I think the Catholic Church misplaces guilt by making a sin of things that I don't believe to be sinful. I still see its lingering effects on my own attitudes. It's a bit like having to shake off an ever present fog. It clears but sometimes it returns out of no where. (And I think it returns from habit, not because it's correct.)

I don't think guilt or shame are positive emotions, even if they do have their places alongside anger and grief.

While I do think guilt has it's uses, I don't think it should be the focus of the Eucharist. That being said, I don't mind having special forms for potential times that have a more solemn and less joyous theme, like how we use the Great Litany in my church for Lent, I just don't see it being good to dwell on. Instead we should dwell on the gift of undeserved grace given to us.

It can be, or it can be debilitating, depending on how it is "used." Guilt as a self-awareness -- good. Guilt as a cudgel -- not so good. And being the Protestant that I am, guilt that's not coupled with grace -- so not good.

Meanwhile, as a Presbyterian, I have to note one place where the translators clearly didn't worry about a closer translation from the Latin: The Our Father. They kept the traditional (and archaic) form of the English, including "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. The Latin is: et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimìttimus debitòribus nostris. Clearly, the closer translation is "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." :D

^^ MC, does debts in that sense mean those beyond the financial? I've always wondered if the translation doesn't change because of the connotation of the english word 'debt' and particularly 'debtor.'

In this sense, it doesn't mean financial at all. (Although I've always joked that the reason Presbyterians say "debts" while everyone else says "trespasses" is that Scots are more worried about who owes who money.)

FWIW, the original Greek uses a word (ὀφειλήματα) that translates into English as "debt." Apparently, in Aramaic, the word for debt and the word for sin are the same thing. In this context, "debts" means "sins" -- shortcomings for which reparation is due. Perhaps it's just my upbringing, always having said "debts/debtors," but it has always seemed closer to the mark for me than "trespasses/those who trespass against us." "Trespass" has it's own connotation in English -- going onto someone else's property without permission.

If connotations are the worry, then the appropriate translation, it seems to me, is "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," as that is clearly the meaning.

Oh I agree that trespass has the same difficulties as debt. I question whether your preferred translation would work as I suspect it would raise objections toward mankind forgiving sins when that belongs to God.

That said, as with trespasses, I suspect any translation can be taught and explained. I know they didn't leave us with the misconception that the Our Father was about forgiving people who come onto our property.

Vito - They moved the books! I'll write this week and find out if they have any left and if so I'll get you one. Once I have it in my possession we'll talk shipping, etc.

RE: Guilt. The nice thing about any Catholic guilt is there is reconciliation - so there should be no lingering guilt,unless you are unrepentant and unwilling to amend your life, in which case you must not think whatever you are doing is wrong, so why feel guilty? Guilt should lead you to think about whatever is making you feel that way - then you deal with it, one way or the other. As I see people with no qualms about some of the most self-centered behavior imaginable I can't help but wish they had some pangs of guilt.

Actually, "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" is the translation of the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC), an ecumenical group that works toward common translations of texts. The ELLC version appears along with traditional versions in Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist and other liturgies. But because the Lord's Prayer is one of those things people learn early on, it is one of the last things where people willingly accept a new translation.

But "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" is very clearly the meaning of the original Greek.

Yep, and we were certainly taught what debt meant in this context. In fact, I understood debt in this context before I understood what it meant in financial terms.

Thing is, for example, feeling guilty about sex, or about my relationship resulted in me acting to not feel guilty - by leaving the institution that was telling me I should feel guilty. At this time it's also led to me lying to my parents, which is something else to feel guilty about, but the knowledge of their beliefs and our current proximity means that I'm going to lie and feel guilty for that rather than again be pressured to feel guilty for something that is not wrong.

Your perspective works in an ideal world, and it's one that I hope to eventually live up to, but it isn't necessarily realistic. I know that I'm more sensitive than most to disappointing people I care about, but I don't believe I'm at such an extreme that there isn't a large number of people who are on a similar spectrum.

I don't want people to be motivated by guilt, not even self-centered people. I'd rather they learn to be motivated by more other-centered causes. Additionally I think it's silly to assume that we know whether people feel guilt or not.

