form. (The American bishops approved several changes, such as retaining the phrase "one in being" in the Creed rather than the more technical term "consubstantial.")

This week, I spoke to Trautman about the result.

Many observers were struck by your position in Los Angeles.
I tried to steer a middle course. I didn't want any consternation, and in the end we had a peaceful resolution to these important liturgical matters. I wanted to take a balanced approach. It's important to remember that this is an amended text.

What we have to do is to highlight the 'full, conscious and active participation' of the faithful in the liturgy, and the texts we received were not always good at this. The amended text brings us closer to that hope of the council fathers. The texts should be easily understood, with a new theological precision. I would have liked to see more amendments, but I think we did well.

What needs to happen for successful implementation of the new Mass?
What's required in the first place is a great motivation for priests to take on a major catechetical effort. I would say that we're at least two years away from [the translation] becoming reality, but we have to gear up for that.

I'm not in favor of any catechetical effort, however, until the whole Roman Missal is ready. Only then will be we able to see the big picture. Then we can talk about the catechetical effort. There's still a lot of material to be prepared, such as the collects, prefaces, and other texts.

We've sent a strong message to ICEL [the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, responsible for the translations] that the collects in their present form are not worthy. They're too long, they use a sometimes incomprehensible vocabulary, and they follow the Latin word order too closely. There's a lot of work to be done.

What we don't want to do is to repeat the mistakes of the immediate post-Vatican II period, when we came out with the Mass in segments with an overall approach.

What's most important is the motivation to implement this translation. We have to convince priests and lay people that this is a superior text, giving them a deeper spirituality. I don't think we'll convince them that 'consubstantial,' for example, is better than 'one in being,' which has been used for 35 years. People say that England has been using it for all these years, but I think our priests are stretched too thin already.

We have to make the argument that these are better texts, more accurate texts. Liturgists need to coordinate efforts to explain that these are superior texts to those issued immediately after Vatican II, that they bring a new richness. For example, the linking of the liturgy to scripture, and the more exact details they offer. We have to communicate the theological principles. This is a whole new missal that comes from the Vatican, and calls for our response.

I don't just want the Committee on Liturgy to be involved with this, but also the doctrine committee and the catechetical committee. We need a full court press to bring this new missal to our people.

We also need to work closely with the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, and other bodies. It has to be a total effort, and a collegial approach.

Won't that 'team approach' be difficult, since many members of the bodies you just mentioned were opposed to this translation?
We have to dialogue with them, to engage them in conversation. We have to explain that the text has been amended. The collects and prefaces can still be amended. We are trying to reflect the concerns of the liturgical establishment. But the reality is, it's here.

When the vote was taken on 'consubstantial' at the bishops' meeting, we won, but it was close. That said to me, we have to use a different approach. We have to stress balance and reason.

Liturgiam Authenticam is a reality, even if I prefer to come back to Sacrosanctum Concilium [the document of Vatican II on liturgy], which is the ultimate foundation. In the end, I think this text is in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium.

For the sake of our people, we have to band together to make this work.

Are you saying this text is the best you could do?
Given all the realities that we know, I think that's a fair statement. … I hope that when Rome reviews the text, the American amendments will be respected. Liturgy should unite us, not divide us.

Any other observations on the implementation process?
To date, what has been missing in all of this is the lay voice. It's just not in the process. [Logical question: But why not, to begin with?] Some bishops on their own have sought it out, but at least formally it's missing. In the United States, we have outstanding scholars in liturgical theology, and we should be using these experts. That needs to be done for the next steps.

--------------------------------------------------------------
I also spoke to Msgr. James Moroney, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Liturgy, about the outcome in Los Angeles and where things go from here. Over the next couple of years, Moroney will be the key figure in the bishops' conference spearheading implementation efforts.

What happens from here?
Within the next couple of days, the president of the conference, Bishop William Skylstad, will write a letter to Cardinal Arinze with the final text, with all the adaptations and emendations, requesting the recognitio [meaning formal Vatican approval of the text].

The Congregation for Divine Worship will carry out whatever consultations it wants, including consulting with the Vox Clara Commission, and then will make its decision.

Could the congregation make changes to the American text?
Without question, the Holy See will follow the same procedure as in every liturgical book of the last 35 years, sending the text back indicating which amendments it finds acceptable and which not. I suspect there will be perfect clarity from the congregation.

The Holy See may want to issue one English text for all the episcopal conferences, which could mean accepting some American changes, and then making that text standard for all the conferences.

Does that mean the Vatican could say to the Americans, 'You have to stick with consubstantial?'
It certainly could. In a ruling some 10 years ago, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts dealt with the scope of changes that may be made in a text awaiting confirmation from the Holy See. It found that the original document may be changed, even substantially, in the confirmation process.

