The Improperia (or "Reproaches") are a series of antiphons and responses which are part of the Good Friday liturgy in the Roman Rite (although you may not have ever heard them). They are presented as Christ crying out to His people (contextually, the Israelites) for the injustices they showed their God after all the wonders God had performed for them.
Here is my own (somewhat loose) English translation of the Latin (and Greek) text:
O my people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
For I brought you out of the land of Egypt,
but you brought out* a cross for your Savior.
Holy is God! Holy and mighty! Holy and immortal!
Have mercy upon us!
For I led you through the desert for forty years,
and fed you with manna,
and brought you into a land of plenty,
but you prepared* a cross for your Savior.
Holy is God! Holy and mighty! Holy and immortal!
Have mercy upon us!
What more should I have done for you, that I did not do?
Indeed, I planted you, my precious chosen vine,
but you have become terribly bitter to me.
Indeed, you gave me vinegar to drink in my thirst,
and have pierced your Savior's side with a lance.
Holy is God! Holy and mighty! Holy and immortal!
Have mercy upon us!
I scourged the first-born of Egypt for your sake:
yet you scourged me and handed me over.
O my people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I plunged Pharaoh into the Red Sea and plucked you out of Egypt's hand:
yet you handed me over to the high priests.
O my people...
I parted the sea before you:
yet you parted my side with a lance.
O my people...
I led you as a pillar of cloud:
yet you led me into Pilate's palace.
O my people...
I rained down manna for you in the desert:
yet you rained down blows and lashes on me.
O my people...
I gave you saving water from the rock to drink:
yet for drink you gave me gall and vinegar.
O my people...
I struck down for you the kings of the Canaanites:
yet you struck the head of your King with a reed.
O my people...
In your hands I placed a royal scepter:
yet upon my head you placed a crown of thorns.
O my people...
I raised you up in great power:
yet you raised me up on a cross.
O my people...
* The Latin is the same for these two lines ("but you ... your Savior"), but I have chosen to render them differently.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Books: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers
This Lent, I decided to read The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, edited by Benedicta Ward, SLG. I bought this book last May at the International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. My wife is currently pursuing her doctorate in history (and I think she's gaining on it), and her specific area of interest is medieval England. For the past few years (three? four?) we have been attending the ICMS at Kalamazoo, and this past year we both presented papers: hers was on the Book of Hours belonging to Sir William Porter and what it reveals about him ("Affinity, Nationalism, and Religious Devotion"), and mine was on an eschatological perspective on JRR Tolkien's use of geography in his Middle Earth literature. Sadly, we are not attending this year, as we have too many things on our plates, and too many plates in the air.
WMU is home to an Institute of Cistercian Studies, and there is a good showing of Cistercians at the ICMS each year. One of the book vendors is Cistercian Publications. It was at their booth last May that I found The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. I don't tend to buy too many books at the ICMS because most of them are, to be honest, over my head and out of my realm of interest. I do get a few each year, though. Last year I also bought a commentary on Second Corinthians (by CCSS) and a book about the medieval literature behind the writing of JRR Tolkien, The Keys of Middle-Earth.
These books are in good company in my man-cave in the unfinished basement of our house. A man-cave I have not spent much time in lately, because it's been winter, and because we sometimes get floods down there, and because my part of the basement is a federal disaster relief site. It's a real mess. Now that the temperature is warming up, I might be able to straighten it up a bit. A lot.
But about my books. I have a lot of books down there, but many of them are unread or barely started. I've decided to create a virtual bookshelf program (using Google Books' API) so that my wife and I can keep track of the books we own, categorize them, log a history of which ones we're reading, how far we are, and when we've finished them. With a simple program in place (and enhancements to come in time), I've resolved to enter the books I own into the system, read them, and make notes about them.
So that brings us to The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. This 250 page alphabetical collection of sayings (not necessarily "wisdom" sayings, but sayings) from the eremitical men and women of the Egypt from the third through fifth centuries is the sort of book I like. It introduces me to the writings and thoughts of people and potentially whets my appetite for more. Case in point, my wife has suggested I read Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony, who has some 38 sayings in this book, four of which I marked as particularly meaningful to me. The book is dog-eared and pencil-marked now: I put asterisks next to scriptural citations (for entry into a database later), and I turn down the corner of a page on which I find a saying that resonates with me, and draw a line down the margin next to it.
I imagine there are about two thousand sayings in this book, and they range from the utterly practical to the astonishingly absurd. Some are amusing anecdotes about the trials of living as a well-known and sought-after hermit; a couple of these end up sounding like a fourth-century rendition of "Get off my lawn!" Others are mind-blowing accounts of the severe ascetism of these secluded monks: eating only once every other day, fighting off sleep, not speaking a word unless it would be a sin not to do so (hospitality to one's neighbor — a funny concept among people living mostly solitary lives — was very big among the Desert Fathers and Mothers), and refusing to accept gifts or retain possessions.
Some are quite fantastic, like the story of Abba Sisoes of Calamon who, to avoid sleep, hung himself over a precipice. It is related that "an angel came to take him down and ordered him not to do that again and not to transmit such teaching to others." (p. 219) Others are quite mundane, like the story of Abba Macarius who had nothing in his cell but some stagnant water. Two brothers noticed this and invited him to accompany them to a village where they would get clean water for him. Abba Macarius asked if they knew the man who owned the bakery in the village; they did. He asked if they knew of the field which lay adjacent to the river; they did. Then he said to them, "I know it too. So when I want to, I can go there myself, without your help."
A simple "No thanks" would have sufficed!
There are many real gems among these sayings as well. Love of neighbor as love of Christ comes up often. The radical nature of life for Christ alone, to the exclusion of virtually every worldly comfort, is a constant theme. And then there are frequent reminders that we should be concerned for, and weep for, our own sins, rather than judge another person. I was surprised at the sort of laissez-faire attitude towards sin that several of these sayings contain, along the lines of "If you see a brother sinning, say nothing to him." A brother is being judged by the other brethren, and the abba shows up and asks to be judged too; or the abba appears carrying a large sack of sand on his back and holding a small satchel of sand in front of him: "In this sack with contains much sand, are my sins which are many; I have put them behind me so as not to be troubled about them and so as not to weep; and see here are the little sins of my brother which are in front of me and I spend my time judging them." (Abba Pior, p. 199)
I found one saying near the end of the book that aligns with the popular saying, "hate the sin, love the sinner." Amma Syncletica says, "Hate sickness but not the sick person." (p. 233) There were also striking encounters with sinners (often harlots) wherein the abba converts the sinner by sorrow for his or her life of sin and concern for his or her immortal soul.
There is practical wisdom to be found as well. Abba Silvanus said, "Unhappy is the man whose reputation is greater than his work." (p. 224) Abba Pambo lamented that a courtesan had greater desire to please wicked men than he had to please God. (p. 196) Abba Poemen states matter-of-factly that "where there are enemies, I become a solider." (p. 194)
A few sayings remind me of the encounter between Jean Valjean and the bishop in Les misérables. Valjean is shown hospitality by the bishop but in return steals some silverware and runs off in the night. When Valjean is apprehended by lawmen and returned to the bishop, the bishop insists that the silver was a gift. Not having read the book, but having seen the musical (does that count?), the event is told in this way:
Constables: Tell his reverence your story, let us see if he's impressed.
You were lodging here last night; you were the honest bishop's guest.
And then out of Christian goodness, when he learned about your plight,
You maintain he made a present of this silver.
Bishop: That is right.
But my friend you left so early, surely something slipped your mind.
You forgot I gave these also. Would you leave the best behind?
So messieurs, you may release, for this man has spoken true.
I commend you for your duty: may God's blessing go with you.
And remember this, my brother: see in this some higher plan.
You must use this precious silver to become an honest man.
By the witness of the martyrs, by the Passion and the Blood,
God has raised you out of darkness. I have bought your soul for God.
