In our Mass booklet, most of it seems quite familiar with the thees and the thous and with the Revised Standard Version, when the readings are chanted, I don’t find I’m thinking, ick why can’t we have the King James?
But then we come to the part that says “May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands . . . ” and it drives me nuts.
Why oh why did the Mass get approved like this? What is wrong with a sense of continuity, consistency, tone, musicality? To suddenly go from “thee” and “thou” to “you” does not make logical sense and I hope this jarring element is corrected when the final Eucharistic liturgy is approved.
I’ve heard some parishes just substitute the thees and thous and get on with it. Someone in my parish told me she already substitutes it. How about you? What does your parish do?
It is equally jarring when in the liturgies approved for funerals and weddings, everywhere where we would expect “ye,” all we find is “you.” Yuck.
Dear Maximilian,
I have just checked the Funeral Rite – the only time that “you” is used instead of “ye” is in readings from the Revised Standard Version, which is the authorised bible version for the Ordinariates and which, unfortunately, does not use “thee”, “thou”, “ye”. But we won’t change that because of the British copyright which prevents the King James (Authorised) Version from being adapted to produce a Catholic Edition.
David Murphy
David,
You wrote: But we won’t change that because of the British copyright which prevents the King James (Authorised) Version from being adapted to produce a Catholic Edition.
I doubt that there would be a need for a distinct “Catholic Edition” of the “Authorized Version” of the bible, as the original edition thereof actually contains the entire Catholic canon of scripture. But more fundamentally, the magisterium of the Catholic Church has always maintained the position that the translation itself is flawed, and thus not acceptable for use in Catholic worship. I have not delved into this issue in sufficient depth to understand the particular points of contention.
Norm.
This is in response to Norm, who says the King James Bible translation is flawed. It is very hard to believe it is more flawed than the New American Bible.
Deborah,
You wrote: This is in response to Norm, who says the King James Bible translation is flawed.
To be clear, that is not my opinion, but rather what I understand to be the opinion of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
You wrote: It is very hard to believe it is more flawed than the New American Bible.
Okay, I’ll bite. How do you perceive the New American Bible, which is an authentic translation from the oldest extant manuscripts and which has received the Vatican’s approval for liturgical use, to be defective?
Norm.
It’s not gonna be able to be changed again?
Was Cordileone responsible for this?
My suggestion: respectfully rebel against the banalization of the faith until it becomes apparent that the advocates of “you” and “your”, etc. Are an insignificant minority who happened to have influence and power rather than respect for tradition.
Let me tell you about the story of a bishop in Orange County, California who refused to give communion to a person who knelt in front of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to receive His Body.
In Canada, a parishioner who knelt every Sunday in an (unsuccessful) attempt to receive communion in this posture was eventually charged with “disrupting a religious service.” She was found guilty, appealed at several levels and eventually defended herself in the Supreme Court of Canada, her Catholic Diocese supporting the prosecution every step of the way at who knows what expense. The Church doesn’t like it when you don’t follow the rules.
h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM- Cardinal Arinze, member of the Roman Curia, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, speaks of this issue.
The “Church” in Canada, much like in the U.S., means the bunch of liberalizing, homosexual pagans who dress like bishops and ought to be burnt at the stake. (Except those quiet few who will remain unknown until the time is right.)
Though the mainstream successfully smears the SSPX, they should exercise their supposed tolerance by looking for the truth in what they say. We have looked at the “Truths” the liberal Catholics espouse, and what we see is that there is no objective “Truth” and so there is no need for Catholicism other than for a sense of “Culture” and to say “I’m Catholic” in the same way some Jews say “I’m Jewish” but could not tell what the Decalogue is.
I bet those bishops hate the Ordinariates as well, considering the damage they do to “Ecumenical relations” with the godless Protestants. Say yes to the face of the Pope, and do the opposite behind his back. This is why Summorum Pontificum has been ignored or outright opposed by bishops in the U.S.
I will resist this. Our numbers are growing, the Novus Ordo is dying, and their children fleeing the wreckage of the modernist “Church” they warped. You can accept this, or pretend that there’s nothing wrong with the way things are.
Also:
I am Catholic before American, Canadian, or whatever else. I am not a member of the Church of Canada or The Church of the United States. So, I am prepared to butt heads with secular authorities and their lackeys in the Church.
