Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Compare Masses

Expand Messages
  • Tom Poelker
    Editorial assistant Chris Ángel has prepared the following table, where the 1967 commentary is presented alongside the full text of the Canon in both the 1967
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Editorial assistant Chris Ángel has
      prepared the following table, where
      the 1967 commentary is presented
      alongside the full text of the Canon
      in both the 1967 translation and the
      upcoming translation (as provided on
      the USCCB Web site
      <http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml>).
      We share it with you to show
      the specific
      reasons for decisions made in the
      1960s, and also to allow you to
      see the 2010 translation against this
      background.

      Translating the Roman Canon: 1967 and
      2010 (part I)
      <http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Comparison-1967-and-2010-I.pdf>

      The second part of this three-part
      series will appear here on Wednesday.

      -----------------------------------
      I have not yet looked at this site,
      but this seems to me to be a fruitful
      and academically reasonable approach.
      If it is set up as described, it will
      offer the opportunity for one to draw
      one's own conclusions in a compare and
      contrast format.

      It could, of course, be improved if
      the Vox Clara committee were to
      publish its reasons for its different
      decisions.

      --
      *

      Tom Poelker
      St. Louis. Missouri
      USA

      /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
      It?s nice to see people smile,
      and it?s good practice. --/

      *


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dlewisaao@aol.com
      But has not Rome already spoken on this matter? David Lewis In a message dated 2/28/2011 8:47:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TomPoelker@aim.com writes:
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        But has not Rome already spoken on this matter?

        David Lewis


        In a message dated 2/28/2011 8:47:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        TomPoelker@... writes:

        Editorial assistant Chris Ángel has
        prepared the following table, where
        the 1967 commentary is presented
        alongside the full text of the Canon
        in both the 1967 translation and the
        upcoming translation (as provided on
        the USCCB Web site
        <http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml>).
        We share it with you to show
        the specific
        reasons for decisions made in the
        1960s, and also to allow you to
        see the 2010 translation against this
        background.

        Translating the Roman Canon: 1967 and
        2010 (part I)
        <http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Comparison-1967-and-
        2010-I.pdf>

        The second part of this three-part
        series will appear here on Wednesday.

        -----------------------------------
        I have not yet looked at this site,
        but this seems to me to be a fruitful
        and academically reasonable approach.
        If it is set up as described, it will
        offer the opportunity for one to draw
        one's own conclusions in a compare and
        contrast format.

        It could, of course, be improved if
        the Vox Clara committee were to
        publish its reasons for its different
        decisions.

        --
        *

        Tom Poelker
        St. Louis. Missouri
        USA

        /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
        It?s nice to see people smile,
        and it?s good practice. --/

        *


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/
        To write to the moderators, please email:
        liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Frank Senn
        David, Those of us who study liturgy don t care what a denominational bureaucracy declares.  Here are actually texts used (or to be used) in actual liturgical
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          David,

          Those of us who study liturgy don't care what a denominational bureaucracy declares.  Here are actually texts used (or to be used) in actual liturgical assemblies.  It is meet, right, and our bounden duty to study them.  Comparative study is a good clarifying methodology.  See Baumstark and Taft on comparative liturgics.

          Frank C. Senn 

          --- On Mon, 2/28/11, dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...> wrote:

          From: dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...>
          Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Compare Masses
          To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 8:10 PM







           









          But has not Rome already spoken on this matter?



          David Lewis





          In a message dated 2/28/2011 8:47:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

          TomPoelker@... writes:



          Editorial assistant Chris Ángel has

          prepared the following table, where

          the 1967 commentary is presented

          alongside the full text of the Canon

          in both the 1967 translation and the

          upcoming translation (as provided on

          the USCCB Web site

          <http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml>).

          We share it with you to show

          the specific

          reasons for decisions made in the

          1960s, and also to allow you to

          see the 2010 translation against this

          background.



          Translating the Roman Canon: 1967 and

          2010 (part I)

          <http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Comparison-1967-and-

          2010-I.pdf>



          The second part of this three-part

          series will appear here on Wednesday.



          -----------------------------------

          I have not yet looked at this site,

          but this seems to me to be a fruitful

          and academically reasonable approach.

          If it is set up as described, it will

          offer the opportunity for one to draw

          one's own conclusions in a compare and

          contrast format.



          It could, of course, be improved if

          the Vox Clara committee were to

          publish its reasons for its different

          decisions.



          --

          *



          Tom Poelker

          St. Louis. Missouri

          USA



          /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.

          It?s nice to see people smile,

          and it?s good practice. --/



          *



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------



          Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/

          To write to the moderators, please email:

          liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Lewis H. Whitaker
          Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway? Lew
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway?

