Saturday, 26 November 2011
opinion on the eve of Advent
The Huffington Post has two articles for Advent.
Matthew L Skinner: Mark 13:24-37: Advent — One of Those Dangerous Religious Ideas
Cindi Love: Advent: Slippery Slope of Christendom
Adam Stadtmiller writes for Church Marketing Sucks about The Epic-Fail of Church Announcements.
Savitri Hensman writes for The Guardian about Worshipping money – the new faith sweeping England today.
Posted by Peter Owen on
Saturday, 26 November 2011 at 11:00am GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Advent has started dismally for English-speaking Roman Catholics as they wake up to find themselves saddled with a barbarous new translation of the missal. In the Anglican world things are done in a more democratic and consultative fashion it seems. I refer to the following letter: "I am an EPISCOPAL bishop. I commend you for your initiative. The Episcopal Church had 6 to 8 years of parish 'trial use' with responses before the final revision to our liturgy was made in 1976-1979. We too had linguistic experts but they are not perfect. It's a good way to proceed. +HWS
Harry W Shipps | Bishop | Georgia (Episcopal) | USA" (http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/readcomments.htm)
Yes, I've always said that Anglicans, at least Canadian Anglicans and The Episcopal Church USA are truly the REFORMED Catholic Church that the Council Fathers of Vatican II envisioned. It is a sad and tragic course of events that the far right elements in the Roman Catholic Church have hijacked The People of God's journey to a reformed and renewed Catholic Church. So many Roman Catholics feel at home in Anglican parishes because they see the fruits of Vatican II most evident. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has a surprise for the far right in the Catholic Church, after all, it was a miracle that Vatican II ever happened. I say, keep the faith by participating in the wonderful liturgies at Anglican Churches in many parts of the world. The Spirit of Vatican II is very much alive in Anglicanism, in spite of the far right fundamentalist elements (within Anglicanism) who want to bury the progressive movement.
The new translations started some weeks ago, in England Wales RC dioceses. But people are still responding, "And also with you." !!
My local newspaper (Sacramento Bee) had a cover story on the new RC liturgy yesterday.
They began w/ a negative review and a positive review. Then this line: "Sunday, worshippers will be able to decide for themselves"
Um, no they won't!
Big Brother (Holy Father) has decided for ya...
It is always strange to me that those who most loudly call for change seem the most perturbed when even the smallest change appears.
In my own small corner of the world I found no dismay at all at the rather minor adjustments to the English translation of the Roman missal. Personally I find the translation marginally better, and most congregational responses today contained an expected mixture of the old and new. Most seem to take it with good humor and tolerance.
What I really want to know, from the posters above, is that part of the new translation they think "right wing" or somehow out of step with Vatican II?
The worshippers will be able to decide what they think about it, surely, even if they have no choice about using it.
Oh, I suppose John R. As I recall, Winston Smith in "1984" treasured that ability too. ;-/
@rick: I believe that, first and foremost, it's the PROCESS of the liturgy's promulgation that's most disturbing. It's in that *CONTEXT*, that the liturgy's greater emphasis on humility (humiliation?) "my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault" and overall churchy-ness ("With your spirit" "consubstantial with") that suggests the RCC is trying to turn not "of the world" to not "in the world" also. [Y'know, that pesky oikoumene, where DEMOCRACY keeps rearing its ugly head. Meanwhile, EWTN runs shows that extol returning the *French monarchy* as "the Savior of France"! O_o]
Rick: If you are unaware of the dramatic right shift since the Autumn of 1978 (John Paul II's election), in the area of the Eucharist, then you have been sleeping for over three decades. The attempt to be as close to the "Latin Original Language" should be your first clue. Jesus spoke in Aramaic not in Latin, and Jesus did not express any concern as far as we know, about the format or the celebration of the Lord's Supper. He asked us to gather for The Supper in memory of Himself. I believe Jesus would be appalled that the Church of Rome adopted an imperial model that used the Roman Empire as a template. The People of God should be able to decide what formats works for each local community. I do not 'buy" the arguments about so called "abuses of the Eucharist" and a need to return to the "original Latin" in order to express the "true" meanings. Everything the last and present Bishop of Rome have said about this subject of "faithful translations to the original texts" I believe, is nothing more than a ruse. They think and speak as "Restorationists" and yearn for more "control" as they once had prior to the Second Vatican Council.
My last comment on this topic (on this thread anyway! ;-p):
One of the more prominent Roman Catholics in US popular culture is the comedian Stephen Colbert [Despite the ironic tone of his nightly show, "The Colbert Report", he'll wear his Ash Wednesday ashes on air, for example]
So I noticed his show last night (he'd had the past week off over the Thanksgiving Holiday, and his first show since Advent 1). The show's opening has a montage of various printed Colbert-isms, and one new term/phrase last. Last night's new word was... "Consubstantial?" *LOL*
Just one more---
Stephen Colbert gave more attention to the New (Throwback) Mass yesterday, here: http://bit.ly/vP5MDk