Australian bishops no longer Catholic?

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Since we've entertained another discussion from PrayTell, this one seemed interesting.

The impulse seems to be "how un-Catholic can we make this?"

https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2022/07/08/australian-plenary-council-requests-new-translation-of-the-roman-missal/

Schönbergian

I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion from this very tame list of propositions:

The new translation is probably a dud, but it's not necessarily an affront to the Church.

irishtenor

Doesn't seem that tame to me:
1) "includes all in the assembly" = obviously code for "inclusive" language. As described by The Rev. Robert Sokolowski way back in 1993,

"Do the bishops even have the authority to change the words of Scripture in this way? Whether they do is questionable; one might argue that they do not. It is their obligation to hand on undistorted what they have received. The bishops are successors of the Apostles, not successors of the Evangelists. No one knows what the Evangelists would have written if they were alive now; all we do know is what they did in fact write. The faithful have a right to hear the word of God as it was written, not as it has been systematically and deliberately interpreted by people who have a certain ideological point of view."

2) I don't know what the Australian bishops' 2003 guidelines say about lay preaching, but I don't think there ought to be a "formal ministry of Preaching" that is open to lay people, as it significantly and detrimentally blurs the roles between the clergy and the laity.

3) Wider application of general absolution is something liberals in the Church have been advocating for years. We need more real, individual confessions, not more general absolution, which has been used in situations where there is no legitimate opportunity for individual confessions, like in the case of war or national emergency. There ought to be no expansion of this practice.

ServiamScores

Speaking for myself, I don't want "language that is sensitive to the call for language that communicates clearly and includes all in the assembly". I want a translation of what has always been said. And since when was "brethren" not an all-inclusive term?

Schönbergian

And since when was "brethren" not an all-inclusive term?

Since "brethren and sistren" appeared in the Sarum Missal.

CharlesW

My understanding is that in the early days of the church there were three confessable sins, apostasy, murder and adultery. I'm fine with that but I do think the western church went overboard splitting hairs on sins. General absolution? Sometimes it could be a good fit especially when there are priest shortages and getting to individual confession becomes difficult. Also distances when great could be a barrier to individual confession.

Let's see how this all shakes out. I am not ready to condemn the bishops just yet.

CHGiffen

Sounds as if we need a new word ... something like "sybliren"?

a_f_hawkins

It was "Orate fratres et sorores ..." in at least 23 dioceses in various European countries at the time of the Council of Trent.

CHGiffen

C.f. https://docslib.org/doc/7387020/orate-fratres-et-sorores-in-the-medieval-mass-liturgy

GerardH

What a stupid and un-called-for discussion title. There is no basis in the article linked for a claim like that.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

If the Australians are calling for inclusion which recognizes the community, or everyone or whatever, they're making it more anthropocentric, which is a fundamentally bad thing.

"Ministries" open to women are that way because someone absolutely disregarded the truth. They were "minor orders", linked to the priesthood for years. Someone wants to get more women in the sanctuary (and as deaconesses, too), so whether the concept makes any sense or not won't be taken as a litmus test.

I stand by my assessment of the article.

Based on the behaviors of some rather well known German cardinals (princes of the Church), the concept of the integrity of the faith is clearly foreign to them.

TCJ

They could just go back to the Latin missal.

GerardH

You're really clutching at straws Chris. Two of your four points aren't even from the article you originally linked.

It is also worth noting that resolutions like these are more the influence of vocal laity from a generation whose influence is already (finally) waning. The other activities of the Plenary Council, particularly refusal to pass a motion which would support a female diaconate give much promise for the future.

I, for one, have lately noticed how impenetrable "And with your spirit" would be to a first-time Mass attendee.

davido

The whole religion is about mystery! It’s supposed to all be impenetrable to a first time mass attendee. The rites are explained as they become initiated into the religion.

GerardH

(As a caveat, I also think we shouldn't change the translation while the ink of the last is still wet on the page)

Schönbergian

I, for one, have lately noticed how impenetrable "And with your spirit" would be to a first-time Mass attendee.

That change would have to come from the Missal itself, rather than from the translation.

a_f_hawkins

The words which we in the congregation are expected to say should be so familiar to us that we do not need an order of service. Those words should not be changed but expounded. Indeed I see no reason why they should not routinely left in Latin/Greek/Hebrew.
OTOH words which the priest prays just once a year, as with some collects, need to be comprehensible, preferably without any need to read them ourselves. Some of our present orations are translated with such an unEnglish concatenation of sub-clauses that I have heard celebrants who seemed to have lost the thread of what they were praying.

tomjaw

Since "brethren and sistren" appeared in the Sarum Missal.

How would this occur the Sarum Missal is in Latin... I have access to the last printed editions on microfilm so could check if you give a reference. It also should be remembered that one of the reasons for the Western uprising, was the imposition of an English service that was incomprehensible to the local people because they did not speak English. They spoke what we would call Cornish and happily followed the Latin of the Mass for centuries.

Salieri

Some of the collects in the 2010 Missal would read much better if they were rendered in 16th century English; indeed some read as if they WERE rendered in 16th century English, then "modernized" by simply, and inelegantly, removing the -ests and -eths, thees and thys.

