Christ has died

[nazard]

... Why not just leave it alone?

Because we do like a bit of interest in something arcane every now and again.

[musicus]

Why not just leave it alone?

Awwww - can't we move on and try to fathom out why two of the responses are credal statements and the third more of an invocation?

Of course you can. I wasn't convinced at the start of this thread, but it has remained on topic and thrown up some fascinating (albeit arcane) stuff en route. By all means continue.

[Calum Cille]

Calum, thank you ...

Thank you for your patience.

... it may be noted that Welsh has two words to translate cup, "cwp" meaning the vessel. and "cwpaned" to mean the contents. Do you know if the latin word "calix" commonly carries both meanings?

You might be thinking of the word "poculum" (cup) which sometimes also functions as a synonym for "potus" (drink). More equivalent to the Welsh example though are "pocillum" (small cup / cupful) or perhaps "culigna" (small cup / cupful).

Now, three cheers! Out with the old ...

They didn't fit in syntactically ...

... and in with the new!

Of course it's possible to parse it syntactically...

Do forgive me, musicus, as I protest at Southern Comfort continuing to treat as fact that which he has failed to substantiate with evidence, namely, the following.

... the finest minds in the business have not succeeded in making sense of it ...

Only you claim that the experts have not been able to make sense of it. The experts make no such claim to my knowledge. Even your own quotation from Bugnini states the following about some experts.

"In fact some of them assign the phrase a quite dangerous meaning ..." Behold, an expert says they assign meaning to the phrase. "The experts themselves disagree on the precise sense of the words." They disagree because they have assigned different meanings to the phrase.

To paraphrase, "of course it's possible to make sense of it" is what the experts are saying. What has not been possible has been universal consensus on which is the historically correct meaning but that is another question. We have the benefit of not being limited to paper publications spread over many years. The advantages of online textual discussion are clear.

If the finest minds in the business have not succeeded in making sense of it, then why should we presume that we can do any better?

Ah, God's argument against Job: the "who are you, you don't know what we're talking about" argument. Well, forgive me, everyone, for stating the obvious, but neither the experts nor you, Southern Comfort, are God. That kind of "we are all academic inferiors unworthy of informed discussion, do not presume to question your betters" talk is wasted on the likes of me at least. The promotion of the view that experts are not to be questioned, or bettered, is aimed at the stifling of independent thought and intellectual progress. Such a view aims to lower the self-esteem of independent thinkers, claiming that they cannot think as clearly as, or even more clearly or originally than, the experts. Where would such an attitude have left James Croll?

If forum members are only permitted to expound the views of experts without criticism or qualification, then this is not the forum for me. Forum members should not question the worth of other forum members replying to points the former have made with the idea that they should not "presume" to think for themselves and should simply acquiesce to the former's perception of expert opinion. Discussion should be driven by evidence and proofs, unpressurised by social ideologies about who has the right to discuss.

[musicus]

The only constraints that operate here are the forum's House Rules, as posted on our front page, and they are designed to facilitate free speech and discussion. The first and the greatest of these is "be respectful of other users".

And now, back to the present discussion...

[Calum Cille]

Just for general reference, the 2001 instruction Liturgian Authenticam 107 says the following.

"It is to be borne in mind that the composition of new texts of prayers or rubrics is not an end in itself, but must be undertaken for the purpose of meeting a particular cultural or pastoral need. For this reason it is strictly the task of the local and national liturgical Commissions, and not of the Commissions treated in nn. 92-104 above [ie, "mixed" commissions]. New texts composed in a vernacular language, just as the other adaptations legitimately introduced, are to contain nothing that is inconsistent with the function, meaning, structure, style, theological content, traditional vocabulary or other important qualities of the texts found in the editiones typicae."

Liturgiam Authenticam 108 says the following.

"Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments."

The webpage below (an Adoremus Bulletin) contains a lot of useful information.

http://www.adoremus.org/0705BishopMeetingReport.html

Here is a section from that webpage.

"The origin of the “Christ has died …” text is attributed to the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET), a mostly Protestant group founded to produce ecumenical texts for the liturgy. ICET (later known as the English Language Liturgical Consultation) was part of a plan, shared and promoted by influential Catholic liturgists of that era, to achieve unity of worship among various Christian bodies by supplying common texts.

By 1970, the “Christ has died …” phrase had appeared in the revised books of Protestant denominations, though not for a memorial acclamation, as in the Catholic liturgy."

Would anyone happen to know how "Christ has died ..." was used in the Protestant books?

[Southern Comfort]

Just for reference, here is Comme le prévoit, 1969, paragraph 43, the instruction in accordance with which all translations and new original texts were produced from that year until LA was published in 2001:

Texts translated from another language are clearly not sufficient for the celebration of a fully renewed liturgy. The creation of new texts will be necessary. But translation of texts transmitted through the tradition of the church is the best school and discipline for the creation of new texts so “that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already in existence” (Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 23).

Regarding "Christ has died":

[quoting the Adoremus website] "The origin of the “Christ has died …” text is attributed to the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET), a mostly Protestant group founded to produce ecumenical texts for the liturgy. ICET (later known as the English Language Liturgical Consultation) was part of a plan, shared and promoted by influential Catholic liturgists of that era, to achieve unity of worship among various Christian bodies by supplying common texts.

By 1970, the “Christ has died …” phrase had appeared in the revised books of Protestant denominations, though not for a memorial acclamation, as in the Catholic liturgy."

Would anyone happen to know how "Christ has died ..." was used in the Protestant books?

Don't believe everything you read on the Adoremus website — not by a long way! They may attribute the origin of "Christ has died" to ICET, but in fact it was being used a number of years before ICET came into existence in 1969. It is reputed to have been written by an Anglican clergyman attending the World Council of Churches meeting in New Delhi in 1961. This Indian origin is also mentioned on other websites, such as hymnary.org. Its similarity to the tripartite Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat! made it immediately attractive, and it was in frequent use in experimental Anglican liturgies by the mid-1960s as an acclamation, often in a Eucharistic Prayer context.

ICET never in fact claimed it as one of its texts, but ICEL did. They included it in the English translation of the Order of Mass (1969/70) and with remarkable arrogance copyrighted it to themselves. They have been demanding royalties on it ever since, despite the fact that the text is not theirs, was being used elsewhere before they "stole" it, and is the work of an anonymous author and thus effectively in the public domain. Publishers who are aware of its history have resisted this financial pressure, but most knuckled under or remained in ignorance.

I am not in my office as I type this, but I believe that "Christ has died" first appeared in a Church of England Eucharistic Prayer in Holy Communion Series 1 in the late 1960s — certainly by 1968 — and in Holy Communion Series 2 in 1971. I can confirm that it was there by the time of Holy Communion Series 3 in 1973, and has remained in the Anglican Liturgy of the Eucharist ever since.

[NorthernTenor]

ICET never in fact claimed it as one of its texts, but ICEL did. They included it in the English translation of the Order of Mass (1969/70) and with remarkable arrogance copyrighted it to themselves. They have been demanding royalties on it ever since, despite the fact that the text is not theirs, was being used elsewhere before they "stole" it, and is the work of an anonymous author and thus effectively in the public domain.

It seems a deeply ingrained habit.