… Calls the Tune
Perhaps it’s best to put up a GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING: “Too much speculation is bad for your spiritual health!” before going any further. Well, I’ve just done so. Let the speculation begin…
The suspicion is growing on me that the supposedly theological battle – loosely framed as conservative/traditional vs. liberal/modern – for the very heart and soul of the Church is just a red herring. In my view it’s something akin to a conjuring trick, where the conjuror gets you to look in one direction, diverting your attention away from the trick he intends to pull on you. The real issue, in my opinion, is a political one, and is largely determined by what’s happening behind the scenes. Who is taking hold of the reins of power within the Catholic Church? Who is calling the shots? Who is paying the piper, thus deciding the tune?
There are those of you who are reading this and saying to themselves: Okay, here goes another fancy conspiracy theory. Well, not really. Instead, I would like to point to certain inconsistencies that are, at the very least, a bad PR exercise, but when put together undermine the Catholic Church’s authority and standing. Let’s have a look at the upcoming creation of 22 new cardinals, and the implications of this move. You may follow the link to the article in the Tablet for the statistics. Whichever way one looks at the figures, it’s becoming pretty clear that Benedict favours a European pope as his successor. Or, not to be so blatant about it, the present pope is ensuring that a well-marked direction is followed. If these 120+ men (no women in this club) are supposed to be representing the 1 billion+ Catholics worldwide, then they are doing a very poor job. What we have instead is a very selective representation: European (especially Italian), and curial. Am I the only one around here who sees a very bureaucratic, conservative type of governance in the near future? Am I the only one to think that the whole act is yet another manifestation of Western colonialism, at a time when the balance of power in the world has moved east and south? Are only white males in Roman offices suitable for steering Peter’s barque?
I think it would be naïve to see the above move in isolation from other actions. Is it unreasonable for me to ask who is pulling the strings in Rome? Who are the persons and groups who are seeking to strengthen their hold on the Church through their jockeying for positions and power in the Vatican? That a majority of cardinal-electors come from a part of the world that represents only 25% of the Catholic Church is a serious matter indeed. It is a big slap on the face for the churches in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The Papal trips and visits to these continents appear more clearly for what they have long been suspected to be: theatrical acts and plenty of pageantry. Perhaps those who are footing the bill for this piper Pope’s voyages (and those of whose predecessor) are really calling the tune after all.
Pure speculation? Let’s pan out a bit. The above is, to my view, of a piece with, for example, the [largely unsuccessful] rapprochement with the SPX society, the equally condescending (and totally unjust) move to win over disaffected members of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, and the obsession with the Tridentine Mass. I say obsession because they seem to be the workings of a mind obsessed with purity (particularly ritual purity, of which the insistence on celibacy is but a part), idealised in this case in the Latin form. It all adds up, doesn’t it, when one gets to know that the crude translation that passes for the Mass in the English vernacular is also an attempt to totally align oneself to the Latin text, as God wouldn’t have it otherwise. And then there’s that insistence on minutiae, and on certain gestures and movements: sit, stand, kneel, three pats on the chest, sit, stand, prostrate… a textbook case of obsessive compulsive disorder methinks. It’s simply nauseating, if it weren’t also so damaging to the Church’s future. Who is pumping this life-numbing mentality into the Church, I ask? At the behest of who are these controversial moves made?
Isn’t it damaging enough that the Catholic Church worldwide has lost much of its moral high ground in the aftermath of the clergy abuse crisis? Why is the hierarchy (or a section of it, at least) engaged in an ongoing battle with LGBT persons? Any organisation worth its salt would have learnt how to read and interpret the statistics and opinion polls. Failure to do so spells the end of the road for that organisation. Are the Pope and the rest of the hierarchy so far removed from the mass of Catholics worldwide not to realise that the majority of the Catholic membership do not necessarily agree with what the hierarchy teaches on a number of issues, mainly in the area of human sexuality?
It is precisely in the area of moral teaching that the inconsistencies abound. I find slogans like “traditional family values” or “pro-life campaign” to be somewhat overused and disingenuous. It is very unfortunate that Pope John Paul II presented moral issues in absolutist terms, either black or white. He sent into overdrive the “culture of life – culture of death” debate, and even his successor, Benedict XVI, hasn’t been able to fully disentangle himself from this manner of doing moral theology. What’s interesting me right now is how this moral debate is working its way into the run-up for the US presidency elections. How dare the US Catholic bishops talk about “pro-life” or “traditional family values”? Their brass neck leaves me breathless.
