Tuesday, September 27, 2005

A Moment of Penitence

More from the most recent ICEL drafts -- Papabile asked about this one:
Priest: Brothers and sisters, let us acknowledge our sins,
that we may be ready to celebrate the sacred mysteries.


All: I confess to almighty God,
and to you my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned greatly
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and what I have failed to do,
(striking their breast, they say)
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault.

(Then they continue)
Therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us
and lead us, with our sins forgiven,
into eternal life.


Blogger Un Séminariste said...

I don't suppose the Comme le Prévoit crowd will like this one either....

27/9/05 19:14  
Blogger Disgusted in DC said...

Well, it looks like the rumor that Pope Benedict was going to restore to the Latin Missal the old prayers at the foot of the altar wern't true. Drat.

27/9/05 19:43  
Blogger Jeff said...

Those Prayers are very sweet, Patrick. I love them. My son is an altar boy in training and we learned them together:

Quare tristis es anima mea, et quare conturbas me?

Great stuff, but gone forever, I fear. And I'm not sure that Pope Paul wasn't wise. There can be too much of a good thing and if you're going to simplify, well, some beautiful things will have to go and the Introibo ad Altare Dei will be near the front of the line. Sigh....

I think it's fascinating that Rocco is, in a way, suffering the pangs of extreme traditionalism. It's obvious to me, anyway, that what really hurts is just that there is a change in prayers which have grown familiar to one since boyhood and which one has learned to love through repetition.

Nothing wrong with that! It's a sound instinct and one which should be respected. But it should give the younger crowd some sense of what it must have been like for many older Catholics to have experienced the liturgical whirlwind that came after the Council and some inkling of how some of them could have become as crabby and unbending as they have. Things could have been done more gently and more respect could have been shown to those who were unable to adapt, even if the changes are deemed completely beneficial.

27/9/05 20:53  
Blogger Todd said...

This is essentially the form used when I visit Conception. It's chanted each evening at Compline.

If it were chanted in the parish, and especially if that period of silence were observed substantially, this Comme Le Prevoit kid approves.

27/9/05 22:10  
Blogger Gyrovagus said...

The Confiteor is, in my opinion, an improvement over what we have now, although I've always liked the way the English language Mass of the Polish National Catholic Church handles the mea culpa in such a way that each repetition intensifies the personal dimension of the confession, even though it's said in common. Their rite says (or, at least used to say):

through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault.

But that is an embellishment, I suppose, and the whole point of the revised translation is to reverse/halt the embellishments.

But even while praising the improvement, there are "translation-inconsistencies" in the texts Rocco has posted.

For instance, the priest's prayer after the Confiteor: doesn't the Latin say perducat vos ad vitam aeternam?

Why translate the ending: into eternal life?

Talk about an English phrase clunking in combat boots to a dead thud!

Since the Latin has an inversion (the Latin adjectival construction), why not leave it as such in English and - as Coverdale so often did (especially in his Psalms, mindful of the Vulgate rhythm and the Gregorian/Sarum psalm tone structure) - choose a lengthened word:

into life everlasting.

Speaking of inconsistencies: in the draft that was published in the Tablet (last summer?), they had failed to translate a phrase in Eucharistic Prayer II properly:

astare coram te et tibi ministrare was rendered to be in your presence and to give you worship. Not exactly what the Latin says! That's the rub, of course, with setting up the rule of "as exact and precise a translation as possible" - to fulfill that, it seems you would have to say to stand in your presence and minister to you, even if you'd rather have the people kneeling and not thinking of themselves as ministers!

Got Eucharistic Prayer II, Rocco? What's it say now?

27/9/05 23:51  
Blogger Gotpraecht said...

it should give the younger crowd some sense of what it must have been like for many older Catholics to have experienced the liturgical whirlwind that came after the Council and some inkling of how some of them could have become as crabby and unbending as they have

I agree. As someone who grew up with the present Mass (it's all I can remember) this is something I've thought a lot over the last 18 months. I wish I had the good grace that my grandparents displayed as the various changes were introduced in the 1960s and 1970s.

But two wrongs don't make a right.
There is a similar inconsistency in the part of those who continue to denounce "modernism," insist that liturgical change should be "organic," and seem to regard these reforms as an opportunity to stick it to "the Liberals" (and dancing nuns and all the other bogeys in the traditionalist shop of horrors)

And there is an element of the year zero mentality about these changes. For example, whatever may have happened to the ancient musical settings of the Mass in practice, the liturgical reforms of the 1960s and 70s never abolished them in theory. You could still, for example, sing a Mozart or Gregorian gloria if your parish was so inclined (and some were). With these reforms, the musical settings of the new texts are all abolished. OK, there are some banal ones, but here in the UK at least, there are some beautiful settings by some of our best composers. These will now be redundant, because they won't work with the new texts.

28/9/05 03:20  
Blogger Gyrovagus said...

RE Musical Settings:

In the transition from the 1964 texts of the various conferences of bishops (for instance, the translation we had in the USA was different from both the Canadian and the UK translations; indeed within the UK there were variations among the England-Wales, Scotland, Ireland versions), to the ICEL version, it was permitted to continue using the former text with musical settings prepared for it. And we did just that.

It was the omnipresence of the ICEL version (or, really, the ecumenical version) within the RC and across denominational boundaries that, gradually, produced so many new settings that the older ones were phased out.

If such a permission is granted this time around (and that would be the role of individual national conferences subject to the approval of the Holy See, I think), the older settings would probably survive for quite a while - the really good ones, anyhow - not least of all because they are shared across denominational lines.

A fascinating question (at least Cardinal Kasper took it up when John Allen of the NCR brought it to his attention) is the fact that both Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum, 1965) and John Paul II's encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) encourage ecumenical collaboration on (at least) Biblical translations, something Liturgiam Authenticam specifically disapproves of.

The deeper question: does a Curial document (and the motivation behind and the authorship of Liturgiam Authenticam is a fascinating saga in itself) trump both a Conciliar decree and a Papal encyclical? Put another way: Did both the conciliar and papal magisterium get it wrong, so that Cardinal Medina-Estevez had to set it right?

As they ask at our local seminary: WWPIXD?

(What would Pius IX do?)

28/9/05 07:59  
Blogger Richard said...

What Gyrovagus said.

In his first post.

The Confiteor is improved in certain respects - save for that last phrase.

28/9/05 09:26  
Blogger Disgusted in DC said...

"through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault."

Some of the old Anglo-Catholic missals use this translation of the confiteor. In fact, it used to be said at some A-C parishes I regularly attended back in the 1980s. Probably this is where the PNCC got it from. Why it was translated in this way - and I kind of like it too - is a complete mystery to me. Probably a spike translator with a little too much flair.

28/9/05 11:18  

Post a Comment

<< Home