"After over four decades of conciliar reform the Church is now experiencing the cold chill of winter brought about by contrasting ideas of what the liturgy is and how it should be celebrated," says one of the world's leading authorities on the liturgy.
Fr Anscar Chupungco OSB, former President of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute at Sant'Anselmo in Rome, strongly criticised the Vatican in a lecture on 21 January over its apparent "agenda" to "put the clock back to a half century".
Speaking in Australia at the launch of the Broken Bay Institute-University of Newcastle’s programme of Liturgical Studies, Fr Chupungco said a "serious study of liturgy" -- which meant "careful theological, historical, and pastoral investigation" -- would "neutralize the liturgical romanticism and allegorism that holds some sectors of the postconciliar Church" today.
Here is the text in full:
LITURGICAL STUDIES AND LITURGICAL RENEWAL
Anscar J. Chupungco
Springtime fittingly describes the liturgical renewal before, during, and the twenty or so years after Vatican II. Firmly grounded on historical research, theological investigation, and pastoral consciousness, the framers of the postconciliar liturgy set out to implement the decisions of the council. Across the globe local Churches experienced the flowering of liturgical worship. The noble simplicity of the revised rites and the use of the vernacular helped immensely to promote full, intelligent, active participation, which the council had declared as the primary aim of the liturgical reform.
But even before we could, with satisfaction, gather the flowers and harvest the fruits of summer, a cold wind has begun to blow on the face of the postconciliar reform. The autumn leaves are starting to fall. No less than the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, announced on January 6, 2010 that there is need for a new reform of the liturgy. He intimated that the postconciliar experts did not grasp fully the meaning and intention of the liturgy constitution, which they had drafted and presented to the council fathers. He claimed that as a result, the postconciliar reform has “not always in its practical implementation found a timely and happy fulfilment”.
What are the possible implications of a reform of the postconciliar reform? What remedy does it offer for a reform that according to some Catholics has gone bad? What agenda does it put forward so that liturgical worship could be more reverent and prayerful?
The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back to a half century. It seems to conveniently forget that since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times, acknowledging the changes in social and religious culture, and adopting new pastoral strategies. Will Latinized English make the liturgy more awesome? It will certainly sound mysterious, but will it be more prayerful? Will the silent recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, preferably in Latin, evoke more vividly the Last Supper of Jesus? Is receiving Holy Communion on one’s knees and on the tongue more reverent than receiving it standing and in the hand? Will the priestly role of mediation be reinforced by praying at the altar with the back to the assembly?
The Constitution on the Liturgy (SC 21) wisely requires that the revision of any part of the liturgy should be preceded by a careful theological, historical, and pastoral investigation. This conciliar norm wishes to safeguard both the doctrinal content and the cultural form of the liturgy. To this end the study of liturgy should have due regard for its historical, theological, and cultural elements. In this way we will not dismiss too readily the ancient prayers and rites of the liturgy on grounds that they belong to another culture and age. Such an iconoclastic attitude can indeed impoverish the theology of the liturgy. We know that many of these ancient forms are rich in doctrine and spirituality.
A serious study of liturgy will likewise neutralize the liturgical romanticism and allegorism that holds some sectors of the postconciliar Church. The indiscriminate revival of Latin and Gregorian chant, for example, indicates that some people have not followed the historical process. It is true that the Liturgy Constitution (SC 36 and 116), given the peculiar circumstances surrounding the council, claims them as distinctive elements of the Roman liturgy. It is true that Latin and Gregorian chant still claim their rightful place in the liturgy. But to recall them as the ordinary, normal language and song of worship in parishes seems to overlook the conciliar principle of intelligent participation. The Church of Rome might have delayed the use of the vernacular, but it is part of her earlier tradition to adopt contemporary language in order to foster active participation. To revive Latin as the daily language of the liturgy, regardless of whether or not the presider and the assembly can follow the readings and prayers, disclaims “sound tradition” and obstructs what the Constitution (SC 23) calls "legitimate progress".
Vatican II's Constitution Gaudium et Spes makes a significant statement about the role played by culture in the life and mission of the Church. In art. 58 it declares: "The Church has existed through the centuries in varying circumstances and has utilized the resources of different cultures in her preaching to spread and explain the message of Christ, to examine and understand it more deeply, and to express it more perfectly in the liturgy and in the various aspects of the life of the faithful". In the course of two thousand years the Church has been integrating the cultural resources of every nation in order to evangelize, to theologize, and to celebrate in the liturgy the mystery of her faith.
