Association of Catholic Priests
August 21, 2011
There is a website from the U.S. that is very encouraging for anyone who is concerned about the introduction of the New Missal. The points they make in their mission statement bear a great similarity to the position we in the ACP adopted.
Categories: Articles, Liturgical Texts Debate
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:30 pm The mission statement of “Misguided Missal” is also similar to a STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES some of us priests with a goodly number of lay folks have adopted here in Louisville, KY, USA.
The RM3 is a terrible injustice inflicted on us English-speaking Catholics by fiat from some Vatican authorities. The imposition of this missal is a stab in the heart of Vatican II, maybe even a fatal stab, and I suspect that’s what those Vatican authorities have been after for a long time.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:49 pm Jim,
I fully agree with your description of the imposition of the New Missal as a violent action. You see it as a stab in the heart of Vatican II. I would go further: I see it and experience it as a stab to the heart of the Body of Christ, the Church community. But that stab to the heart is only one more after many other stabs to the Body of Christ. We can try and minimize it, rationalise it, submit to the counsel of despair, plead the necessity of obedience for the sake of unity etc… but the Body is truly bleeding from multiple cuts and the Heart is pierced.
September 8th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
The ‘RM3' as you choose to call it is a great step forward in the right direction. I (as a young, female Catholic) have had enough of people trying to introduce gender inclusive language where it needn’t be. I’m all for equality but if people don’t have the common sense to realise that ‘for us men and for our salvation’ refers to all of mankind (or ‘humankind’ as I’m sure you’d prefer me to say), then I’d really despair over what is going on in the minds of those in the pews. Far from being a ‘stab in the heart of Vatican II’, the new translation is a step towards the true intentions of the Council. I’m sick of people using the Council as an excuse to bring about their own arbitrary changes.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:40 am
How will it help people to pray bettter and with more understanding, and how will it help us to relate better with one another following the example of Jesus — to say “consubstantial with” instead of “one with” the Father and Holy Spirit?
No one in authority can give a reasonable answer to these questions!
October 4th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Aristophilos, exactly! Also – what about ‘chalice’ for good, honest ‘cup’? This is the word that’s standing out for me in particular this week. Each individual change is, in its turn, found to be so unnecessary, irritating and counter-spirituality to say the least. However, as a reader, I’ve been told to say ‘The Word of the Lord’ instead of ‘This is the Word of the Lord’
I’m perfectly happy to drop ‘This is’ – because it doesn’t alter meaning or ‘get in the way’ of rhythm and flow. Why, therefore, could not each item of the (proposed) liturgical changes have been introduced gradually, with opportunity for all of us to discuss and comment before its introduction? I suppose because it’s now ‘I believe’, instead of ‘We believe’ In other words, an implacable imposition rather than an insight gathered from the community of believers.
October 4th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
On the other hand, Wendy, for those of us oldies who have always seen a chalice as a chalice, then chalice seems just right. And for all of us country folk reared on mugs of tae, a cup was always just a bit flowery, fragile and frivolous with nothing either functional or sublime about it. And for those of us with a grá for history or heritage, the Ardagh Chalice will always be a chalice, though it looks more like a ciborium to me. And since the same Ardagh Chalice is the model for the Sam Maguire, I look forward to next September when Armagh will pick up the Sam Maguire Chalice for only the second time. Real celebration calls for words that lift us!