« Slowly but surely | Main | The Light in the Piazza »
June 15, 2006
Bishop News:
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.
snip
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."
Decision about abortion, Communion and Catholic politicians:
U.S. Catholic bishops on Thursday ended years of soul searching over whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied communion, leaving the decision with local bishops.
Wrapping up a task force on Catholics in political life, chairman and Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick reiterated a policy approved by the bishops in 2004, adding that he was concerned about partisan politics seeping into Catholic life.
(the question on the Mass translation is - what are those adaptations for the US? I'll be looking. You too.)
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
U.S. Catholic bishops on Thursday ended years of soul searching over whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied communion, leaving the decision with local bishops.
This took years of soul searching to come up with?
Posted by: mio at Jun 15, 2006 10:34:33 PM
"But the bishops kept the current version, noting, " 'Consubstantial' is a theological expression requiring explanation for many."
Yes, God forbid that the laity might learn a tiny bit of theology. I mean, they don't really need to know about that Trinity thing, when there are social justice issues to tend to!
In all seriousness though, I'm quite pleased overall. This is a positive step forward, but not the end of the road.
Posted by: Chris S. at Jun 15, 2006 10:34:51 PM
Gotta agree with the bishops on "consubstantial." What a dreadful ugly slab of a word that is in English. It's a prayer we're talking about, not a doctoral dissertation.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Jun 15, 2006 10:45:15 PM
I guess what Christopher Fotos is saying is that we shouldn't expect our prayer to speak of profound theological realities!
Posted by: Fr. Totton at Jun 15, 2006 10:57:26 PM
"'Consubstantial' is a theological expression requiring explanation for many.""
I'm sorry they didn't have time to explain it to the bishops who didn't understand it...
Posted by: Jeff at Jun 15, 2006 11:06:37 PM
Funny position the abortion position puts Archbishop Wuerl in. He pushed for a common strategy for the whole episcopate; now that his suggestion has been declined, I wonder if he'll come up with his own policy?
Posted by: Jeff at Jun 15, 2006 11:10:10 PM
"U.S. Catholic bishops on Thursday ended years of soul searching over whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied communion, leaving the decision with local bishops."
In other words, they copped out. In the 80's they decided to leave it up to individual bishops to decide what to do with priest child molesters, and look what happened.
No spine, no unity. It changes nothing. Catholics will continue to sin with impunity, and abortion will be as divisive as ever. What's the use of preaching the truth, if you won't hold people accountable for it?
Nope, hard-working prolife Catholic activists can't expect unified support from their bishops, not even when their own elected Catholic representatives vote against the very legislation they're trying to get passed. As a Catholic prolife activist, I've had that experience. Talk about feeling like you've had your legs cut out from under you. And the legislator, as far as I know, still goes to mass and receives Holy Communion - and makes a big deal out of being a Catholic.
According to one news report (ABC), Cardinal Theodore McCarrick reiterated a policy approved by the bishops in 2004, adding that he was concerned about partisan politics seeping into Catholic life.
Hello. It's not about avoiding politics. It's about upholding God's law, which is higher than politics, and holding the members of your flock accountable for doing the same.
What a disappointment. More of the same old same old. Have the bishops learned nothing? I love the Church and I love the bishops, including especially my own. But sometimes I just want to holler at them.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Jun 15, 2006 11:10:52 PM
Weren't communists once forbidden to recieve & automatically excommunicated?
What about Nazis? If a member of the SS or a brownshirt was to present himself at the altar- in uniform, say (sure, such people usually had little use for the Church, but as a mental exercise) would Cardinal McCarrick and the rest of our bishs say partisan politics ought not divide us.. little silly details such as genocide, euthanasia of the handicapped and unprovoked agressive war aside..
Would they allow Hitler to communicate without a public renunciation of his crimes?
Really. I'd so like to know. I'm not being facetious in the least.
Posted by: LL cool chaz at Jun 15, 2006 11:18:15 PM
Father/Jeff:
I agree with Chris, and I don't think it has anything to do with disinterest in profound theological realities. The problem is that "consubstantial" is simply atrocious English (or rather, is "good English" only if "similarity to Latin" is the measuring stick).
If one is interested in profound theology, "one in being" is just as good, and has the side benefit of being far more likely to be at least intelligible to all (if not necessarily profoundly understood). "Consubstantial" is more likely to produce eye-glazing than be as productive of profound reflection of the nature of the Trinity as "trans-substantiation" already has been about the nature of the Real Presence. [/irony]
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jun 15, 2006 11:53:46 PM
I guess what Christopher Fotos is saying is that we shouldn't expect our prayer to speak of profound theological realities!
