I, like you, have read with interest the reactions of many to the new translation, after its first week of use. Most of the remarks I have read are quite positive. A smaller, though not insignificant number, are negative, some strikingly so. No need to summarize all the remarks here. I am personally a big fan of the new translation and have carefully and joyfully prepared my congregation for it. Our first Sunday went off without a hitch.
There is one strain of negative reaction I would like to address however, since it goes to the heart of a common misunderstanding of the Liturgy. The negative reaction basically stated is:
I can’t easily understand what Father is saying in those long, run-on sentences. It doesn’t make sense to me and I get lost in all the words.
It is a true fact that the new translation preserves more authentically the sentence structure of the Latin original which, like older English, makes greater use of subordinate clauses. For example, consider the prayer from the first Monday of Advent with subordinate clauses indented,
Keep us alert,
we pray, O Lord our God,
as we await the advent of Christ your Son,
so that,
when he comes and knocks,
he may find us watchful in prayer and exultant in his praise.
This manner of speaking is more formal and ancient.
The just abrogated translation of 1970 turned the rich sentence structure of the Latin prayers into a series of declarative statements:
Lord our God,
help us to prepare for the coming of Christ your Son.
May he find us waiting,
eager in joyful prayer.
Not only is the language less elaborate and more informal, it also omits the humbly beseeching quality of the Latin, and wholly omits the Scriptural allusion of Jesus standing at the door and knocking (cf Rev 3:20)
Now, if the priest who recites or sings the prayer is careful with the commas, and alters his tone of voice properly, the new translation is quite intelligible, and also quite beautiful. My own mind lit up as I recited the new prayer above, this morning.
That said, it may still be harder for some in the pew to attend the words of the priest, even if it is well spoken, since the use of sentences with subordinate clauses requires the listener to hold one thought, while a subordinate thought is articulated, and then the speaker branches back to the main thought.
So lets grant that it is a little harder.
But here we come to an important insight that, though it is not politically correct, is still true: The priest is not talking to you. He is not directing the prayer to you, and the first purpose of the prayer is not that you understand it perfectly. The prayer is directed to God, (most often, to God the Father). The priest is speaking to God, and is doing so on your behalf, and that of the whole Church. And God is wholly able to understand the prayer, no matter how complicated its structure.
Too often in modern times we have very anthropocentric (man-centered) notions of the Sacred Liturgy. With the return to the vernacular, and mass celebrated toward the people, (neither intrinsically wrong), there is often the wrongful conclusion that the Liturgy is about us, the gathered assembly. Surely there are aspects celebrated on our behalf and for our benefit, especially the Liturgy of the Word and the reception of Holy Communion, but the prayers of the Sacred Liturgy are addressed to and focused on God.
When we understand God as the addressee, the notion of “formalism” in the texts we use makes more sense. One may reasonably argue that, in private prayer, simple and personal words from the heart are most appropriate. But in the Sacred Liturgy, which is both communal and where the words are carefully chosen in accord with ancient practice, nobility and a stately seriousness are important and instinctive. It is God to whom we speak, and our language down through the centuries, in the liturgical context, has been courtly, rich and marked with a sobriety and elevated quality. While this notion was largely set aside in 1970, it has been recovered now.
If the text is less immediately understandable (it need not be) to the human listeners, it must be recalled that we are not the first or intended audience, God is.
Surely intelligibility to the average “pew sitter” is not wholly unimportant, for the Liturgy has a critical teaching role (lex orandi, lex credendi). Further, if the faithful are to join their prayers to that of the celebrant, some degree of intelligibility is helpful. But, frankly, it is not essential. Otherwise the faithful could not validly attend Mass in foreign lands, and the Mass could not be offered in Latin. Likewise young children would be excluded, since many of even the simplest words mean little to them. Full participation in the liturgy is deeper than mere auditory comprehension.
So the central point here is that God is the one to whom our liturgical prayers are directed. This is often forgotten today, and the complaint that the new prayers are “harder to understand” (they are not intrinsically so) belies a premise that “my personal understanding” is the central point. It is not.
I can hear a thousand “yes, but” s coming in the combox. And many of these will be quite valid. Distinctions are important, as is balance.
Intelligibility, while not the most important thing, IS important. And hence, we priests who celebrate the Mass using the new texts, need to work carefully to master the texts so that what we say is not lost in an ungraceful and stumbling proclamation. God and God’s people deserve our best effort.
There are some contexts where intelligibility is absolutely critical. Here is one of my favorite Berlitz commercials that illustrates a critical failure to communicate:
I sink zey are sinking about making za person sink zey are sinking.
Most of you know that I have spent all but four of my years as a priest ministering in African American Parishes and that I am enthusiastic about my experiences. Like any pastoral setting, there are challenges, but there are also wonderful gifts. Chief among the gifts is the liturgical experience which is vibrant, life giving, joyful and filled with great expectation. There is support for the preacher, a great appreciation of musical gifts and an unmistakeable acknowledgment of the presence of the Lord in his Word and in Holy Communion. It has all been a wonderful blessing to me as a priest, and also as a Catholic and disciple of the Lord.