ETA: Something clicked for me, and we do a similar exercise with our clients about worries, if you're doing everything you can about it then why worry? If you're not doing everything you can, and don't intend to, then why worry about it? All that said, people still worry.
Aye, I get that. I'm curious if anyone does raise those objections. But I know what you mean about people not accepting new translation/etc. I already couldn't get down with the new gestures in Mass, but the new language will probably help me gain distance, as I've said.
lol! Probably the same with trespass for me, although I don't recall.

We may be operating with different definitions of guilt. I think you are leaning more towards a definition for what I would label shame, which is a horse of a different colour. Guilt in and of itself is not a good thing, but as a motivating force - something which causes you to examine your actions - it is. Guilt implies a knowledge of right and wrong. Although I realize it is now quite the fashion to be a moral relativist, I'd argue that losing the perspective of right/wrong that leads to the kind of guilt I'm discussing has resulted in far more evil than the occasional misplaced guilt.

I wouldn't dare to comment on your relationship with your parents, DF; I am sorry you are not able to be more honest with them. It sounds like you are being too hard on yourself - and that may be misplaced guilt. Sometimes you can only do what you can only do. In that instance, you shouldn't feel guilty.

I don't live in an ideal world, nor do any of my friends and family. Certainly with a son going through first communion I am extra aware of the difficulties and challenges of applying a moral framework to our everyday existence. I've made my peace with my imperfections as far as guilt goes. If I do feel guilty, I look at it as a warning sign - I need to think about what I'm doing/not doing.

As to "silly to assume that we know whether people feel guilty or not" - not always. I imagine everyone can think of an instance of someone saying "sorry" when they knew good and well the malefactor was sorry he/she was caught, not sorry for what they did. Those people feel no guilt. Bernie Madoff comes to mind as someone who feels no guilt - and I don't think that's a silly assessment on my part.

I like your "worries" analogy - but it actually works for me! I always apply the 5 year rule to my worries - will it matter in 5 years? If not, I do what I can and stop worrying. If it will, I put extra effort into taking care of the problem. I "smack the gators that are closest" - don't worry about the ones you can't yet see.

LOL. Thanks a lot SWTX. I had a feeling I would have some serious issues getting a copy of the BDW. It is a very specialized book used only by a few groups, none of which are anywhere near me. Also I don't know if they are going to be reprinted now that I know about the changes to the Roman Missal. The issue is made fuzzier by the fact that the Anglican Use and Ordinates are pretty unique in the Latin rite and I have no idea what they are considered. It's not like the Eastern Catholic Churches which are autonomous. Maybe they will allow it to continue as a separate rite like the Ambrosian Rite with it's own translations. Who knows.

It's funny my Rector was told when elected in no uncertain terms that there was to be absolutly no use of the new form of the Lord's Prayer. This was especially amusing when I heard about it because she was the first female rector we had.

Interesting. This is the first I've learned of a new Roman Catholic liturgy. The new English does seem closer to the original Latin. There will be resistance, of course - my father has told me of his own reluctance to embrace the Mass said in the vernacular as opposed to Latin (he was about my age when that switchover took place).

I have attended a Latin Mass. I was a high school student, studying Latin, and a practicing Catholic at the time. The parish apparently had a dispensation from the Vatican to celebrate one of their Sunday Masses in Latin each week. WHOA. It was a beautiful service. And it was nice to be able to get away with saying "pax vobiscum" rather than trying to figure out on the fly what the German translation for "peace be with you" might be. ;) (I was in Vienna.)

IMO, I'd love to see certain prayers (e.g. the Lord's Prayer) said in Latin, just as the Reform Jewish services I attend have the major prayers said in Hebrew while others are in English. But whatever. I'm no longer a Catholic, never mind part of the Church hierarchy, so I don't exactly get a say. ;)

I like that because it brings the heritage to the Mass, just as Anglicans still use Latin titles for various parts of the services. Though one thing I really wish was for the Liturgical language to return to Greek. That makes the most sense to me personally. And oh aephi alum? IIRC, churches always have the option to celebrate the Mass in Latin. In fact celebrating in the vernacular is an option not a requirement. Please somebody correct me if wrong.

This is a very good distinction to make. I think that for many, guilt = guilt trip.

And I'm trying not feel itchy palms when you talk to Vito about ordering a BDW. I . . . don't . . . need . . . more . . . books.

I'm reminded of the story I heard JRR Tolkien's grandson tell of when he attended a Mass with his grandfather. It was soon after Vatican II, and he was mortified that his grandfather insisted on making all of the responses loudly and in Latin.