Well, Dolan and Co. can’t play that card selectively. Doing so is not only a big failure on their part but goes to prove that they have another agenda. They can’t restrict “pro-life” issues to artificial contraception and abortion (where a majority of Catholics in the country are not in agreement with the official line), and then fail to speak out on issues such as war or capital punishment. How can the bishops be taken seriously about “family values”, or about being pro-life, when they fail so miserably when it comes to protect vulnerable members in their Church - children - from the paedophile clergy within their ranks? And if they were really serious about life issues and human rights, then they would come down clearly on the side of LGBT folk, rather fight them in every forum. Dolan and Co., you should speak out forcefully against hate crimes committed against LGBT persons, and the bullying that has lead to a frighteningly high percentage of teen-suicides. What’s the point of insisting so much about life between conception and birth, and then failing to address the other issues?
I can go on and on. It’s hypocritical to play just the abortion and contraception cards, and hide the rest of the pack. To flare out against Obama before and after 2008 on these and related issues, but not speaking equally forcefully against those who have brought the world economy to its knees because of their recklessness and egoism. Don’t the US bishops have anything to say to the top 1%? Will these honourable gentlemen back persons the like of Gingrich or Santorum just because these politicians claim to have Catholic credentials? What about their values, and their stand on a number of very serious issues? Is it because the Catholic Church in the US has much to gain from backing the Catholic number to the White House? Or at least by backing someone who comes from the top 1%, as long as this individual protects the interests of a very privileged and select club: the “heterosexual”white male? Come on, cough up! Who’s filling your Church’s coffers, [Cardinal] Dolan? Who’s setting the agenda for you?
Related articles
- Some Thoughts On Catholics Crossing Rivers And Catholic Hemispheres (enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com)
- On Conscience, the U.S. Bishops, and Manufactured Battles with the Obama Administration: David DeCosse at NCR (bilgrimage.blogspot.com)
- A Reader Writes: Post-Constantinean Catholics Look for Persuasion, not Force (bilgrimage.blogspot.com)
- Our “Unrepeatable and Inviolable Uniqueness” (thewildreed.blogspot.com)
- Catholic Bishops Crank Up Republican Voting Machine in Response to HHS Guidelines (bilgrimage.blogspot.com)
- And Then There Were Two: Dutch Deputy Prime Minister Calls on Catholic Church to Reform Itself (bilgrimage.blogspot.com)
- “Why good Catholics are challenging church line on homosexuality” - Patrick Hornbeck on “Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church” (queertheology.blogspot.com)
- 2012 Elections and Re-Claiming the Moral Center of Catholicism in the Public Square (bilgrimage.blogspot.com)
Benedict, and his predecessor methinks, played the pipes of the law to a tune of mindless ritual. And you didn’t mention the new Missal. Tsk-Tsk. A retrograde step of ever there was one and one that will adversely affect lay Catholics everywhere. By all accounts.
The US bishops have been infected, as the pseudo-Catholic Gingrich has, by the US fundamentalist movement. It isn’t simply a bane, it is a violently hate filled march to dictatorship, which of course would suit the hierarchy in the church. Do they know of the anti-Catholic sentiment that many of those evangelicals harbour? I doubt it. The enemy of mine enemy and all that.
I did. Perhaps I should have spelt it out more clearly than I actually did. Here’s what I said:
It all adds up, doesn’t it, when one gets to know that the crude
translation that passes for the Mass in the English vernacular is also
an attempt to totally align oneself to the Latin text, as God wouldn’t
have it otherwise.
As for the point you make regarding the US fundamentalist movement, yes, I totally agree. There are also plenty of loony Catholic groups too; they can be just as fundamentalist and hate-filled as the “bible-based” ones.
And then there’s that marriage of convenience with the GOP.
I’ve just used my editorial privilege to add some “related links”. One that caught my eye is at Bilgrimage, for the headline alone carries a stark warning: if Catholic bishops insist on meddling in politics, they should understand that the politicians can strike back: in the wake of the abuse issues, in Europe especially, there is a growing sentiment that church excesses must be controlled. The Dutch call that Bill Lindsey refers to is just a very mild form of what this mood could develop into. “And Then There Were Two: Dutch Deputy Prime Minister Calls on Catholic Church to Reform Itself”
Then at New Ways / Bondings, there is a disturbing report of how the local bishop’s funding of Maine’s campaign to repeal marriage equality has done lasting damage to the church, depressing both attendance and church funding. “Who pays the piper”, indeed.
Your reference to the politicians who make an issue of their Catholic pro-life values, Rick Santorum an?d Newt Gingrich, raises another question: when have they used their commitment to life to campaign against the death penalty, or in favour of universal health care, or for restrictions on the American gun culture and the carnage it creates?