This is the sort of reaction some of the abbas have toward a brother who is sinning. One brother is suspected of having given into the temptation of fornication, and the other brothers decide to search his cell for the woman. The local abba, Ammonas, knowing what has happened, enters the cell first and sits upon a barrel; he knows the brother has hid the woman inside. He lets the other brothers in to search the cell, but they do not find the woman. When they leave, Abba Ammonas takes the brother by the hand and says, "Brother, be on your guard." (p. 28) Other stories relate how an abba, upon seeing his cell being raided by thieves, would not cry out in alarm, but assist the thieves in stowing what little possessions he had on their camel.
Clearly this way of life is not for everyone. The extreme asceticism and the "look the other way" mentality do not apply to every situation of life. Still, there is a great deal to be learned from these wise (and probably thin) men and women of the desert. They emphasize the need to cast off vices and grow in virtue, preferably in all the virtues a little, rather than in one particular virtue a lot. They praise obedience and humility.
I give Abba Silvanus the last remark. Abba Moses asked him, "Can a man lay a new foundation every day?" Abba Silvanus replied, "If he works hard, he can lay a new foundation at every moment." (p. 224)
WMU is home to an Institute of Cistercian Studies, and there is a good showing of Cistercians at the ICMS each year. One of the book vendors is Cistercian Publications. It was at their booth last May that I found The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. I don't tend to buy too many books at the ICMS because most of them are, to be honest, over my head and out of my realm of interest. I do get a few each year, though. Last year I also bought a commentary on Second Corinthians (by CCSS) and a book about the medieval literature behind the writing of JRR Tolkien, The Keys of Middle-Earth.
These books are in good company in my man-cave in the unfinished basement of our house. A man-cave I have not spent much time in lately, because it's been winter, and because we sometimes get floods down there, and because my part of the basement is a federal disaster relief site. It's a real mess. Now that the temperature is warming up, I might be able to straighten it up a bit. A lot.
But about my books. I have a lot of books down there, but many of them are unread or barely started. I've decided to create a virtual bookshelf program (using Google Books' API) so that my wife and I can keep track of the books we own, categorize them, log a history of which ones we're reading, how far we are, and when we've finished them. With a simple program in place (and enhancements to come in time), I've resolved to enter the books I own into the system, read them, and make notes about them.
So that brings us to The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. This 250 page alphabetical collection of sayings (not necessarily "wisdom" sayings, but sayings) from the eremitical men and women of the Egypt from the third through fifth centuries is the sort of book I like. It introduces me to the writings and thoughts of people and potentially whets my appetite for more. Case in point, my wife has suggested I read Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony, who has some 38 sayings in this book, four of which I marked as particularly meaningful to me. The book is dog-eared and pencil-marked now: I put asterisks next to scriptural citations (for entry into a database later), and I turn down the corner of a page on which I find a saying that resonates with me, and draw a line down the margin next to it.
I imagine there are about two thousand sayings in this book, and they range from the utterly practical to the astonishingly absurd. Some are amusing anecdotes about the trials of living as a well-known and sought-after hermit; a couple of these end up sounding like a fourth-century rendition of "Get off my lawn!" Others are mind-blowing accounts of the severe ascetism of these secluded monks: eating only once every other day, fighting off sleep, not speaking a word unless it would be a sin not to do so (hospitality to one's neighbor — a funny concept among people living mostly solitary lives — was very big among the Desert Fathers and Mothers), and refusing to accept gifts or retain possessions.
Some are quite fantastic, like the story of Abba Sisoes of Calamon who, to avoid sleep, hung himself over a precipice. It is related that "an angel came to take him down and ordered him not to do that again and not to transmit such teaching to others." (p. 219) Others are quite mundane, like the story of Abba Macarius who had nothing in his cell but some stagnant water. Two brothers noticed this and invited him to accompany them to a village where they would get clean water for him. Abba Macarius asked if they knew the man who owned the bakery in the village; they did. He asked if they knew of the field which lay adjacent to the river; they did. Then he said to them, "I know it too. So when I want to, I can go there myself, without your help."
A simple "No thanks" would have sufficed!
There are many real gems among these sayings as well. Love of neighbor as love of Christ comes up often. The radical nature of life for Christ alone, to the exclusion of virtually every worldly comfort, is a constant theme. And then there are frequent reminders that we should be concerned for, and weep for, our own sins, rather than judge another person. I was surprised at the sort of laissez-faire attitude towards sin that several of these sayings contain, along the lines of "If you see a brother sinning, say nothing to him." A brother is being judged by the other brethren, and the abba shows up and asks to be judged too; or the abba appears carrying a large sack of sand on his back and holding a small satchel of sand in front of him: "In this sack with contains much sand, are my sins which are many; I have put them behind me so as not to be troubled about them and so as not to weep; and see here are the little sins of my brother which are in front of me and I spend my time judging them." (Abba Pior, p. 199)
I found one saying near the end of the book that aligns with the popular saying, "hate the sin, love the sinner." Amma Syncletica says, "Hate sickness but not the sick person." (p. 233) There were also striking encounters with sinners (often harlots) wherein the abba converts the sinner by sorrow for his or her life of sin and concern for his or her immortal soul.
There is practical wisdom to be found as well. Abba Silvanus said, "Unhappy is the man whose reputation is greater than his work." (p. 224) Abba Pambo lamented that a courtesan had greater desire to please wicked men than he had to please God. (p. 196) Abba Poemen states matter-of-factly that "where there are enemies, I become a solider." (p. 194)
A few sayings remind me of the encounter between Jean Valjean and the bishop in Les misérables. Valjean is shown hospitality by the bishop but in return steals some silverware and runs off in the night. When Valjean is apprehended by lawmen and returned to the bishop, the bishop insists that the silver was a gift. Not having read the book, but having seen the musical (does that count?), the event is told in this way:
Constables: Tell his reverence your story, let us see if he's impressed.
You were lodging here last night; you were the honest bishop's guest.
And then out of Christian goodness, when he learned about your plight,
You maintain he made a present of this silver.
Bishop: That is right.
But my friend you left so early, surely something slipped your mind.
You forgot I gave these also. Would you leave the best behind?
So messieurs, you may release, for this man has spoken true.
I commend you for your duty: may God's blessing go with you.
And remember this, my brother: see in this some higher plan.
You must use this precious silver to become an honest man.
By the witness of the martyrs, by the Passion and the Blood,
God has raised you out of darkness. I have bought your soul for God.
This is the sort of reaction some of the abbas have toward a brother who is sinning. One brother is suspected of having given into the temptation of fornication, and the other brothers decide to search his cell for the woman. The local abba, Ammonas, knowing what has happened, enters the cell first and sits upon a barrel; he knows the brother has hid the woman inside. He lets the other brothers in to search the cell, but they do not find the woman. When they leave, Abba Ammonas takes the brother by the hand and says, "Brother, be on your guard." (p. 28) Other stories relate how an abba, upon seeing his cell being raided by thieves, would not cry out in alarm, but assist the thieves in stowing what little possessions he had on their camel.
Clearly this way of life is not for everyone. The extreme asceticism and the "look the other way" mentality do not apply to every situation of life. Still, there is a great deal to be learned from these wise (and probably thin) men and women of the desert. They emphasize the need to cast off vices and grow in virtue, preferably in all the virtues a little, rather than in one particular virtue a lot. They praise obedience and humility.
I give Abba Silvanus the last remark. Abba Moses asked him, "Can a man lay a new foundation every day?" Abba Silvanus replied, "If he works hard, he can lay a new foundation at every moment." (p. 224)
Filling the void with books!
I'm finding it difficult to blog regularly lately. It's probably because I read a lot of blogs and comment on a few of them fairly often, and I tweet, and I'm writing a book on the Eucharistic Prayers... oh yeah, and I have a wife and a job and a dog and teach Confirmation students.
So the blog has suffered a lot because of that. Just look at the past few months:
I only posted 54 times in 2011, less than half of 2010's output, which was less than a third of 2009's output! True, some of my posts have been short and a bit mundane, but I just don't write here much anymore. I've got tons of "series" of blog posts which are stagnant, and a lot which never really ever got started. I've also got two other blogs (related to the new liturgical translation) which haven't had much going on lately.
So, facing the decision of 1) not changing my blogging habits, 2) increasing my blogging, or 3) stopping blogging here altogether, I'm going to try #2. I'm going to blog about the books I'm reading, because if there's one thing I have a lot of, it's unread books on Christianity! I wouldn't call these book reviews, per se, although I'll tag them as such for good measure.
