It is at Wikispooks. Thanks Pray Tell.
And now we can compare Collects (which are actually called Collects in the new Missal!). Let’s look at the Second Sunday of Lent, as just one example of how the world we know is about to undergo a dramatic and glorious shift.
CURRENT: God our Father,
help us to hear your Son.
Enlighten us with your word,
that we may find the way to your glory.
FORTHCOMING: O God, who have commanded us
to listen to your beloved Son,
be pleased, we pray,
to nourish us inwardly by your word,
that, with spiritual sight made pure,
we may rejoice to behold your glory.
It may be a “truer translation” to acceptable and proper US ENGLISH, but is this not something like the fourth or fifth “translation”, “modification”, or “adjustment” since the Second Vatican Council?
It is kind of odd, that looking back to “still official language of the Church”, Latin, and the 1962 Missal, “key components” remained unchanged for a great many years, and the majority went back centuries without change.
What seemed to be a minor uprising and sentiment for return to the “Latin Rite” (as per the 1962 Missal) in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, has now grown to be a sizeable amount of Catholics, possibly close to a majority. And now with a great many Church leaders also openly supporting such, and with the Blessing of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.
In addition, there does not seem to be 100% unanimity for the new Missal, when hearing, and reading from many different sources.
Maybe it is time we return to the “root”, and the “Latin Rite” (as per the 1962 Missal).
I believe that we are all in the "Latin Rite" whether we attend or celebrate the Novus Ordo or the Tridentine Mass. It is all one "Rite" in the Church. Remember within the "Latin Rite" there is the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It's important to remember these distinctions and terminology.
As it is, I think that with every big council of the Church, it takes years, often around 100 years before everything settles down and the Council really has the effect it intended. We're already moving the right direction and it's only been 40 years. The Holy Spirit is at work with plans greater than we can understand.
A truer comparison would be the texts of MR2, also leaked. In keeping with the input of the world's bishops in 2008 for a closer link between the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist, MR2 provided a lectionary-harmonized set of collects for the clergy. These were superior in almost every way to the outdated Latin collects.
I think it's time for literary-minded Catholics to assemble a set of prayers in the vernaculars of every nation, test them over a period of time, then submit them for possible universal use: first a translation into Latin, and from there, a proper rendering into other languages.
Todd
Your suggestion would reinforce the erroneous idea that the liturgy is essentially a fabricated bottom-up product. Whether you like it or not, the schema for future liturgical reform is the one embodied in Ratzinger's "The Spirit of the Liturgy" and shown in his own celebrations as Pope.
The theological difference is striking: we make our way to glory vs. we behold God's glory. We are enlightened vs. we are nourished and purified.
In the new translation, grace is active, first, last and always. Makes a person want to go to Mass on a Sunday morning, doesn't it?
A dramatic and glorious shift indeed!
And we want to hear no grinding of gears around here, pal, so keep your 1997 and 2008 texts to yourself and just do the comparisons to what we had, not what we might have had.
And Kathy, yes, at my parish Sunday Mass will be something to look forward to: our young associate, who is all in favor of the Extraordinary Form, can barely get through the CURRENT English text without stumbling. As an aged Latin teacher, I can't bring myself to imagine what he'll do to that venerable tongue, but I'm pretty sure his taking on Vox Clarese is going to be something not to miss!
John:
Part of his suggestion would expose the incompetence of those who tinkered with the translation ICEL prepared in obedience and fidelity to Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis, and that might raise questions, both political and personal, that the Ecclesia Pollyana seems almost desperate to avoid.
Mr. Anon is growing very tedious here. There is life beyond 2008.
The 1998 text is not much different:
O God,
who commanded us to listen to your beloved Son,
nourish us inwardly with your word of life
and purify the eyes of our spirit,
that we may rejoice in the sight of your glory.
…
And the year B alternative would be even better, rooted in the Lectionary:
Ever-faithful God,
you were pleased with Abraham's obedience
and you accepted the sacrifice of your Son,
who gave himself up for the sake of us all.
Train us by Christ's teaching
and school us in his obedience
that, as we walk his way of sacrifice,
we may come to share in your glory.
We ask this through Christ, our deliverance and hope, who lives and reigns …
I like this approach for a number of reasons. It scuttles the frequent attempt at mini-homilies during the introductory rites. Taking the Scriptures of the day as a starting point, it reinforces the notion of Lent as both a time of sacrifice, as well as schooling in the way of Christ.