“The Church doesn’t like it when you don’t follow the rules.”
Tell that to the Chinese Christians who resist the atheist government there.
Or, if obedience to unjust laws is necessary, that is, when you follow the rules, maybe the U.S. bishops shouldn’t resist when young men and women demand condoms from the Archdiocesan office.
I will break the rules, even if it means breaking the arms of the reprobate “Risen Christ” which had taken place of Christ Crucified in churches.
And I will break the rules even if I have to kneel and crawl to show reverence to my God, who is ignored by “Catholics”- arrest me if they want. I am determined, they are not.
I am one disgruntled Catholic, and I have cause for my anger. It takes one more push, just one more push before I do something drastic.
An anglican minister in my parish, said to me;” Good luck whith them! They are more conservitive than Mgr. Lefebvre. Was he rigth?????. I was so happy for the Ordinariate specially whith those beautifull Hymns!
I hope the Ordinariates are MORE conservative than Msgr. Lefebvre-
Because SSPX and their members are nothing more than Protestants who refuse to obey the will of the Pope.
Conservatism means to retain what has been kept, the opposite of liberalism, which has manifested itself in the Church for the last 40 to 50 years. Probably a product of moral cowardice after the trauma of World War 2.
When World War 1 ended, people who had the power to stop Hitler did not stop Hitler because they were moral cowards. They were so afraid of what happened during the Great War that they forgot to do what was right and settled for a self-congratulatory rationalization of their cowardice. Hence, Hitler became powerful, and the Second World War occurred.
After the Second World War, people were so afraid of war that they embraced anything to prevent another war from happening. Even atheism and communism- it was moral cowardice again. This policy of “Peace for any price” left the world without honor, without God, and without integrity. And it’s all in vain. War is perpetual on this Earth.
Deborah, If oyu came from the north of England, you would have grown up with the English language as she is spoke, and the common usage of the thees and the thous. The words might be shortened somewhat: Wheere’s ta bin?’ being translated as ‘Where hast thou been?’: now if the comment was ‘Where have you been?’ it would refer to two or more being the recipients of the question, whereas the thee and the thou being second person singular, will only be used for an individual who is being addressed.
Given the predilection for concelebration that you see in your new jursidiction, it might cause more confusion if the rubrics announced that if there is one priest and one alone, then use ‘May the Lord accept this sacrifice at thy hands’ but if there is a conclebrated Mass, then use ‘May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands’………………
Deborah,
You asked: Why oh why did the Mass get approved like this?
There are two possibilities.
>> 1. The line in question was taken from the English translation of the Roman Missal because it did not have a counterpart in the previous prayer book.
>> 2. The decision to use of “your” rather than “thy” was deliberate, and motivated by the fact that the reference in question is to the presiding celebrant rather than to God.
Norm.
Norm,
Why then do we use “thy” to address the priest in “And with thy spirit”?
David Murphy
David,
You wrote: Why then do we use “thy” to address the priest in “And with thy spirit”?
Actually, there’s another answer to that in a subsequent post. In a concelebrated mass, the “you” in the sentence in question is plural since it refers to the principal celebrant and all of the concelebrants whereas the “thy” in “And with thy spirit” is always singular. If the post in question is accurate, the alternative would be two responses, the use of which would depend upon the presence of concelebrants, to preserve the archaic use.
Norm.
Pingback: The jarring “you” in the middle of a Book of Divine Worship Mass | Catholic Canada
This prayer from the Offertory is a direct import from the 1975 Roman Sacramentary, and is part of the Rite I Eucharistic liturgy of the Book of Divine Worship. Ever since I’ve been attending St. Athanasius Boston (about 11 years) and long before, we have has a slightly different version, which uses Rite I language.
May the Lord receive this sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of his Name, both to our benefit, and that of all his holy Church.
The rest of the imported Novus Ordo offertory rite, is almost never heard, because we’re chanting the offertory verse and singing a hymn, so it is said in a low voice by the celebrant (as the rubrics specify it should).
