Common Sense will Prevail, thanks to Good Priests

From the current issue of America magazine:

The veterans who enthusiastically devoted their best creative energies as young priests to selling the reforms of the council to parishioners back in the 1960s will be asked to do the same with regard to the new translations. Yet we will be hard put to do so. Some colleagues in ministry may actually relish the opportunity, but not those of us who were captivated by the great vision of Vatican II, who knew firsthand the Tridentine Mass and loved it for what it was, but welcomed its passing because of what full, conscious and active participation would mean for our people. We can see the present moment only as one more assault on the council and, sadly, one more blow to episcopal collegiality. It was, after all, the council that gave to conferences of bishops the authority to produce their own translations (S.C., Nos. 36, 40), to be approved, it is true, by the Holy See but not, presumably, to be initiated, nitpicked and controlled by it. Further, the council also wisely made provision for times of experimentation and evaluation (S.C., No. 40)—something that has been noticeably missing in the present case….

During a recent dinner conversation with friends, the issue of the new translations came up. Two at the table were keenly—and quite angrily—aware of the impending changes; two were not. When the uninformed heard a few examples (“and with your spirit”; “consubstantial with the Father”; “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”; “oblation of our service”; “send down your Spirit like the dewfall”; “He took the precious chalice”; “serene and kindly countenance,” for starters), the reaction was somewhere between disbelief and indignation….

Recently the Archdiocese of Seattle sponsored a seminar on the new translations for lay leaders and clergy. Both the priest who led the seminar (an accomplished liturgical theologian) and the participants gathered there in good faith. When passages from the proposed new translation were soberly read aloud by the presenter (I remember especially the phrase from the first eucharistic prayer that currently reads “Joseph, her husband,” but which in the new translation becomes “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin”), there was audible laughter in the room. I found myself thinking that the idea of this happening during the sacred liturgy is no laughing matter but something that should make us all tremble…

What if we, the parish priests of this country who will be charged with the implementation, were to find our voice and tell our bishops that we want to help them avert an almost certain fiasco? What if we told them that we think it unwise to implement these changes until our people have been consulted in an adult manner that truly honors their intelligence and their baptismal birthright?…

What if each region of bishops were to designate certain places where the new translations would receive a trial run: urban parishes and rural parishes, affluent parishes and poor parishes, large, multicultural parishes and small parishes, religious communities and college campuses?…

In short, what if we were to trust our best instincts and defend our people from this ill-conceived disruption of their prayer life? What if collegiality, dialogue and a realistic awareness of the pastoral needs of our people were to be introduced at this late stage of the game?… Why not let the priests who are on the front lines and the laypeople who pay the bills (including the salaries of priests and bishops) have some say in how they are to pray? If you think the idea has merit, I invite you to log on to the Web site www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org and make your voice heard. If our bishops know the depth of our concern, perhaps they will not feel so alone.

 

Rev. Michael G. Ryan has been pastor of St. James Cathedral in Seattle since 1988 and serves on the board of the national Cathedral Ministry Conference.

 

 

Comments

[cor ad cor loquitur]

This Sunday, for unimportant reasons, I ended up hearing the canons of three sequential Masses, all in the Novus Ordo: Eucharistic Prayer II, in Latin; Eucharistic Prayer III, in English; and Eucharistic Prayer I, the Roman Canon, in English.

I was struck that the "tone" of the canon in English is very similar, in the current translation, between the Eucharistic Prayers. Even in EP1, the Lord "took the cup".

Not so in the new translations. The language of EP1 is far more flowery, repetitive and pleonastic than that of EP2, because the Latin canons are written in a different tone.

I guess this means that "real holy traditional sacral" priests will start to use the Roman Canon exclusively, in the new translations (assuming that they don't simply say the Tridentine Mass instead). And, if a priest uses EP2 too often, the liturgical mutaween will lose no time in delating him to the proper authorities...

[ccna]

I guess this means that "real holy traditional sacral" priests will start to use the Roman Canon exclusively, in the new translations (assuming that they don't simply say the Tridentine Mass instead). And, if a priest uses EP2 too often

[Rat-biter]

## As to:

"PROPOSED NEW TRANSLATION: Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son, and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ"

- very good; except that "offering" is perhaps to be preferred to "oblation".

Translation is an almost-impossible art - it's very easy to disappoint someone, no matter what the result.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

It is close to the present version, but the changes are no improvements.

"Look with favor" is better than "Look, we pray".

"On your Church's offering" is better than "upon the oblation of your Church"

"Recognizing" is very awkward and the current "see" got the meaning more idiomatically.

"Sacrificial Victim" is heavy-handed and the capitalization bizarre; there is already too much about victims and sacrifices in the current translation.

"By whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself" puts proper emphasis on the divine initiative, say the translators, but again it comes across as heavy.

So while the text you cite is passable, I could not agree that it is very good.