The writings of scholars like A. Baumstark, E. Bishop, G. Dix, L. Duchesne, J. Jungmann, and M. Righetti, among several others, drew attention to the cultural underpinning of Christian worship. Thanks to their scholarship, we can now affirm that Christian worship, both in language and rites, is so inextricably tied to culture that it is not possible to study it, much less celebrate it, outside the cultural context. This cultural consciousness engendered a new approach to the study of liturgy. Liturgical rites and symbols that once upon a time had been interpreted from a purely allegorical perspective began to be explained as historical and cultural realities.
Neglecting the study of liturgy in its historical and cultural realties can result in theological mishaps. When infant confirmation became the normal practice after the sixth century, the kiss of peace that the bishop gave to the newly confirmed adult was, for some reason, revised to a slight fatherly pat on the cheek of the child. By the thirteenth century in France and Germany the gesture had evolved into a slap similar to what a man received when he was vested as a knight. Consequently confirmation wound up as the sacrament that enlisted children as soldiers of Christ. The passage from kiss to slap with the shift of emphasis from the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit to a military sacrament is one of the misfortunes of sacramental theology.
The historical and cultural approach to the liturgy had a strong impact on the shaping of the Constitution on the Liturgy. The council addressed the issue of liturgical renewal in the light, not only of theology and pastoral concern, but also of culture. Arts. 34, 37-40, 50, and the entire chapter on sacraments and sacramentals as well as the chapters on music and liturgical furnishings dwell on the relationship between liturgy and culture. Art. 34 is a good example. Although it does not explicitly say "Roman culture", it names its patterns when it says: "The rites should be marked by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions". It describes the classical form of liturgy that integrated Roman sobriety and practical sense. The council envisioned a type of liturgy that was marked by noble simplicity and clarity. It wanted a liturgy that the people could easily follow. In sharp contrast is the attempt to revive, at the expense of active participation, the medieval usage that was espoused by the Tridentine rite and to retrieve eagerly the liturgical paraphernalia that had been deposited in museums as historical artifacts.
According to the Liturgy Constitution the study of liturgy has three chief orientations, namely theological, historical, and pastoral. They often overlap and are, in any case, mutually inclusive. The theology of the liturgy is drawn best from the liturgical books, namely the prayers, readings, and introductory notes. The famous axiom lex orandi, lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith) is enshrined in the liturgical books of the Church. Being catechetical and doctrinal in nature, the liturgy has an amazing capacity to explain to us what it is all about. Theologizing about liturgy apart from the liturgical books could become an exercise in theological hallucination. At best, it encourages the allegorical understanding of the liturgy, which incidentally was a favorite pastime of the clergy during the Middle Ages.
The aim of history, on the other hand, is to uncover the circumstances and factors that led to the theological thinking on the liturgy and the Church's liturgical discipline. In this connection we affirm that historia docet. History is a teacher that points out models to be imitated and warns about mistakes to be avoided. The study of history is not for archeological interest only, but also for a better understanding of the process of ritual development. We know that the revision of liturgical books after the council was supported by solid historical data. Might not the absence of a historical mind frame be one reason why we still witness the tenacity to hold fast to liturgical forms discarded by the conciliar reform, especially on the part of conservative movements that challenge the postconciliar liturgy, if not the conciliar decision? History is liberating, but alas those who do not learn from it are indeed "bound to repeat its mistakes".
Lastly, pastoral liturgy is grounded in history or sound liturgical tradition, in the solid theology of the liturgy, and in what the Constitution (SC 23) calls "the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from indults conceded to various places". Students of liturgy should be aware of recent developments, including recent documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship that are becoming increasingly perplexing. Students should be equipped with a critical mind that allows them to weigh the theological, historical, and pastoral value of new norms and directives, though always in the spirit of ecclesial obedience.
Everything in history has its own justification, though not necessarily a lasting and universal value. Not every text in the liturgical books, not every rite and symbol from the past, and not every feast in the calendar has perennial significance for the life of the Church. The reform of the Roman missal wanted by the Constitution (SC 50) eliminated much of the medieval textual and ritual accretions that only served to blur the meaning and purpose of the Mass. Some prayer formulas, though venerable in age, needed to be modified in order to be more contemporary. The ill-fated Instruction "Comme le prévoit" of 1969 admits that "sometimes the meaning of a text can no longer be understood, either because it is contrary to modern Christian ideas (as in terrena despicere or ut inimicos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris) or because it has less relevance today (as in some phrases intended to combat Arianism) or because it no longer expresses the true original meaning as in some obsolete forms of Lenten penance". The Instruction was the handbook for liturgical translation in the Church until the appearance of Liturgiam authenticam in 2001.
