Changes to the Liturgy: What and Why

We are on a countdown in the Catholic Church. On Sunday, November 27, 2011 the season of Advent will begin, and along with it will come changes to the Catholic liturgy. We have been familiar with this form of the liturgy for over 30 years - a lifetime for many of us. So, what is this all about?

First - what? The changes actually already happened, in Latin. The liturgy is revised every so often in order to update the list of saints and feasts days. In 2000, the Jubilee year, Bl. John Paul II announced a new revision of the liturgy was in order. The Roman Missal (3rd edition) was finished in 2002. Once the Roman Missal, which is in Latin, is released it becomes necessary to translate into the various languages for use around the world.

Now, anyone who has taken a foreign language can tell you that translating is a tricky business. A word can have more than one meaning, or there can be shades of variation in a word.
For example, in English, the word - "happy". Happy can be happy, but it might also be "joyful", "glad", "ecstatic", "giddy", and so on. Each word has a slightly different flavor to it. If one is translating into English, you would have to pick the word that best describes what kind of "happy" you mean. One translator may choose "happy" while another choose "ecstatic". So you might have:

• The new puppy made the children happy. 

OR

• The new puppy made the children ecstatic.

Both sentences mean the puppy was a good thing and the children felt happy, but one implies a greater degree of feeling than another.  Each sentence has a slightly different connotation. 

Back to the liturgy ....

As the theologians, translators, and bishops began to look at putting the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal into English, it became more and more clear that the liturgy we are all so familiar with had been rather loosely translated at some sections. This called for a deeper look at each word in the liturgy, and a decision to return to a more faithful, if formal, translation.

This translation will debut the first Sunday of Advent, 2011. However, many parishes are now putting things in motion. Choirs are learning new or revised mass settings, DRE's are preparing to educate the congregation, and the pastor is getting ready to ruffle some feathers! Uh, I mean, the pastor in getting ready to present it all to a congregation.

That was the what, now for the WHY.

Why are we doing this? I have already been hearing grumbles from the pews. In reality, it is a great question. Why?
Does it REALLY matter if we say "And also with you" versus "And with your spirit"? Is God going to, shall we say, get His panties in a bunch if we translate "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabbaoth" as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord, God of power and might" (instead of, as the new translation will read, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts").
Will God blessings rain down upon us more now that we will say "I believe" at the beginning of the Nicene Creed, instead of "We believe".

Yes, the changes are, overall, minor. Minor in the sense that some parts of some prayers and responses are being changed. It isn't like we decided to get rid of the Liturgy of the Word or anything of that magnitude.

And no one really likes change. So.....why?

1. Accuracy has meaning. My name is Christine. I grew with a lot of people calling me "Christina". It really irritated me. Why? Both names are basically the same. They have the same meaning, and they are forms of the same name. I knew people were talking to me, even when called me "Christina". So, why did it matter to me? Because my name has meaning for me. I am Christine, not Christina. When people I had known for a decent period of time could not call me by my proper name, I felt they did not really care who I was. Christina was close enough. But that was not my name. Accuracy has meaning.
2. There are inherent meanings and identities in words. When something is named, that name becomes part of that thing's identity. Look at the creation story in Genesis. One of the important jobs Adam had was the naming of the animals. To give something a name is to give it a meaning. This goes along with accuracy.
3. There is a long history to suggest God does care about the minutiae of worship and rite. The Old Testament is full of it. God himself gave Moses the 10 Commandments. A look at the first five books of the Old Testament will quickly show you exactly how closely God involved Himself in proscribing the worship of His people.
4. While Jesus came and made it clear that we are not to trip ourselves up over form and rite, he did not abolish form and rite.

The way some people will react to the liturgical revisions will be with skepticism and sarcasm. But that is because all some people hear when they are at church is this:



.But that is not what we are meant to hear. If that is what we hear, we are not really listening.