My first installment will be on The Sayings of the Desert Fathers translated by Benedicta Ward, SLG.
So the blog has suffered a lot because of that. Just look at the past few months:
I only posted 54 times in 2011, less than half of 2010's output, which was less than a third of 2009's output! True, some of my posts have been short and a bit mundane, but I just don't write here much anymore. I've got tons of "series" of blog posts which are stagnant, and a lot which never really ever got started. I've also got two other blogs (related to the new liturgical translation) which haven't had much going on lately.
So, facing the decision of 1) not changing my blogging habits, 2) increasing my blogging, or 3) stopping blogging here altogether, I'm going to try #2. I'm going to blog about the books I'm reading, because if there's one thing I have a lot of, it's unread books on Christianity! I wouldn't call these book reviews, per se, although I'll tag them as such for good measure.
My first installment will be on The Sayings of the Desert Fathers translated by Benedicta Ward, SLG.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Scripture reference database
If you're like me, you have plenty of books on your bookshelves that contain references to passages from the Bible. I'm not talking just about scriptural commentaries; I have many books, which I would classify as spiritual reading (like I'm Not Being Fed! by Jeff Cavins and The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis), that quote or refer to Scripture.
Several years ago, I compiled a list of scriptural annotations in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and made a search engine so that I could look up paragraphs of the Catechism that refer to a specific biblical passage. I also went through a couple of books with collected excerpts from the writing of Pope Benedict XVI and made the same sort of database, but never got around to using it.
But that's going to change. I've recently started writing a little library database (using the Google Books API) for my wife and myself to keep track of all the books we own. I'm taking this opportunity to create a catalog of all the scripture references in the books I read, in the same library database. I'll eventually make this available to the public.
If you're interested in helping out, leave a comment here or tweet me.
Several years ago, I compiled a list of scriptural annotations in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and made a search engine so that I could look up paragraphs of the Catechism that refer to a specific biblical passage. I also went through a couple of books with collected excerpts from the writing of Pope Benedict XVI and made the same sort of database, but never got around to using it.
But that's going to change. I've recently started writing a little library database (using the Google Books API) for my wife and myself to keep track of all the books we own. I'm taking this opportunity to create a catalog of all the scripture references in the books I read, in the same library database. I'll eventually make this available to the public.
If you're interested in helping out, leave a comment here or tweet me.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Treasures of the Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer IV
There are inexhaustible riches buried in the Eucharistic Prayers of the modern Roman Rite. The new English translation helps uncover them, but to delve even deeper, we need to look directly at the Latin. I recommend a look at Eucharistic Prayer IV, which is rarely used, but is a stellar recounting of salvation history filled with resonant biblical language and powerful imagery.
Here's a selection from the Post-sanctus of EP IV, first in the new English translation, and then in the underlying Latin:
The word imperaret is a third person imperfect subjunctive form of the verb imperare "to order, command; to rule (over)." The word imperio is the noun form of that verb: "command; authority; rule". It is sensible to translate them into English as "might have dominion" and "the dominion", for this captures the sense of the Latin words and the linguistic link between them. The treasure I see here in the text is this: God gave dominion (mastery, you could say, or stewardship) of His creation to man, but when man sinned, He did not let death have dominion over man. This treasure is not too hard to spot in the new translation. (The previous English translation was another matter, translating these two words as "to rule" and "power", two words not immediately related to each other in English. The proposed 1998 text used "be stewards" and "power", even less associated with each other.)
But I think a more concealed treasure (partly due to the translation) is in the first pair: commisisti and amisisset. The first is the second person perfect form of the verb committere which means "to entrust" along with "to bring together, unite"; the second is the third person pluperfect subjunctive form of the verb amittere which means "to lose" along with "to send away; to part with". Both verbs are related to the root verb mittere which means "to send". The treasure to be uncovered here is that God unites — sends together, com-mittere — man and the rest of His creation as part of His friendship with man, but then man casts away — sends away, a-mittere — this friendship. God puts something special and precious into the hands of man, and man casts it aside.
These are just two pearls of great price I've uncovered as I study the Eucharistic Prayers (during the research phase of my work on Praying the Mass vol. 3, The Eucharistic Prayers). There are many more to be uncovered!
Here's a selection from the Post-sanctus of EP IV, first in the new English translation, and then in the underlying Latin:
You formed man in your own imageHere is the Latin:
and entrusted the whole world to his care,
so that in serving you alone, the Creator,
he might have dominion over all creatures.
And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship,
you did not abandon him to the domain of death.
Hominem ad tuam imaginem condidisti,There are two pairs of bolded words in the English and in the Latin: commisisti and amisisset, imperaret and imperio. The two pairs are translated in different manners. Let us look at the second pair first.
eique commisisti mundi curam universi,
ut, tibi soli Creatori serviens,
creaturis omnibus imperaret.
Et cum amicitiam tuam, non oboediens, amisisset,
non eum dereliquisti in mortis imperio.
The word imperaret is a third person imperfect subjunctive form of the verb imperare "to order, command; to rule (over)." The word imperio is the noun form of that verb: "command; authority; rule". It is sensible to translate them into English as "might have dominion" and "the dominion", for this captures the sense of the Latin words and the linguistic link between them. The treasure I see here in the text is this: God gave dominion (mastery, you could say, or stewardship) of His creation to man, but when man sinned, He did not let death have dominion over man. This treasure is not too hard to spot in the new translation. (The previous English translation was another matter, translating these two words as "to rule" and "power", two words not immediately related to each other in English. The proposed 1998 text used "be stewards" and "power", even less associated with each other.)
But I think a more concealed treasure (partly due to the translation) is in the first pair: commisisti and amisisset. The first is the second person perfect form of the verb committere which means "to entrust" along with "to bring together, unite"; the second is the third person pluperfect subjunctive form of the verb amittere which means "to lose" along with "to send away; to part with". Both verbs are related to the root verb mittere which means "to send". The treasure to be uncovered here is that God unites — sends together, com-mittere — man and the rest of His creation as part of His friendship with man, but then man casts away — sends away, a-mittere — this friendship. God puts something special and precious into the hands of man, and man casts it aside.
These are just two pearls of great price I've uncovered as I study the Eucharistic Prayers (during the research phase of my work on Praying the Mass vol. 3, The Eucharistic Prayers). There are many more to be uncovered!
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Critiquing the new translation alongside earlier ones
I'm still reading Anscar Chupungco's critique of the official English translation of Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation I:
I wonder, though, why here in the commentary on translation, mention is not made of earlier translations (e.g. 1975 and 1998) of the same Latin text; comparing the 2010 text to earlier translations happens quite frequently in this particular commentary. The two earlier translations I have noted (1975 and 1998) employed dynamic equivalency, and yet they rendered the phrase in question as "healed of all division" and "in whom all divisions are healed". Perhaps this is why a comparison or remark is absent.
While Fr. Chupungco is correct that "healed" does not translate (literally or dynamically) auferatur, I would dare to suggest that "healed of all division(s)" does dynamically (though not quite literally) translate omnis auferatur divisio. For, in this case, the divisions are in a body, a body which is meant to be perfectly united, perfectly one, utterly undivided. The removal, therefore, of divisions in this body appropriately be called "healing".
ICEL2010 takes liberty with the Latin text in unum corpus congregentur in Christo, a quo omnis auferatur divisio, whose literal meaning is: “they may be gathered into one Body in Christ, from which may every division be {482} removed.” It is obvious that a quo refers to corpus, not to Christo. There can be no division in Christ in the first place. (A Commentary on the Order of Mass, pp. 481-482)That is a good literal translation of the Latin provided by Fr. Chupungco (a Benedictine monk). The English text he is critiquing, from the new English translation of the Roman Missal, is "they may be gathered into one Body in Christ who heals every division." He goes on to say:
The Latin text does not say that Christ “heals” every division. The verb “to heal” is not a dynamic equivalent, much less a literal translation of auferatur. What is prayed for is that all division be eliminated from the community, the body gathered into one in Christ. (Ibid, p. 482)He has a valid point here. The verb auferre means generally "to remove". It appears in a penitential prayer of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (commonly called the Tridentine Mass), aufer a nobis... ("Take away our iniquities from us...").