The student should know how to critique liturgical developments in the light of Vatican II's liturgical principles, like the central position of the paschal mystery, the place of God's word, active participation with all this implies (use of the vernacular, congregational singing, lay ministry), and the ecclesial dimension of the sacraments and sacramentals. These constitute the guiding principles to decide whether things are liturgically acceptable or not.
Culture plays a crucial role in the study of liturgy, if such a study is to serve the cause of Vatican II’s liturgical reform. Students of liturgy are required to own a fair amount of sensitivity to the cultural components of the liturgy and to their local culture and traditions. Familiarity with the notion of culture is a prerequisite to the study of liturgy. Culture in this context can be defined in terms of its values, patterns, and institutions. Time constraint does not allow us to address here these elements of culture. We cannot underrate the place and role of culture in the liturgy.
It is regrettable that today the word “inculturation” is spoken in some Church quarters in whispers and muffled voice. In reality the Liturgy Constitution devotes four long articles to it (arts.37-40). Although recent documents coming from Rome acknowledge inculturation, their definition of it as formal correspondence rather than dynamic equivalence effectively dismisses inculturation. Inculturation by definition uses dynamic equivalence to re-translate the liturgical books in the historical, socio-cultural, and religious context of the local Church. Of course, if not done according to rules, dynamic equivalence can be doctrinally risky. Formal correspondence, on the other hand, is considered doctrinally safe, because it is a word-for-word translation, but the result, such as the Latinized English prayers, misses the target of intelligibility and is on the whole linguistically awkward and clumsy.
Have autumn and winter prematurely settled in the liturgical landscape of Vatican II? After over four decades of conciliar reform the Church is now experiencing the cold chill of winter brought about by contrasting ideas of what the liturgy is and how it should be celebrated. Obviously this kind of tension could be a healthy sign that the interest in the liturgy has not abated. However, after the council we are not free to propound our views on what the liturgy is all about outside the principles it has established firmly in the Constitution on the Liturgy. There are surely instances of postconciliar implementation that are debatable, but we should be careful to distinguish them from the conciliar principles, especially the full, active participation of all God’s people in the liturgy.
The foregoing reflections aimed to pinpoint the cause of the malaise. There are groups, and their number grows with each passing day, that move with decisive step toward the rightist view of things. Any change in the liturgy causes irritation, if not outright disenchantment with the reform. Often they find refuge in preconciliar forms, which they revive as quickly as they discard the new. This paper tried to trace the cause, which seems to be the absence of an historical and cultural approach to the liturgy or, in a word, the inability to fuse together the two basic concepts of Vatican II's liturgical renewal, namely: sound tradition and legitimate progress.
Sound tradition and legitimate progress are the two key phrases that perfectly express the program of liturgical reform envisaged by Vatican II. Progress is built on tradition, while tradition sustains and critiques progress. It is necessary for the students of liturgy to review history, study the theology of the liturgy, be familiar with culture, and be imbued with pastoral zeal for the Church. One lesson we learn from history is that Rome was not built in a day, and that it took almost four hundred years for the Roman Church to develop its own liturgy. The long and short of it is that liturgical reform requires serious academic work, not mere romantic attachments to the past that close the eyes to the reality of the present time. The drive for legitimate progress makes us run toward the realization of Vatican II’s liturgical reform, but we should not run as if we did not carry on our shoulders the weight, both heavy and precious, of sound tradition. Liturgical reform is both sound tradition and legitimate progress, not sound tradition alone, but legitimate progress as well.
First, the opponents of the "reform of the reform" are simply behaving in an unreasonable manner. Either the church is continually called to reform or she is not. If she is then this would include the post conciliar reform. They are simply no different than SSPX. They too what a liturgy that is not subject to reform. The only difference is that the SSPX wants to stop reform in 1964 and Chupungco want to stop reform with himself.