Well said, Terry. That’s precisely why I said “I can go on and on.” The inconsistencies are so stark and cover so many issues that I, for one, would never consider such politicians as Catholic. I dare say that they wouldn’t even qualify as Christian politicians. But then again, perhaps we don’t worship the same God after all!
I do not agree with everything in this. But on the issue of the future of the composition of the hierarchy, I have warned of this before. As soon as I heard that cardinal Burke was largely in charge of American appointments I knew that the future of the Church was going to become increasingly conservative puritanical. THe truth is that liberal clergy are not willing to play the political games necessary to get into positions of power. It is as simple as that. You have to kill to survive in wild, and you have to play the games of power politics if you expect to advance. The more liberal branches of the clergy have been extremely short-sighted, at least in america, as taking their stances too firmly and too publicly and so de facto eliminating them from any real chances of advancement. The most liberal pope in history, John Paul I, did not get their simply by being ‘transparent’. Everyone knew that he was against Paul VI birth control teaching but he very publicly upheld it. He made it to the Papacy, and almost a majority of people who know anything about him strongly feel that he would have tried to overturn the teaching if he had survived longer. Open dissent is noble, but it will get you no where when you have to rely on appointment and the good graces of those above you to get a head. There is absolutely no reason for clerics to be openly and publicly dissenting until they have the episcopate or cardinalate, because there is absolutely nothing that they can do until they have one of those positions. Once they have some REAL power and room to maneuver, THEN it is prudent and beneficial to start stirring things up.
Take the Jesuits for example, I could go ON AND ON about how the Jesuits in the US during the 1970′s, 80′s and 90′s have totally screwed the church over by focusing on personal issues like homosexuality and social justice. While they were busy declaring their personal opinions and discrediting themselves in the eyes of the people who have real power, the fascist cults like Opus Dei and Regnum Christi were methodologically taking over the church. The Jesuits were the most dominant force in the Church prior to V2 and within two decades after, their influence and numbers dropped to never before seen lows. The Jesuit order was evicted from control of the Vatican Radio and media sources, the hierarchy’s opinion of them dropped drastically, their financial resources started taking massive hits, and their membership was cut in half. In the same time period, Opus Dei grew to 80,000 members, amassed over a BILLION dollars in property and resources, was given control of things that the Jesuits were ousted from, and so on and so on. If the liberals are serious about their goals they are going to have to put aside their personal opinions and ‘needs’ and go get their hands dirty and take the church back. I am sorry if my tone is offensive, but I am SERIOUSLY upset at not simply the Jesuits or any individual clerics or lay people but ALL progressive catholics as a whole because their short-sightedness, ego-centricism, and lack of discipline has directly lead to the dominance of puritanical clergy and lay organizations. Progressive have alienated themselves from the sources of power to such an extent that I am beggeing to wonder if it is even possible to balance the church out again in my life time.
We can sit here and complain about and condemn the hierarchy all we want, but the fact of the matter is that THEY HAVE THE POWER AND WE DO NOT.
I think that the point you make - regarding being discreet about one’s views if one seeks to climb to a more influential position in the Church - is a valid one. You mentioned John Paul I as being liberal. I would mentioned John XXIII as being the most notable example in recent Church history. He was widely considered to be a traditionalist, and his papacy was supposed to be only a transitional period. And yet it was he who set in motion the overhaul of the Church that was Vatican II. What you may not perhaps appreciate is that it is very hard to maintain spiritual honesty if one does as you recommend. And here I’m speaking from experience. The REAL difficulty is not because of what is said, i.e., it’s not simply a case of keeping one’s mouth shut until one is at least a bishop. Rather, the difficulty is that of being congruent: between one’s life, one’s speech, and one’s pastoral ministry. You mentioned the Jesuits, and yes, the Jesuits fell from grace during the papacy of John Paul II, and were replaced by such reactionary groups as Opus Dei, Legionaries of Christ, and the Neo-Catechumenate movement. Do you realise that the Jesuits, by virtue of their spirituality and their stand in favour of the downtrodden, the poor, those who are suffering injustice, etc., have in recent decades fallen foul of the hierarchy in certain parts of the world, notably Latin America? Look at what happened to liberation theology. So, are you advocating that the Jesuits cease to be true to their call? Should they play the political-intrigue game (something that they are very good at, mind you) and brush aside their apostolate?