Assuming the Order of Mass is approved, will it be put into effect right away, ahead of the other elements of the Mass?That decision has not yet been made. The bishops have not begun to examine it.

How will you approach the formation of priests?
I've spoken in 93 dioceses to over 18,000 priests and deacons, bringing the message of the theological and spiritual depth of the new General Instruction on the Roman Missal. It's critically important to go to the "front-line troops" who will be most instrumental in implementing the reform.

To paraphrase Sacrosanctum Concilium, all will be in vain unless the pastors of souls are on board. So the first constituency is the priests, then other liturgical ministers, and then the whole assembly.

We have to address these three constituencies more or less simultaneously, and do it by the most effective means.


For example, there are Web-based resources, which are extraordinarily effective, in some ways more so than print can ever dream of being. The Roman Missal page is among the most popular on the bishops' conference web site. [Allen's note: Over the last three years, according to conference sources, more than 150,000 people have viewed the Roman Missal page]. We will also produce Power Point presentations, bulletin inserts, and so on, as we did for the General Instruction. …

People have to see and hear the words proclaimed and pronounced. We've looked at streaming video, even pod-casting. We're also considering producing a DVD that would have Power Point resources, documents, audio/video resources … everything in one package. This would include a video of celebrations using the new texts, what we used to call a "dry Mass."

We've found that in the United States, there are five to eight basic ways of pronouncing the texts, depending on region and so on. We're already a long way down the line in developing much of this. We'll work closely with the FDLC [Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions], which is the "implementation arm" of the Bishops' Committee on Liturgy in many ways. We'll also work with the Society for Catholic Liturgy, the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, and liturgical publishers.

Are you worried that many of the groups you just mentioned are composed of people who were, in the main, opposed to the new translation?

Something important happened in Los Angeles. We moved from the stage of consultation and giving feedback to decision. To use the language of the liturgical world, we moved to the "white book" phase. There hasn't been a single liturgical issue in the 40 years of the reform in which we haven't followed the same process.

There were two major consultations of the bishops. Over the last two years, people were consulted, and they expressed their opinions strongly, vocally, and vitally, in an exemplary way.

But now we have a decision, and I've never experienced people in these constituencies failing to understand that what the church requires at this point is a careful understanding and implementation of the decisions the bishops have made.

The Second Vatican Council gave this responsibility to the bishops, working with the Holy See. Now by a margin of 83 percent, they've adopted a particular translation, and I anticipate the Holy See will confirm that in a timely fashion. …

In the United States, we have more untapped resources to do this work than we can dream of. The liturgical renewal has worked better in this country than anywhere else on the face of the earth, and this transition gives us the chance for a real rebirth of the conciliar vision. [Really? Interesting!!!!]

What will be the most important factor in implementation?It's not just a question of imparting knowledge to the clergy about what words were changed and the linguistic rationale for those changes. It's a matter of discovering the rich liturgical theology beneath these translations.

In some cases, priests will be exposed for the very first time to theological insights into the celebration of the sacred liturgy, and that's very exciting. [Note by Teresa: And rather amazing! What have the seminaries been teaching then?]

It's not just a matter of adapting to linguistic changes, but of discovering the wonders of what the renewal of the liturgy is all about. It's a spiritual and theological journey, not a political process
.


---------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly, I have been amused and exasperated at the same time at all the hullaballoo over the word 'consubstantial'. Sure it's a four-syllable word, but surely any English speaker would not be hard put to say it or even to understand it: CON-SUBSTANTIAL - it breaks up into two parts whose meanings are obvious, especially if it was previously translated as 'one in being' which the Massgoer of the past 40 years would know! Wouldn't some people be glad to add at least one new word to their vocabulary?
Crotchet
00sabato 24 giugno 2006 17:19
Re:"Consubstantial"
I laughed at your exasperation about the hullabaloo around the word "consubstantial". My answer and musings regarding this phenomenon got lost in cyberspace last night, so I'm not going to try again. Anyhow, if modern man can reach the moon and the stars, I'm convinced he can also pronounce and understand "consubstantial".... Most of you know, of course, that this term comes from the Emperor Constantine when he suggested "consubstantialem Patri" when the Nicene Council in the 4th century battled with credal formulations. Poor Constantine played the role of mediator quite well, according to Eusebius (early Christian church historian). Paul Johnson in his A History of Christianity agrees with Eusebius.
I have more to say but before this post get lost again, I'd rather post it! [SM=g27824]
TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 25 giugno 2006 04:33
THE LITURGY WARS: A LAMENTABLE CHAPTER
The unexpected bonus of a concert of sacred polyphony at the Sistine Chapel today in honor of the Pope caused me to look up the case of Mons. Domenico Bartolucci, the 89-year-old composer of sacred music, whose homonymous foundation offered this concert, and who conducted the choir without a score through an hour of Palestrina and his own music.