Second, what is the essence of the objection to the "reform of the reform". Is it that is not sufficiently pastoral? If so this is an entirely subjective criteria. The only way to measure (assuming that there is no objective evil) would be to verify if the people of God feel ministered to. While clearly some feel ministered to an equally small number of Catholics do not feel ministered to. Most Catholics do not attend weekly Mass now so we have to assume that they did not find the ordinary form pastorally responsive. The problem with the proponents of the extraordinary form is that they argue that the EF will solve most of the problems in the Church. This is simply not going to happen. But the opponents of the EF have to admit that if the Ordinary form was supposed to be a pastoral response it simply has not happened and must be conceived of as a failure.
I also find it amusing that there is an insistence on inculturation. For this is the one thing that has not really been done. If one looks at OF parishes it is amazing at how similar they are in spite of the fact that they are often in very different cultural areas. The OF celebrated in Georgia is indentical to one celebrated in New York. While these two states share a common language, they do not share a common culture. Moreover, if one is seeking to inculturate the liturgy there is the now laugable problem of 60 year old men and nuns trying to make liturgy relevant to 20 year olds.
Posted by: me | January 30, 2010 at 09:48 AM
me - perhaps the reason why the liturgy looks and feels the same in New York as in Georgia is that, surprise, they share the same culture albeit with some differences, but certainly more alike than different.
You'd do better to look at the difference between a Spanish language liturgy in the U.S. (or a French liturgy in Canada), in comparison to an English one.
Even there, there's quite a bit that's the same.
Inculturation has to do with situations such as in Japan where the word "spirit" has problematic undertones or where the kiss of peace is also problematic.
One could also point to India where sitting on the ground is a traditional way of attending religious services.
Posted by: evagrius | January 31, 2010 at 02:14 AM
Evagrius,
First of all, those from the south do not share same culture as those from the north (although this is beginning to change). It certainly is the case that 30 years ago someone from New York simply lived in a different culture than someone from the south. You have just made my point about the cultural insensitivity of contemporary liturgists and their supporters. I would guess that you are a Yankee. Other than language we are more different than alike.
I would suggest to you that there are all sorts of cultural differences between what a southerner expects from a liturgy and what a northerner expects from a liturgy.
Perhaps you also think all African liturgies should be the same as well. Since clearly there must not be a difference between someone from North Africa and someone from central Africa.
Posted by: me | January 31, 2010 at 03:52 AM
"They are simply no different than SSPX. They too what a liturgy that is not subject to reform."
On the contrary, most of the critics of the new translations refer to the 1998 translations which, though approved by the English speaking bishops, were suppressed by the Vatican. Are you aware of this?
"Most Catholics do not attend weekly Mass now so we have to assume that they did not find the ordinary form pastorally responsive." There is no guarantee that sticking to the pre-Vatican II forms would have prevented this from happening. Moreover, the new translations are based on the "subjective" idea that replacing an intelligible translation with an unintelligible one will have a good pastoral effect, even though this has been disconfirmed by the South Africa experience. There is no pastoral argument for the restoration of the 1962 liturgy or for the new translations.
I don't get the point about it being laughable that 60 year olds are trying to make the liturgy intelligible to 20 year olds. It is hardly 20 year olds who are pushing the restorationist follies denounced in the post. What are your own concrete proposals?
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | January 31, 2010 at 04:02 AM
me- Well, describe the cultural differences, if you please.
I'm not a Yankee. I live in Canada, in Quebec, so I do know a bit about cultural differences.
Posted by: evagrius | January 31, 2010 at 08:59 AM
Evagrius,
Living in Canada, does not mean that you know anything about cultural differences. It does not even mean that you are aware of your own culture. Many individuals go through life not knowing that which is distinctive (both good and bad) about their own culture.
But my dear Evagrius you are a Yankee and apparently were unaware of it. ;) You live north of the MD line.
Posted by: me | February 01, 2010 at 05:48 AM
Dear Spirit,
Yes I was aware of this.
You write, "There is no guarantee that sticking to the pre-Vatican II forms would have prevented this from happening." I do not disagree with this point as I think I made clear in my previous post. My point was really if the principle is that one is to be pastoral, then one has to admit that a significant portion of the laity to not feel as if they are being pastored to by the current OF. If being pastoral is the most important principle then on this principle it would seem to follow that the best situation is to offer multiple forms of the Roman Rite. This is what was always odd about liturgists opposition to the EF; it was simply contrary to the way they typically spoke and wrote.
