Bishop Serratelli Tries to Reply to Msgr Ryan

America, March 1, 2010, has published a defense of the new liturgical translations by Bishop Serratelli. Whispers in the Loggia headlines it, "Beseeching a 'Welcome'". Indeed, bishops everywhere are beginning to realize that the new translations are going to be a hard sell. To see their main US proponent "beseeching" on their behalf is telling. It is a reaction to the outrage expressed at forums such as the following: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/signatures.aspx

The Bishop drapes the bad new translations in the mantle of change: "To change indicates that one is alive. This applies to people, institutions and even language." Of course disease and decomposition are forms of change too. Not every change "is a natural development" and "when it meets resistance" that is not necessarily "because we can become comfortable in old and familiar ways." The whole way Bp Serratelli sets up the debate shows a lack of reflection.

" Many have asked questions, expressed concerns, or simply wondered about the reasons for the new translation and the goals of its implementation."

Those who have read the new translation carefully have done more than that. They have expressed outrage. In South Africa the bad new translations have brought reactions ranging from rebellion to despair. There has been NO enthuiasm for them.

"In his popular rhetorical guide, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum, the 16th century Dutch humanist and theologian Erasmus showed students 150 different styles they could use when phrasing the Latin sentence, Tuae literae me magnopere delectarunt (“Your letter has delighted me very much”). He amply demonstrated that no single translation will ever completely satisfy everyone."

Erasmus, what distinguished reading! Allow me to doubt if any American bishop reads Erasmus.

"Our words in the liturgy are not simply expressions of one individual in one particular place at one time in history. Rather, they pass on the faith of the church from one generation to the next. For this reason, we bishops take seriously our responsibility to provide translations of liturgical texts that are at the same time accurate and inspiring, hence, the sometimes rather passionate discussion of words, syntax and phrases. "

I watched and/or read the transcripts of the two major discussions of this among the bishops last year. I know very well the culture of clerical get-togethers. The little boys keep their heads down and let the boss get on with it, unless they are very heavily encouraged to speak up. In fact only 5 of the bishops had any comments to make on the translations at the November meeting. THEY HAD NOT EVEN READ THEM. So it is chutzpah for Bp Serratelli to claim that the bishops took their responsibility seriously and engaged in passionate debate. They didn't. And they were not encouraged to. They are guilty of a huge failure in pastoral vigilance.

"The new translation provides us with prayers that are theologically accurate, in a language with dignity and beauty that can be understood."

On the contrary, the new translation has theological inaccuracies, and its langauge is generally clumsy, rhytmless and ignorant of the expressive resources of the English tongue. See the comments on Fr Ryan's website for ample testimony to this: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/readcomments.htm

"The process of translation of the new edition of the Roman Missal has involved linguistic, biblical, and liturgical scholars from each of the eleven English-speaking countries which ICEL serves."

Who are they? Why do we not hear them speaking up in defense of the lousy translation? They may have been consulted, but they do not appear to be happy with the result.

"This process has been thorough and it has been collaborative on an international level, because this text will be used by the church throughout the English-speaking world."

Again, this seems to be untrue. Certainly the vast armies of the clergy and laity have not been consulted in any significant degree. Even bishops and even heads of episcopal conferences express, at least in private, a sense of powerlessness. All Rome asked them to offer were "observations" on the translation, not an assessment of its overall worth. And more often than not Rome ignored the observations.

" It is important for us to remember that we Americans are but one part of a larger English–speaking community. The preparation of this translation has been an international effort to produce an international text. The result is a text that draws us together and situates us as Americans within a much larger ecclesial communion."

This sort of argument has been trotted out ad nauseam. It is utterly specious. It bespeaks an uneasy sense among the US Bishops that they are doing the wrong thing. But again just like little boys they look to what bishops are doing elsewhere and say to themselves, "Well, the others are doing it, so I suppose that lets us off the hook."

"Proponents of the new text sometimes argue, perhaps unfairly, that the texts currently in use in our liturgy (in the present Sacramentary), the product of great efforts by translators from 1969 to 1973, are marked by a style of English that is flat and uninspiring. That text, however, has served the church in the English-speaking world well for more than thirty years, and has enabled us to take great strides in working toward the Council’s goal of “full, conscious, and active participation” in the liturgy. We should be careful not judge too hastily what has been the language of our worship. Our present texts are familiar and comfortable."

Note the careful omission of any reference to the 1998 text approved by the English speaking bishops, which was far superior to the dreck now being offered by the jumped-up group who call themselves ICEL but have little in common with the ICEL who produced the 1973 and 1998 translations.

"Those who have already been critical of the new text, often without having seen more than a few examples out of context, express concern about unfamiliar vocabulary and unnecessarily complicated sentence structures."

What a pathetic account of the massive criticism the texts have received from liturgists, Latinists, professors of literature and theologians, not to mention the subtle and articulate feedback from laity, lay ministers, religious and priests! How condescending and dismissive!

" Having been involved in the work of translation with ICEL and with the bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, I can attest that the new translation is good and worthy of our use."

Bishop Serratelli, what are your qualifications as a liturgist, theologian, and handler of the English and Latin tongues?