A study was recently published by Notre Dame and I’d like to offer a few excerpts of that study and comment on it. A full “executive summary” by William Gilroy is here: Notre Dame Survey of African American Catholics. As is usual with my commentaries, the original text is in Black, bold and italic typeface. My comments are in plain red text.
Among the key findings of the survey are:
On almost every measure of religious engagement, African American Catholics are considered stronger in their faith than white Catholics. For example, when asked how well their parish meets their spiritual needs, 78 percent of African American Catholics say their needs are being met, while 68.7 percent of white Catholics responded similarly. When asked if their parish meets their emotional needs, 75.7 percent of African American Catholics say their needs are being met, compared to 60.4 percent of white Catholics.
I generally think this is true. Black Catholics who attend Mass are generally very close knit to parish life at a variety of levels. Choirs are usually larger and well skilled, excited about what they do. Ushering is also a noble tradition. Women’s groups such as the Sodality are strong, to lesser but still clear extent, Men’s groups. Prayer groups are also strong since there is usually a strong “praying spirit” among African Americans.
“This finding also shows up among African American Catholics who attend predominantly black parishes,” Davis said. “A greater sense of community that comes from worshipping with others who share cultural heritage heightens religious engagement. Whatever forces are working against white Catholics’ religious identity and engagement were set in motion decades ago and those forces do not appear to be working against African American Catholics. Thus, it is quite possible that understanding African American Catholicity may inform us about the religious challenges of white Catholics. Too often we approach questions of religiosity in a vacuum. Comparable studies of religiosity are critical.”
Yes, here I strongly agree. Blacks, unlike most Whites, share a kind of “sacred culture.” What I mean by this is that spirituals and Gospel Music permeate Black culture. It is also more common to freely express and inquire about religious matters. Sometimes I’ll be the store, and an African American will come up and, seeing my Roman Collar, inquire joyfully of me where my church is and also share something of their own background or church. It is not uncommon for some one to come to me ask that I pray, “right here, right now Father.” And so there we are, standing in the main aisle of Safeway praying together. Another may come to me and say, “Preacher! You got a word for me today?” It’s just a part of the culture. This is rare in the White communities where I grew up.
And this shared “sacred culture” finds a vibrant expression in the Mass in the form of Gospel music, joyful exuberance, call and response, lively interaction with the preaching though affirmations like “Amen!….Yes!….Go on preacher!…..Yes Lord!…..Hallelujah…….applause, a stomp, raised hands and so forth.
I think it is this shared sacred culture which has made the “New Mass” work so well in the African American setting. The traditional Latin Mass had a kind of “built in” culture and ethos, a certain music that was prescribed and so forth. But the new Mass stripped a lot of that away, and allowed the local culture to supply more. That of course works well only when there is a sacred culture to draw on.
White America had become largely secularized by 1970 and so the “culture” we ended up drawing on was questionable at best, a kind of Peter Paul and Mary folk sound, and a hat tip to the “protest songs” of the 1960s college crowd.
But in the Black community a sacred music and culture was ready at hand for Catholics to draw on, a music and ethos that powerfully and creatively lifts up God and praises his glory, sings of our “troubles,” but also describes how God brings us “through.” And in Gospel music, the focus is always on God rather than the “gathered community” so often emphasized in Catholic contemporary music.
There were also many other elements I have already mentioned (e.g. spontaneous acclamations) that made the “participatory” element in the New Mass an easy transition for African American Catholics.
This sacred culture was a time tested tradition in the Black community and, as a general rule, highly esteemed even by those less prone to shout “Amen.”
On the often-used measure of Church attendance, 48.2 percent of African-Americans attend church at least once per week, compared to only 30.4 percent of white Catholics. I am not so sure of this number. Anecdotally, I think it is closer to 30%, especially among younger African Americans, who are far less “churched” than their parents and Grandparents.
While there is generally high satisfaction with various aspects of Mass and church service, such as preaching, music, readings and prayers, Catholics’ (both white and African Americans) level of satisfaction with these aspects of Mass are noticeably lower than Protestants.
Yes, frankly, we in the Church have not done so well in training priests and deacons to minister well in the things valued most highly by African Americans.
Preaching is highly valued among Blacks, and they generally prefer a longer sermon than most Whites. However, more than time, the sermon moment that is preferred is one in which the preacher carefully breaks open the Word of God in a way that is enthusiastic, creative, informative and easily applied for the up coming week. Most African Americans don’t what to hear only the “what,” but also the “so what” and the “now what” of God’s Word.
But too many Catholic priests and deacons (to include African American priests and deacons) are trained in a methodology of “informative” and “discursive” preaching as a goal, more than “transformative” and “kerygmatic” (from the Greek κηρύσσω (kērússō), to cry or proclaim as a herald)preaching.
The “say it in seven” mentality, common in Catholic training, that prizes brevity over anything else is also not a helpful approach. It is quite difficult to preach a transformative homily, (wherein the Word is read, analyzed, organized, illustrated and applied), in seven minutes.
Hence African Americans are often less than satisfied with the Sunday sermons they hear from most Catholic priests and deacons, especially compared to what they hear in the Protestant settings they often have contact with. There are many good and exceptional preachers in Black Catholic parishes but they are less in abundance than they should be.