I wonder, though, why here in the commentary on translation, mention is not made of earlier translations (e.g. 1975 and 1998) of the same Latin text; comparing the 2010 text to earlier translations happens quite frequently in this particular commentary. The two earlier translations I have noted (1975 and 1998) employed dynamic equivalency, and yet they rendered the phrase in question as "healed of all division" and "in whom all divisions are healed". Perhaps this is why a comparison or remark is absent.
While Fr. Chupungco is correct that "healed" does not translate (literally or dynamically) auferatur, I would dare to suggest that "healed of all division(s)" does dynamically (though not quite literally) translate omnis auferatur divisio. For, in this case, the divisions are in a body, a body which is meant to be perfectly united, perfectly one, utterly undivided. The removal, therefore, of divisions in this body appropriately be called "healing".
Translating the Sanctus
The Adoremus Bulletin had an article nine years ago about the proper translation of Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. This article pointed out that while "Deus" is a noun in the nominative (subject of a verb) and vocative (direct address) cases, "Dominus" is only properly a nominative noun. The vocative form of "Dominus" is "Domine", as in Miserere, Domine.
This means the strictly literal translation of the first line of the Sanctus is really "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts," instead of what we're used to, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts."
So I was a bit surprised when reading Anscar Chupungco's analysis of the new English translation, wherein he writes:
This means the strictly literal translation of the first line of the Sanctus is really "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts," instead of what we're used to, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts."
So I was a bit surprised when reading Anscar Chupungco's analysis of the new English translation, wherein he writes:
In compliance with the norms of formal correspondence advocated by [Liturgiam Authenticam], the English Sanctus for [Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation I] in ICEL2010 (“Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts”) appropriately corrects its 2007 gray book translation of this prayer (Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hosts). (A Commentary on the Order of Mass, p. 478)There are a number of other inaccuracies in the final translation of the Latin text which the numerous authors in the Commentary have pointed out, but I was surprised at this one.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Biblical exegesis and interfaith sensitivity
I'm reading a new massive commentary on the Roman Missal by the Liturgical Press. It's very helpful for my research on the new translations of the Eucharistic Prayers, but every now and then it rubs me the wrong way with statements like these (emphasis added):
Perhaps this will come off sounding insensitive, but do we risk losing parts of our authentic Catholic identity, to use a Johannine phrase, "for fear of the Jews"?
A mystagogy of EP IV needs to point out that the early church or a patristic typological interpretation of OT passages can be problematic for contemporary interfaith sensibilities. Appreciation of the prayer does need to carry with it a certain note of caution concerning its appropriation of Jewish salvation history. In other words, contemporary exegesis of OT texts lets the Hebrew Scriptures stand on their own terms. That being said, the biblical approach of EP IV can be valued and appreciated on its own terms as long as one is aware of the contemporary critique. It is important to note that the NT texts themselves often approach the Hebrew Scriptures typologically. (A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal: A New English Translation, pp. 427-428)While contemporary interfaith sensibilities might justly govern interfaith activities, there is no need to abandon the scriptural tradition of the Church in reading the Old Testament in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ. Yes, this is not just an "early church" tradition (as in going back to, say, St. Ignatius of Antioch), it is a scriptural Church tradition: the evangelists did it, the apostles did it, John the Baptist did it, and Jesus Himself did it. I see no reason to avoid typological interpretation of the Bible in a mystagogical context.
Perhaps this will come off sounding insensitive, but do we risk losing parts of our authentic Catholic identity, to use a Johannine phrase, "for fear of the Jews"?
Thursday, December 08, 2011
New Translation: Awkward wording in the doxology
While I am for the most part pleased with the new English translation of the Roman Missal — what I've read and heard of it — there are a few awkwardly worded sections.
In this post, I'd like to examine one example: the concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer. In the old translation, the priest said:
There is another problem which exists in both the old and the new translation: a missing preposition. This may not seem like a big deal, but the Latin does not simply say that all glory and honor is the Father's; it specifically says that all glory and honor is (that is, it goes) to the Father by (through), in, and with the Son, and in the unity of the Holy Spirit. This small detail is not captured by either translation, and can be tricky to convey in natural-sounding English.
In this post, I'd like to examine one example: the concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer. In the old translation, the priest said:
Through him, with him, in him,This is a decent (although not exact) translation of the Latin, which reads:
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,
forever and ever.
Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso,If you haven't noticed, I'm putting the prepositions in bold. Here is a strict word-for-word translation:
est tibi Deo Patri omnipoténti,
in unitáte Spíritus Sancti,
omnis honor, et glória,
per ómnia sæcula sæculórum.
By him, and with him, and in him,And here's how it is rendered in the new translation:
is to you God Father almighty,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all honor and glory,
during all ages of ages.
Through him, and with him, and in him,As you can see, the individual lines of the prayer have been re-arranged to match their order in the Latin, but I think it ends up being a little anti-climactic. The order of the Latin phrases is not, in this case, necessary to the form of the prayer; this is not a collect, for example, where the prayer takes the form of "O God, who did X, we ask you, grant us Y."
O God, almighty Father,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
forever and ever.
There is another problem which exists in both the old and the new translation: a missing preposition. This may not seem like a big deal, but the Latin does not simply say that all glory and honor is the Father's; it specifically says that all glory and honor is (that is, it goes) to the Father by (through), in, and with the Son, and in the unity of the Holy Spirit. This small detail is not captured by either translation, and can be tricky to convey in natural-sounding English.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Does the new translation of the Mass over-emphasize our sinfulness?
My parish prayed the Confiteor at Mass this morning. One thing I have read complaints about, in the new translation, is that the Confiteor over-emphasizes our sinfulness. "I have greatly sinned ... through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault."
Did you happen to notice, new translation aside, the First Reading from this morning's Mass?
Did you happen to notice, new translation aside, the First Reading from this morning's Mass?
Behold, you are angry, and we are sinful;Geez, Isaiah! Lighten up, would you? And yet, the First Reading ends thus:
all of us have become like unclean people,
all our good deeds are like polluted rags;
we have all withered like leaves,
and our guilt carries us away like the wind.
There is none who calls upon your name,
who rouses himself to cling to you;
for you have hidden your face from us
and have delivered us up to our guilt.
Yet, O LORD, you are our father;And so ends the Confiteor, or whatever Penitential Act is used: we acknowledge that God is almighty in His mercy, capable of granting us forgiveness of our sins, and ready to do so.
we are the clay and you the potter:
we are all the work of your hands.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
"Praying the Mass" receives Seal of Approval from the Catholic Writers' Guild
I'm happy to report that the first two volumes of my series on the Mass have received the Catholic Writers' Guild Seal of Approval. As we move forward into the new liturgical year using a new translation, I hope that people find thorough and enriching resources to help them receive the new words and personalize them in their own prayer.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The commandments of Jesus
The new English translation of the Roman Missal is about to come into use in the United States. It has been in partial use in England since September. It appears, however, that not only Roman Catholics have prepared to switch from the current Sacramentary to the new Roman Missal. Some Anglicans are (or were) getting ready to make the change as well. But the Anglican Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, is not at all supportive of that initiative; in a pastoral letter released last Friday, he made this clear:
Jesus did tell His disciples — and us — to do quite a bit!
Especially during this week following the Feast of Christ the King, I think we should avoid a reductionist view of the Gospel, of the commandments of our Lord. There's more to it than simply "Do this in memory of me." There are, of course, the two greatest commandments which sum up the whole of the law and the prophets, and without which that awesome Eucharistic commandment is of no avail. And, as St. Paul reminds us, love is the fulfilling of the law.
So perhaps we can say Jesus did give us few commandments — love God and love your neighbor — and then explained in detail just how we are to do so.
For those who remain [in the Church of England] there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. In these rites there is not only a prayer for the Pope but the expression of a communion with him; a communion Pope Benedict XVI would certainly repudiate.You can read the letter yourself. There is one small detail from the letter I wish to focus on, certainly not the main thrust of the letter by any means, but a Christian meme I have heard from time to time. Bishop Chartres said that "among the very few commandments that [Jesus] gave to us is 'Do this in remembrance of me.'"
