Page 17

reform because it went too far or whether we need now to embrace the reform anew since it still has a long way to go. Not surprisingly, I answer the second question in the affirmative. With regard to the liturgical vision of CSL and the way that vision has been received and implemented ecumenically over the past fifty years, I want to say unequivocally that not only was and is that vision accurate but that we are still in the beginning stages of its implementation. Fifty years is not a long period of time at all in the history of the Church, and there is still a great deal that needs to be done and much that needs to be done ecumenically. And what I want to do, in part, therefore, is to invite us anew to a renewed appropriation of this vision and its tasks. First, the question of liturgical language is not resolved in the least by Liturgiam Authenticam or the new English translation of the third edition of the Missale Romanum. Again it is Taft who has reminded us that liturgical language is not for God; it’s for us. God already knows all the languages!19 But because liturgical language is for us, I care a great deal about what was accomplished with our common liturgical texts in English, and I invite you to be fully supportive of the English Language Liturgical Consultation’s “Reims Statement: Praying with One Voice,” adopted in August 2011: For the first time in history, Christians in the English-speaking world are using common liturgical texts. In the process of coming to agreed common texts, scholars from different Christian traditions agreed on principles for the translation from the earliest sources. This in itself has been a gift. Despite only having been in existence for a relatively short time, these texts have been adopted freely by an ever increasing number of churches. We celebrate this. They are being experienced as a gift, a sign and a way to Christian unity in our diversity. As the churches continue to discover the riches of these shared texts, we believe further revision is inappropriate at the present time. We invite all who have not yet explored these texts, and those who have departed from their use, to join us in prayerful reflection on the value of common texts and careful consideration of the texts themselves. Prayed together, shared common texts become a part of the fabric of our being. They unite the hearts of Christians in giving glory to God as we undertake the mission of the Gospel.20 Perhaps in this context we need to keep saying that the language of the New Testament, apart from Luke-Acts, is in koine, or common Greek, and that Jerome’s Vulgate is so called because it was in the vulgar or common vernacular Latin tongue. Or, as I once heard Carmelite Reginald Foster, former papal Latinist, say at a Notre Dame lecture as only he could, “Oh yes, Latin is such a sacred language! It is so sacred, in fact, that all of the prostitutes in ancient Rome spoke it.” Or, as Karl Rahner once put it, there is no longer a “sacred language” or a “sacred culture.”21 All human languages are sacred liturgical languages. At the same time, that does not mean a willful or woeful disregard for what is clearly and solidly a part of the liturgical traditions of the churches with particular concerns expressed especially, perhaps, for sacred and/or liturgical music from Plenary Sessions 15

North American Academy of Liturgy Proceedings 2014  

The North American Academy of Liturgy (NAAL) (http://www.naal-liturgy.org/) is an ecumenical and interreligious association of liturgical sc...

North American Academy of Liturgy Proceedings 2014  

The North American Academy of Liturgy (NAAL) (http://www.naal-liturgy.org/) is an ecumenical and interreligious association of liturgical sc...