Open Dissent On The Translation Fixes

Lots of folks have probably already seen this, but I wanted to bring up one bit of irony associated with Fr. Anthony Ruff's recent letter in America wherein he expresses his disdain for the corrected translation of the Missal and the folks involved with it. Please note the following excerpt:

The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church. When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process—and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity…I weep.

I wonder if Fr. Ruff has any familiarity at all with how the Pauline Mass came about, much less the broken translation that ended up with. I'm sure he does, which is why this letter seems a bit dishonest to me. Everything he complains about here happened in spades during the post-conciliar liturgical reform. Does he think that "with your spirit" is bad? How about having the whole Roman Rite basically annihilated and then draconian implementation of a completely new liturgy, something unheard of in all of Church history, as a follow-up? I can't help but think this letter and the feelings of those with similar views are very immature.

Or comedic if you consider the bit about the "legitimate episcopal authority" of national bishops' conferences.

His closing paragraph begins:

I see a good deal of disillusionment with the Catholic Church among my friends and acquaintances. Some leave the Catholic Church out of conviction, some gradually drift away, some join other denominations, some remain Catholic with difficulty.

I would very much like to know Fr. Ruff's opinion of those who suffered disillusionment after the promulgation of the Pauline Mass. What sort of sympathy do they get? If he's going to play this disillusionment/leaving the Church card over stuff like "consubstantial," I really want to hear his feelings on how the liturgical reforms that got us here were handled and how he measures up any complaints and dissent that resulted from them.

I found his blog, but there didn't seem to be anything giving answers to my questions. There was this post, in which the hysteria being projected over the translation was fever pitched with everything from talk of "leaving the Church" to "organized resistance." If someone is willing to leave the Church over this issue, then I must respectfully disagree with Fr. Ruff's opinion that they "love the Church." Leaving the Church over this is the equivalent of ending a marriage over burned meatloaf.

While Fr. Ruff weeps over a translation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we should all weep that things are in such a state that said translation is treated as a reason for schism or apostasy.

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From Rorate:

Liturgical Reform: Coming Soon to the Eastern Churches?

Somebody make it stop!!!!!!

During the first General Congregation of the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops on October 11, 2010, the Reporter of the Synod, His Beatitude Antonios Naguib, Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church, gave a lengthy report before the discussions began. (See this.) In the course of his lengthy report, which touches upon numerous matters of great importance for the dwindling flock of Christians in the Middle East, the Patriarch said the following about liturgical reform:

A great many people are deeply desiring liturgical renewal, which, while remaining faithful to tradition, would take into account modern sensitivities as well as today’s spiritual and pastoral needs. The work of liturgical reform would require a commission of experts. Perhaps some usefulness might result from adapting liturgical texts to celebrations with children and youth, while remaining faithful to each Church’s heritage. This could be the work of an interdisciplinary group of experts. Some look for liturgical renewal in the area of devotional practices. Whatever the case, adaptation and reform must consider the ecumenical aspect. The particularly delicate question of communicatio in sacris requires special study.

What the hell is this? Have they lost their freaking minds????

It didn't stop there:

This openness to liturgical reform was immediately taken up in the next morning by Chaldean Archbishop Louis Sako (who said)

Liturgical reformation based upon sacred scripture, but also the patristics and pastoral demands of today. Otherwise our faithful will go looking for other churches as has already happened in some cases.

You know that comment about insanity being trying the same crap over and over whilst expecting a different result? That's what this is. It's the same bill of goods that was sold in the post-conciliar liturgical reform. Has Archbishop Sako been paying attention to Mass attendance since the advent of the Pauline Mass? Or does he just think that the Easterners can do it better?

Holy smokes. I never thought I'd see this kind of stuff. The only think this is guaranteed to do is drive the Eastern Catholics across the Bosporus to the Orthodox churches, who are pretty vocal about the liturgical wasteland of Catholicism being a big obstacle to ecumenism.

If they want reforms that are promoted to de-Latinize (which are also mentioned in the Rorate post), I'm all for it. Watching a Maronite liturgy that is basically the Ordinary Form is uncomfortable and awkward and all kinds of other bad things. For the love of God and His Church, though, let's not start screwing up the Eastern liturgy just when we seem to be getting a fix for what's wrong in the West.

Living Liturgically: A Practical Guide

Todd, in the comments down below, asks me for suggestions about how to live more liturgically. Well, that's a request begging for a long, well-thought out response. You'll have to make due with this.

The first point, which I've come to believe is essential, is not to try to do too much. This might seem paradoxical, since I complain that we don't live liturgically enough, but there is a danger: By trying to do too much, one fails, and then loses heart. Take me, for example: I love the liturgy of the Byzantine Church, and have attempted to pray the hours in the Byzantine way. This is doomed to failure, since to pray the Byzantine hours takes a significant percentage of the total hours of the day. If you sing them, it might take more than 24 hours to do it.

Pick something you can do, and stick to it. Here is where it is good to get a spiritual director, one who is intelligent and faithful, with experience. How do you find one? Darned if I know. Ask around. Do you know anyone who prays, and who possesses a good deal of practical wisdom? This might be your man (or woman). When the spiritual director tells you to do something, do it. There is virtue in both the act and the obedience.

You might want to pray the Liturgy of the Hours, or perhaps just one of the hours each day. You can find it online, and even on the Iphone (IBreviary). The Roman version is quite manageable. A Rosary could be a good place to start, or some time reflecting on Scripture, or a holy hour at a church. Note, that "holy hour" is an expression: it could be a holy five minutes. A small thing faithfully done is better than a great thing not done.

Consider also changing the way you think about the calendar. Instead of the 14th day of March, think of it in terms of the liturgical season, the saints of the day, or the gospel readings.

That should suffice for now.

Liturgy and the Moral Teaching of the Church

I don't participate in internet fora very much anymore, and it's not because I am lazy. I am _lazy_, but I have other reasons: I don't think arguments convince very many people, and certainly not the sort of arguments that happen in the anonymous agora of the internet.

Finally, I don't think arguments about right and wrong have much chance of success in a world that doesn't understand the liturgical life. By "liturgical life," I mean a life that is centered on the holy, on the manifestation of God in the world. This needn't be mysticism, but can be a very practical sacramental life, marking the hours, days, and weeks by their relation to the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I mean by the liturgical life thinking more about whether it's the third week of Lent than whether March Madness is approaching.

The typical way of life of Christians consists in a normal secular life punctuated by a weekly hour spent discharging a religious duty. After the church service, life goes back to normal. This is particularly true of Catholics, who vote, buy, and live nearly exactly like eneryone else.

Any argument about the moral life is therefore attempting to convince someone to make a commitment to a more Godly life, when God only occupies an hour out of every week. How could it make any impact? I remember yearly arguments in one forum about Lenten fasting regulations, and How dare the Church tell me I can't eat meat? One despairs of making any headway.

So I don't, and generally put my energies into the liturgical life at my parish, doing my best to make it as full and beautiful as it can be. We will live better when we pray better.