I understand your points, and they are very valid. I too know how difficult it is to think and believe one way but to consciously act and behave another to keep up appearances - not in the same ways and same setting as you, but the same general principle. I am aware of the South American situation. I was mainly referring to American Jesuits, who turned the order into a self-help group for gays ‘seeking cover’ and other confused individuals. The result was they basically spent the last 30 years fiddling around with their own ego-centric-emotional problems while the church was searching for direction and leadership, and Opus Dei & Company filled in the void. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Jesuits need to be actively promoting abortion in their publications and proclaiming themselves non-celebate homosexuals. While things seem to be slowly recovering, the image of the Jesuits is so low in most of the US that I still frequently hear phrases like: “The Jesuits, are you kidding?! Don’t count on them for anything. The days of dependable, disciplined, and tough defenders of the Church are long gone, they are all a bunch of emotional crying pansies now”, “Well, I wanted to be a Jesuit at first, but I did not want to be the only straight guy”, “If you enjoy socialism, abortion, and gay sex, then you should join the Jesuits; if you actually believe in the Holy Catholic Faith, then avoid them”, ”The Jesuits used to be above reproach, but now they are a disgrace”, “They are more of a hindrance to the church than a help. Ignatius would be ashamed to see what his order has become; its time for a second suppression”, “If you want your kids to go to have a solid Catholic education, then dont send them to Jesuit universities and high schools. They are basically all run by Lay people now, because no one wants to be a Jesuit anymore; and most of those Lay people aren’t even Catholic, because the few Jesuits there are don’t even believe in the Catholic faith so they higher liberal non-catholics to fill in for them”. Now, many Jesuits are not like that, and much of those sentiment are gross exaggerations; but the fact that the Jesuits of the 70′s and 80′s allowed the order to go from beyond reproach to “stay away these people are not even catholic” is just outrageous; they basically have excluded themselves from influencing anything in the church now. They have just been mildly reorganized in some parts, recently had the very liberal editor of their most prominent magazine fired and replaced with a conservative Vatican puppet, and are now signing up conservative and orthodox newbies left and right. Our greatest source of progressive and intellectual clergy has now been confiscated by the conservatives; I would like to say, “thank you progressives/liberals for your indiscretion, we have just lost our last major resource for influencing the clerical side of the Church because of your short-sightedness.”
Why is it that the Liberal/Progressive catholics are the ones that are self-absorbed in their own opinions and issues, totally undisciplined, and unwilling to sacrifice, while the conservative catholics are the ones that know how to keep their mouth shut, have the foresight to have a little ambition to advance so that they can affect the church from the inside rather than the outside, and know that everything is not about them or what they think? I am speaking GENERALLY, and from MY experience, others’ may differ; there are progressives who do not fit that description and ditto for conservatives. However, I just have a strong impression that liberals have been fooling around for decades while the conservatives have been patiently and carefully planning to take complete control of all major church positions. The bleak forecast for future appointments seems to support my impression. The progressives fiddled while Rome burned and now the reactionaries are in control, I foresee SERIOUS issues in the future of the church now that the reactionaries are not far from having almost complete control of the Vatican as well as Cardinal and Episcopal appointments. As far as intrigue vs apostolate: there must be a balance. Your apostolate will suffer if you ignore political games because you will eventually loose the power, influence, and resources necessary to be truly effective in your apostolate. From what I understand, the Jesuits/Progressives and Liberation Theology supporters in Latin American have more or less failed. I firmly believe that if they had not been quite so aggressive in their apostolate, not quite so willing to publicly flaunt the directives of superiors, not quite so zealous in their promotion of their opposition to the status quo and those high up in the church, and knew when to back off for a while and regroup while things cool down then they would have been more successful. Many of them were assassinated, and they are true martyrs of the faith; but had they been a little more quite, a little more willing to play the games of intrigue and politics, then their agenda and apostolate would not have suffered the level of setbacks and suppression that it did. Politics is nasty, but politics is nothing more than people. You need power, influence, and resources to achieve your goals; and if you do not have those things, then you need to have good relationships with people who do have them (even if you do not really like those people). If you throw all of your eggs into power-politics then your apostolate/ will suffer. If you throw all of your eggs into your apostolate, then your ability to preform your apostolate will take a massive hit as you no longer have the power and resources to tend to it. You need a balance. I think that it is clear that the Jesuits and the Progressives of South America essentially lost their apostolate’s cause because they did not put enough into playing the game of ‘people and power’ (aka: politics).