It is sad, since good preaching can be learned, but most preachers usually think their preaching is just fine, and they are not open to being taught. It is also a fact that Blacks are not the only ones who rate Catholic preaching poorly. Frankly most Catholics think Catholic preaching leaves a LOT to be desired.
But until we work at training better preachers, and until the Catholic faithful are more open to Masses with slightly longer homilies, it does not seem that much will change. The 7-10 homily that says everything, covers all the things we need to hear, applies them creatively and with inspiration is going to be hard to find. In my own parish, homilies at the main Sunday mass are usually closer to 30 minutes, and it is a great luxury affored to me so that I can develop the entire passage and celebrate it with the People of God.
I know as I write this that I’ll get the usual comments on this that a sermon doesn’t have to be long to be good. This many be “true” in limited instances and settings, but it is not usually true. To really develop something takes longer than 7 minutes and I have never attended a public lecture that was 7 minutes, or even 10 minutes. A half an hour is more the norm among the Protestant preachers who, frankly rate higher in their abilities to preach effectively as a general rule.
The celebration “style” of priests is also an important matter. African American congregations generally value a celebrant who is praiseful but not clownish. Wooden and monotone proclamation of the prayers, a refusal to even attempt to sing the mass parts, and the look of the “frozen chosen” are not appreciated in most Black parishes. While some Catholics value a “somber” look as indicative of solemnity and prayerfulness, this is less the case among African Americans for whom piety is manifest in a more joyful and exuberant manner in the presence of God. It is not just the priest from whom this is expected or valued, but also the lectors and musicians.
African American Catholics see room for growth in the racial positions of the Catholic Church. A total of 36.6 percent are satisfied with the targeting of black vocations, 38.1 percent are satisfied with the Church’s emphasis on black saints, 39.9 percent are satisfied with promoting black bishops, 40.2 percent are satisfied with the Church’s support for issues like affirmative action, 44.2 percent are satisfied with the Church’s position on problems in Africa, and 45.1 percent are satisfied with the promotion of racial integration in the Church.
Not sure what to do with this information.
Black vocations are harder to come by since, frankly, the Black family, and especially the Black male are in crisis. There are many reasons for this, too long to explore here. But the fact is, in every ethnic and racial group, it takes strong and large families to produce vigorous vocations.
I know that this Archdiocese actively recruits Black vocations, so do I as a pastor. But the pool of “recruits” is smaller. Frankly many Black women have trouble finding a Black man to marry, only 37% of Black women have ever been married. Almost 1/3 of Black men are incarcerated, another 1/3 are unemployed. There are many issues to be resolved.
And lest we single out the African American community, the Latino and also the White community are not far behind as the crisis of the family becomes an American problem. Fewer and fewer of ALL Americans are raised in a traditional family. And all this is making it harder to find priests and help them stay priests, when broken homes are more and more the norm, from which we must seek vocations.
As for the other matters, I do not think numbers like these are unique to African Americans. Any number of groups and interests think the Church “isn’t doing enough” in some or many areas. I suppose we don’t do enough to promote the collection for the Church in Latin America or Eastern Europe either. The fact is, the Church in America is rather parochial and a collection of interests, and its hard to satisfy any one group well. I work with many Traditional Catholics who don’t think the Church does enough to promote the Traditional Latin Mass. I have also worked with the Neocatechumenal Way who don’t think there are enough communities of “The Way,” and so on. So I think this is a human problem. In the end it is up to members of various charisms and groups to promote themselves and stop waiting for “the Church” to do this work. They are the Church too.
The survey also uncovered notable national demographic trends that are evident within religious denominations that have great consequences for the future Church.
A total of 52.6 percent of African American Catholics and 53.3 percent of African American Protestants are at least 45 years-old, compared to 63.2 percent of white Catholics and 62 percent of white Protestants. There are also huge racial differences in the percentage that are married, reflecting another national trend. A total of 39.9 percent of African American Catholics are married, compared to 53.9 percent of white Catholics.
I have already noted these factors above. The African American parish has a slightly “younger” look than most White parishes. This is due to have slightly more children but also due to the higher mortality rates, especially among Black men who die significantly younger than the American norm. Further as we have noted, the problem with marriage and family is a growing concern. And, while the Black community has struggled with this problem a lot longer, the wider American family is also in trouble. Frankly it “ain’t no great shakes” that only 53% of Whites are married and it will be noted that 53 and 39 are only 14 points apart. These are numbers for all of us to sober about.
In the end, we see that, like any sector within the Church, African American Catholics have glories and struggles, gifts and needs. I personally think that, liturgically, there are tremendous gifts in the African American community and that the wider Church can learn much from the liturgical experience and practices on regular display at predominantly African American parishes. Joy, high expectation, participation, a focus on God, and experience of the powerful presence of God in Communion are things that should be evident in every Catholic parish. Too many Catholic parishes look more like a widow than a bride, and the “wedding feast of the Lamb” is perfunctory and minimalistic more than loving and generous. Brevity seems more the concern than worship, and the encounter with a living and true God. This is far less the case the predominantly African American parishes, and there is much for the wider Church to learn.