"the new translations are based on the "subjective" idea that replacing an intelligible translation with an unintelligible one will have a good pastoral effect, even though this has been disconfirmed by the South Africa experience." If I may make two point in responce. First, I have read the new translation and it cannot be said to be unintelligible. It does not read as well as the older translation but that hardly makes it "unintelligible". You should not overstate the case. Second, there is nothing about the reception in South Africa that has anything to do with its reception in the South of the United States, for example. Again if the principle is to be pastoral, it may be that south Africa requires a different translation that the south in the U.S.
"There is no pastoral argument for the restoration of the 1962 liturgy or for the new translations." In my post above I did not suggest that the 1962 Missal should be restored. I do not think though that you can actually make this argument seriously. What is pastoral? Am I to understand that your position is that in order for one to be pastoral then a liturgy must look the way you think that it should look. In this way your position is not far from that of the SSPX. They just happen to think that in order to be pastoral the liturgy should look the way they think it should look. The enduring popularity in some circles of the EF suggests this. These individuals simple do not find the OF "pastoral". So what pastoral principle can you invoke other than simply being pastoral against some individuals celebrating the EF? So far you have only gratuitously asserted that the 1962 missal is not pastoral and therefore it may be gratuitously denied.
"I don't get the point about it being laughable that 60 year olds are trying to make the liturgy intelligible to 20 year olds." If one looks at the younger generation of committed catholics one sees an obvious disconnect with the older generation. Anyone that has any knowledge of major and minor seminaries around the U.S. at least knows this. The seminarians are typically more conservative (I do not like these descriptors but they are the ones frequently employed) and the faculties historically at least have been more liberal. Even in conservative seminaries there is a noted difference between the older conservative faculty and the young more conservative seminarians. This is further compounded by individuals in their 60's attempting to make individuals in their 20's understand what the liturgy through signs. You will almost always find that the disconnect between older and younger is not percieved by the older generation as acute as it actually is. Many of the hymns, for example, currently in use in Catholic Churches strike the ear of the youth as coming from the 70's and 80's. This is equally true of vestments in puke green polyester used by the older generation of priests. To the younger generation these choices strike one as what their grandparents had on the floor in their living room. Even Catholic greeting cards strike the younger generation as looking like vestiges of the 1960's. Evangelical churches have done a much better job of connecting with contemporary culture. This is the problem of attempting to inculturate in modern society. Modern society is rooted in constant change. If this is one's goal one should be aware that one's target culture will constantly be moving. Sometimes the cultural will move "backwards" so to speak and therefore the thing to do it would seem would be to reflect this movement liturcially but moderate it.
Posted by: me | February 01, 2010 at 06:41 AM
Dear me- Since you don't live in Canada, you obviously don't know much about the cultures here.
I mentioned I live in Quebec, specifically Montreal. Please do a search on Google and peruse the information there.
Obviously you don't know much about Yankees either.
People north of the Canadian border are not Yankees.
Perhaps you have shown a cultural difference- I'm willing to inquire and ask questions to learn something while you seem to be....
Your remark about the relationship between those in their 60's and those in their 20's is very humorous.
It's obvious, ( if you give it some thought), that those 20 year old seminarians are just as much out of touch with the contemporary culture as the older professors. After all, they're involved in a rather peculiar activity. I seriously doubt that they have any inkling of what's really out there.
Posted by: evagrius | February 01, 2010 at 01:39 PM
Dear Evagrius,
You may have noted that when I made the point that you are a Yankee, I ended the the sentence with ";)". This symbol is used to signify a wink and a smile. I was being playful. I would suggest that perhaps you should google emoticon.
So I do not think it is obvious that I do not "know much about Yankees". Nor do I think that I am generally ignorant of Canadian culture. I will only say that I did not grow up in the States.
"I'm willing to inquire and ask questions to learn something while you seem to be...." It seems like you are actually more comfotable making accusations than raising questions.
"It's obvious, ( if you give it some thought), that those 20 year old seminarians are just as much out of touch with the contemporary culture as the older professors." I agree that it is obvious which was rather my point. So thank you for making the point that I made in my post above. I never stated that those in the 20s were not out of touch. My point was rather that liturgists (after all they are the ones telling us what would be pastoral) are out of touch with the younger generation. If these two groups are equally out of touch and in fact represent very different ways of thinking then the pastoral responce should produce a responce that is different for both groups and not the same.
"I seriously doubt that they have any inkling of what's really out there." This position is absurd. First they are at least aware of their own generation and as such do have knowledge of some of what is "out there." I would agree that they are generally unaware of the older generation's (50s+) concerns. But this is no different than the situation of the older generation of priests and liturgists who are equally ignorant of the concerns of the younger generation. (again here I am speaking of preists to seminarians).