The small booklets we use at St. Athanasius were printed up long before the Book of Divine Worship was an actual published book, and there are a few variances from the standard in our order, although nothing jarring. This particular bit of jarring (because out-of-character) language (of which Fr. Phillips has written, as he was involved with the creation of the BDW) has been frequently discussed. I understand a “standard” version of the rite has been sent to Ordinariate parishes by the US Ordinariate; Msgr Steenson was clearly not happy with the great diversity in the way Mass has been celebrated in Ordinariate communities when he spoke about this at the Anglican Use Society meeting in November.
This language in the offertory certainly has nothing to do with Archbishop Cordileone, as the Anglicanae Traditiones commission of which he is a member was only erected after the publication of Anglicanorum coetibus. The work of that commission will be to fashion an Anglican liturgy acceptable to all of the Ordinariates. I have my doubts as to whether the offertory as it now stands in the BDW will survive; it has been the subject of frequent criticism. But we in the Anglican Use have been putting up with it for many years; I’m sure our new Ordinariate brethern should be able to tolerate it for a hopefully much shorter period before the Ordinariate liturgy is published by Rome.
Well….officially:
Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004):
“59. The reprobated practice by which priests, deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.”
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002); §24 applied by extention:
“Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.”
Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22.3:
“Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.”
The problem is that between the options permitted by the Missal itself, the options permitted by a latter decree of a Roman Dicastery, and those permitted by the Episcopal conference, a Priest can do whatever he wants with the Mass. In the countryside of my country, most Masses start from the Gloria on. Because, you know, confessing sins is so outdated.
+ pax et bonum
Tim, true, true, but I’m not sure that this is directly applicable to the situation for the Anglican Use at this time. Keep in mind that the rubrics are very sparse in the BDW; the priest has to supply his own, and rightly that should be from historic Anglo-Catholic practice; for example, it is typical to wear a cope for processions. Since Fr. Phillips often begins his principal Mass with a procession, he wears the cope through the Liturgy of the Word, changing to a Chasuble for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The General Instruction for the Roman Missal really doesn’t apply to the BDW liturgy.
As for the texts, as I pointed out in my post, there was no published text available until many years after we had been a community; the booklets we had published for congregational use were based on what had been approved, but there was no editio typica against which to compare, and so we have a couple of slight variations. I do not think this is what is being talked about in Sacrosanctum Concilium; it’s not as though we have to wonder what’s going to be said from one Mass to the next because things are ad libbed (or as the first document you quote from puts it “vary at will”). We have a stable liturgy which the people know and pray instinctively.
Tim,
You wrote: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002); §24 applied by extention:
“Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.”
Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22.3:
“Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.”
The words “on his own initiative” or “on his own authority” are crucial in both of these directives.
>> 1. There are instances in which the liturgical rites themselves explicitly direct the principal celebrant to adapt wording to the circumstances of each celebration. This might be something as simple as modifying the number and gender of pronouns according to the individual(s) to whom a particular text is actually being addressed to something more extensive that might require different wording in circumstances not foreseen when the text was actually written. In the latter case, I’m thinking of the prefacio for the Mass of Thanksgiving Day in the Dioceses of the United States of America as it appeared in the 1975 edition of the sacramentary, which said in part (boldface added):
Now, here, the words in boldface made perfect sense when celebrating this mass on terra firma here in the U. S. of A.
But what about when a Navy chaplain celebrates this mass aboard a navy ship at sea, or an Army or Air Force chaplain celebrates this mass at a base in Germany or Japan, or when a group of pilgrims from the United States celebrate this mass in Rome or in the Holy Land? Under such circumstances, I would suggest that replacement of the boldfaced words with “our homeland” would be reasonable, even if one cannot find specific direction to do so — and I sincerely doubt that any bishop or anybody from the Roman curia would take a priest to task for it. In fact, a bishop’s most likely reaction would be an “atta boy” along the approving lines of, “Yes, I understand the situation, and I think that you handled it well.”
>> 2. Also, suppose that a priest, foreseeing an unusual situation, requested and obtained an indult for a specific change to the wording. Or suppose that the Congregation for Divine Worship had authorized a parish or other stable community to adopt some experimental use for some period of time to evaluate it. If you were to walk in the door of such a parish and assist at its mass, would you have knowledge that there was in fact proper authorization for the deviation from standard practice?
In reality, these directives were rather aimed at preventing abuses, such as priests who were baptizing “… in the name of the Creator and the Redeemer and the Santifier” rather than “… in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” out of a misguided sense of political correctness, that can render sacraments invalid.