[...]
Priests and parishes which do adopt the new rites – with their marked divergences from the ELLC texts and in the altered circumstances created by the Pope’s invitation to Anglicans to join the Ordinariate – are making a clear statement of their disassociation not only from the Church of England but from the Roman Communion as well.
Jesus did tell His disciples — and us — to do quite a bit!
- Do not swear at all (Matthew 5:33ff)
- Do not repay evil for evil (Matthew 5:38ff)
- Give to those who ask of you (Matthew 5:42)
- Do your acts of charity in secret (Matthew 6:2ff)
- Do not lay up treasure on earth (Matthew 6:19ff)
- Do not be anxious about anything (Matthew 6:25ff)
- Do to others what you would have them do to you (Matthew 7:12)
Especially during this week following the Feast of Christ the King, I think we should avoid a reductionist view of the Gospel, of the commandments of our Lord. There's more to it than simply "Do this in memory of me." There are, of course, the two greatest commandments which sum up the whole of the law and the prophets, and without which that awesome Eucharistic commandment is of no avail. And, as St. Paul reminds us, love is the fulfilling of the law.
So perhaps we can say Jesus did give us few commandments — love God and love your neighbor — and then explained in detail just how we are to do so.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Winner of Godspell ticket-drawing....
I ran my randomizer on the three (sad face) people who were entered into the ticket drawing:
So there you have it (along with some free Perl debugger code). The winner is monica.
So now monica needs to get in contact with me and I will send her the voucher for two free tickets.
DB<1> @poss = qw( mymusicboxes monica joecleary ); DB<2> x $poss[rand @poss]; 0 'monica'
So there you have it (along with some free Perl debugger code). The winner is monica.
So now monica needs to get in contact with me and I will send her the voucher for two free tickets.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Godspell in two acts
On Sunday evening, I went to see the musical Godspell with my oldest brother, Fr. Charlie, at The Circle in the Square theater at 50th and Broadway. I received two complimentary tickets from the show's production company (Davenport Theatrical Enterprises) with the request that I blog about the show afterwards.
I'm going to approach this post in two acts: first an entertainment review, then an evangelical assessment. There's even an intermission. On to Act One!
The Entertainment Review
The show is performed in the intimate setting of The Circle in the Square downstairs theater. This is a small circular stage, surrounded by seats on all sides. Such a setting always introduces challenges to a production; you don't want the actors to have their backs to a quarter of the audience for too long. But the setting also provides for a dynamic use of the stage space, as well as some playful self-aware riffs, such as the embellishment on Turn Back, O Man's "See ya later, I'm going to the front of the the-a-ter."
The stage is covered in trap doors which are used to great effect twice in the production, first during Prepare Ye (along with a comedic exchange between Jesus and John the Baptist), and then during We Beseech Thee... but I won't tell you how. Just in front of the stage, on opposite sides, were cushion seats — not chairs, just cushions on the floor. These might have been uncomfortable (and suitable only for younger attendees) but they were just one element of audience participation which occurred throughout the first act. Much of the audience got the chance to mill about on the stage when some light refreshments were served during the intermission.
The show has been rather well contemporized: the opening number (Tower of Babble) employs social media devices (today's enablers of babble, as my brother pointed out), well-known celebrities and public persons are impersonated and often playfully mocked (including Oprah Winfrey, Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen, and even President Obama), and plenty of pop-culture references are infused throughout (including a reference to "Occupy Wall Street", a bit of the wedding procession dance, and a rather fitting incorporation of LMFAO's panegyric to alcohol and sex, Shots). The vignettes in between the songs are done in a variety of styles, including hip-hop and game shows.
The updating of the show for today's (younger) audience is where the show takes its greatest risks, usually succeeding, although sometimes falling a little flat. There are a couple of uses of "Jesus Christ" as exclamations, but these are very well-timed, obviously ironic, and ultimately non-offensive. The "exclusive language" (e.g. "man", "he", "him") was retained in the songs, and in the vignettes which were not completely revised for other reasons; the archaic "Thee"s and "Thou"s are still there too. There is also some degree of retention of the 70s origin of the musical, although not to the extreme. As mentioned earlier, there were plenty of pop culture references — not that I got them all — and most worked well, although a few seemed forced and did not garner much of a reaction from the audience (such as a reference to iPad tablets being used in heaven because Steve Jobs is there now). The updating of the vignettes also posed a problem of transitioning between a vignette and the song that followed it. The transitions were a bit sudden in the first act, but I did not notice any such problems in the second act.
The cast was incredible and boasts several talented Broadway debuts. Their voices were clear and powerful, and Telly Leung stands out in my memory as having a beautiful voice and an impressive range to go with it; his post-intermission singing took me by surprise. Along with their voices were their passionate and emotional performances of the show's songs. The audience was clapping and moving and singing along with them. The Last Suppper scene is particularly poignant, as the disciples individually reminisce with Jesus via some gesture related to a song they sang or a vignette they featured in, before He embraces them warmly.
All in all, a very enjoyable Broadway experience, and a delightfully refreshing fare. Playing beneath Wicked, no less!
Intermission
First, if you would like to buy tickets at a reduced rate for the show, just click here, or enter the discount code GSPRD719 when you order them.
Second, if you would like to win two free tickets, either comment on this blog-post, share it on your own blog, or re-tweet this tweet of mine. (That's three ways you can enter, and you may use all three to enter the drawing three times, but I won't accept more than three entries per person. And no cheating... you're trying to win tickets to a musical based on the Gospel according to Matthew, for heaven's sake!) I'll do a random drawing at the end of the week and the winner will be announced here and on Twitter.
If you want something to eat or drink, if you've already had something to eat or drink and need to use the restroom, now's the time. Then come back for Act Two.
The Evangelical Assessment
No matter how you slice it, Godspell is a religiously-themed musical. It's based on the Gospel according to Matthew, and not in a merely thematic sense, but in a dramatic sense: you will hear several of the parables and teachings of Jesus Christ proclaimed in a positive manner in a Broadway theater. Yes, it is couched in a half-modern, half-vintage setting, and it is paid entertainment — you pay to get in, and the actors get paid to perform their roles — but the musical gets its message in part from Jesus Christ and His Gospel.
Godspell is an entertaining presentation of some of the Gospel, but does it work as an evangelical outreach to non-believers? Does it inspire non-Christians to take not only the message of Jesus Christ, but Jesus Himself, seriously?
The Gospel as encountered in the show is, of course, not the complete Gospel, nor even the whole of the Gospel according to Matthew. To be sure, much of Matthew's Gospel is incorporated. (Roughly: Matthew 3:1-15; 4:3-10; 5:1-48; 6:1-6, 19-34; 7:1-12; 13:1-8, 18-23; 21:23-32; 22:16-21, 36-40; 23:1-39; 24:4-8; 26:20-22, 25-29, 34, 36-56; along with a crucifixion scene and Luke 10:30-37 (the Good Samaritan), 15:11-32 (the Prodigal Son), 16:19-31 (the rich man and Lazarus), and John 8:2-11 (the woman caught in adultery).) The songs also draw heavily on the Psalms and hymns.
But these scriptural excerpts are only Jesus' parables and teachings and commandments. As powerful and important as they are, there are no miracles represented, except as alluded to in local performances; for example, the 2011 Broadway revival makes a reference to the wedding at Cana, as a gag.
There is also little explicit recognition of Jesus as the Messiah or of His divine nature, although it is there if you are perceptive; for example, John's opening song is Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord, and the crucifixion includes the wording of "O God, you're dying". Both, I think, are deliberately ambiguous: you can interpret them as saying that Jesus helps prepare the way of the Lord (but is not Himself the Lord) and the ensemble is using "O God" as an exclamation; or you could say Jesus is the Lord Whose way John is preparing, and the ensemble addresses Jesus as "O God" as He hangs on the cross. (More explicitly, Jesus says "I send you prophets" in Alas For You. But does the average theater-goer pick up on the implication of that?)