And, frankly, there are internal problems in the African American community that largely Black parishes need to do a better job of addressing. The decline in marriage, the rise in single motherhood, high abortion rates and other social problems need to be frankly addressed and turned back. Like any social difficulty, many of these trends go back to the early 1960s and are going to take time to reverse. But work at them we must.
Joys and struggles, gifts and needs, the human story.
Such a small but highly significant thing, the chin paten. Its use is to catch a host that might drop or a particle from a host. As such it is another reminder of the real, true and substantial presence of Christ in even the smallest particle of the host. The chin paten helps ensure that not even a small particle drop.
Today the communion, or “chin” paten is also symbolic. When one sees them today it is a pretty clear signal that “this is a more traditional parish.” Their use had declined, especially when communion in the hand became widespread, during the 70s and 80s. Today they are always used in the Traditional Latin Mass and are part of the ambiance and emphasis on reverent reception of the Eucharist. Some parishes, even in the Ordinary Form, still use them.
But it is fascinating the learn that they are rather new “inventions” and their use was barely tolerated, as they emerged about 100 years ago. Let’s take a look at some history.
First of all, a little credit to the researcher. The Archivist of our Archdiocese, Fr. George Stuart, is a great collector of things great and small; surely a good trait for an archivist! Among the projects he has assisted in was the compiling of an excellent manual for the Archdiocese entitled Liturgical Norms and Policies. As part of his research he investigated the history of the many liturgical practices and implements. Among them is the chin paten, sometimes also called the communion paten. In a footnote, Fr. Stuart notes:
GIRM 188 lists the communion plate among the things on the credence table. The only other mention of the communion plate in the GIRM is at 287, in connection with reception of an intincted host. See also ADW, Liturgical Norms and Policies, 2010, 6.40.5.
It is interesting that the communion plate has been in use (in place of the traditional communion cloth) only for about 120 years, and as recently as 1918—even in Rome—it was “tolerated, but not recommended.”
In 1887 a priest asked the editor of a journal about the legitimacy of its use; he was careful to state that the altar server held the plate indirectly by a wooden handle, and not directly. (The literature indicated a concern over whether such patens required consecration as sacred vessels.)
The editor responded, “We do not think that there is force in the objection that the acolyte who carries it by the wooden handle is usurping the position of a deacon or priest. But neither can we recommend this special contrivance. It is novel, having been introduced but recently into certain dioceses. It is unnecessary; for the Church still continues to prescribe the use of the cloth only. But we cannot say that it is a practice to be abolished as wrong, for the Sacred Congregation has not forbidden it in dioceses in which such a custom has been established. Yet we do not think that it is right to introduce it into a church without the sanction of the bishop.”
The editor quoted a response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 20 March 1875. “Substitute for the Usual Communion Cloth,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record 8 (1887) 370-372. See also “Communion Cloth or Plate,” American Ecclesiastical Review 56 (1917) 49-57, 194-195, 293-296; “Communion Plate Tolerated,” ibid., 59 (1918) 307.
Within a few years, however, the use of the communion plate was not merely tolerated, but required. In 1929, the SCS [AAS 21 (1929) 631-639] “ordered that a small metal plate, gilt on the inner surface, must be held beneath the chin of persons receiving Holy Communion. No shape was prescribed, but for convenience it is better that there are two small handles at each side. Should it be the custom for the server to hold the plate, one long handle is more convenient. The plate should be about the size of an ordinary paten used at Mass, and without a rim, so that it can be purified easily.” Peter F. Anson, Churches, Their Plan and Furnishing (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1948) 183.
Since they were held by lay people, whether servers or communicants, communion plates were not consecrated, for (with the tolerated exception of sacristans) only those in orders could touch sacred vessels. The rubrics of the Roman Missal of 1962 listed among the vessels placed on a side table the “patina pro fidelium communione,” but omitted the house cloth altogether (n. 528).
At age fifty I can say that I barely remember the use of the altar rail cloth in certain parishes. The cloth was draped along the inside of the altar rail and flipped over the rail just before communion (See photo left). As we knelt we were expected to scoop up the cloth and hold it under our chin about shoulder high. It would catch a falling host or small fragments. I was never sure how small fragments still didn’t fall to the ground when I let go of the cloth however. But we didn’t ask a lot of questions in those days and the practice was fading. Chin patens were the main tool and used even when, in some parishes, there was still the cloth.
I also remember the altar rail cloths looking wrinkled and unseemly (unlike the one at left) and they often detracted from the beauty of the rail itself. The old rails were often beautifully carved marble or wood.
It is fascinating to think that chin patens were seen by the editor of a prominent Roman Liturgical journal as a “contrivance;” the implication being that it was a loss in reverence, and a kind of reductionist solution. Today we consider them just the opposite.
Another fascination is the concern that such patens, if they were consecrated could not be touched by an ordinary server. Hence they were given a wooden handle so that he did not actually touch them. Older priests tell me that the practice of not allowing non clerical hands to touch consecrated vessels was honored more in the breach than the actual observance. After Mass, plenty of lay people, (sacristans, who put things away and women who cleaned and polished) touched them. Generally the norm was only followed in the Mass. After Mass, practicalities kicked in. Even today, in the Extraordinary form Masses I celebrate, while we are always very careful that only the priest or deacon touches the sacred vessels during Mass, after Mass is another story 🙂 It just has to be.