Unfortinately for your point of view, John, the Scriptures themselves were written from "below" as it were. And while I have no problem attributing the Spirit's hand in them or in previous incarnations of the Mass, it seems clear that the Holy Spirit still inspires people today. An open process, rooted in the Bible and the liturgy, would be a huge improvement over MR3.
Todd,
Not sure which of the five or six gauntlets to pick up, from those you've just thrown down. Scriptural authority is certainly the most important, but since the documents of Vatican II have that argument covered, why don't we move on to the real issue:
The bishops have re-taken their role as teachers. Middle management ecclesial lay progressives (John Page et al) are no longer being dealt carte blanche authority over the Church's self-identification.
Deo gratias!
Kathy,
It's one thing to say that "documents … have (an) argument covered," and another to actually see the Church in action to "cover" at will.
On one hand, we're criticizing a document (1973) that happened a generation before John Page. So for the purposes of "celebrating drama and glory," Mr Page was at that banquet table a long time before the internet made neotraditionalism a cafeteria item.
Suggesting that Mr Page had "carte blanche authority" shows little grasp of the situation of the 90's. Seventeen years and fifteen bishops conferences: a lot of work–collaboration even?–went into MR2.
I'm more interested in your poet's view of the alternate collects offered in MR2. Good thing or bad? And if bad, is this better left to hymnwriters to make the connection?
The liturgy has never been – and was never meant to be – a didactic explanation of the readings of the day. If need be, leave that to the homily.
When I converted (yes, that's the right term Fr. A., tho' you can't bare to see the idea expressed) from Anglicanism to the Church twenty odd years ago, I did so in spite of the dead hand of the English mass and scripture translations, and the music to which they were typically set. I accepted this as a cross to bear, even more so as I realised the problem was as much one of Tradition as literary value and musical competence.
I now thank God with astonishment and gratitude for the new translation of the mass. Yes, it could be better in places; but it's such an improvement that I'm happy to live with that for the next thirty or forty years. Yes, it would have been better but for the foibles of an institution that – conservative and liberal alike – is full of clericalists who just want to impose their view of things on us, irrespective of the richness and subtlety of our cultural and theological patrimony; but it's turned out so much better than it did in the 1970's that I'll happily cope with the problem.
Deo Gratias!
Alternative collects usually miss the mark on grace, Todd. Let's take the example you offer.
Ever-faithful God,
you were pleased with Abraham's obedience
and you accepted the sacrifice of your Son,
who gave himself up for the sake of us all.
Train us by Christ's teaching
and school us in his obedience
that, as we walk his way of sacrifice,
we may come to share in your glory.
We ask this through Christ, our deliverance and hope, who lives and reigns…
The focus throughout the prayer is on the "economic" Trinity, in a kind of nice-Dad mode. Instead of addressing God, or God-who-commands, we address the "ever-faithful God." It is a true title, of course, drawing on the hesed refrained in the great Alleluia Psalm 136. But it's awfully easy-going for a collect.
The next three lines inform God of God's preferences. I'm not sure any of these lines is entirely accurate. God accepted (Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: et accepta habere, siculti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.)
the sacrifice of Abraham, but was he "pleased" with it? He stopped it, by the hand of an angel. During a Mass (!) should we be saying that the sacrifice of Christ is a past reality? Is it quite right to say that Christ was sacrificed for our sake? Scripture and the Liturgy say that for our sake he became obedient. The sacrifice has two referrents, us AND the Father.
The next four lines form a not-bad petition, but they are not collect-speak. Collect-speak is not about our present and future ability to work out our salvation on our own, after receiving God's help. Collects characteristically ask for God's constantly underlying help, more present and helpful to us than our own endeavors. They don't ask for an education that will end. They ask for ongoing presence and help, spiritual help more present to us than our own breath.
The Trinity "in se" is usually invoked at the end of a collect by mentioning the Father-Son relationship. Yet here again the Trinity is presented as primarily economic, not "your Son" but "our deliverance and hope."
Nice analysis.
Ever-faithful not only alludes to Easter's Psalm 136, but also refers to the continuing covenant begun in the patriarch.
God's reaction to the attempted sacrifice of Genesis 22 is in verses 17-18:
"I will bless you abundantly and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing–all this because you obeyed my command."
I don't see the connection you're making by equating Abraham with the Father. They're obviously two sacrifices with different results, although they share a certain "graced" ending.
My interpretation of line four is that Jesus, in line with John 15:13, indeed offers himself, and depending on how one might see his shielding efforts in the Passion narratives, particularly for the Twelve.