Bartolucci was summarily dismissed as musical director of the Sistine Chapel choir in 1997, although he was named 'for life' by Pope Pius XII in 1956 to the position once occupied by the great Palestrina himself.

Here is the story taken from Sandro Magister's files which I have translated from the Italian [at the time, there were no English versions of Magister's articles for www.chiesa.com]. It is not a pretty story - i.e., no credit to the Vatican at that time - but quite instructive!

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Bartolucci case:
Maestro, we're changing our tune!

By Sandro Magister
June 3, 2002

An outstanding composer of sacred music turned 85 on May 7, 2002. To mark his birthday, he has been touring Italy and conducting his own music.

For example, an oratorio for soloists, choir and orchestra called “The storm on the lake,” which he composed when he was 18. This will be performed on June 8 at the cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence.

Or the “Missa Jubilaei” from 1950 – to be performed on June 23 at the Basilica of San Lorenzo in Damaso.

This excelent musician is Mon. Domenico Bartolucci, director of the Sistine Chapel choir from 1956 to 1997. An appointment which has not really lapsed. Because he was appointed ad vitam, for life, by Pope Pius XII. He continues to consider himself, for life, the last legitimate successor to the great Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina.


Woodcut showing Julius III and Palestrina

It is a fact that five years ago, the Vatican dismissed him abruptly. Not for reason of age, seeing the amazing vigor with which Bartolucci has continued since to conduct and to compose.

The news at the time passed almost unnoticed. It was considered a minor Vatican event. When in fact it concerned one of the most critical developments in the post-Vatican II Church. The passage from the traditional liturgy to the new.

Those who were responsible for Maestro Bartolucci’s ‘defenestration’ were in fact those behind the geared-for-the-masses liturgy so dear to Pope John Paul II – from Cardinal Virgilio Noe to Archbishop Piero Marini, ceremonial master for pontifical liturgy.

Meanwhile, the most severe critic – perhaps the only one - of the dismissal, and the reasons that motivated it, was and remains no one less than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. This shows the significance and seriousness of the matter, because Ratzinger is not someone who would waste his time and effort with petty things.

To know more about what happened in this case' which is far from closed, here is the story that appeared in the magazine L’Espresso in 1997:

Behind the scenes of
an announced dismissal

December 18, 1997

Merely by recalling to him an evening of rock music in Bologna with John Paul II and Bob Dylan, Maestro Domenico Bartoluzzi reacts sharply. “If I were Cardinal Biffi, I would have resigned,” he says.

Meanwhile, he himself has left his post, although he was named in 1956 magister ad perpetuum [master in perpetuity] of the glorious Sistine Chapel Choir and carries his 80-plus years with vigor.

In his place as director of the most Roman of liturgical choirs, the Vatican authorities called an outsider from Sicily, Mons. Giuseppe Liberto from the Cathedral of Monreale.

“It’s the ultimate sign of the change of course desired at the Vatican in the matter of liturgical music,” comments Giovanni Carlo Ballola, a noted music critic but also a deacon in Rome. A change in musical tastes? Not just that. Much, much more than that.

Bartolucci leafs through the last book by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the CDF, second in authority only to the Pope in the Church.

“Here it is. Even someone like him acknowledges it. ‘The origin of the problems in the Church today is in the break with liturgical tradition that came after Vatican-II.' A break, Ratzinger says literally! ... ‘whose consequences can only be tragic.’ See? Tragic! The Church does not know the treasure it is losing by abandoning Gregorian chant and polyphony.”

“’Resist, maestro, resist!' - Ratzinger himself told me when we met at the Mass for St. Cecilia on November 22 last year. But it was futile. A few months afterwards, they threw me out.”

Mons. Liberto, the new master of the Sistine choir, wants to avoid any polemic. “I have not read Ratzinger’s book,” he says. Not even those few pages that are relevant? “No, not even.” Nor his essays on sacred music and liturgy compiled in “Sing a new song for the Lord”? “No, I just don’t have the time.”

Strange. There is no expert in sacred music who would not have devoured these texts from beginning to end. For besides being a doctor of theology par excellence, Ratzinger knows music. In his own right and because of family. His brother Georg was choirmaster for 30 years, till 1994, of Regensburg Cathedral, where Bartolucci’s predecessor at the Sistine, Lorenzo Perosi, had studied.

These last decades, the Sistine Chapel choir and that of Regensburg have been the last bulwarks of traditional liturgical music against the ‘novismo’ [taste for novelty] of the post-Vatican II era.

Of course, there is also an opposite view of the events. If, for Ratzinger, the ‘tragedy’ was the abandonment of the old Missal, for one of his most outspoken opponents, the Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland*, once president of the worldwide Benedictine confederation, the ‘devastation’ comes from another decision: the indult by John Paul II (and Ratzinger) on traditionalists who insist on celebrating the Pre-conciliar Mass in Latin. A decision which he considers devastating because “it gave the impression that Vatican-II could overturn anything.”