I’m interested in what is done in your parishes. Communion (chin) patens are rarer today outside the Traditional Latin Mass, but they still exist. I haven’t seen a communion cloth in decades. But perhaps some of you have, especially as an EF Mass.
A final thought. I have often thought that altar cards must have been thought irreverent when they first emerged. Consider that the central altar card blocks the Tabernacle, or sometimes the altar cross. How strange, really. Today they are used only at the Traditional Latin Mass and once again they are part of the ambiance of that Mass. But, to be honest, I have always had trouble with how that central card blocks the Tabernacle. Yet to celebrate a Latin Mass without them would almost be thought nontraditional.
Reverence is an interesting thing really, lots of turns and twists. Don’t get me wrong, reverence DOES exist and we should follow its norms. But there are some fascinating alterations over time.
In this video Pope Benedict gives Holy Communion. The communicants kneel and receive only on the tongue, a preference for Pope Benedict, though not required of the universal Church. I note with some amusement that the Monsignor who serves has improvised a communion paten by turning a ciborium lid upside down. I admit that, in a pinch, I have sometimes done the same!
Yesterday, for All Souls Day, I was given the grace to celebrate a Funeral (Walter Gallie, R.I.P.) in the Traditional Latin Form of the Mass. Referred to as a Requiem Mass, (Requiem means “rest” in Latin), it features black vestments and prayers steeped in consistent yet confident pleas for God’s mercy on the departed.
Though many depict the Requiem Mass as a gloomy affair, I beg to differ. Black vestments, to be sure, speak a different language than the white usually worn today, (though black or purple are permitted). But death, after all is a rather formal affair. And the readings for the Requiem on the day of burial are quite hopeful. The Epistle is from 1 Thessalonians 4, and begins, Brethren we would not have you ignorant concerning them that sleep in the Lord lest you be sorrowful like those having no hope…… The Gospel is Jesus’ discourse with Martha in John 11: Your brother will rise…do you believe this? Jesus then assures her that he is the resurrection and the life. Hardly gloomy. And all the pleas for mercy in the Requiem are based on hope expressed in these readings.
At the heart of the Requiem Mass is the astonishing and magnificent masterpiece, the Sequence Hymn, Dies Irae. Yes, I am of the mind that one of the great treasures and masterpieces of the Church’s Gregorian Chant is indeed the sequence hymn of the Requiem Mass, Dies Irae. It is almost never done at funerals today, though it remains a fixture of the Extraordinary form Mass.
Some see it as a “heavy” with its sobering message, but it sure is glorious. The gorgeous chant was one of the more beautiful and soaring melodies of Gregorian Chant and many composers, such as Mozart and Verdi, set the text to stirring musical compositions. With November, the month of All souls perhaps this hymn deserves a look.
It’s syllables hammer away in trochaic dimeter:Dies irae dies illa solvet saeclum in favilla, teste David cum Sybila! (Day of wrath that day when the world dissolves to ashes, David bearing witness along with the Sibyl!) Perhaps at times the text is a bit heavy but at the same time no hymn more beautifully sets forth a basis for God’s mercy. The dark clouds of judgment part and give way to the bright beauty of the final line Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem (Sweet Jesus Lord, give them [the dead] rest).
The hymn was not composed for funerals. Actually it was composed by Thomas of Celano in the 13th century as an Advent Hymn. Yes, that’s right an Advent hymn. Don’t forget that Advent isn’t just about getting ready for Christmas, it is about getting ready for the Second Coming of the Lord. And that is what this hymn is really about. At this time of year, as the the leaves fall and summer turns to winter, we are reminded of the passing of all things. The Gospels we read are those that remind us of death and the judgment to come.
Journey with me into the beauty and solemn majesty of this hymn. I will give you an inspiring English translation by W J Irons, one that preserves the meter and renders the Latin close enough. A few comments from me along the way but enjoy this largely lost masterpiece and mediation on the Last Judgment. (You can see the Latin Text along with English here: Dies Irae)
The hymn opens on the Day of Judgement, warning that the Day, spoken of in Scripture as “The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord,” will reveal God’s wrath upon all injustice and unrepented sin. God’s “wrath” is his passion to set things right. And now it is time to put an end of wickedness and lies:
Day of wrath and doom impending,
Heaven and earth in ashes ending:
David’s words with Sibyl’s blending.
And all are struck with a holy fear! No one and no thing can treat of this moment lightly: all are summoned to holy fear. The bodies of the dead come forth from their tombs at the sound of the trumpet and will all of creation answer to Jesus, the Judge and Lord of all:
Oh what fear man’s bosom rendeth
When from heaven the judge descendeth
On whose sentence all dependeth!
Wondrous sound the trumpet flingeth,
Through earth’s sepulchers it ringeth,
All before the throne it bringeth.
Death is struck and nature quaking,
All creation is awaking,
To its judge an answer making.
Lo the book exactly worded,
Wherein all hath been recorded,
Thence shall judgement be awarded.
When the Judge his seat attaineth,
And each hidden deed arraigneth:
Nothing unavenged remaineth.