Also, (and this is not directed at you, Bart, or anyone singular person) I must say that I do not appreciate the constant attacks that the Latin Mass receives on this site or from progressives in general. Talk about ‘plurality’. The both the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass appeal to certain personality types. If you have ever seen the research done comparing the Myers-Briggs to Religious and ritual preferences, you would see that it is largely a matter of cerebral wiring and personality that determines a person’s preference for ‘mass type’. I absolutely do not like at all the Novus Ordo mass. If feels flimsy, mindless, not-sincere, poorly put together, anthrocentric (rather than theocentric) and it is virtually impossible to create a contemplative environment were one can deeply meditate on prayer and the sacrifice when my every move it dictated to me. It claims to ‘include me’ in the service but instead it micro-manages my body and my mind. Stand up, sit down, repeat this robotic gesture, stand up, kneel, sit dow, repeat mindless response, stand up, shake hands, sit down, kneel, listen to the often poorly put together and usually even worsely (i know thats not a word) preformed music. It is absolutely devoid of soul, substance, and sincerity. It feels rushed, and I almost always get a feeling of “hurry up so I get this over with” feeling from both the clergy and the laity during the Novus Ordo. I almost never attend church anymore because of the banal and un-reverent feeling that the Novus Ordo gives me. In fact, the sloppy, human centered, and non-contemplative nature of the Novus Ordo was instrumental in my being converted for several years to sedevacantism and the belief that the Novus Ordo was devoid of the presence of God. Not to mention, that most of the features of the ‘new mass’ are not actually in the original documents outlining it (if you actually read them). The Novus Ordo instills ego-centric views, poor education of sacraments and theology, and a general dis-affection with the beautiful sacramental nature of the church. It is fundamentally protestant, which is why catholics with protestant theological leanings prefer it. In fact, I did a whole research paper in Religious Rituals over the objective superiority of the Latin Mass over the Novus Ordo. My professor, an ‘Episcopal-Unitarian-Pluralist’, refused to give me an A because my tone was condescending and not ‘objective and scholarly’, but she was at a loss to argue over my conclusions and evidence so she compromised and gave me a B.
See, I can do it to the New Order mass just like progressives do to the Tridentine. If you were offended or bothered by anything in the above paragraph, then now you know how I feel when I hear people attack the Tridentine Mass as mindless, lifeless, uninspiring and all of the other insults that are hatefully hurled at it by people who are ignorant of the overwhelmingly powerful and awe-inspiring experience of the transcendence of the Living God that it is capable of producing.
I am surprised by your reference to “the constant attacks on the Latin Mass” at this site. I have never written about the Latin Mass, and have reserved my very few remarks on the revised liturgy to concerns over procedure. I also have not noticed anything more than infrequent, passing references to the Latin Mass in the comments.
While respecting your views on what you call the “Latin Mass”, you are conflating the two issues. If you would like to compare like with like, then you have to discuss the merits and demerits of the Novus Ordo vis-a-vis the merits and demerits of what I have here called the Tridentine Rite, by which I am referring to the rite that existed prior to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. The Novus Ordo is also a “Latin Mass” at its core, all other languages being translations of the the original Latin text. Thus, there are two issues not one. The gripes with the new English translation of the Mass is precisely because the overriding concern was to be faithful to the Latin original, missing out on other rules of translation, particularly rules concerning the elegance of the translation, i.e., that the translation doesn’t sound wooden or uses terms that are not in current use. If you think that this sounds too sophisticated then you are contradicting what you yourself have said regarding what you incorrectly call the Latin Mass. Why am I saying so? Precisely because liturgy and beauty go hand-in-hand, and the beauty of liturgical texts are supposed to serve this purpose. Shoddy translations made with the sole purpose of being “faithful” to the Latin original miss this point, and that is one of the major reasons behind the lack of finesse that you complain about in the Novus Ordo.
The second issue relates to the politics behind this move (toward a re-latinisation of ritual). I say politics because unless you can convince me that you are so familiar with Latin that it’s totally comprehensible to you, then there’s no reason why you should choose Latin instead of your mother-tongue. Why not Greek? Or why not Hebrew for that matter? Or why not English, if you want to use the current lingua franca? Why go back to a rite that is 500 years old in its form (hence Tridentine)? Why not go for earlier forms? If you’ve studied liturgy, you would know that the present Eucharistic prayers (i.e. those in the Novus Ordo) are also based on very ancient Eucharistic prayers, going way back to the NT and post-apostolic Church; you can place scripture references beside nearly every sentence.
The religious mindset of one who harps on returning to the past (nostalgia) and choosing an esoteric language (such as Latin) is more likely to be that of one who chooses a gnostic religion or sect, a form of spiritual elitism that, to my view at least, is very far removed from the scandal which is the gospel message. But then again, if you’ve studied the history of the Church, you’d know that, many times, the maintream Church struggled with these esoteric/gnostic groupings who chose to see themselves as being superior to the common rabble - the rest of the Church.
Do you really need proof that such is the case? Well, the behaviour of those who are strongly insisting on celebrating mass using the Tridentine Rite is one which is very condemnatory of others. Strange as this may sound to you, I have yet to meet a person who insists on the Tridentine Rite and whose behaviour reflects Gospel values, particularly the values that one sees in the person of Jesus Christ: compassion, mercy, love, humility, slow to judge (if at all)… I really can’t fathom what such a mentality seems to trigger in them. For your reflection.