No, father, that is not what I'm saying.
I think I have some appreciation of the challenge translators face at even the most simple level, never mind across cultures, languages and time. But a translation of a prayer that merely transliterates from one language to another is a failure. Anyone who has wrestled with translations of poems understands this.
"Consubstantial" is an ugly roadblock of a word in English. It's a word only bureaucrats and theologians (and, er, at least one priest) could love. It's the verbal equivalent of a 70's Bauhaus church. True but as inspiring as a garage.
Can you tell I was an English major?
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Jun 15, 2006 11:55:20 PM
I guess I should clarify my last sentence. I obviously don't deny trans-substantiation (duh). Nor am I calling for its replacement with an earthier, more Anglo-Saxon term -- there really isn't any good alternative in current English usage.
But rather, many Catholics today misunderstand or disbelieve the Real Presence despite the use of Latinate vocabulary.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jun 16, 2006 12:05:55 AM
As someone who has spent a few decades as a Catholic educator, I would agree that 'consubstantial' tells people nothing, while they understand 'one in being.'
'Transubstantiation' requires at least a five minute background number, starting with "Have you ever heard of Thomas Aquinas?" At the end of it, mostly since we don't live in a physical world as Aristotle understood it, people still can nod their heads and think that I am saying that the Eucharistic species 'stand for' Christ. But if I say "actually become" the Body and Blood of Christ, lights go on. The world 'actual' packs a whole lot more punch with English speaking Americans in the 21st century than anything about substans and accidens.
I would hate to have to add a catechesis on constubstantial to my repertoire, but with folks who are older (or at least 10 years old now) I could begin with "Do you remember when we used to say 'one in being'? Well, that's what it means...."
(Not that I hate catechesis, and not that I don't make sure when teaching the Creed to catechists and teachers that we use these words (in Greek, too!), but just in an everyday, "This is what things mean" sort of way.)
Fidelity to Latin is a fine thing, but people don't speak it or understand it. I'm glad I had it high school and college, but in how many places is it even possible to study it anymore? (And thereby I date myself....)
Posted by: Cathy at Jun 16, 2006 12:13:00 AM
Am I the only one that finds consubstantial easier to understand than "one in being?"
Posted by: Chris G at Jun 16, 2006 12:22:59 AM
Cathy--as far as I can tell, most universities still offer Latin classes. Class size is smallish, though.
Posted by: JaneC at Jun 16, 2006 1:17:38 AM
No, Chris G., I think it's clearer than 'being' too, I just didn't have the guts to say so, as a fellow English major had already vehemently spoken for the opposite side ;) .
Posted by: stunted at Jun 16, 2006 1:21:51 AM
But the bishops kept the current version, noting, " 'Consubstantial' is a theological expression requiring explanation for many."
As others have noted, we all know plenty of priests and directors of religious education who don't want to "explain" because that would be that rude "ideological" practice of teaching "the Truth".
As for the adopted changes, they sounded very familiar. In fact, they sounded EXACTLY like the English translations in my pre-Vatican II missal. "I am not worthy that you should come under my roof": I've been saying that all along, all these years, since childhood, since it more exactly references what was said to Jesus. Really, why didn't they just start using the English translation that was in all our Latin/English missals and save us the miserable melodramatics of the last 40 years?
Posted by: Dudley at Jun 16, 2006 1:45:03 AM
Pace Mr. Fotos and other metaphysi-phobic commenters, I grew up *as an Episcopalian* saying "consubstantial with the Father" every Sunday in reciting the Creed. I knew from wee childhood what it meant (insofar as the Trinity is comprehensible at that, or any, age!).
When I became Catholic, the change to "one in being with the Father" was just another one of those jarring, irritating dumbing-downs I had to put up with in learning a new English liturgy. For my money, consubstantial is both more elegant and more accurate than "one in being."
(P.S. -- I also grew up to be a philosophy major -- no doubt under the influence of the pernicious "consubstantial"!)
Posted by: Cat Clinic at Jun 16, 2006 2:06:25 AM
I think that it helps if a prayer "flows" and "sounds smooth to the ear". If it jars the ear when spoken aloud, it can distract from the sense of what is being prayed. In that sense, "consubstantial" wouldn't be as big a change as it might seem--it has as many syllables as "one in being" (with the stresses in the same places).
Say it out loud:
"ONE in BEing WITH the FAther"
"CONsubSTANtial WITH the FAther"
Both are trochaic tetrameter, keeping the rhythm that we are used to.
(The most famous poem in this meter is probably Longfellow's "Song of Hiawatha"--"By the shores of Gitche Gumee/By the shining Big-Sea-Water...")