There is also officially no representation of Jesus' Resurrection in the musical, although some local performances choose to add it.
So if you take the Gospel, remove the birth stories and the resurrection, omit the miracles, and leave out the other supernatural events (such as the voice of God the Father at the Jordan), you essentially have the Jefferson Bible; that is, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Thomas Jefferson's attempt to extract Jesus' doctrine from the New Testament, avoiding any supernatural aspects. The Jesus that remains, while speaking the truth, is potentially not distinguishable from any other prophetic and charismatic leader who angers the officials and is put to death as a result: just another prophet in a long line of prophets.
Jesus' message in Godspell is clear: repent of your sins, forgive others who wrong you, live virtuously, and above all, love God. He mentions Hell and eternal punishment several times.
But the show does not provide an adequate or intelligible segue from Jesus' teaching to His death. During the song By My Side, it is mentioned that Judas begins to look for an opportunity to betray Jesus, but it is not said why. Jesus' tirade against the Pharisees from Matthew 23 is well-represented in the musical (especially through the song Alas for You) but it's not clear that those Pharisees have enticed Judas to betray Jesus, and why exactly they want Him dead. The Last Supper scene includes mention of a "covenant" but without any other context: what is a "covenant", what is the blood of a covenant, and why is Jesus suddenly having a special meal with His disciples? The result is that the crucifixion is simply the death of the disciples' leader, but not the death of his message and teachings which live on in the disciples.
So from that perspective, Godspell is about (part of) the message of Jesus, and not about Jesus Himself. I think that hinders its ability to evangelize non-Christians. (Not that I think the musical was written to be a means of Christian evangelization, but it is sometimes employed by Christians for that purpose.)
That being said, Godpsell preaches the message that God is love. If people can take that message home with them, and if that message can be a good seed in the fertile soil of their souls, then the evangelical power of Godspell is immeasurable. Consider the song We Beseech Thee from the musical (lyrics adapted from the Thomas Henson Pollock hymn, Father, Hear Thy Children's Call): "Come sing about love / that made us first to be. / Come sing about love / that made the stone and tree." The same Love Who made the universe made us each to be, and made man to be at all. And the cast sings about Love so energetically, so passionately, so powerfully. If only Christians could sing about Love — and speak, and act, and live about Love — with as much enthusiasm and conviction, the collective Christian witness would have unimaginable and far-reaching effects.
There's one difference, though. I do not say this as a slight against the cast of Godspell, but they're paid to sing about Love. As Christians, we are not paid to sing about Love; at least, we are not guaranteed any worldly reward. Is that what stops us? I hope not. Let's starting singing about Love again. Do it today, on your way home from work or school, as you prepare dinner or do the dishes, as you tuck your children into bed, as blog and tweet and surf the web. Sing about Love.
I'm going to approach this post in two acts: first an entertainment review, then an evangelical assessment. There's even an intermission. On to Act One!
The Entertainment Review
 |
| Hunter Parrish (l) as Jesus and Wallace Smith as John / Judas |
 |
| Tower of Babble |
The updating of the show for today's (younger) audience is where the show takes its greatest risks, usually succeeding, although sometimes falling a little flat. There are a couple of uses of "Jesus Christ" as exclamations, but these are very well-timed, obviously ironic, and ultimately non-offensive. The "exclusive language" (e.g. "man", "he", "him") was retained in the songs, and in the vignettes which were not completely revised for other reasons; the archaic "Thee"s and "Thou"s are still there too. There is also some degree of retention of the 70s origin of the musical, although not to the extreme. As mentioned earlier, there were plenty of pop culture references — not that I got them all — and most worked well, although a few seemed forced and did not garner much of a reaction from the audience (such as a reference to iPad tablets being used in heaven because Steve Jobs is there now). The updating of the vignettes also posed a problem of transitioning between a vignette and the song that followed it. The transitions were a bit sudden in the first act, but I did not notice any such problems in the second act.
 |
| Telly Leung on piano |
All in all, a very enjoyable Broadway experience, and a delightfully refreshing fare. Playing beneath Wicked, no less!
Intermission
First, if you would like to buy tickets at a reduced rate for the show, just click here, or enter the discount code GSPRD719 when you order them.
Second, if you would like to win two free tickets, either comment on this blog-post, share it on your own blog, or re-tweet this tweet of mine. (That's three ways you can enter, and you may use all three to enter the drawing three times, but I won't accept more than three entries per person. And no cheating... you're trying to win tickets to a musical based on the Gospel according to Matthew, for heaven's sake!) I'll do a random drawing at the end of the week and the winner will be announced here and on Twitter.
If you want something to eat or drink, if you've already had something to eat or drink and need to use the restroom, now's the time. Then come back for Act Two.
The Evangelical Assessment
No matter how you slice it, Godspell is a religiously-themed musical. It's based on the Gospel according to Matthew, and not in a merely thematic sense, but in a dramatic sense: you will hear several of the parables and teachings of Jesus Christ proclaimed in a positive manner in a Broadway theater. Yes, it is couched in a half-modern, half-vintage setting, and it is paid entertainment — you pay to get in, and the actors get paid to perform their roles — but the musical gets its message in part from Jesus Christ and His Gospel.
Godspell is an entertaining presentation of some of the Gospel, but does it work as an evangelical outreach to non-believers? Does it inspire non-Christians to take not only the message of Jesus Christ, but Jesus Himself, seriously?
The Gospel as encountered in the show is, of course, not the complete Gospel, nor even the whole of the Gospel according to Matthew. To be sure, much of Matthew's Gospel is incorporated. (Roughly: Matthew 3:1-15; 4:3-10; 5:1-48; 6:1-6, 19-34; 7:1-12; 13:1-8, 18-23; 21:23-32; 22:16-21, 36-40; 23:1-39; 24:4-8; 26:20-22, 25-29, 34, 36-56; along with a crucifixion scene and Luke 10:30-37 (the Good Samaritan), 15:11-32 (the Prodigal Son), 16:19-31 (the rich man and Lazarus), and John 8:2-11 (the woman caught in adultery).) The songs also draw heavily on the Psalms and hymns.
But these scriptural excerpts are only Jesus' parables and teachings and commandments. As powerful and important as they are, there are no miracles represented, except as alluded to in local performances; for example, the 2011 Broadway revival makes a reference to the wedding at Cana, as a gag.
There is also little explicit recognition of Jesus as the Messiah or of His divine nature, although it is there if you are perceptive; for example, John's opening song is Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord, and the crucifixion includes the wording of "O God, you're dying". Both, I think, are deliberately ambiguous: you can interpret them as saying that Jesus helps prepare the way of the Lord (but is not Himself the Lord) and the ensemble is using "O God" as an exclamation; or you could say Jesus is the Lord Whose way John is preparing, and the ensemble addresses Jesus as "O God" as He hangs on the cross. (More explicitly, Jesus says "I send you prophets" in Alas For You. But does the average theater-goer pick up on the implication of that?)
There is also officially no representation of Jesus' Resurrection in the musical, although some local performances choose to add it.
So if you take the Gospel, remove the birth stories and the resurrection, omit the miracles, and leave out the other supernatural events (such as the voice of God the Father at the Jordan), you essentially have the Jefferson Bible; that is, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Thomas Jefferson's attempt to extract Jesus' doctrine from the New Testament, avoiding any supernatural aspects. The Jesus that remains, while speaking the truth, is potentially not distinguishable from any other prophetic and charismatic leader who angers the officials and is put to death as a result: just another prophet in a long line of prophets.
Jesus' message in Godspell is clear: repent of your sins, forgive others who wrong you, live virtuously, and above all, love God. He mentions Hell and eternal punishment several times.
But the show does not provide an adequate or intelligible segue from Jesus' teaching to His death. During the song By My Side, it is mentioned that Judas begins to look for an opportunity to betray Jesus, but it is not said why. Jesus' tirade against the Pharisees from Matthew 23 is well-represented in the musical (especially through the song Alas for You) but it's not clear that those Pharisees have enticed Judas to betray Jesus, and why exactly they want Him dead. The Last Supper scene includes mention of a "covenant" but without any other context: what is a "covenant", what is the blood of a covenant, and why is Jesus suddenly having a special meal with His disciples? The result is that the crucifixion is simply the death of the disciples' leader, but not the death of his message and teachings which live on in the disciples.