Bart, and AD.
I have no really strong feelings on the Latin Mass. I have a certain nostalgic affection for it - but then, I’m old enough to have memorized the Latin responses as a young boy for my training as an altar server, and later really enjoyed six years of Latin at school, so I have at least a passing familiarity with the meaning of the words. I enjoy an occasional exposure to the Latin, in Mass, or in some of the old hymns (and modern Taize chants).
What I cannot understand, is why anybody should argue that there is any real reason in principle, why Latin is preferable for regular use, over the vernacalar, the language of everyday use. Remember that the original reason for introducing Latin, to liturgy and in the Vulgate bible to replace the septuagint, was precisely the same as the reason for introducing the English bible and the vernacular Mass: to make it uinderstandable to ordinary people. “Vulgate” means “of the people” (compare, “vulgar”). The people of Rome spoke Latin, not demotic Greek - so Lating replaced it.
The original reason for introducing Latin was precisely the same as the reason why for regular use, it should now make way for language that is more suited to modern conditions.
This is in reply to both Bart’s and Terence’s comments on translation, which had similarities but were also different. As far as translation, I have a lot to say about that. I am not fluent in latin, but I have 3 years of formal training, I have a bible with english and latin side by side and I have memorized most major prayers in latin. In fact, when I was a sedevacantist, I only prayed in latin, including the entire rosary solely in latin. I understand what you mean about the importance of ‘beauty’ in translation, but the fact of the matter is that some languages simply do not translate well into others without coming close to changing the meaning in minor ways, and you often have to leave out nuances that are not expressible in the translated language. Latin to English is a prime example; Latin translates worse to English than it does to any modern western language, and that is why the English translation of the Mass is the ONLY one to receive a ‘reform of the reform’ - they went for ‘beauty’ over ‘accuracy’ the first time around. In my Genesis Through Jewish Eye’s course, we have spent the last 2 weeks over translation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The King James (I believe it is called the Standard Version in the UK) is the most beautiful and flowing English Bible translation ever made, it is also one of the most inaccurate translations ever made. The translators were explicitly directed by the King to make it as beautiful to read as they could, as well as to keep the exact word count as close as possible. Those are 2 of the 3 most common aspects of translation, and they were prioritized over accuracy. The result is the beautiful, flowing, and iconic “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said let their be light, and there was light…etc” It is beautiful, flowing, and almost magical. It invites you to keep reading’ it is hard to stop mid-chapter in the KJ/SV. It sounds much better (and is much more powerful) than the Jewish Publication Society’s translation, which reads “When God began to create the heaven and the earth - the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water…”. It is much more bland, and more cumbersome (especially when you keep reading further). The difference, however, comes from the fact that the JPS priorities accuracy in meaning and grammatical correctness, where as the KJ/SV prioritized beauty and word count.
What do I mean by word count? In the King James/Standard Version, the translators chose to try to translate each hebrew word with one English word, and tried to keep the order as well. In the Hebrew, the letter “vov” appears at the start of most every verse, and the ‘vov’ is most often translated as ‘and’, which is why nearly every sentence starts with “And” in the KJ/SA, which is unnecessary and grammatically incorrect in English. The ‘vov’ is a hebrew grammatical thing that has no meaningful translation into english unless it is linking a list of things or a compound sentence. That is a translation choice: word count over grammatical correctness.