I'm not sure I agree with your sense that our schooling won't end in heaven. But it would seem believers will be graced with a certain stature we don't enjoy in this life.
If I read your interpretation of "economy" correctly, this collect is largely a prayer of petition. It's certainly not out of keeping with either Jewish or Christian tradition. And it helps to keep the focus on God, and what we ask, and not necessarily a false-narcissism.
Todd,
This is my point: what is missing in the current translation is divine-human intimacy, the transcendent God is active in the Church. Not just as teacher, example, guide–activities which can be associated with persons extrinsic to ourselves–but as the internal motivating source of all the good we can accomplish, God "at work" in us, (Galations 2:8)God-as-grace within us.
It is also missing with this alternative collect.
It is restored in almost all of the collects of the upcoming translations.
Kathy, I'm afraid I just don't see this. Both the 1998 and 2010 collects speak of believers as "we." There's hardly any intimacy communicated in a fussily elevated liturgical language.
I agree that divine-human intimacy is an important value, but is it the only or the prime value? And shouldn't it be borne by the experience of the entire Missal, and not one or every collect?
Todd,
It's not just an important value. I think that it's the central characteristic of our religion.
Well … I would say the central characteristic is the Paschal Mystery. Human-divine intimacy is part of that. But that intimacy is revealed in Abraham's relationship with God, as well as the incarnation. And more than just the Word becoming flesh, we have the Son of God teaching self-sacrifice as a high virtue not only to do, but to imitate.
Kathy, don't waste your time disputing with Todd. He's the Uber-Pope. He knows far more than Benedict XVI about the Catholic Faith and Liturgy. Just ask him.
I have a teen-age daughter who, if you text message her anything, HAS TO respond… it's like an impulse that she can't overcome. Sometimes it's fun to just keep sending replies to her last message, just to watch her figure out what to say in reply. Eventually she has to reach really far to find something relevant to say that she hopes will give her the last word.
I don't know what made me suddenly think of that… really I don't.
I think after a few years of praying the new translation both priests and laity will have a new attitude about how we approach God in general and prayer in particular. The example given above in terms of comparison between the 1973 and 2010 versions of the same prayer illustrate how praying can affect attitude and posture before God. The reformed English prayer certainly shows that we aren't communicating with any ordinary individual on the street. We're communicating with God almighty in all of the Most Holy Trinity's majesty. I like that difference and I think it will have a significant impact on the praying community. The law of prayer or the way your pray is the law of belief or the way you believe. Fr. Allan McDonald
Chironomo, lol.
Todd,
Why do you think the central characteristic of our religion is the Paschal Mystery? I realize that is something of a creed among liturgists but I've never quite understood why.
Also, I think it could be misunderstood, and the spiritual life could become a series of self-transcending moments.
Kathy,
Liturgically it shows in the importance given to the Triduum and Easter season, not to mention the post-consecration emphasis on Christ's Passion, death, and resurrection.
8:27 anonymous,
As the internet's most popular and busiest commentator, I know Kathy and I were flinging references to liturgy and Scripture maybe a little too quickly to follow. My suggestion would be to start at Genesis 1, work your way to Revelation 22 without skipping too many pages, then come back and join us.
It's been announced that England and Wales will have the benefit of the new translation from September onwards.
Todd,
The Paschal Mystery is also the focus of many of the songs in the Gather hymnal. But where does that focus come from?
On every level, especially the philosophical, this dispute is at the center of the liberal-conservative divide. Is reality always changing? Or does the deepest Reality abide?
Where does the tabernacle reside?
"But where does that focus come from?"
Every Mass. Every Eucharistic Prayer. Sunday as the Eighth Day, and the liturgical year's focus on the Paschal Triduum. The Gather hymnal has many problems, but it does get that bit of liturgical theology right.
"On every level, especially the philosophical, this dispute is at the center of the liberal-conservative divide. Is reality always changing? Or does the deepest Reality abide?"
I would say that the Lord's Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension are far, far above ideological squabbles.
Human emphasis changes, driven by the perception of culture. People who suffer are drawn to the Passion, perhaps. People with reason to celebrate the sacraments are drawn to Easter, perhaps. People with reason to hope look to the Ascension and to the Second Coming of Christ that event points to, perhaps. There aren't clear dividing lines. I would suggest that a healthy spiritual life (individual or in a faith community) strives for balance in all these aspects and thus is able to find and see Christ in many places.
"Where does the tabernacle reside?"
Many places, not just one.