So from that perspective, Godspell is about (part of) the message of Jesus, and not about Jesus Himself. I think that hinders its ability to evangelize non-Christians. (Not that I think the musical was written to be a means of Christian evangelization, but it is sometimes employed by Christians for that purpose.)
That being said, Godpsell preaches the message that God is love. If people can take that message home with them, and if that message can be a good seed in the fertile soil of their souls, then the evangelical power of Godspell is immeasurable. Consider the song We Beseech Thee from the musical (lyrics adapted from the Thomas Henson Pollock hymn, Father, Hear Thy Children's Call): "Come sing about love / that made us first to be. / Come sing about love / that made the stone and tree." The same Love Who made the universe made us each to be, and made man to be at all. And the cast sings about Love so energetically, so passionately, so powerfully. If only Christians could sing about Love — and speak, and act, and live about Love — with as much enthusiasm and conviction, the collective Christian witness would have unimaginable and far-reaching effects.
There's one difference, though. I do not say this as a slight against the cast of Godspell, but they're paid to sing about Love. As Christians, we are not paid to sing about Love; at least, we are not guaranteed any worldly reward. Is that what stops us? I hope not. Let's starting singing about Love again. Do it today, on your way home from work or school, as you prepare dinner or do the dishes, as you tuck your children into bed, as blog and tweet and surf the web. Sing about Love.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Preparing the way of the Lord
This Sunday afternoon, after watching the Giants trounce the Dolphins, I will be boarding a train to NYC, foregoing the evening match between the Cowboys and the Eagles, to have dinner with my brother and then see Godspell at the Circle in the Square on Broadway.
A few weeks ago I received an email from the promotions director of the theatrical company producing the musical, offering me two free tickets so long as I blog about it. And lately it seems like I need a motivation to blog about something! (Work and home life have kept me on my toes and off blogger.)
So on Monday or Tuesday, expect another post with my review and commentary on the new production of Godspell. (I was in a community production of it back in the late 90s, and I've been pretty fond of the musical since I first heard it, so I'm quite excited to see a new production of it.)
In the meantime, if you are in the NYC area and would like to get discounted tickets to the show, just go to http://tinyurl.com/GodspellBloggerDiscount, or go to Godspell.com and enter the promotional code GSPRD719 when you buy your tickets.
(And here's a mother's review of the show, writing from the perspective of a woman caring for an autistic daughter.)
A few weeks ago I received an email from the promotions director of the theatrical company producing the musical, offering me two free tickets so long as I blog about it. And lately it seems like I need a motivation to blog about something! (Work and home life have kept me on my toes and off blogger.)
So on Monday or Tuesday, expect another post with my review and commentary on the new production of Godspell. (I was in a community production of it back in the late 90s, and I've been pretty fond of the musical since I first heard it, so I'm quite excited to see a new production of it.)
In the meantime, if you are in the NYC area and would like to get discounted tickets to the show, just go to http://tinyurl.com/GodspellBloggerDiscount, or go to Godspell.com and enter the promotional code GSPRD719 when you buy your tickets.
(And here's a mother's review of the show, writing from the perspective of a woman caring for an autistic daughter.)
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Bible Study for College Students
For the past two weeks, I've been leading a Bible study for students at Rider University (in Lawrenceville, NJ). We meet Thursday evenings; we look at the upcoming Sunday's Mass readings, and try to understand them in their context and their relation to each other, as well as apply them to our lives today.
Tomorrow we're looking at pericopes from Isaiah 25, Philippians 4, and Matthew 23. Do you see anything in these readings that stands out as applying in a particular way to college students? (Phil 4:12-13 reminds me of food and money in the college context...)
Tomorrow we're looking at pericopes from Isaiah 25, Philippians 4, and Matthew 23. Do you see anything in these readings that stands out as applying in a particular way to college students? (Phil 4:12-13 reminds me of food and money in the college context...)
Monday, October 03, 2011
Malachi 1:11 in Patristic literature
- Didache 14 - "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. [...] For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice."
- Cyprian, Treatise 12, I:16 - "That the ancient sacrifice should be made void, and a new one should be celebrated"
- Augustine, Letter 93:20 - "against all your brethren that are found among all nations, to whom the prophets, and Christ, and the apostles bear witness in the words of Scripture"
- Augustine, Letter 185:5 - "the Church spread abroad throughout the world"
- Lactantius, Epitome of the Divine Institutes 48 - "Of the Disinheriting of the Jews, and the Adoption of the Gentiles"
- Augustine, Answer to Petilian the Donatist 191 - "that living sacrifice of which it is said, 'Offer unto God thanksgiving'"
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV:17:5 - "the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, [...] concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand [...] indicating in the plainest manner [...] that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him"
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 41 - "He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist"
- Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 117 - "the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world"
- Athanasius, Letter 4:4 - "Now He willed it to be in every place"
- Athanasius, Letter 11:11 - "when the whole Catholic Church which is in every place"
- Irenaeus, Fragment 37 - "the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant"
- Augustine, Tractates on John 35:7 - "Thou dost not come, O Jew, to a pure sacrifice"
- Augustine, City of God XVIII:35 - "Since we can already see this sacrifice offered to God in every place, from the rising of the sun to his going down"
- Tertullian, Against Marcion IV:1 - "Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that among all nations"
- Lactantius, Divine Institutes IV:11 - "that He might transfer the sacred religion of God to the Gentiles"
- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 18:25 - "the Churches of Christ are increased over all the world"
- John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV:13 - "This surely is that pure and bloodless sacrifice which the Lord through the prophet said is offered to Him from the rising to the setting of the sun"
- Tertullian, Against Marcion III:22 - "Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found among you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice"
- Apostolic Constitutions VI:XXIII - "Instead of a bloody sacrifice, He has appointed that reasonable and unbloody mystical one of His body and blood, which is performed to represent the death of the Lord by symbols. Instead of the divine service confined to one place, He has commanded and appointed that He should be glorified from sunrising to sunsetting in every place of His dominion."
- Apostolic Constitutions VII:XXX - "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord's day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God, and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God, who has said concerning His universal Church"
Friday, September 30, 2011
Jerome: "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ"
(Reposted from two years ago...)
I've heard that quote of St. Jerome's many times. But I wanted to know its context. It comes from his introduction to the book of the Prophet Isaiah. It's written in Latin, of course, but it didn't take me long to find a decent English translation of it.
I've heard that quote of St. Jerome's many times. But I wanted to know its context. It comes from his introduction to the book of the Prophet Isaiah. It's written in Latin, of course, but it didn't take me long to find a decent English translation of it.
[I obey] the precepts of Christ who says "examine the Scriptures" (John 5:39) and "seek and you will find." (Matt 7:7) Let me not hear with the Jews: "you are wrong because you do not know scriptures nor the power of God." (Matt. 22:29) For if, according to the apostle Paul, Christ is "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) and who does not know Scripture does not know the power or the wisdom of God, then ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
On Communion under both kinds
The diocese of Phoenix has been making news lately, because of the decision of Bishop Olmsted to implement the new edition of the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States (old edition here, new edition not online yet), abbreviated NDRHC. The diocese has decided, for numerous reasons, to reduce the frequency of Communion under both kinds. The diocese made the announcement through a news release and a Q&A. While both of the diocese's documents have some flaws (typos, poorly worded phrases, important words being omitted), they are certainly worth reading in their entirety.
I'd like to take this opportunity to step back to look at some history and the documentation on Communion under both kinds.
Communion under the form of bread alone for the laity (and for any non-celebrating priest) became customary in the 11th century. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was decreed that the laity were not to receive from the chalice, under pain of sin!
Less than 150 years later, the Council of Trent reconsidered the question of Communion under both kinds in Session 21, but merely affirmed doctrines concerning concomitance and the lack of necessity for one (other than the celebrating priest) to receive Communion specifically under both kinds:
Fast forward to the Second Vatican Council. The first document, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, opened the door to Communion under both kinds:
The GIRM from 1975 gives similar instructions:
242. [...] [C]onferences of bishops have the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions Ordinaries may allow communion under both kinds in other instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful. Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. The groups receiving this permission must also be specific, well-ordered, and homogeneous.
However, the US adaptation of the GIRM included "weekday Masses" in the list of occasions at which the chalice could be conceded, and in 1978, the US Bishops extended this to all holy days of obligation (Sundays included).
That this exceeded the intentions of the Holy See was made clear in 1980 in the document Inaestimabile Donum:
The norms stress the need for proper formation (catechesis) on the Eucharist (25):
But back in paragraph 24, after quoting the GIRM, the US norms state this:
I'd like to take this opportunity to step back to look at some history and the documentation on Communion under both kinds.
Communion under the form of bread alone for the laity (and for any non-celebrating priest) became customary in the 11th century. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was decreed that the laity were not to receive from the chalice, under pain of sin!
Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church's custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church's head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious.This was, in my opinion, a rather severe reaction to a rather reasonable request, that all the faithful should be permitted to receive Communion under both kinds. Now, perhaps this needn't be done all the time, and the Church firmly believes that Communion under a single kind is not an incomplete Communion, but to forbid the laity from receiving under the form of wine seems unreasonable to me. (To be fair, the "request" was a demand that the faithful ought (always) to receive under both kinds, which was deemed unreasonable.)
Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church.
Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine.
Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church's permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters. (Session 13)
Less than 150 years later, the Council of Trent reconsidered the question of Communion under both kinds in Session 21, but merely affirmed doctrines concerning concomitance and the lack of necessity for one (other than the celebrating priest) to receive Communion specifically under both kinds:
The two articles proposed on another occasion but not yet discussed, namely,The matter of the concession of the chalice was brought up in the next session, with the following result:
the same holy council reserves for examination and definition to another time, at the earliest opportunity that shall present itself.
- whether the reasons which moved the holy Catholic Church to decree that laymen and priests not celebrating are to communicate under the one species of bread only, are so stringent that under no circumstances is the use of the chalice to be permitted to anyone; and
- whether, in case it appears advisable and consonant with Christian charity that the use of the chalice be conceded to a person, nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions, and what are those conditions,
Moreover, since the same holy council in the preceding session reserved to another and more convenient time the examination and definition of two articles which had been proposed on another occasion and had then not yet been discussed, namely,In other words: the Council of Trent left the decision up to the Pope, who at that time decided not to change the discipline. Whether individuals were permitted to receive from the chalice by making a petition, I do not know.
it has now, in its desire to provide for the salvation of those on whose behalf the petition is made, decreed that the entire matter be referred to our most holy Lord [the Pope], as in the present decree it does refer it, who in accordance with his singular prudence will do what he shall judge beneficial for the Christian commonwealth and salutary for those who petition for the use of the chalice.
- whether the reasons which induced the holy Catholic Church to decide that lay people and also priests when not celebrating are to communicate under the one species of bread, are so to be retained that under no condition is the use of the chalice to be permitted to anyone; and
- whether in case, for reasons befitting and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be conceded to any nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions, and what are those conditions;
Fast forward to the Second Vatican Council. The first document, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, opened the door to Communion under both kinds:
55. [...] The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.By 1970, a list of specific instances when Communion under both kinds would be permitted was devised. Another document from 1970 permits bishops to allow Communion under both kinds on other occasions, but under the following conditions: "Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies."
The GIRM from 1975 gives similar instructions:
242. [...] [C]onferences of bishops have the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions Ordinaries may allow communion under both kinds in other instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful. Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. The groups receiving this permission must also be specific, well-ordered, and homogeneous.
However, the US adaptation of the GIRM included "weekday Masses" in the list of occasions at which the chalice could be conceded, and in 1978, the US Bishops extended this to all holy days of obligation (Sundays included).
That this exceeded the intentions of the Holy See was made clear in 1980 in the document Inaestimabile Donum:
With regard to Communion under both kinds, the norms laid down by the Church must be observed [...] Episcopal conferences and ordinaries also are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.Permission for Communion under both kinds on weekday and Sunday Masses does not fit that description. It was not until 1984 that Rome officially permitted the diocese of the US to distribute Communion under both kinds under their own conditions, and this is now reflected in the Latin GIRM:
283. Communio sub utraque specie permittitur, praeter casus in libris ritualibus expositos:In the English translation of the GIRM (with US adaptations), this reads as follows:
Episcopus dioecesanus normas circa Communionem sub utraque specie pro sua dioecesi definire potest, etiam in ecclesiis religiosorum et in parvis coetibus servandas. Eidem Episcopo facultas datur Communionem sub utraque specie permittendi, quoties id sacerdoti celebranti opportunum videatur, dummodo fideles bene instructi sint et absit omne periculum profanationis Sacramenti vel ritus difficilior evadat, ob multitudinem participantium aliamve causam.
- sacerdotibus qui sacrum celebrare vel concelebrare non possunt;
- diacono et ceteris qui aliquod officium in Missa implent;
- sodalibus communitatum in Missa conventuali vel in illa quae «communitatis» dicitur, alumnis seminariorum, omnibus qui exercitiis spiritualibus vacant vel conventum spiritualem aut pastoralem participant.
Quod autem ad modum distribuendi fidelibus sacram Communionem sub utraque specie, et ad facultatis extensionem Conferentiae Episcoporum normas edere possunt, actis a Sede Apostolica recognitis.
283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for:This brings us, finally, to these US Norms for Holy Communion. After an introductory section on Holy Communion in general, the norms recapitulate what the GIRM says about specific occasions on which Communion under both kind may be offered, and about the bishop drawing up norms for his diocese and even permitting pastors of individual parishes to allow Communion under both species as they see fit (NDRHC 22-24).
The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the Priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause.
- Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
- the Deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
- members of communities at the Conventual Mass or the “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all those engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.
In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed (particularly nos. 27-54).
The norms stress the need for proper formation (catechesis) on the Eucharist (25):
- the ecclesial nature of the Eucharist as the common possession of the whole Church;
- the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ's sacrifice, his death and resurrection, and as the sacred banquet;
- the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, whole and entire--in each element of consecrated bread and wine (the doctrine of concomitance);
- the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the eucharistic Liturgy or outside the celebration; and
- the role that ordinary and, if necessary, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are assigned in the eucharistic assembly
But back in paragraph 24, after quoting the GIRM, the US norms state this:
In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister[s] might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.This part of paragraph 24 intersects with the list of reasons given by the diocese of Phoenix for limiting Holy Communion under both forms to certain times and under certain conditions (Q&A #4):
- To protect the Sacred Species from profanation (careless treatment, spillage, swilling, etc.);
- The practice is not in any way necessary for salvation — it is a fuller sign of Holy Communion, but not a fuller reality of Christ Himself than what is received under the form of bread alone;
- The practice is used to emphasize special feast days and other special moments in the lives of the faithful;
- The unity of the practice throughout the world is an act of solidarity in the universal Church — rich and poor countries alike; and
- In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion; when both forms of Communion are used frequently, "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
How would you teach third-graders about the Church?
In two weeks' time I will be a catechist for third-graders at my parish, St. Hedwig's in Trenton. The curriculum for the year (using the Sadlier series) is "We are the Church". So I get to teach these third-graders about the Catholic Church: the who, the what, the how, the why.
On the first day, I'm going to ask them a few easy questions to get their brains working: what is the Church, who started it, who belongs to it? But then I'm going to step back and ask them a more basic question: what does the word "church" mean?
How would you talk to the third-graders about the Church? What language would you use (or avoid)? What points of history and theology would you make (or pass over)? And, most importantly, how would you relate it to them so that it's not a bunch of head-knowledge, but helps them grow as individual Catholics in that Church?
On the first day, I'm going to ask them a few easy questions to get their brains working: what is the Church, who started it, who belongs to it? But then I'm going to step back and ask them a more basic question: what does the word "church" mean?
How would you talk to the third-graders about the Church? What language would you use (or avoid)? What points of history and theology would you make (or pass over)? And, most importantly, how would you relate it to them so that it's not a bunch of head-knowledge, but helps them grow as individual Catholics in that Church?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)