Judgment shall be according to our deeds, whatever is in the Book (Rev 20:12; Romans 2:6)! Ah but also in God’s Word is the hope for mercy and so our hymn turns to ponder the need for mercy and appeals to God for that mercy. It bases that hope on the grace and mercy of God, his incarnation, his seeking love, his passion and death, and his forgiveness shown to Mary Magdalene and the dying thief:
What shall I frail man be pleading?
Who for me be interceding?
When the just are mercy needing?
King of majesty tremendous,
Who does free salvation send us,
Font of pity then befriend us.
Think kind Jesus, my salvation,
Caused thy wondrous incarnation:
Leave me not to reprobation.
Faint and weary thou hast sought me:
On the cross of suffering bought me:
Shall such grace be vainly brought me?
Righteous judge for sin’s pollution,
Grant thy gift of absolution,
Before the day of retribution.
Guilty now I pour my moaning:
All my shame and anguish owning:
Spare, O God my suppliant groaning.
Through the sinful Mary shriven,
Through the dying thief forgiven,
Thou to me a hope has given.
Yes there is a basis for hope! God is rich in mercy and, pondering the Day of Judgment is salutary since for now we can call on that mercy. And, in the end it is only grace and mercy that can see us through that day. And so the hymn calls on the Lord who said, No one who calls on me will I ever reject (Jn 6:37):
Worthless are my tears and sighing:
Yet good Lord in grace complying,
Rescue me from fire undying.
With thy sheep a place provide me,
From the goats afar divide me,
To thy right hand do thou guide me.
When the wicked are confounded,
Doomed to flames of woe unbounded:
Call me with thy saints surrounded.
Lo I kneel with heart-submission,
See like ashes my contrition:
Help me in my last condition.
And now comes the great summation: That Day is surely coming! Grant me O lord your grace to be ready:
Lo, that day of tears and mourning,
from the dust of earth returning.
Man for judgement must prepare him,
Spare O God, in mercy spare him.
Sweet Jesus Lord most blest,
Grant the dead eternal rest.
A masterpiece of beauty and truth if you ask me.
Some years ago I memorized most of it. I sing it from time to time over in Church late at night, the hauntingly beautiful chant rings through the echoing arches of our Church.
When I die sing it at my funeral! For I go to the Lord, the Judge of all and only grace and mercy will see me through. Surely the plaintive calls of the choir below at my funeral will resonate to the very heavens as I am judged. And maybe the Lord will look at me and say,
I think they’re praying for you down there; asking mercy, they are.
It was almost 15 years ago. I was At Old St. Mary’s here in D.C. celebrating Mass in the Latin (Extraordinary Form). It was a solemn high Mass. I don’t suppose I thought it any different than most Sunday’s but something quite amazing was about to happen.
As you may know the ancient Latin Mass is celebrated “ad orientem” (towards the Liturgical East). Priest and people all face one direction. What this means practically for the celebrant is that the people are behind him. It was time for the consecration. The priest is directed to bow low, his forearms on the altar table the host between his fingers.
As directed I said the venerable words of Consecration in a low but distinct voice, Hoc est enim Corpus meum (For this is my Body). The bells rang as I genuflected.
But behind me a disturbance of some sort, a shaking or rustling in the front pews behind me to my right. And then a moaning or grumbling. What was that? It did not really sound human, more like the grumbling of a large animal such as a boar or a bear, along with a plaintive moan that did not seem human. I elevated the host and wondered, “What was that?” Then silence. I could not turn to look easily for that is awkward for the celebrant in the ancient Latin Mass. But still I thought, What was that?
But it was time for the consecration of the chalice. Again, bowing low and pronouncing clearly and distinctly but in a low voice: Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti; mysterium fidei; qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem pecatorum. Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis (for this is the cup of my Blood, of the new and eternal covenant; the mystery of faith; which will for the many be shed unto the remission of sins. When so ever you do this, you do it in my memory).
Then, I heard another sound this time an undeniable moan and then a shriek as some one cried out: “Leave me alone Jesus! Why do you torture me!” Suddenly a scuffling as some one ran out with the groaning sound of having been injured. The back doors swung open, then closed. Then silence.
Realization – I could not turn to look for I was raising the Chalice high over my head. But I knew in an instant that some poor demon-tormented soul had encountered Christ in the Eucharistic, and could not endure his real presence displayed for all to see. And the words of Scripture occurred to me: Even Demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).
Repentance – But just as James used those words to rebuke the weak faith of his flock I too had to repent. Why was a demon-troubled man more aware of the true presence and astonished by it than me? He was moved in the negative sense to run. Why was I not more moved in a positive and comparable way? What of the other believers in the pews? I don’t doubt that any of us believed intellectually in the true presence. But there is something very different and far more wonderful in being moved to the depth of your soul! It is so easy for us to be sleepy in the presence of the Divine, forgetful of the miraculous and awesome Presence available to us.
But let the record show that one day, almost 15 years ago, it was made quite plain to me that I held in my hands the Lord of Glory, the King of heaven and earth, the just Judge, and Ruler of the kings of the earth. Is the Lord truly present in the Eucharist? You’d better believe it, even demons believe that!