Posted by: me | February 02, 2010 at 06:06 AM
Oh gee, "emoticons" are so important.
Well, I did ask you what the cultural differences were between the "South" and the "North", and you never described them.
Hence my stopping at... and not going further.
Exactly what should liturgists do in order to be in touch with the "younger generation"?
If you listed some suggestions, then I might be able to discern what your point is.
I found an interesting essay on Rorate Caeli about Latin and the liturgy.
If I read the article correctly, the Latin used in the Roman liturgy is somewhat of an artificial language. It was not even the common language of the people of Rome, ( and the rest of Western Europe), at the time the liturgy transitioned from Greek to Latin, ( a somewhat long transition).
If the article is correct, that the Latin is artificial, it goes much to explain the difficulties in translating to a living, mutable language such as English, ( which is extremely malleable).
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/11/pope-received-in-audience-this-morning.html
Posted by: evagrius | February 02, 2010 at 07:32 AM
Dear Evagrius,
"Oh gee, "emoticons" are so important." Emoticons, for better or worse, are important. They are a way of delivering information in ways that are either not possible or difficult with mere words. They are, if you will, part of the "culture" of the internet. For example, one could easily read your first sentence as sarcastic (I chose not to read it this way). But an emoticon could have conveyed a certain playfulness on your part rather than mere sarcasm which often suggests a certain condescension.
"If you listed some suggestions, then I might be able to discern what your point is" I did list a few suggestions. If we are to assume that the we are to approach liturgical matters pastorally, then it seems as if we should granted to different groups different forms of the Latin Rite. To some this will mean that they will require the EF, to others the current translation of the OF, to others a more "literal" translatin of the OF. This point, I think, was clear in my above posts.
"the Latin used in the Roman liturgy is somewhat of an artificial language."
The article was interesting and thank you for the citation. I would suggest that the English currently employed in the OF is as equally artificial as the Latin of the Latin Rite. All languages are composed for the most part of conventional signs and as such are artificial. No one language is anymore living or artificial than another. Languages do not live, only humans live. These living humans artificially chose or created one set of signs as a a way to convey information. Therefore, all languages are artificial.
The state of Isreal, for example, took a "dead language", Hebrew, converted it into a "living language". Now there are millions of people who speak what was really a dead language.
My favorite example is the English word "dude". Here is a word that can be used a dozens of ways based merely on inflection. While these usuages through inflections are utterly artificial, this does not make them bad or useless. This usage of dude is a language movement that was to a loose usage of language (as are emoticons) while it may be desirable in some circumstances to do precisely the opposite through an insistance on the denotations of words. For example in medicine we really want a one for one correspondance on most medical terms. A "leg" should be a leg. Medicine "A" should refer to medicine A. Precisely so that one does not receive medicine B. This may be desireable in the liturgy sometimes and sometimes not.
Posted by: me | February 03, 2010 at 01:52 AM
me- you still haven't described the cultural differences between North and South.
Your suggestions are not really relevant.
I'm not quite sure why one group of English speakers should need a different English liturgy than another.
Elizabethian English is now artificial. I don't think a liturgy with that type of language is living. Neither would a liturgy that is based slavishly on a word for word equivalence.
I don't think you've really given a good response to my questions.
Again, what's the cultural difference between North and South?
Posted by: evagrius | February 03, 2010 at 08:41 AM
Evagrius,
"Your suggestions are not really relevant."
Where is your proof of the this. What is your counter argument. You should recall a basic principle of logic - what is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied.
"Elizabethian English is now artificial. I don't think a liturgy with that type of language is living. Neither would a liturgy that is based slavishly on a word for word equivalence."
My point is that languages do not live. All language, including contemporary english, is artificial. If it lives, please show me empirical evidence of this. What creature will you show me? Does it breath? Does it grow? No, it simply is an arbitrary set of signs used to communicate. It is as arbitrary as red means stop, or green means go. Why is one set of letters any better than another set of letters. They are again only as good as the associations we make with them. To be clear, my only point here is all language is artificial and therefore any claim that one language is more artificial than another is gratuitous and cannot be the basis for rejecting some particular type of liturgy.
I have never mentioned either "Elizabethian English" or "a slavish word for word equivalence" a single time in any of my posts. So I do not see how they are relevant.
