A very interesting article in the Guardian on a speech by the Pope,

[Joe Chi Minh]

which has prompted the author to see his papacy as 'very much less conservative than anyone expected.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/may/13/religion-pope-benedict-xvi

Better still, from 11 May, published two days earlier:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/11/pope-church-sins-sex-abuse

[hedgehog]

1. From what I can make out, the current English translation of the Mass

was not merely a translation but a revision of the prayers. It is stark and removes many of the statements giving the clergy a higher and separate status than the laity. That may explain the continuing displeasure of some people with the English Mass.

We are on track to replace the current translation that appears much closer to the pre-Vatican II Mass. While the focus has been on the replacement of plain spoken Anglo-Saxon with baroque Latinate words and phrases, the prayers themselves are different.

My point is, regardless of which Mass you prefer, it's not what Benedict says that matters,
it's what he does. How can he praise Vatican II while simultaneously reversing it?

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. You're not keeping track. Read the article again. When he accepts blame for the

Church's sinfulness, he obviously means the hierarchy in this context. It suggests the beginnings of a radical breakthrough, initiated by Vatical II, but as you say, to some extent renegued upon. He even said that they had been their own worst enemies.

His words here are anything but those of a reactionary conservative, and to suggest they are empty is simply foolish. But you seem to have an emotional investment in Benedict's putative incorrigibility, as claimed by you, and in your own theological infallibility. It's you who exhibit an unwaveringly incorrigibility.

[hedgehog]

3. I wish the man well, but words are easy, actions are hard.

From your first link:

"The Tablet, reporting this, managed in an entirely deadpan way to point out that Benedict is the pope who has done most to restore the Latin Mass, which the council had abolished, and to reach out to the Lefevrists who left the church because they would not accept the Council's reforms. "''


How much of this crisis is due to unquestioning obedience from the ground up, and how much power is the Pope willing to share? If the system is the flaw, is he willing to change the system?

[tjwmason]

4. Vatican II didn't produce the current translations

Vatican II stated that the faithful should be able to sing Gregorian chant in Latin, not many places where that happens these days.

The new edition of the Missal is currently having a translation from the official Latin into England, a number of problems have been raised with the current translations - 'et cum spiritu tuo' becomes 'and also with you' (spot the missing word), 'pro multis' becomes 'for all'.

Whether we like it or not, the definitive version is the Latin and from that we get an official translation into the vernacular.

[hedgehog]

5. I admit I've never read the documents, but consider this:

Vatican II was called out of the blue by Pope John XXIII and the bishops who attended had all been appointed by his predecessors who were hardly icons of revolution. Those bishops sat through the meetings, then went home and had the Mass put into their local vernacular. Regardless of what the documents do or do not say, do you think that every bishop in the world got it wrong?

I agree that the current English translation is also a revision of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. Again, it was accepted by the English speaking bishops, so they must have had their reasons. I put it to you that when the Latin was translated, the bishops discovered that the Mass had drifted from the Founder's intent and took the opportunity to do some judicious pruning.

[Matilda]

6. That's not quite how it was done.

Paul VI order the formation of the "Sacrosanctum Concilium" in 1963, and it commenced work in 1964. The revisions
were ready for dissemination in 1969, and were sent to bishops around the world, who - in a first for Rome - were
given considerable freedom in deciding how to adapt local customs and understanding into the new missal, and it
was only in 1973 that the current missal was available for use.

It was also left to bishops to decide how and when the vernacular should be employed; it was never intended that
the Latin Mass should be replaced, but at parish level, that's what happened. Clearly, that's what the faithful
preferred, and that's how it came to be. But the Latin Mass has never gone away; it remains the official
language of the Roman Missal.

Obviously, the vernacular makes the Mass more accessible for many, but not only is the standard of translation
often poor, it has in some cases changed the wording and the meaning behind the words of the Mass. This ranges
from the simple and obvious - "et cum spiritu tuo" means "and with thy spirit"; it can never mean "and also with
you" - to the profound.

The words of the Consecration were changed in places, and there are those who believe that this has changed the
true significance of the Mass as a sacrifice and made it more of a community memorial, as it is in the Protestant
churches. From my reading, these views have some validity, but this is an issue for theologians. Why it was
done, nobody seems to know, although some traditionalist websites mutter about dark plots, but perhaps it was
just an excess of enthusiasm. But this is what has caused the breakaway movements among both priests and laity
to the traditionalist Catholic churches. I'm sure the Vatican hopes that addressing this issue may help to
heal the split, but the venom some of the websites spit at the "Novus Ordo" mass makes that seem unlikely. It's
now much more than a matter of translation.

Latin is a very precise language - there are about thirty ways of saying "go", each one referring to a very
specific action. Latin means what it says and says what it means, and because it's a dead language, it can never
change, so there is no freedom in translation. If these problems are going to be rectified, it can only be good.
And if some of the beauty is restored to the liturgy in the process, everybody will benefit.

[hedgehog]

7. So, in many respects, Vatican II began a restoration of

the kind of Church we've been hearing about this Easter season. After all, what is wrong with a priestly people determining how it wants to worship?

I am reminded about the fuss over kosher and circumcision, with the Old Guard insisting on the old rules.

As far as the beauty of the Mass, there are many kinds of beauty. There's this:



and there's this:

[Matilda]

8. It is a triumph of sorts that the Mass has been shaped by local communities,

and it is to be hoped that local sensibilities and customs will be allowed to flourish - I have heard that there
may be an attempt to make worship more homogeneous, and that, I believe, should be resisted.

However, real errors and inconsistencies should be corrected, and if this is being carried out in part to try to
bring breakaway movements back into the fold, all credit to Benedict for overseeing it. The Church in the past has
been too quick to simply cut off those who question and disagree, rather than negotiate.

And as for beauty - it's in the eye of the beholder, and while I find great joy in the fact that the world's
greatest composers have given us glorious masses inspired by the Roman rite, others may take equal pleasure in a
simple folk tune; the important thing is that we can each be given the freedom to make our own choices.

I won't be sorry to say goodbye to some of the banalities of the current missal, and I just hope they get it right
this time. And we can hope that in the revisions will be the corrections that the traditionalists have been
asking for, although it may not be enough for them; they really want a return to the "good old days" of the Mass
of Pope Pius V and everything that went with it.