It’s one of those things that unites traditional Catholics: a sense of longing for those days in the past when the Popes and Bishops taught, not just with authority, but authoritatively; in those days when (it seemed) ecclesiastical mandates had real teeth; when Vatican Prelates spoke like prophets, not politicians.

I often feel that longing, too, but it’s good to remember that not everything being said by Churchmen in these latter times is wussy watered down nonsense. Every once in a while a Vatican official, or even a Pope, catches the “big mo” momentum fever and tells it like it is. And so, I think it might be worthwhile to pull together a little collection of the best no-nonsense, strait talk out of Rome from the past couple of decades. I’ll put a few of my favorites up; readers, please add your own faves in the comments!

Let’s start with Iosephus’ favorite, from the most Luminous of John Paul the Fair’s apostolic letters, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Meanwhile, some of the ones I like best come from the relatively little-known Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal issued by the Holy See to ICEL on their last attempt to translate the Roman Missal into English (pre-Liturgiam Authenticam)

. . .The Structure of the Collects: Relative clauses often disappear in the proposed text (especially the initial Deus, qui . . ., so important in the Latin Collects), so that a single oration is divided into two or more sentences. This loss is detrimental not only to the unity of the structure, but to the manner of conveying the proper sense of the posture before God of the Christian people, or of the individual Christian. The relative clause acknowledges God’s greatness, while the independent clause strongly conveys the impression that one is explaining something about God to God. Yet it is precisely the acknowledgement of the mirabilia Dei that lies at the heart of all Judaeo-Christian euchology. The quality of supplication is also adversely affected so that many of the texts now appear to say to God rather abruptly: “You did a; now do b.” The manner in which language expresses relationship to God cannot be regarded merely as a matter of style.. . .

. . .”Opening Song” does not translate “Cantus ad introitum” or “Antiphona ad introitum” as intended by the rites. The Latin is able to express the musical processional beginning of the Liturgy that accompanies the entrance of the priest and ministers, while “Opening Song” could just as well designate the beginning number of a secular musical performance.

The Congregation in the course of its various contacts and consultations has encountered widespread ­indeed, virtually unanimous-opposition to the institution of any change in the wording of the Lord’s Prayer. More than one reader cited poignantly the experience of having seen this prayer coming to the lips of Christians who had otherwise appeared unconscious, its familiar wording having been learned by them from infancy. By contrast, the Mixed Commission’s justification for its changes, in its Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal, seem inadequate and somewhat cerebral. . .

. . .Certain texts included in the project, such as the seasonal introductions and the hagiographical notes in the Proper of Saints, by virtue of their genre as well as their bulk, should not be published within a liturgical book. At times, their very content militates against such an intention. For example, the statement that [St.] Jerome “began work on a new Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate”, is historically inexact, since he selected and compiled existing texts of the Vetus Latina for many parts of the Bible, while his characterization as “irascible and intolerant” is hardly an appropriate appendage to the prayers prescribed for his liturgical Memorial. In the same vein, one might cite the inappropriateness of the reference to Santa Claus in commemorating St. Nicholas, or the unexplained statement that St. Callistus I “served a sentence as a convict”, or the assertion that St. Pius V’s “excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I of England hardened the split between Catholics and Protestants.” While there is an admitted distinction between a liturgical and a hagiographical text, these are neither. The present Observations are not the context in which to address question of the veracity of these statements; it is sufficient to point out that that they are out of place in the Missal. . .

And, though not an official Vatican letter or anything, an
interview given by Fr. Robert Taft, SJ, of the Pontifical Oriental Institute concerning the possible erection of a Ukrainian Patriarchate is pure gold:

. . .It’s extremely difficult for the Orthodox to face up to their own reality. They don’t really understand the uses of history. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of Catholics today in Siberia. How come? Because the Russians dragged them there in cattle cars, that’s how come. Let’s say it the way it is. Furthermore, before the war, 20 percent of the population of Siberia was Catholic. Were there Catholics dioceses in Russia before the revolution wiped them out? Yes, there were. I mean real dioceses, not just fictitious apostolic administrations. Real dioceses. If there are Catholic bishops now in regions where there weren’t before the revolution, it’s for the reason I just gave – these people were dragged to those regions in cattle cars. The pope didn’t drag them there. Let’s say it the way it is. They’re incapable of facing reality. . .

. . .There seems to be a predictable pattern of crisis/reconciliation/crisis in Catholic-Orthodox relations. Are we doomed to keep repeating this cycle?
I think so. In part, because we live in a free world and nobody really controls all of their own people. If the Neocatechumenate crowd decides to show up in some Russian city and cause trouble, who’s going to put them under control? Part of the problem is that this papacy hasn’t controlled some of these new movements. Matter of fact, it encourages them. It’s not the Jesuits who are causing trouble in Russia. It’s not the Franciscans. Part of the problem too is that the Russians are always reacting not so much to what we do, as to how their own constituency reacts to whatever we do. Basically, there are three groups in the Russian hierarchy. You’ve got a real wacko kind of right-wing fringe. These are the ones who would agree with calling Rasputin a saint and that kind of garbage. Then you’ve got people like Kirill, who are open and ecumenical and intelligent, because he’s got an education. Then you’ve got kind of a middle group that’s very conservative but not frothing at the mouth. Kirill’s group is a very small minority. The patriarch is a juggler trying to keep all these balls in the air. . .

go to main page