"Again, what's the cultural difference between North and South?" I am not sure why you are fixated on this point. I mentioned it but in passing as an example. It would frankly take too long to explain. You could equally select for example Nigerian usage vs. that of Texas and probably find enough differences to entail different translations of the English text.
Posted by: me | February 04, 2010 at 02:11 AM
Evagrius,
My main point has always been rather simple. If our goal is to be pastoral, then why do we not offer different forms/translations of liturgies for various groups?
Or is it simply that on a priori grounds you do not like the other proposed forms because they do not suit you?
Posted by: me | February 04, 2010 at 02:13 AM
"why do we not offer different forms/translations of liturgies for various groups?"
What kind of "groups"? Little old white Anglo-Saxon males? Little old females? Philipinos? Black Americans from Ilinois? Black Americans fron Louisiana? Athletes? Bankers? Theologians?
Children under 8? Under 12?
Teens up to 18? Latinophiles?
Anglophobics? Gays?
Physically challenged?
As you can see, groups are "artificial".
The Church is not "artificial". While "groups" may be found in the Church, the Church itself is not a "group".
Languages are "living" when spoken and used in everyday life. They are "artificial" when used only in certain ways, ( scientific language is artificial, philosophical language, theological language etc;). The artificiality of a language can change if it becomes an integral part of everyday life.
Of course, these days, everyday life can itself be quite artificial.
Posted by: evagrius | February 04, 2010 at 03:02 AM
No, there is surely room for a variety of English translations of Scripture and Liturgy adapted to different cultures using an English liturgy -- New Zealand, Ireland, the Philippines. There is no reason why a great variety of Eucharistic Prayers adapted to various cultural contexts should no be composed. The Vatican has been very closed on this; the Japanese bishops were refused the chance to replace their sawdust collects with seasonal-themes prayers.
However such delicate inculturation is a luxury concern at a time when what we still need to secure or defend a solid usable liturgy.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | February 04, 2010 at 03:47 AM
Evagrius,
All language is artificial. It is a construct of man.
"What kind of "groups"?" This is obviously not a real question given what follows. I recall you saying something in an earlier post about asking questions. Nevertheless, what follows is a reductio ad absurdum.
"As you can see, groups are "artificial"." This does not follow from your fallacy. Now I will offer evidence. There are numerous rites in the Catholic Church already. The Catholic Church already does what I am suggesting. The serious question is: to what extent should it be extended? As I stated in a previous post, it might be desirable for the Church in South Africa to have a different liturgy from the North America on pastoral grounds. Even within one country it may be desirable to have mulitple versions of a liturgy. Many countries in Africa are simply artificial constructs of the European powers. There are often very different cultures in one country. Why should these cultural differences not be respected?
Posted by: me | February 04, 2010 at 04:16 AM
Dear Spirit,
I agree with the main thrust of your comment.
"However such delicate inculturation is a luxury concern at a time when what we still need to secure or defend a solid usable liturgy." This sentence leaves me scratching my head. It seems as if in the case of the English OF you are only willing to grant one version. You seem to grant that in other countries it is possible to conceive of multiple versions of the same liturgy while in English speaking countries (except in Africa, I suppose) you deny it. Why is it not conceivable to have if you will a "higher" (I use these terms as they are colloquially used) form of the OF next to a "lower" form of the OF? Clearly there are a number of individuals in this country who find the "higher" form more comforting and vice versa. I think that there is, a general growing cultural divide, on these issues. Or perhaps the liturgy is merely an occasion by which the divide became visible.
Posted by: me | February 04, 2010 at 04:25 AM
" Why is it not conceivable to have if you will a "higher" (I use these terms as they are colloquially used) form of the OF next to a "lower" form of the OF? Clearly there are a number of individuals in this country who find the "higher" form more comforting and vice versa."
I don't see any objection to this; liturgies are already differentiated in this way in their music, etc. The only danger is that the church breaks down into non-communicating cultural ghettos; but Anglicanism seems to be able to handle that danger well enough.
If the new translations were being proposed as an optional set to be used if found useful, I would have no objection. They would sink or swim on their merits.
But the Roman mentality prescribes that there be one official text for all, inscribed in heavy, expensive books. I have supposed that the new translations will be made mandatory from a certain date and that continued use of the current ones will constitute an act of disobedience (sure to be reported by liturgical vigilantes). I would be very surprised if the Vatican allowed both the current and the new translations to be used.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | February 04, 2010 at 05:57 AM