GerardH

Chris, editing your comment to remove the four arguments I referenced is in bad faith. If you wish to retract your statements, at least own up to it.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Gerard,

No bad faith was intended. When I read your rebuttal, I also saw that my comment appeared not to have posted, so I was very confused. Thinking there was a computer glitch on my end, I deleted the post (since it showed in the "edit" screen). Then I tried again to encapsulate what needed to be said, and the post you see as edited (which it is) is the result.

I'll happily take up any objections you'd like to raise (other than your claim that I'm clutching at straws). What did I leave out that so offended you the first time?

MatthewRoth

Further, general absolution must be followed by confession as soon as possible.

as to the number of dioceses with a variant text of the Orate, fratres, that would be a distinct minority of dioceses.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Matthew,

Thank you for jogging my memory.

Gerard,

The list of proposals put forward, as identified by Schoenbergian, includes an expansion of general absolution. While there is a legitimate place for general absolution, it is much smaller than the Australians imagine. More to the point, making general absolution more available will make integral, auricular confession less common, and, in so doing, will attack the priesthood. One essential part of the priesthood is the sacramental absolution of sinners. If there is already a shortage of priests, demeaning the priesthood in general and the need for confession and absolution in particular, will make that problem worse. Thus, I stand by my observation that these bishops (and the laymen of the advisory board or whatever it's called) seem intent on ceasing to be Catholic.

I remain willing, however, to modify my opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary, since it seems possible that they're doing something else and only cluelessly sawing off the branch on which they're sitting.

ServiamScores

While there is a legitimate place for general absolution, it is much smaller than the Australians imagine. More to the point, making general absolution more available will make integral, auricular confession less common,

In the age of the auto-mobile, there is little that is too difficult. We aren't traversing mountains, mid winter, by foot to go to confession. MANY people drive an hour (one way) to mass, for instance, in relative ease and comfort. More to the point: if there is a priest who can give general absolution, there is also a priest who can hear confession. We've seen in the past that general absolution gets HEAVILY abused, wherever it is permitted to 'flourish'. It is the easy out. And much like the strictures for papal infallibility, there are genuine and very constraining strictures for general absolutions (think: plane is about to crash and everyone is virtually assured death, for instance). I'll grant that in very mountainous regions in South America, there are areas where priests can frequent only rarely (this was part of the argument for broadening the diaconate and for married priests during the [sc]Amazonian Synod) but I think a much better approach than just waiving your priestly wand and forgiving everything writ large, would be to spend four hours prior to an evening Mass hearing confessions, and only THEN have mass once souls have been properly cleansed and prepared.

Liam

"Further, general absolution must be followed by confession as soon as possible."

Yes, if you are (or should be) conscious of grave sin.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Liam,

Are you aware of a large body of the faithful who know they must make a good confession as soon as possible afterwards? Does the Australian bleat sound as if it wants to encourage individual, integral auricular confession or replace it?

a_f_hawkins

Catechesis on Confession: Participants asked the bishops’ liturgy commission to devise “a sustained program of catechesis of the Sacrament of Penance to promote an understanding of the conditions for and appropriate practice of each of the three forms of the Rite of Penance.”

MatthewRoth

Liam, Chris’s point is mostly my own, but I find this sort of nitpicking annoying. The< people proposing an expansion of general absolution, or who use it illicitly, never suggest that one must confess as soon as possible afterwards.

Liam

All of them, including all of the bishops proposing this? That's belied by the wording on it, which specifically includes a sustained program of catechesis about the conditions and appropriate practice of each form, including Form III.

I should add I am no fan of widespread use of Form III, and have experienced my fair (or unfair) share of poor practice of Forms I and II; I've never experienced Form III.

That said, there is nothing unorthodox with the wording of that proposal, and as such it cannot be credibly labeled so. One might question the motives of some who proposed it or voted for its proposal, but not question them in a consequentialist manner.

a_f_hawkins

I have experienced form 3 once, in the 70s. It transformed my life, for the better. I have never seen it on offer anywhere nearby since, and doubt I would avail myself of the opportunity, unless like that one it was the culmination of four hour long penitential reflections/sermons, and was not even announced until the end of the third service. I suspect the English bishops have more or less eliminated it.

MarkB

Several years ago, when the State of Hawaii sent out a false alert that North Korea had launched a missile targeting Oahu, the Bishop of Honolulu entered the cathedral to interrupt morning Mass being said by another priest. He announced the news about the missile alert, and he gave general absolution to all those present.

That seems to be a circumstance in which general absolution would be warranted.

CharlesW

When you get right down to it, if "Peter" has all the authority to forgive sins that scripture has given him, he wouldn't need anyone else's approval to change the way it is now done. So it seems that we are tilting at windmills that have minds of their own as to which direction they will rotate. As I noted above, it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Matthew,

You, Liam and I appear to agree with each other, then.

MatthewRoth

I mean, I stand by it. They never do anything to make it stick, and I'll believe it when I see it.

chonak

Chris, the forum is not a place in which to accuse Catholic bishops of not being Catholic. Please see the Forum Etiquette Guidelines of this is not clear to you.

I am closing this thread.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories