Talk about discombobulating the liturgical assembly with an unnecessary revision to the time immemorial Diocesan Prayer for Vocations and all thanks to PI! I think we should organize a diocesan wide movement of "Can't we just wait" before this questionable translation is imposed upon the poor priests, religious, deacons and lay faithful of the diocese.
And while it took more than 15 years for our new English translation of the Mass to be finalized and then implemented, all it took for PI to discombobulate the entire diocese was the suggestion that deacons be included in the vocation prayer and before you know it a re-translation is imposed upon the poor faithful and priests of the diocese!
We implemented the new translation last night for the first time at our 4:30 PM Sunday anticipated Vigil. It was more traumatic than the First Sunday of Advent last year when we implemented the marvelous, well thought out new English translation of the Mass that my congregation wholeheartedly and without a blink of the eye accepted and made their own immediately.
But not so with this new botched edition of the time and immemorial Diocesan Vocation Prayer. I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! See for yourself:
This is the Time Immemorial edition of the Diocesan Vocation Prayer:
O God, hear my prayer and let my cry come unto you. Bless our diocese of Savannah with many priestly and religious vocations. Give the men and women you call the light to understand your gift and the love to follow always in the footsteps of your priestly Son.
What lovely syntax, what wonderful tradition! Sadly all gone for this putrid revision:
O God, hear our prayer and let our cry come unto You. Bless our Diocese of Savannah with many vocations to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life. Give the men and women You call the light to understand Your gift and the love to follow always in the footsteps of Your priestly Son. Amen.
On another sore note, I lost the battle that this prayer should not be recited during Mass collectively at the conclusion of the Universal Prayer and that simply a petition should be included modeled on the old, most lovely and totally adequate prayer which is meant for private devotion and popular devotions apart from Mass.
Today, though, we have joined the rest of the diocese in reciting this popular, private devotional prayer during the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and our parishioners knew the old, time immemorial prayer by heart, all the more heart wrenching when from beneath their feet last night and this weekend a new and less improved private devotional prayer is foisted upon the liturgical assembly discombobulating them and the celebrant in a way that is, well, heart wrenching! Can't we just say, WAIT!
A disclaimer: I unilaterally changed the time immemorial Diocesan vocation prayer in the 1980's when I was vocation director when I removed "young" from "...Give the YOUNG men and women you call the light..." as at that time we were recruiting decrepit old men for the priesthood, many of whom have retired or died already!
And one final sour note, why wasn't vocations to the fullness of Holy Orders included, ..."many vocations to the order of bishops, priests, diaconate and religious life..."?
Maybe because like deacons, we don't need more bishops?!!!
And what about lay ministry, such as pastoral assistants, acolytes, sub deacons, lectors, and the like, why not include them?????????? Oh the humanity of it all! Can't we just wait?
17 comments:
Once again, he represents the very worst that questionable seminary education can produce. The Bishop must be pretty obtuse, as well, to accept this piece of garbage. God help us!
You're welcome.
22I know nothing about the Diocese of Savannah. As an historian with a specialization in military history I know quite a lot about the American Civil War, or if you prefer, the war between the states. The first of the three great wars of the Industrial Revolution (to quote John Terraine) was studied in the military academies of Europe from the 1860s onwards.
Unfortunately I was around in the 1960s and experienced the change of the liturgy from an objective to a subjective dynamic. I hated it then and still do. There was a time when I thought that I might be a lone voice, but reading Ratzinger's 'Spirit of the Liturgy' opened my eyes. I resolved there and then to study and sing Gregorian Chant, helped by the fact that I was Latin-literate and musically aware.
I saw this is the Southern Cross and didn't know PI was the author. I did, however, note that this was a really silly revision. I instantly recognized the problem with the use of "our". The prayer was already problematic in that it appears to beseech God for female priests. That error should have been the portion up for correction. The last thing we need is more permanent deacons... But, female priests and more permanent deacons fit right in with Pater and his ilk's endgame for the Church.
I completely agree with Gene's comment, especially his estimation of the bishop, who is ultimately responsible for this nonsense.
Just a disclaimer here, my post on this was tongue-in-cheek, although I do believe even now that private prayers of this type should not be recited during Mass. I might add that it is dubious to do it before or after Mass also. It is a private prayer which could be recited publicly at other prayer services or popular devotions.
I do not intend to denigrate our bishop for allowing this, but I do think it should be thought out better and I had not thought of Marc's concern about the implicit praying for female priests (give the men and women you call). Of course this is intended for those God calls, which in the case of women, he does not call and every Catholic should know that.
Also, I almost deleted these comments with in some ways shows disrespect to our bishop who PI and I promised respect and obedience. I do think that the type of disrespect we see today towards bishops and clergy is a sad aspect of the "spirit of Vatican II" which cannot distinguish between the office and those who hold the office and also Catholic charity in our public comments.