Posted by: California Girl at Jun 16, 2006 2:39:40 AM
Am I the only one that finds consubstantial easier to understand than "one in being"?
If English rather than Latin is your native language (and the contrary obviously describes nobody), the only way "consubstantial" rather than "one in being" can be easier to understand is if one has formally studied theology or philosophy that originally was written in Latin, and so has learned to associate the concept "consubstantial" and the associated medieval metaphysics with Latinate vocabulary.
Otherwise, yes, you would be the only one.
Tough as this might be to say, Latin is now the native language of nobody. And no longer the lingua franca of all educated persons.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jun 16, 2006 2:41:03 AM
The intentional dumbing down of translations indicates that those doing the dumbing strictly adhere to the old adage "Quidquid recipitur, in modo recipientis recipitur". In other words, since "whatever is received is received in the manner of the one receiving it", by dumbing down the translations they signal their opinon about our intelligence. o{]:¬)
Posted by: Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬) at Jun 16, 2006 2:43:32 AM
Cat Clinic:
I have a philosophy minor and I don't have a problem with consubstantial either.
My 1965 missal says "of one substance with the Father" - why not go back to that or "same substance" if we can't handle multisyllabic words anymore?
BTW Christopher Fotos: The Creed is not a prayer - it is a formal profession of our belief system as Catholics. Of all the things in the Mass, it should be precise.
I read somewhere that the NO Mass was dumbed down to 7th grade reading level so gradeschool kids could understand it. Great. There are software programs that will assign a reading level to a piece of writing. I wonder what the program would make of the NO Mass as it currently stands?
I noticed that the new translation of the Gloria will revert to "peace to men of good will" instead of the current "peace to his people on earth". Reminds me of the difference between Catholic and Protestant Christmas carols - "Peace to men of good will" vs. "Peace, good will toward men". There's a big difference - it isn't minor. It has intimatioins of the huge fights about justification and works.
The Bishop from Leeds reminds me of why kids nowadays hate reading older poets like Homer and Dante -they haven't a clue about the literary, mythological and biblical references that make the poems so rich.
Posted by: Julia at Jun 16, 2006 2:51:07 AM
Victor:
Doctors and Lawyers find it extremely helpful to have some Latin background. They use words all the time based on Latin. So did my nephew who made it to the 4th round at the spelling bee on ESPN recently. Lots and lots of our words are based on Latin. Didn't you study the derivation of words in grade school and high school?
And Latin is extremely helpful in learning and understanding French, Spanish, Catalan, Portugeuse, Italian, etc. etc. The use of Latin is not dead even if nobody speaks it. It's "deadness" is actually one of its positive attributes as a basis for inventing new words and maintaining original meanings over the centuries.
Posted by: Julia at Jun 16, 2006 3:00:23 AM
"(the question on the Mass translation is - what are those adaptations for the US? I'll be looking. You too.)"
Absolutely. So glad that vote is over, though.
And "consubstantial" - are we supposed to be children or adults? (The children themselves are supposed to grow to be adults in the faith, IIRC). Consubstantialum patri, dude. It's pretty easy.
Posted by: Meg Q at Jun 16, 2006 3:01:11 AM
Julia:
I'm not saying knowledge of Latin isn't valuable (I'd have to be a complete maroon to deny that). Or that it isn't in many contexts a ... mmm ... de facto necessity (ditto). Or that in some contexts like the formal study of medieval philosophy, or Church history, or linguistics or Romance languages, it isn't an absolute necessity (mega-dittoes ... Greek). Nor did I say the use of Latin is dead (duh). And I don't even have a problem with Latin's normativity within the Church (not my call, obviously, but I wouldn't even if it were my call).
But I nevertheless, and I'm repeating myself now, DO think it is useless to pretend Latin is either anybody's native language (costing it "intelligibility points," which matters a great deal for an act of common worship open to all, the schoolman and the serf alike) or the *universal* language of learning (which counts for more on philosophical matters). And I think it's just not true to pretend that use of Latin contributes to reverence -- I think that gets cause and effect backwards.
Yes, Meg, I of course understand what "Consubstantialum patri" means. But only because I know that it's Latin for "one in being with the Father."
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jun 16, 2006 3:38:45 AM
"One in being" doesn't really mean the same thing as consubstantial, though, hence the Nicene Creed. If you have to make reference to the Latin then, and the scholastic clarifications, to indicate to someone (particularly someone raised in a New Age environment) that "One in Being" must mean for Catholics more than simply "sharing the attribute of existing"--that Christ and God the Father share the same nature, then what's the point of skimping on the translation?
Posted by: al at Jun 16, 2006 5:54:31 AM