Norm.
“I have my doubts as to whether the offertory as it now stands in the BDW will survive”
Hopefully not. The “Offertory” as such not being a true “Offertory,” but Bugnini’s Preparatio of ancient Jewish grace prayers. It’s not the jewishness of the prayers I find objectionable, but the fact that they’re precisely that – prayers for grace before meals.
I think it probable that the traditional Offertory prayers of the Roman Rite will be restored, and in the meantime, if you’re going to throw the rules to the wind and use “thee” and “thou,” why not turn to the translation of the nearest Baronius…?
“Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation…”
I have no idea if that will be the case or not, Jon, but the particular prayer under consideration is also found in the EF offertory rite.
Dear Jon,
Nobody is throwing any rules to the wind. The Ordinariates are specifically called to bring Anglican Patrimony into the Church, and it has been decided officially by the Vatican that the traditional Prayer Book language (with “thee”s and “thou”s) is such an element of patrimony.
David Murphy
Deborah, may I request that you delete the totally disrespectful and inflammatory comments made above by Johannes? This is precisely the reason why some of our Ordinariate friends do not read our blogs or comment on them, because they fear to read comments of this totally unacceptable variety.
David Murphy
David Murphy.
Ultimately, it is Mrs. Gyapong who will do as she pleases with her blog. And I will follow what she tells me to do while I am a regular commentator on her blog.
This is not so much an argument but an observation/explanation- Often times, unpleasant things are necessary. When one like myself has built up a reputation of being unpleasant, tact and diplomacy can be cast aside for some honest, plain talk about what one feels and why this is. For example, it is utterly unacceptable for a Catholic diocese to persecute someone because they kneel. This is illegal. I also mean it when I hurl venom at bishops who don’t do anything worthy of their office. (with very notable exceptions you all know through this blog and others.) This includes perpetuating the existence of a homosexual sub-culture among even powerful and influential high-ranking clergy. And to allow paganism into the Church for the sake of “political correctness” or “inclusiveness”? That sort of betrayal is terrible. Not only do upright bishops suffer, but also the anonymous churchgoer. No faithful Catholic deserve to feel as if they have to subscribe to wrong ideas in order to fit in- the Church is troubled, and the Ordinariates are a part of the solution, not the problem.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2012/02/apostolic-nuncio-to-canada-on-kneeling.html
Direct your hate and anger to this goat, that’s okay with me. It’s fine, I’m an anonymous person. That has been my life wherever I went. It’s when people with names and reputations who lead people start to talk like me that it becomes a problem. (For example, certain leaders of SSPX.)
I would like to use this comment as an opportunity to thank Mrs. Gyapong for putting up with me. I have already told her that I will try to tone down and try to avoid drawn-out arguments with people I disagree with. (This isn’t an argument, by the way.)
One can only admire those who are dealing with you and the rest of their blog flock in a pastoral way. In this spirit, you might reflect that those who persecute “kneelers” and those who fulminate against “standers” are coming from the same place: “It’s my way or the highway”. What exactly that way is, is less important than the inability to credit that anyone could have a good faith disagreement with it, or believe that respectful dialogue could accomplish anything of Christian importance. This intransigent mindset, in both its liberal and conservative manifestations, is a huge obstacle to those considering membership in the Catholic church, I believe.
The Lord demands His Way or Hell. Oh, what trouble that caused. But I will not labor that point to avoid any further arguments.
I originally did not care whether people stood or knelt, received on the tongue or hand, whether the priest faced the people, allowed dancing women at the sanctuary, and so forth. Church wasn’t a big part of anything and I was just the regular “Do what everyone else does, pretend to understand” churchgoer. I can’t say when the change occurred, but it definitely happened after my encounter with atheism and the inability of my church leaders to satisfactorily answer any fundamental and difficult questions posed about my faith. I read and researched and looked at books and websites, and sure enough, the answers that were certain came from the conservative side. Orthodox Catholicism is the right Catholicism.
I’d rather have good Catholic members than a billion converts who think they can do whatever they want and would not obey legitimate authority. But if my own fight against liberalism and heterodoxy in the Church is a stumbling block, at least in the battlefront of evangelization, I’ll take the fight elsewhere.