If we really listen and participate, we are taking part in a mighty prayer that is about worship. Worship. About the kneeling down - no, the falling on our face before the God of heaven and earth. The God who made everything. The God who chooses to come to us at each and every mass - present - actually present in our midst. Before that God, our lips do not, should not move in meaningless mumbling, but in meaningful, thoughtful adoration.

The way we worship has meaning. And that is the beauty of the Catholic liturgy to me. Really, it is why I embrace these changes to the liturgy with a joyful heart. They confirm what I have always believed about my faith - the beauty of meaning. Each word of the liturgy is so precious, so important, that it actually DOES matter if we say "We believe" when we should say "I believe".
Does God get mad if we say "We believe". No. Revising the liturgy is not about anything so superstitious as God being angry or pleased because of one word. Rather, our word choices, our union in translation, are another way we worship God. When we go to Mass, we need to know what every word uttered there is like a pearl from our lips - precious, important, and beautiful. "Let my prayer be incense before you." (Psalm 141:2).

The changes to the liturgy are a'comin. Are you ready?

*********************************************

A useful, handy side-by-side comparison of what will change:
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

Music in the Church, or Kickin'it Old Style

As a member of the Catholic church all my life, I have had a great variety of exposure to many styles of music in worship. Some good, some not-so-good. But "good" is not an objective word, is it? (Well, "good" is not objective when it comes to music, I should say!)

What is "good" music? And what is "good" music, liturgically speaking?

(I am only beginning a better study of the subject, so this is more of an introductory editorial than a well-researched thought. Hopefully I will get to that point! And this is of course, an excuse for any of my facts that are off - I am still working on it!!! )

I was a child of the Catholic Charismatic movement. This movement is steeped in the rich tradition of the Holy Spirit. A great deal of music was produced during the start of this movement, in the 1960's, '70's, and early '80's. Think of it as a precursor to modern-day praise-and-worship.

At the same time, I have been in parish life since birth, and thus exposed to the more traditional elements of the Catholic faith.

In other words, I can jam with Mercy Me, Tim Hughes, and Newsboys as well as chant "Tantum Ergo" (in both English and Latin)!

Music is emotional, there is no denying that. We love music because of the connections we feel, the emotions it evokes, the way it transports us out of ourselves. That is the attraction to praise and worship style music. It can help us establish that feeling of awe and wonder, that feeling of being in front of something so much bigger than ourselves. It is a private worship at the same time it is communal.

Chant, usually associated with Gregorian chant, is a very old style of music, named after Pope Gregory the Great. It is often monophonic, or without harmony, but can be polyphonic. It is beautiful in its simplicity. It is very powerful, for it connects the singer directly with the text without fancy musical frills. There is a beautiful austerity to chant.

In the wake of great sweeping reforms after Vatican Council II (1962-1965), many worthy things were (mistakenly) thrown out. As the liturgy experienced many changes, Latin chant was dropped just as Latin was dropped from the order of the Mass. Many of these changes were good and timely, but in an effort to undertake so many changes that were not better understood until much later, you often had the case of "the baby being thrown out with the bathwater".

The result today is that many people (not all, but many) who lived in the Church before Vatican Council II are nervous to approach anything smacking of the pre-Vatican II era. It seems (to them) to be a return to the "bad ol' days" of secrecy, firmness without charity, and the divisive wall that seemed to fence the lay faithful out of the holy of holies, the inner sanctum of the heart of the church.

But to those of us who are adults now, born in the 1970's, 1980's, and so on, we feel a loss. We grew up so near to Vatican II, but too near, usually. Our parents and grandparents often moved forward without a backward glance, and so Vatican II became a word we knew, but an idea we were unfamiliar with. We knew there were changes, we knew mass was in the local language and not Latin, but that was about it.

Only as a college and grad student did I actually learn about Vatican II and more about the changes it made and the huge amount of information that was only beginning to be processed, some 30 years later. The Church is still trying to get to the heart of it, after all this time.

So, as this is getting a bit wordy, I think I will end it here and pick it up again later!
For now, think about music, church, and worship. What are good and bad songs? What is good liturgical music? Bad liturgical music? What songs make you cringe? What makes it feel like a great Mass?