[*Weakland resigned as archbishop in May 2002 when a man disclosed that Weakland had paid him off at least $450,000 - which it turns out Weakland got from diocesan funds - to buy his silence about a relationship they had in 1979-1980 after Weakland allegedly first sexually violated him. At the time, Weakland was one of the leading liberal voices in American Catholicism.]

Today, the fate of liturgical music is being debated between these two opposing ‘catastrophic’ views.

“And so, between traditional music that has all but disappeared and good new music that is yet to come, everyone has taken the cue from a 1967 Vatican instruction that reconfirmed the existence of scholae cantorum ‘provided the public is not excluded from participating in the singing,’ comments Ballola. "How this mixture between a trained choir and the general public could become practicable will remain one of the mysteries of the Church!”

Result: In order to allow the public to ‘participate’ in Papal Masses that are sung, the Sistine Chapel choir, for the past 30 years, has had little to do but fill up “dead spaces” during a Papal Mass when they can sing brief polyphonic motets or fragments of Gregorian chant.

And don’t even speak of those magnificent polyphonic Masses (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) of their composer par excellence, Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, from the 16th century! They have been archived.

In order to perform them, the choir must go on concert tours abroad, if they can find an interval between Papal Masses to do so. Bartolucci was in Japan to direct such a concert when he was informed of his dismissal.

On the other hand, his successor Liberto earned his summons to the Vatican by proving himself to be a competent conductor of people’s choirs during Papal liturgies celebrated before great crowds.

John Paul II liked what Liberto did in three visits to Sicily – in Mazara el Vallo, in Siracusa and in Palermo, during masses celebrated in a stadium or on open spaces by the seashore. He liked him so much that he asked him to come to Rome in November 1996 to conduct the singing during the Mass at St. Peter’s to celebrate the golden jubilee of the Pope’s ordination as priest. After five months, he named Liberto choirmaster of the Sistine Chapel.

The moment the news of the change was known, there was an ‘uprising’ among musicians of every creed!

The National Academy of St. Cecilia, a lay institution now although it was an offshoot of the Sistine Chapel choir and founded by Palestrina, authorized its president, Bruno Cagli, a Jew, to write the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, about “the concern of everyone that the unmeasurable religious and artistic patrimony linked to the tradition of Roman polyphony would be squandered and lost.”

Even Maestro Riccardo Muti (then musical director and principal conductor at L Scala] raised his voice in protest. But the Vatican simply ignored them.

“They did not even want to hear the opinion of the Pontifical Institute for Sacred Music (PIMS), the music conservatory of the Church,” says Francisco Luisi, who teaches the history of Renaissance music at PIMS and is prefect of its library.

PIMS is another bulwark in defense of great liturgical music that is under target. Its previous president, Giacomo Barroffio, a scholar and Gregorian chant master of world renown, as well as an intransigent foe of any modernistic compromise, was also dismissed in a questionable manner by the Vatican in 1995.

Even the current president, the Catalan Valentino Miserachs Grau, is not well regarded by the Papal entourage. But he continues to conduct the Cappella Liberiana, the choir of Santa Maria Maggiore, which besides the Sistine Chapel choir, is the only Roman schola cantorum that survives from the golden age of polyphonic music.

Grau is doing everything he can not to disappoint the students at PIMS, who have come there from all over the world because they are convinced that Rome remains the home of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony. With excellent results.

Go check out the Mass which teachers and students sing every Sunday at the 10 o'clock in their church at #21 via di Torre Rossa. At the end of the Mass, one can only wonder how it is possible that a liturgy that is so musically precious and so rich with Catholic resonances is being celebrated almost clandestinely, in the geographic heart itself of the holy Roman Catholic Church!

The answer is that the prevailing musical and liturgical paradigm at the center of Christendom has changed. The Sistine is, by statute, the Pope’s choir, the one that sings during his masses.

But John Paul II’s masses have become fixed ‘dates’ with the multitudes. They are masses geared for ‘mondovisione’ (worldwide television). Therefore, out with 16th-century polyphonoy and medieval responsorials. In with popular hymns and mass acclamations, that are “in step with modernity.”

“With the Holy Year, we will have even more Papal masses, and we shall be there,” says the new director of the Sistine. The task of accompanying the Papal liturgy to welcome the new millenium rests with his 25 pueri cantores (boy singers) and 20 tenors and basses.

But this is not the first “exile” for the glorious Sistine of polyphony and Gregorian chant. Once before, they followed the Pope into captivity in Avignon.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Magister then provides links to an article he wrote about Ratzinger's "Spirit of Liturgy" and about the Weakland case.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 25/06/2006 4.41]

Questa è la versione 'lo-fi' del Forum Per visualizzare la versione completa clicca qui
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 07:11.
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com