Also, did you notice the difference between the first verses? “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” compared to “When God began to create the heaven and the Earth”. The JPS chose translate accurate meaning of the Hebrew over word count and beauty. The differences seem simple at first, but they are drastically different. The first implies creatio ex nihilo (the christian doctrine that God created the universe exactly as it is out of nothing), the second implies that there was a period of time when things existed before God decided to create the heaven and the earth. The entire creation vs evolution debate is centered on creatio ex nihilo. Millions of Christians believe in creationism’s creatio ex nihilo because that is what their bible says (the KJ is by far the most common and influential Bible in the US, and there is not a single Christian English Translation that is not heavily influenced by it). There are many more examples, such as the words of Jesus being altered several times because while they made grammatical sense in the Aramaic that he spoke, in the Greek that they were translated to, his words often sound awkward and stilted; so scribes frequently altered what he said to make it flow better. Beauty is important, however if you demand to have a text in a language that it was not originally written in, you have to accept that you can either have beautiful or accurate, but not both (usually). When it is matters of theology, I would say that accuracy is FAR more important than beauty, and if once cannot accept something being slightly awkward, then it is best to learn the basic phrases in the other language. Protestant Christianity is the ONLY religion in the world that believes that you can translate sacred scripture in to any language and it will be both easy to read/fluid AND accurate. In EVERYOTHER religion in the world besides Christianity, if you want to convert to a religion, you have to learn the language that the religion was conceived in; Muslims have to learn basic phrases in Arabic and the Qu’ran is ONLY considered holy when it is in Arabic becuase no translation can express the religion exactly as Arabic can, Jews are required to be fluent in Hebrew if they are to be a rabbi (in fact no matter what language the congregation naturally speaks in, the Torah is ONLY read in Hebrew during Synagogue services because no translation can fully capture all the nuances and details), Hindus memorize the vedas verbally but they only do so in the Pali-Sanskrit (which is far older than modern Sanskrit and no one really speaks it naturally) that they were originally composed in. A small and minor example of things that are lost in translation is the phrase in Genesis “the spirit of God hovered upon the waters”. In Hebrew, all of those words have a gender attached to them, because they have to. Obviously, as most people suspect, God is written in the masculine form, but it is important to understand that Hebrew has no neuter form. God is referred to as ‘him’ or ‘he’ because they had to pick either male or female form; Hebrew has no way to express something neutrally, in fact, there is not even a neuter pronoun (like the English ‘it’) - you can only say ‘he’ or ‘she’. Furthermore, how do Christians generally respond when asked the gender of the Holy Spirit? Most say that it is probably neuter but if they had to pick they would say masculine because they view God as Masculine. However, that is wrong, because the word for God’s ‘spirit’ in Genesis is written in the FEMININE form (and yes that word does have a masculine form that could have been used). How many English speaking Christians have been deprived of the fact that the spirit of God is written in the Female form when it could have easily been written in the masculine to be uniform with word ‘God’ being in the masculine? What were the writers of Genesis trying to tell us? Were they trying to say that God is both Masculine and Feminine at the same time, but just having to work the fact that they could not express that in their language? The patriarchy in religion that we have been trying to fight is grossly exacerbated by translating the Bible in to English, because English cannot capture the nuances of the Hebrew. There are countless examples of this in the bible. The Latin text is not perfect either, however it also has things that cannot be expressed in English. For example, for hundreds of years, the line “And Adam named her Wo-man, because she was taken out of Man” has been used to successfully argue for the inferiority of women and the feminine. However, In that passage the Latin does not use the regular word for a ‘female-bodied-person’ (mulier) that it does in all other passages in the bible; in that passage(where Adam names Eve “Woman, because she was taken out of Man”) the word for ‘Woman’ is ‘Virago’, which is Latin for a woman who is equal in status to men. Patriarchy and Sexism are ENHANCED by translating the bible in to English, because it cannot capture the gender nuances of the Hebrew, nor does it have the vocabulary to distinguish between ‘mulier’ and ‘virago’ (it can only translate both with the generic word ‘woman’)
In summary, I advocate that the less languages that something is translated through the better; and we need to stop thinking that what scripture says in one language is not the same as what scripture says in another (no matter how you choose to translate it)
*delete the ‘not’ from the last sentence; its late here.
I understand the difference between the Latin RITE and the Tridentine vs Novus Ordo Mass. While it may be incorrect to call the Tridentine the ‘Latin Mass’, in the United States, the phrase “The Latin Mass” is a synonym for the Tridentine Mass; the Novus Ordo is never referred to as the Latin Mass unless you are discussing the ordinary form of the Latin Rite against another Rite (such as an Eastern Rite). Since in the US non-Latin Rite church’s are essentially non-existant (or socially invisible), the extraordinary form (Tridentine) is called the Latin Mass, and the ordinary form is called the New Mass (the term Novus Ordo really only used by conservatives who dislike it). I apologize for the mix up in terms, its a product of where I am from. In the US there is a MASSIVE and very heated divide between those who prefer one mass to the other; if you say the words “Latin Mass” in a room full of pro-Vatican 2 people (whether clergy or lay) you better know where the nearest exit is because you will suddenly be the center of attention and it wont be the kind of attention that you will enjoy.
Returning to a past form is not nostalgia (though some may promote it out of nostalgia). The idea that just because something has been replaced means that it is out of date or no longer effective is a fallacy. Just because something changes does not mean that the new thing it actually better. That is called steady progressivism, which believes that all change is good. I heavily disagree with that philosophy. I could type pages and pages over this issue; there are countless cases of things that were ‘new’ and considered ‘progress’ that were abandoned by later generations for the older way that was cast aside in the name of ‘progress’. As far as gnosticism goes, it is wrong to equate ‘elite/superior’ with ‘more advanced’, after all, a Graduate Student is not ‘better’ than a high schooler, but that Graduate student does know more about what he is talking about. Equality means equal in worth before God, it does not mean that everyone is the same, and to think so is denying nature, reality, and the principles of diversity; pluralism demands that you recognize the differences between people because blurring the lines by falsely equating “equality” with “same” seeks to cover up diversity. Of all great religious teachers, Jesus Christ is perhaps more notorious for having teachings whose true meanings were only discernible to the ‘spiritually advanced’, even more so than the Buddha’s. Jesus himself says that most people will hear his words but only understanding their surface/literal meaning, while only a few will fully understand the depth and true nature of his teachings.
