Catholic Sensibility

Ha. It's online; I didn't need to wait till Fr John finished his latest dose of Commonweal. Amy's commentariat is already in full swing, heading toward a hundred-post thread by tomorrow. I read the article earlier today and I found it informative, especially the early history of ICEL. I guess the real devil wore papal robes and his last name didn't start with a "B." But myths still abound in the Catholic bloggerdom, so let's have at some of them: " ... nowhere do I get any similar sense that the arguments of the "bad guys" (in the writer's view) have been grappled with and understood, much less presented." We can read the documents they've produced, can't we? It would be interesting to do a whole book on this and include, yes, anecdotal testimony of the curial cardinals. "The 2nd Vatican Council merely continued what was interrupted at the 1st Vatican Council. Episcopal collegiality or dialogue does not allow national conferences to impose their own stamp on a rite that involves many languages." Well, that would be no. Rome has seen the wisdom in assembling native genius in the past in patching together the Roman Rite. Vatican II is indeed clear about the role of bishops, as evidenced after the Council. Today, the curia is stronger and has a different interpretation. If we want to get into a peeing match about who's got the longer pedigree, bishops go back to the Old Testament, the curia to the Middle Ages. The curia is little more than a diocesan bureaucracy made large for the universal Church. And yes, the failed ICEL Sacramentary included rubrical modifications such as omitting the penitential rite outside of Lent and Advent. Not exactly. It would have been optional. As it is, the penitential rite is optional on some occasions; Sacramentary II would have just expanded the possibility. It would have taken us in the direction of a missal for the English speaking world that could no longer be recognized as the Roman Rite. Well, no. Yet only two years later, Wilkins would have us believe that pretty much every English-speaking bishop, and indeed, every priest and layperson, was suddenly keen to go the whole nine yards on vernacular. That's pretty much the story as hear it related. Take a poll today: how many want Latin. See where it gets us. The truth is that the priests most willing to pray the 1970 Rite in Latin were off pouting considering their options in schism or disobedience. All or nothing: typical narcissism.

It took 13 years for ICEL to produce an updated missal!? That alone is proof enough that the whole process (and ICEL itself) needed to be 'blown-up' and started anew.

I think draft one was completed by 1989. It spent nine more years bouncing back and forth between ICEL, CDWDS and the USCCB. I'd be in favor of "blowing up" the American bishops and the curia and starting over. Any takers? I would opine that Latin is more alive than you think. No; I think it's quite dead. Poets and authors no longer use it. Latin is about as living as the English directions for replacing my refrigerator filter: functional, gets the message across, but is not what artists will use to enrich the ears for the next several decades. All the songs were rewritten to be politically correct. Blame the authors, I guess; they did the work themselves. Just teach yourself not to think "male" when you hear "man." Come on, you can do it. Okay. Man is entirely suitable for the ordained priesthood. I think I've got it. All other languages are faithful to the words of the Latin original. Why do we English speaking folks think we need to be different? The Germans were sat on, too. Their language is used to translate into various Eastern European tongues. The Italians have been kaming up their own prayers for their sacramentary for decades. From what I've seen, every language group has its own expression of invention. ICEL wrote prayers to harmonize with the three-year Lectionary cycle--something in which the Latin original is deficient. Whew. That feels a bit better. Okay, Brigid? Regarding the article itself, it shows up (however the slant) that there's a lot of bitterness in the hierarchy. The issue of the relationships between individual bishops, their conferences, and the curia remain with us. As badly as I feel about the USCCB as a group and some bishops in particular, the question boils down to the proper role of the bishop. We treated this topic on this site months ago in looking at Christus Dominus. Until the local bishops, their conferences, and the curia settle their internal warfare, the hierarchy will remain distracted instead of targetting their energies to the mission of Christ. Is a micromanaging Rome needful for the faith? Many of us would say no. The Eastern Christians are not going to be ecumenically impressed by the West moving back to Anglican English and incense if it means a reunion would see them under a set of petty Roman bureaucracies. Petty, I said? Am I being too extreme? I don't think so. I'll add jealous, too. Time to get dinner on the stove, so I'll leave y'all with this to chew.