Kyrie eleison.
Christe eleison.
Kyrie eleison. ;)

(Or try a Greek Orthodox church.)

MC, if you can get a BDW for $15 you would be foolish not to - and yes, I realize I am an enabler. :) But the books weren't in the narthex - so fingers crossed someone didn't buy them out. I'll let y'all know as soon as I get the scoop!

I see what you're talking about as more.. remorse perhaps? Guilt I see as something that can be imposed/influenced/_______* by others as well as coming from one's own conscience. Someone without guilt entirely would be a true sociopath. Shame, part of me says there's more of a public aspect to it, I also think that while one can feel guilty all on one's own, one requires external pressure -either from societal mores or another person/other people. That said, i don't know, and psychologists and sociologists disagree on the definitions too.

As for moral relativism, I think there ARE absolute values, like not killing other people unless your own life is threatened, not raping someone who cannot or does not consent to it, and so on. However I disagree with the absolute values of the RCC for example, or any number of other groups/cultures/religions, because those, to me, are not correct. I don't think many people are 'true' moral relativists. I think some people fall into the trap of moral relativism by wanting to be culturally sensitive and respectful but wouldn't hold up to those opinions under pressure.

Moral relativism isn't the same thing as having a value that people should do what they like as long as they don't harm anyone.

I've come to terms with it, but I still feel guilty at times. I intend to fix things when I can, I just can't right now. But that's kind of my point, I think, that while I know I shouldn't be made to feel guilty, I know that they will try, just as my mother has made a HUGE deal about reminding me that Fridays are meat free. She's crossed into annoying me rather than guilting me though so there's that.


They feel no remorse, at least not at the time when you see them faux apologize. But I think guilt is a longer game and that they may feel either at a later time. It just comes across too much as judging to me. I have no idea what goes on in Madoff's head. If I'm being philosophical about it, I'd rather leave the possibility open that he may feel guilt or remorse or what have you than assume that he doesn't give a damn.

Harder when you don't know where you see yourself in five years though.

Oh, I don't have any idea where I will be in five years - the past 12 years or so have taught me that!

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT - A Word A Day had this as a comment:
Def: Belief in the doctrine of predestination, that the divine will has predetermined the course of events, people's fate, etc. Here's a limerick by Maurice E. Hare (1886-1967) that perfectly illustrates the word predestinarianism:
There once was a man who said "Damn!
It occurs to me that I am
A being that moves
In predestinate grooves:
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram!"

I was taught that parishes were not only allowed but required to celebrate Mass in the vernacular, as an outcome of Vatican II. If the clergy at a parish wanted to celebrate a Latin Mass, they needed a dispensation from the Vatican. It could be a one-time dispensation (e.g. for Christmas or Easter) or a standing weekly dispensation as in the case of the parish in Vienna where I attended Mass. Perhaps this has changed? (I haven't been a practicing Catholic in over a decade.)

Still true, although I believe Benedict has made it easier for parishes to get permission to have Latin Masses, particularly on a regular basis. I'm not sure if the petition still goes to the Vatican or if the bishops can now give permission. But your understanding's accurate.

LOL.

As the regular Presbyterian contributor to this conversation, however, I feel compelled to point out that predestination =/= "Belief . . . that the divine will has predetermined the course of events, people's fate, etc.," at least not as used by those of us in the tradition with whom it is primarily associated.

Thank you, thank you!

I think this is a good estimation of guilt moving towards something positive. I had a brilliant thought related to this at Mass this evening, but I cannot remember it for the life of me.

Actually according to Redemptionis Sacramentum (link),

In other words, unless the big wigs say there is supposed to be a Mass in the vernacular, any Mass can be celebrated in Latin. Many very conservative parishes incorporate a Latin Mass into their weekly schedule. Additionally neither the Second Vatican Council, nor the subsequent revisions to the Roman Missal abolished Latin as the liturgical language of the Roman Rite. This is why all vernacular texts of the Mass are translated from the Roman Missal (in Latin). I'm not sure if this is a change made after aephialum was in Vienna though...

ETA: Redemtionis Sacramentum is from 2004, so it may be a recent change, or this may have been in place already and not part of the revisions made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass
I think I was thinking of the Tridentine Mass, which is typically called the Latin Mass. Permission is now sought from the parish priests rather than the bishops and Benedict gave a LOT more leeway for that. It uses the 1962 missal. If churches wish to have Mass in Latin from the current Novus Ordo missal, no permission is needed.