I am very happy about, and look forward to the new English translation of the Roman Missal that will begin use in November. However, I have had challenges in explaining to the faithful what the essential problem with the current translation is. When the distinction between “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” is mentioned, many eyes glaze over or puzzled looks appear. I have tried to take an example of a prayer and show the difference in three columns: Latin, new translation, and current translation (as I do below). But asking people to compare three different columns, one of them in a language unknown to most of them, presents problems too.
But, at the bottom of this post there is a great video that does a wonderful job explaining the difference between the method of “dynamic equivalence” (translating the gist of a prayer, and capturing its basic thoughts), versus “formal equivalence” (translating a prayer in a more literal, word for word way). The video shows the difference with a basic down to earth example and then explains why the difference is important. While it’s geared to teens, adults can benefit greatly from it as well. See what you think.
Example of difference – As Fr. Z. often does to great effect, the opening prayer (collect) for this coming Sunday shows the different approaches of the current translation and the new translation.
LATIN: Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis, da nobis id amare, quod praecipis, id desiderare, quod promittis, ut inter mundanas varietates, ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia.
NEW TRANSLATION (formal (word for word) equivalence) O God, who cause the minds of the faith to unite in a single purpose, grant your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise., that amidst the uncertainties of this world, our hearts may be fixed, where true gladness is found.
CURRENT TRANSLATION (dynamic (gist) equivalence). Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise make us one in mind and heart.
As you can see the current translation (lame duck, as Fr. Z calls it), gets the gist of the Latin prayers. But there are important omissions.
First it proposes that lasting joys can be found in this world, rather than in heaven, which the Latin says.
The current translation rather weakly ask that we will be helped to “seek the values” whereas the Latin more vigorously asks that we may “love what you command.”
The Latin speaks of hearts as being “fixed,” whereas the current translation muddles this into our joys (not our hearts) being “lasting.”
Etc.
It will be seen that the current translation is in much need of help and that the new translation fixes the problems of the old by using a formal equivalence (word for word) translation as opposed to the “dynamic equivalence” (a general summation of the idea) translation currently in use (but not for long)!
Clearly we need more than the “gist of a prayer,” to pray with the universal Church. The new translation will be welcomed by this pastor.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf of course is the master of analyzing these collects and you can see his more expansive treat of this prayer here: 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time
Every now and then I hear the Old Latin Mass described as a somber affair. Many think only dirges are sung and that everything is quite subdued. Granted a low Mass can be rather quiet as the Priest whispers much of the Mass.
But a sung Mass in the Old Latin Rite (Extraordinary Form) can be quite elaborate, especially if the Choir sings in polyphony (harmony). Some of the greatest music in history was composed during the Renaissance in a form known as “Renaissance Polyphony.” It is a kind of harmonic singing that features four or more independent melodies sung simultaneously in rich harmony. Much of this Church music was written in a kind of Dance Time, such that you can almost dance to it! While I am celebrating a Traditional Mass and this sort of music is sung, I sometimes tap my toe even though the rubrics don’t call for it. And while the Gregorian Chant is sung there unfolds a kind of mystical contemplation. No, Traditional Latin Masses are not somber, they are, especially in their sung form, joyful and even exuberant.
Enjoy a few videos that demonstrate this joyful and rhythmic singing.
This first Video is of setting by William Byrd. The text is Haec Dies quam fecit Dominus Exultemus et laetemur in ea, Alleluia! (This is the Day which the Lord has made. Let us be glad and rejoice in it, Alleluia!). Enjoy, it’s rich harmony, jovial tone and dance-like rhythm
This second video of the Angus Dei (try not to tap your toe). The song was recorded at the Oratory of St. Francis De Sales in St. Louis – one of the most beautiful churches in the Country. The text is Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis, dona nobis pacem (Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us…grant us peace). Enjoy another beautiful sample of Renaissance Polyphony in toe tap (dance) time.
Under the current liturgical norms there is greater flexibility than some would wish regarding both diversity and inculturation. Most of you who read this blog regularly know that I am probably more appreciative of legitimate (please note that word) diversity. I celebrate both the Traditional Latin Mass (usually in the solemn high form) and also pastor a parish with strong African American roots where we use gospel music, spirituals and exhibit charismatic enthusiasm.
However, I must add, that in the African American community, such things ARE traditional and considered sacred and reverent by most of my parishioners. In fact the traditional hands folded, with a rather solemn look and minimal responsiveness, feels oddly out of place to many in my parish. Some will say to me when I note their joy and enthusiasm, “Father I’ve just got to praise Him. He’s been so good to me!” The fact is there ARE cultural differences in how people understand and express reverence and the liturgy is right to embrace legitimate differences.
But there is also a deep end of the liturgical pool, where we are no longer in touch with the foundation. There is a precipice, we must avoid where we are no longer in the realm of tradition or legitimate diversity. It is place where we have simply cast aside proper liturgical boundaries and the fundamental focus of the liturgy is lost.
And that fundamental focus is, of course, God. At some point it becomes clear that liturgy has devolved into a self centered circus which celebrates human exotica, not the truth of God of the beauty and proper order that is proper to God and the things of God.
And the bottom of this post are two very disturbing videos from Europe that exhibit a total loss of focus on God, and an obsession with exotic and strange human behaviors. Childlike simplicity before God is a virtue, but childishness is no virtue at all. It is simply obnoxious, and should be rebuked, as silly children often are with the admonition: “Grow up!”