            Lew


            > --- On Mon, 2/28/11, dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...>
            > Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Compare Masses
            > To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 8:10 PM
            >
            > But has not Rome already spoken on this matter?
            >
            >
            >
            > David Lewis
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > In a message dated 2/28/2011 8:47:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
            >
            > TomPoelker@... writes:
            >
            >
            >
            > Editorial assistant Chris Ángel has
            >
            > prepared the following table, where
            >
            > the 1967 commentary is presented
            >
            > alongside the full text of the Canon
            >
            > in both the 1967 translation and the
            >
            > upcoming translation (as provided on
            >
            > the USCCB Web site
            >
            > <http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml>).
            >
            > We share it with you to show
            >
            > the specific
            >
            > reasons for decisions made in the
            >
            > 1960s, and also to allow you to
            >
            > see the 2010 translation against this
            >
            > background.
            >
            >
            >
            > Translating the Roman Canon: 1967 and
            >
            > 2010 (part I)
            >
            > <http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Comparison-1967-and-
            >
            > 2010-I.pdf>
            >
            >
            >
            > The second part of this three-part
            >
            > series will appear here on Wednesday.
            >
            >
            >
            > -----------------------------------
            >
            > I have not yet looked at this site,
            >
            > but this seems to me to be a fruitful
            >
            > and academically reasonable approach.
            >
            > If it is set up as described, it will
            >
            > offer the opportunity for one to draw
            >
            > one's own conclusions in a compare and
            >
            > contrast format.
            >
            >
            >
            > It could, of course, be improved if
            >
            > the Vox Clara committee were to
            >
            > publish its reasons for its different
            >
            > decisions.
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            >
            > *
            >
            >
            >
            > Tom Poelker
            >
            > St. Louis. Missouri
            >
            > USA
            >
            >
            >
            > /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
            >
            > It?s nice to see people smile,
            >
            > and it?s good practice. --/
            >
            >
            >
            > *
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            >
            >
            > Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/
            >
            > To write to the moderators, please email:
            >
            > liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/ To write to the moderators, please email: liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          • Douglas Cowling
            On 3/1/11 7:49 AM, Frank Senn wrote: Those of us who study liturgy don t care what a denominational bureaucracy declares.  Aren t the
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On 3/1/11 7:49 AM, "Frank Senn" <fcsenn@...> wrote:

              Those of us who study liturgy don't care what a denominational bureaucracy
              declares. 


              Aren't the historic decisions of ecclesiastical bureaucracies an important
              part of the study of liturgy?

              I'm reminded of the recent interview with Cardinal Arinze who bristled
              visibly when asked about liturgical dance. He responded by saying that dance
              was only permissible in African cultures where communal dancing is a part of
              the culture. In the West it is not a part of the culture and is forbidden.
              And the question is settled so there should be no more discussion.

              There was no consideration of the anthropology of dance, the theology of
              inculturation, or the unbroken history of dance in the Orthodox liturgy. The
              issue was presented solely as an unfortunate "concession" which had to be
              made by the central authority.

              That says a lot about the ecclesiology and the way in which liturgical
              development proceeds. The recent reclericalization of the liturgy by the
              promotion of eucharistic adoration (no lay people needed!) says more about
              the scramble to reestablish clerical identity in the face of the abuse
              scandal.

              Nor are other churches exempt from this kind of analysis.

              Doug Cowling
              Director of Music
              St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
              Toronto
            • Frank Senn
              I was responding to (what seemed to me) a suggestion that the changes have been made, why continue to make comparisons between the old and the new. Of course,
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I was responding to (what seemed to me) a suggestion that the changes have been made, why continue to make comparisons between the old and the new.

                Of course, pronouncements by popes, bishops, councils, synods are also relevant for liturgical study.  You just have to know how to read them for assessing actual practice.  For example, Cardinal Arinze's categorical statement that liturgical dance is forbidden outside of Africa leads you to suspect that it's being done; otherwise there would be no need for the question or the answer.  Furthermore, just because a pope, bishop, council, or synod says something is forbidden doesn't mean people stop doing it.  Official pronouncements about liturgy are more slippery than actual texts, but even with actual texts you have to wonder if they've been used as presented.  This is the line of cautious liturgical study pursued by Paul Bradshaw and his disciples. 

                Frank C. Senn

                --- On Tue, 3/1/11, Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...> wrote:

                From: Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...>
                Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Compare Masses
                To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 9:14 AM







                 









                On 3/1/11 7:49 AM, "Frank Senn" <fcsenn@...> wrote:



                Those of us who study liturgy don't care what a denominational bureaucracy

                declares. 



                Aren't the historic decisions of ecclesiastical bureaucracies an important

                part of the study of liturgy?



                I'm reminded of the recent interview with Cardinal Arinze who bristled

                visibly when asked about liturgical dance. He responded by saying that dance

                was only permissible in African cultures where communal dancing is a part of

                the culture. In the West it is not a part of the culture and is forbidden.

                And the question is settled so there should be no more discussion.



                There was no consideration of the anthropology of dance, the theology of

                inculturation, or the unbroken history of dance in the Orthodox liturgy. The

                issue was presented solely as an unfortunate "concession" which had to be

                made by the central authority.



                That says a lot about the ecclesiology and the way in which liturgical

                development proceeds. The recent reclericalization of the liturgy by the

                promotion of eucharistic adoration (no lay people needed!) says more about

                the scramble to reestablish clerical identity in the face of the abuse

                scandal.



                Nor are other churches exempt from this kind of analysis.



                Doug Cowling

                Director of Music

                St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke

                Toronto






















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • cantor03@aol.com
                In a message dated 3/1/2011 09:29:34 Eastern Standard Time, lhwhitaker@gmail.com writes: Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway? What is that old
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 3/1/2011 09:29:34 Eastern Standard Time,
                  lhwhitaker@... writes:

                  Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway?>>>>
                  What is that old adage? When Rome sneezes Episcopalians
                  get pneumonia.



                  David Strang.







                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.