And then there are the churches who think Vatican II was something crazy the kids did in the sixties and use a previous missal. They tend to be in schism or in a weird quasi-schismatic state IIRC.

Gotcha, it's a very understandable misconception.

Latin Mass does not always equal Tridentine Mass, but I would be willing to bet that most of the parishes interested having a Latin Mass would be using the Tridentine Mass because it's pre-Vatican II.

Right. Or at least historically that's true. I don't know what missal's being used for the recent resurgence in Latin masses.

It's funny I think of Tridentine Mass as High Mass lol. Interesting enough I just came from a Roman Mass and it was done mostly in English. However the Kyrie was in the traditional Greek and both the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy God...) and the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) were in Latin. And I think that the liturgical language should be either Greek or the vernacular. I understand that Latin has great meaning to the Latin Rite, but I see no reason why Roman Catholics in say the USA should be celebrating Mass based on Latin. Greek at least is the language of scripture. (yes I know that the Tanakh?, correct if wrong aephi, is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, but the Septuagint which was used by the Early Church and even Jews of the time was in Greek) Ideally honestly I would love to see the RC church go the way of the Anglican Communion and Eastern Orthodox, having many provinces (Anglican term) which acknowledge one person as Primus. But I doubt that will happen at all, much less in my time.

^^ Pretty common to see the Greek and Latin during Lent in particular.

And you'd have better luck converting to Eastern Orthodox or Anglican than expecting the RCC to stop recognizing Rome. ;)

I am an Anglican lol. And I never said they had to stop recognizing Rome. Just saying that the Latin Rite should be more like the Eastern Catholics.

If the change occurred in 2004, then, yes, it was well after I had the opportunity to celebrate Mass in Latin as a teenager in Vienna, and also well after I converted to Judaism. Let's just say that I've celebrated my 29th birthday more than once. ;)

I have to say that the Latin Mass was an unusual and inspiring religious experience for me, as well as an educational experience, as I was studying Latin in high school as a "dead language" and here it was being used as a living language in the 20th century. However, as I've said before, it was not the faith that was in my heart - that is Judaism.

There is an old joke: "Latin is a language, as dead as dead can be. First it killed the Romans... now it's killing me." ;)

Considering the lack of recognition for Rome is a HUGE part of why the two are schismed from each other, it doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a bit like saying you wish the Anglicans would recognize the Pope. IDGI.

Eastern Catholics, who do recognize the Pope, not the Eastern Orthodox which you are thinking about. And there actually are quite a few Anglo-Papists though most of those are probably going to join the new ordinates.

Every Roman Catholic church I've attended did the Kyrie in traditional Greek during Lent.

There is one church in Detroit that does their high noon mass in Latin every week. It is always packed. I have a cousin who got married in that church (high Italian population attends that church) and had her wedding mass in Latin. I think it's good to have options :)

Book of Divine Worship
 

The good news - I can get you a Book of Divine Worship! :)
The bad news - they now cost $25! :(

If you are interested, pm me!

That's not too bad actually. My copy of A New Zealand Prayer Book cost more then that and it was used. Check your PMs. And MC, you in on this? :D

Too many terms are used for more than one thing. Anyway it'd be such a huge culture shift, I maintain you'd have better luck getting the overall Anglican church to recognize Rome.

I'm aware that some exist, that wasn't what I was saying.

I'm examining my discretionary liturgical fund, especially since I have it in pdf. But I do like hard copies.

Oh I know that which is why I said while I would like to see it happen, I doubt it ever will. Ideally I would love to see something like a return to the old Ecumenical Councils, but again doubt that will happen.

It still seems weird to say, as a non-member, isn't that like me saying I wish that Reform Judaism would really go back to older traditions or something?

You have a point, but as a former Roman Catholic, and one who still considers myself a Catholic, I feel I have the right to have some opinion.

Oh i know, I have opinions too, it's just weird, ya know? ;)

Anglican Ordinariate
 

Poking around my parish website and found this interesting map of the emerging Anglican Ordinariate:

http://www.walsingham-church.org/site/Liturgy.html

fyi, I love Dr. Brand's discussion of the liturgy.