|
0 members (),
2,920
guests, and
110
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,792
Members6,208
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,772 Likes: 31
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,772 Likes: 31 |
I was re-reading Liturgiam Authenticam [ vatican.va] Liturgiam Authenticam and came across some interesting points. As I noted in several of these discussions I thought that the specifics of LA were intended only for the Latin Church but that the general principles went beyond good recommendations to something we needed to follow. Now I�ve noted a few interesting points I missed earlier that makes me think that our Church ought to pay very close attention to LA. Below is the text that seems to have relevance for Eastern Catholics:
Introduction
4. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its deliberations and decrees assigned a singular importance to the liturgical rites, the ecclesiastical traditions, and the discipline of Christian life proper to those particular Churches, especially of the East, which are distinguished by their venerable antiquity, manifesting in various ways the tradition received through the Fathers from the Apostles. (Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decr. On Eastern Catholic Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 1.)
4. On a unified version of the liturgical texts
87. It is recommended that there be a single translation of the liturgical books for each vernacular language, brought about by means of coordination among the Bishops of those regions where the same language is spoken.66
If this proves truly impossible because of the circumstances, the individual Conferences of Bishops, after consultation with the Holy See, may decide either to adapt a previously existing translation or to prepare a new one. In either case, the recognitio of their acts is to be sought from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
88. In the case of the Order of Mass and those parts of the Sacred Liturgy that call for the direct participation of the people, a single translation should exist in a given language,67 unless a different provision is made in individual cases.
89. Texts which are common to several Conferences, as mentioned above in nn. 87-88, are ordinarily to be approved by each of the individual Conferences of Bishops which must use them, before the confirmation of the texts is granted by the Apostolic See.68
90. With due regard for Catholic traditions and for all of the principles and norms contained in this Instruction, an appropriate relationship or coordination is greatly to be desired, whenever possible, between any translations intended for common use in the various Rites of the Catholic Church, especially as regards the text of Sacred Scripture. The Bishops of the Latin Church are to foster the same in a spirit of respectful and fraternal cooperation.
91. A similar agreement is desirable also with the particular non-Catholic Eastern Churches or with the authorities of the Protestant ecclesial communities,69 provided that it is not a question of a liturgical text pertaining to doctrinal matters still in dispute, and provided also that the Churches or ecclesial communities involved have a sufficient number of adherents and that those consulted are truly capable of functioning as representatives of the same ecclesial communities. In order completely to avoid the danger of scandal or of confusion among the Christian faithful, the Catholic Church must retain full liberty of action in such agreements, even in civil law.
Section 87 speaks to the need to have a common translation of common texts with the other Churches unless this is truly impossible. Accomplishing this is certainly not impossible Section 88 calls for a single translation. Section 89 and 90 recommend common translations with all Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox. And we can see in the Liturgical Instruction (1996) that this is not just a suggestion. What can Byzantine Catholics take away from Liturgiam Authenticam?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43 |
It doesn't seem to me that this has a direct bearing on the issue of the proposed translation. It may be desirable to have a common translation, but we certainly must use something until a common translation is produced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,772 Likes: 31
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,772 Likes: 31 |
What is coming is not merely a new translation. It is a major revision of the Divine Liturgy! The Liturgical Instruction doesn�t just suggest common translations. It goes beyond that: Liturgical Instruction, Section 25
The multiplication of eparchies or churches <sui iuris> of the same liturgical families that use the same language, sometimes within the same territory, normally requires that standard translations be used. The competent authorities should agree among themselves to obtain this uniformity. I agree that in the meantime we must have something. We do! The 1964 Liturgicon could easily be reprinted with corrections until a common translation is prepared. The rubrics are accurate according to the official edition published in Rome. The proposed new Revised Liturgy is a purposeful departure from the Roman edition. But we are discussing LA. If there are specific provisions that do apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches then what measure should be given to the general provisions that are not specifically addressed to the Eastern Catholic Churches? The general provisions speak to (among others) the need to be accurate in translation, faithful in rubrics. They even speak to the need not to use exclusive �inclusive language�. Is it just for us to ignore these principles?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13
Active
|
|
Active
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13 |
What!!!!!! You mean ROME would want us to have a common translation, not only with the Albanians, Belarusian, Bulgarians, Greeks, Hungarians, Italo-Albanians, Macedonians, Melkites, Romanians, Russian Byzantines, Ruthenians, and Ukrainian Catholics who use English in this country, but with our Orthodox counterparts??? Just think of the implications that all the commonality would bring, preposterous. Why, if that happened people wouldn�t be so uncomfortable when they visited another church, maybe they�d even feel welcome. Maybe then they would grasp the commonality between not only their Catholic churches, but, gasp, with the Orthodox. Then where would we be? That might even start us down the road to healing that old rift we�ve had going for half a millennia.
No, what we need is another �irregular� translation. Our hierarchs have ignored what Rome has said to do for a long time, after all, they know what is best. We don�t need an authentic liturgy, let�s make it up as we go, we don�t owe anything to anyone.
I think someone posted earlier, saying this has no bearing on us, because we need a translation to use until a common one is produced. We have that new one to add to the mix of things, just forget correcting that old one we had until a common one come around.
Sui juris anyone?
Sine Nomine.
�The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their sign posts." � St. John Chrysostom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16 |
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
What!!!!!! You mean ROME would want us to have a common translation, not only with the Albanians, Belarusian, Bulgarians, Greeks, Hungarians, Italo-Albanians, Macedonians, Melkites, Romanians, Russian Byzantines, Ruthenians, and Ukrainian Catholics Nameless, I do not mean to diminish John's very valid point, by being lighthearted or facetious, but let's forget neither our Slovak brethren, nor especially our tiny remnant Georgian brothers and sisters, please! Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
And, of course, those who prefer the Old Rite.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Our hierarchs have ignored what Rome has said to do for a long time, after all, they know what is best. We don�t need an authentic liturgy, let�s make it up as we go, we don�t owe anything to anyone.
Sine Nomine.
Dear Sine, What I don't understand is why there isn't someone in Rome watching over this kind of thing, with the authority to stop just this kind of run-away liberal nonsense. How could the bishops and their committee be so out of touch with our Church? Don't the bishops actually talk to the people? Don't the bishops care what their people have to say? Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 156 |
Originally posted by Nicholas... What I don't understand is why there isn't someone in Rome watching over this kind of thing, with the authority to stop just this kind of run-away liberal nonsense. Not to be unkind, but Rome in its dubious wisdom gave birth to the NO mess, which continues to this day. Seeing as how the RC�s haven�t kept their own liturgical house in order, why would you expect them to do it for your own church? ~Isaac
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Dear Isaac,
Reasonable point, you're right.
But then, where are Byzantines to turn for support, when their own leadership, and the "committee" seem ready to take us in another direction, blindly following all the mistakes the R. C. Church made in the 70's and 80's?
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
