The Christ Has Died
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Unlike the other translations and unlike the Mortem Tuam, the Christ Has Died addresses no one.

    The consecration has just occurred. The Lord is present anew, newly present, has been here all along but has just arrived in a new way--we come into His Presence in a new way, by the will of the Father and of the One who said, "With longing I have longed to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15)

    In response to the Lord's moment of sacrifice, to His high priesthood and His love, we can sing to Him, addressing Him, telling Him of our hope.

    Or we can sing the Christ Has Died.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    How true! Never thought of it that way.
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    I tell this to everyone who can stand to listen to me. :¬)
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    But is the Mortem Tuum really that superior to Christ Has Died? I'm wondering what people would be saying if the situation were reversed, if the Latin text amounted to "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again," while the English said, "We announce your death, O Lord, and we confess your resurrection, until you come." Wouldn't people be complaining that the Latin was all about God, while the English was people-centered, all about what we do, even though it's nominally addressed to God? And that it's pointlessly self-referential to preen about "We announce your death" instead of, you know, simply announcing his death without the added narration about the fact that we're doing it? "Can't we, even at this most sacred of moments," people would say, "just focus on God without constantly injecting little comments about ourselves into everything?"

    I agree, of course, that our English translations should be straightforward translations of the Latin, not rewritings or new compositions. But I'm not at all convinced that, strictly on the merits, there's anything particularly good about the Mortem Tuum or particularly bad about the Christ Has Died.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    That's why accurate translations are so important- they absolve us of having to have an opinion about the relative merits of different phraseologies.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    To echo Adam,

    I'm not in charge of deciding those things. And I'm glad I'm not - because then everyone else would be too.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    To echo (And amplify) Skirp

    Yet another reason progressives should be loathe to alter the liturgy to pursue their (our?) agendas:
    If I can alter the liturgy for my progressive agenda, what would stop someone else from altering the liturgy for their conservative agenda?
    Answer: nothing.
    Ergo: Orthopraxis is the only reasonable approach to liturgy.

    To paraphrase James 1:
    Don't just read the Missal. Do what it says.


    I'm all for the exegetical analysis of why the prayers say what they do. Very helpful. But it can move us into territory where we start saying, "The reason we should say 'And with your Spirit' instead of 'Also with you' is related to this long, complicated theological explanation which I am now going to explain to you, and which you may or may not agree with."
    Nope.
    The reason we should say, "And with your Spirit" is that that's what the prayer says. Period.

    Same with the text of the Mystery of Faith. We should say the right text because it is the right text. Our understanding of what extrinsically makes the right text better than one we just made up one day is beside the point, and suggests that the problem is the content, rather than the fact that we just made it up one day.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    All of that not denigrate Kathy's explanation. I think she has a worthwhile point. I just think that it's a point that shouldn't even have to be argued.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    For me, it's consoling to have a good reason for the things that are required. The old expression is "faith seeks understanding."
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Keeping in mind that I agree with you, Kathy, it's just important to realize that someone else could present a compelling reason for the opposite viewpoint.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Actually, Bishop Trautman has already made a somewhat similar argument. He suggests that the inadequacy of the Christ Has Died is its lack of reference to the gathered assembly.

    However, "making reference" to something is relatively minor, I think, in liturgy. What matters much more, I am convinced, is directionality. "Directionality" is my term for this question: Who is being addressed?

    The reason it is more important is because it deals with the presence of the living God. The great sin of the Israelites in the desert was asking, "Is God in our midst, or not?" That is a question that the liturgy must answer affirmatively.

    Whereas the Christ Has Died equivocates.
Add a Comment