I respect the bishop's authority to make these changes and what not. That does not mean that I have to think they're good ideas. It isn't disrespect to voice an opinion that happens to disagree with a bishop. Calling him names or not following his directives is disrespect and disobedience. Saying he approved a prayer revision that is silly and problematic is neither disrespectful or disobedient.
Being ordained a bishop doesn't also come with the gift of perfect judgment...
And I agree with you Fr. McDonald that the prayer can be understood appropriately, but considering the lack of catechesis and the actual disobedience amongst the laity, it see,s like clarity would be better in this instance.
I noted the plural first-person this morning and knew immediately that it was payback for the requirement that we correctly recite the creed in the first-person.
Why couldn't we just have gone with something simple. Here's a good prayer from the USCCB of all people:
Father you call each one of us by name and ask us to follow you.
Bless your church by raising up dedicated and generous leaders from our families and friends who will serve your people as Sisters, Priests, Brothers, Deacons, and Lay Ministers.
Inspire us as we grow tomknow you, and open our hearts to hear your call.
Or, how about something traditional:
O Mary, Queen of the Clergy, pray for us and send us many and holy priests.
It is my understanding that the vocations prayer was written by Bishop (later archbishop) Thomas McDonough. I imagine it was written in English; at least no one has a Latin version. (Hence, references to the current re-translation to the singluar "I" in the creed do not obtain.) This is a revision, not a retranslation.
As Fr. McDonald notes, the prayer was altered years ago, removing the reference to "young" men and women being called. The not-so-young are also called to serve as priests, deacons, and religious sisters and brothers.
Only those who want there to be "confusing language" will find it. The prayer does not beseech God for female priests. If you WANT to find an "implicit" prayer for female priests, you could just as well find it in "Bless your church by raising up dedicated and generous leaders from our families and friends who will serve your people as Sisters, Priests, Brothers, Deacons, and Lay Ministers."
Like Fr. McDonald I have never been a fan of adding the prayer to the Prayers of the Faithful, preferring to use a prayer within the General Intercessions.
Why not just ignore Ignotus' nonsense and keep saying the old one? Has the Bishop mandated that we say the new one? Use the old one and tell Kavanaugh to go pound sand.
Fr. Kavanaugh, I actually noticed the potential to read-in female priests prior to really becoming cognizant of such dissidents in the Church, i.e. during or just after converting. So, I wasn't yet part of the temple police at that point!
But, I concede I am a little more sensitive to word usage and choice than most given my profession.
I agree with you and Fr. McDonald about not using this in the Prayers of the Faithful. I am surprised and pleased you also dislike this usage.
Pin/Gene - Mandated. Pound your own sand.
"It is my understanding that the vocations prayer was written by Bishop (later archbishop) Thomas McDonough. I imagine it was written in English; at least no one has a Latin version. (Hence, references to the current re-translation to the singluar "I" in the creed do not obtain.)"
But the same theology that produced the erroneous credal translation that emphasised the community instead of individual responsibility is nevertheless apparent. And the timing of its adoption by this diocese does indeed suggest that it is a response to the corrected translation of the creed. At the very least, it can't be ruled out.
I vehemently disagree with PI/Fr. K on a regular basis, but please people, let's have some respect for our clergy. Quite often I find myself feeling badly when he is trashed.
Say a prayer for him to make reparation for your sins.
Well, I question the Bishop's judgement, as well. The fact that Ignotus wants to mess with things...everything he does is a calculated "in your face" to traditional Catholics...and the Bishop thinks that is just fine is an indication of just how far we have to go.
I do not disrespect Ignotus or any clergy or Bishop when they are in persona Christi. However, they are not infallible and often, when they are not, they do stupid stuff. In fact, Bishops are a large part of the reason we are in the mess we are in. So, excuse me if I do not knock people down trying to get to Confession for my comments. I guess I still have a touch of Calvin in my blood...LOL!
Can we have some clarity, please? BOTH the first person singular (Latin) AND the first person plural (Greek and 1971-2011 English usage in the Latin rite)in the creed said at Holy Mass are from the time of Nicaea itself.
Ancil Payne
Ancil Payne,
The official Latin text that has been used by the Latin Church for 1500 years, and SC references the Latin, not the Greek. The translation of the Novus Ordo is of the phrase "Credo in unum Deum," which is singular. The VII crowd's attempt to slip in a plural is doubtless based on their tactic of claiming to return to the practices of the early church (an argument disturbingly similar to that of the 16th-century Reformers, and often used disingenuously), but it is not a faithful translation of the official text of the Creed as recognized by the Latin Church. It also ignores the relationship to the personal (first-person singular) affirmations made at Baptism that was a major reason for use of the singular to begin with.
All of this is beside the point that the Church has been using the singular for well over a thousand years until this generation decided that it knew batter that the previous 70 or 80 generations and unilaterally changed it, just like that. That's presumptuous.
Post a Comment