The first video features a bizarre clown liturgy of sorts. I think these absurdities are largely gone form the American scene. The German priest and other ministers process down the aisle of the church in various stages of clown dress. The priest (Fr. Bozo?) wears a clown nose and comes down the aisle in a superman cape. Later he dons a jester’s cap as he “proclaims” (makes a joke of ?) the gospel. The opening song has a polka rhythm and is done in the style of carousel music. The homily seems more of a standup routine, than a sermon on the Word of God.
Some one may respond, “But Father, But Father, isn’t Mass supposed to be joyful and relevant?” Yes, but there is plenty of that possible within the norms of the Mass. Come to my parish and I will show you joy and exuberance within the tradition of the sacred. It is not necessary to don secular clown attire and turn the liturgy into a carnival. There is nothing sacred in any tradition about bozo noses and jester hats. There is no sacred tradition associated with carousel music and priests wearing superman capes. Carnivals (literally: “farewell to meat”) did and do occur in some cultures on Fat Tuesday, but outside the church, in the town square. There are no liturgical norms that envision Bozo noses, for example, by indicating that the color of the Bozo nose should match the color of the vestment of day 🙂 .
Many questions arise at seeing this video. Where is the local Bishop? Has he disciplined the clergy and sought to instruct the people on the true nature of liturgy? How have the clergy gone so wrong? Probably in stages. But who instructed them? How widespread is this problem in Europe?
The second video, in Austria, I think, is of a so-called “Western Mass.” That’s “western” in the sense of the “old wild west,” and Country and Western music. The people dress in old wild west garb and Mass is celebrated in the midst of a picnic. During the Mass the people are eating and drinking. Many are also smoking, even during the canon and distribution of communion, we see some puffing away. During the homily, the priest congratulates himself and the people on making the Mass so available. And he opines that this is more of what we have to do to make the Church credible to people. He also claims the local Cardinal’s approval for the whole thing. Meanwhile, people puff on cigarettes and open soda pop cans. Communion was opened to non-Catholics as well.
Sigh… But this is what often happened as the Western World has turned in on itself (curvatus in se). In the anthropocentric shift that occurred as early as the 16th Century “man” has become increasingly fascinated with himself. God has been moved to the periphery, (kicked to the curb if you will), and Man has moved to the center.
And this anthropocentric notion has surely plagued modern liturgy. There’s a kind of an “aren’t we great” mentality. So that anything “we do” should be brought into the sacred liturgy. People ride carousels, aren’t we great! So let’s celebrate what we do in the liturgy. People goof off and sing silly songs and smoke and drink, too. And since we’re great, why not celebrate this greatness in the liturgy too?
And what should be God-centered: about God and what he has done, becomes all about us and what we do, even the silliest, least sacred, and sinful things about us. So “we” gather and celebrate “us.” God? Oh sure, he’s invited too, he is invited to praise us and delight in us almost as much as we do, if he wants. This is, after all about us and for us isn’t it?
But that’s just the point. It isn’t about us. It is about God, and what he has done for us in saving and setting us free. It is about the great paschal mystery, it is about adoring, worshiping and praising the God who has rescued us from this present evil age (Gal 2:1).
And God has not left us to figure out how best to praise him. He has given us the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, wherein he carefully spells out the form of the heavenly liturgy in order that we may properly enter into it. He carefully set it forth in Exodus 25-39 and told Moses to follow the pattern exactly. Christian Tradition, having received this teaching from antiquity, saw it fulfilled and transposed by Christ, (et antiquum documentum, novo cedat ritui – and the ancient document gives way to the newer rite), but all the essentials are still there. And they are developed and set forth in the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation, as the heavenly liturgy is disclosed and set forth. Christian antiquity did not just “make things up.” Our Liturgy is based on the revelation of the heavenly Liturgy. As St. Paul says, For I handed on to you what I myself received (1 Cor 11:23).This paradosis (or handing on) is an essential quality of liturgy and the faith.
The modern age has shown a forth a tremendous rupture in this receiving and handing on of the Tradition, a Tradition which comes from God himself.
Here too, the heart of the problem seems to be the self-centered, and self enclosed quality of our times. If those who came before me handed on something precious from God which does not seem immediately understandable and relevant to me, it is too easy to cast it aside, rather than to try and understand it, and conform to it. If it doesn’t speak to me, it is worthless. If it DOES speak to me it is worth everything! This is insisted upon, even if it is silly and not appropriate for the occasion. Because it speaks to me I am permitted to put it on display. It is like children running about and being silly at a time and place where this is not appropriate. Correction is needed from some adults in the room.
As stated at the beginning, there is legitimate diversity and inculturation permitted in the liturgy. Some who are more traditional in the Church are too quick to condemn what is permitted and what is, in fact, experienced as sacred by others. But it doesn’t take and anthropologist to know that bozo noses, jester hats, superman capes, smoking and drinking during mass and so forth, are not sacred and never have been. They are secular to the core and have no place in the sacred liturgy, a liturgy revealed to us by God, not made up by us, and not a kindergarten playroom either.