But regardless, I do not prefer the Tridentine Mass because I am an ‘elitist’ or nostalgic, nor Gnostic. I do so for measurable and largely objective reasons. The Tridentine is a superior ritual because it maintains a higher level of education of Catholic Theology among Lay people, it offers a greater atmosphere for prayer, contemplation, and reverence, and puts the focus on GOD more than the congregation. Also, it is much more regulated, which leaves very little room for liturgical ‘innovations’ that lead to serious abuses which denigrate catholic identity and reverence (like the circus masses and so on). The Novus Ordo engenders clergy with ‘i’m in charge, I can change it and do it my way’, attitude, that hurts the uniformity of the ritual across geographic regions (hurting catholicity). When I travel, I should not have to worry about if I am going to like the Mass or not because the local priest alters things to what ‘he prefers’. People go to mass because it is the fundamental expression of what being catholic means, the mass is not a medium for ’personal expression’ by the priest or the ‘community’; the mass is about God not about individualism. I was SHOCKED when I heard one person say about the new translation “i dont like it, Im going to go over to the Lutheran mass because it is the same thing”. THEY COULD NOT BE MORE DIFFERENT THEOLOGICALLY, the Novus Ordo encourages simple-mindedness and IGNORANCE. I even heard a PRIEST say “well I am just not going to say ‘for many’, because that is heretical, Jesus died for ‘all’”. NO, THAT IS NOT HERETICAL, THAT IS THE GOSPEL; What does it say that a whole generation of Catholics has come to view the Gospel as heretical (or at least cringe) when they hear what it REALLY says?
I do not have the space to fully explain why I think that liturgical reform closer to the Tridentine is badly needed, but I assure you that it is not because I am an elitist, nostalgic, or promoting gnosticism. Nor do I believe that the Novus Ordo is bad, like Mario said, the mass ritual is what you make of it. THe problem is that the long term effects that the Novus Ordo has is negative, because it is too unregulated, and does not effectively communicate what it means to be Catholic. With the Tridentine you do not have to have formal education to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the Lutheran and Catholic Mass because they are drastically different, but with the Novus Ordo you have to already be fully educated on the intricacies of Catholic and Protestant theologies before you can tell that they are fundamentally mean two opposite things.
THE MASS is no better than an apple, a seashell, or a hammer. THE ONLY thing the mass is a TOOL. The Only POWER the Mass has is what you bring to it and the FAITH you put in it. That has and will always be the secret and the mystery. The mass can change, but it never changes…we are the ones that change.
I love those good heretics the Jesuits… those dogs! GOD BLESS THEM! They keep this game interesting.
I would like to quote from the Sacred Book, The Wizard of Oz:
MISS GULCH
If you don’t hand over that dog, I’ll bring
a damage suit that’ll take your whole farm!
There’s a law protecting folks against dogs
that bite!
AUNT EM
How would it be if she keeps him tied up?
He’s really gentle — with gentle people,
that is.
MISS GULCH
Well, that’s for the Sheriff to decide.
Here’s his order allowing me to take him.
Unless you want to go against the law.
In the cacophony of the voices of opposition, I hear God. Don’t ever stop talking… even when Miss Gulch tries to take you away!Remember: Ding Dong the Witch (the law) is Dead!
I’m delighted that you use the KJ bible as an example of a translation that is beautiful, but inaccurate. All through last year, I was bombarded here in the UK by fulsome praises for its 500 anniversary (and especially at home, by my high Anglican partner - but found that trying to point out its weaknesses was completely futile.
Exactly the same criticism applies to the Latin of the Vulgate - and through it, to the Mass. If your prime concern is accuracy, then we should revert to demotic Greek, or to Aramaic and Hebrew.
But all of this is irrelevant: the real point is, that although you may have some understanding of the Lain mass because you have made it your business, most people haven’t. I’m old enough to remember when Latin was the standard Mass. Most people simply ignored what was being said, except for the readings (in English) and the homily. The rest of the time, they spent in private prayer like the rosary (at best), or simply daydreaming.
In your previous response, you claimed that the Latin Mass promoted theological literacy. I completely fail to see how, when most people neither understood it, or even attempted to follow it.