" It is not perfect, but perfection will come only when the liturgy on earth gives way to that of heaven, where all the saints praise God with one voice. "

This comes close to taking the Lord's name in vain. If a student handed me a bad, sloppy essay, and said "It's not perfect, but I am not Shakespeare" I would be unimpressed.

"It is natural to resist such changes simply to remain grounded in the familiar because it is comfortable."

Bishops Serratelli seems to be stuck in this groove. The implicit dismissiveness toward the laity and toward qualified critics is redolent of abuse.

"First, get to know the text."

Only the Ordo Missae is published on the Bishops' website (when I last looked). There does not seem to be any haste to let us see the rest of this horrible production.

"Many have pointed out that the vocabulary, syntax and sentence structure will be markedly different from the current text. The guiding principles of translation call for the preservation of biblical imagery and poetic language (and structure). The new texts contain many beautiful examples of language drawn directly from the Scriptures, especially the Gospels and the Psalms: “from the rising of the sun to its setting” (Psalm 113, Eucharistic Prayer III ), “sending down your Spirit… like the dewfall” (Psalm 133, Eucharistic Prayer II), “blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb” (See Rev. 19, Communion Rite), and “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…” (Mt. 8, Communion Rite). These are but a few examples."

This refers to local items of diction, not to the total impact of the nerveless texts.

"Of particular note in the new texts are expressions of reverence for God, articulated not only by the vocabulary but by the style of expression in addressing God. Some may find the use of such self-deprecatory language uncomfortable at first, but it effectively acknowledges the primacy of God’s grace and our dependence on it for salvation."

Well, calling God "eternal majesty" is wrong not because it is reverent but because is it unidiomatic and untraditional.

"The texts may be unfamiliar now, but the more one understands their meaning, the more meaningful their use will be in the liturgy. We are invited to undergo a process of theological reflection or even the practice lectio divina with the texts of the new Roman Missal. To pray with and reflect on these words will help us all to open our hearts to the mysteries the texts express."

Again, I think most people understand the meaning, but the expression of that meaning is far too often labored, opaque, inexpressive, unidiomatic, turgid, and insipid.

"The implementation of the new Roman Missal ought to be an opportunity to recommit ourselves to prayerful, faithful and vibrant celebration of the liturgy."

Yet it is those most committed to this who have been loudest in their criticisms. Is the Bishop trying to insinuate that the critics are lacking in spirituality?

"A wide range of resources is being developed by the USCCB, the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, and many catechetical and liturgical publishers."

At enormous expense, no doubt. But as one who has to buy textbooks for students, I know that textbook publishers often produce rubbish (sometimes letting desire of financial gain override pedagogics or concern for students' convenience).  If the bishop thinks that a publishing flurry can change a sow's ear into a silken purse, he underestimates the difficulties.

I urge Bishop Serratelli to come to his senses and disassociate himself from this embarrassing farce. Many people are already very angry with him at the moment. But if the incompetent translations are thrust on the faithful the good bishop will find himself facing a tsunami of rage from the People of God.

 

Comments

[Diezba]

I am very disappointed in the tone of your post. Have you, yourself, read the Order of Mass that is posted on the USCCB website? It is utterly beautiful. As a 25-year old convert to the Catholic Church (Easter '09 after RCIA from September '08 to April '09), I am very excited for the transition to occur.

Perhaps an example of the next text, set side-by-side with the official Latin and the current English translation, will help you see why this new translation is cause for anticipation, not protest.

• Missale Romanum (official text of the Church):

Da, quaesumus, omnípotens Deus, hanc tuis fidélibus voluntátem, ut,
Christo tuo veniénti iustis opéribus occurréntes, eius déxterae
sociáti, regnum mereántur possidére caeléste. Per Dóminum nostrum
Iesum Christum: qui vivat et regnant tecum in unitate Spiritus Sancti:
Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

• Current Translation from the Sacramentary:

All-powerful God, increase our strength of will for doing good that
Christ may find an eager welcome at his coming and call us to his side
in the kingdom of heaven, where he lives and reigns with you and the
Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

• New Translation from the upcoming Roman Missal:

Grant, we pray, almighty God, that your faithful may resolve to run
forth with righteous deeds, to meet your Christ who is coming, so that
gathered at His right hand they may be worthy to possess the heavenly
kingdom. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you
in the unity of the Holy Spirit: God, forever and ever. Amen.

I can't wait to "run forth with righteous deeds" to meet Jesus at Advent!

[Spirit of Vatican II]

This translation is discussed in a post below, and the 1998 translation, suppressed by the Vatican, seems marginally superior to the two you quote.

Here it is again:

Almighty God, strengthen the resolve of your faithful people to prepare for the coming of your Christ by works of justice and mercy, so that when we go forth to meet him he may call us to sit at his right hand and possess the kingdom of heaven.

When you say the new translation is utterly beautiful, I think you are attending more to the beauty of its contents than to the linguistic felicity; but it is the latter which is in question in this discussion.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"may resolve to run forth with righteous deeds" is fancy talk; "prepare... by works of justice and mercy" is more biblical. But this is one of the better preces in the new translation.

[Chris Grady]

Diezba: The issue being addressed is not the merits or otherwise of the translations but rather the level of, shall we say, HONESTY in Bishop Saretelli's piece in 'America' (not that I think Saratelli wrote it!).

The translations are coming and they'll stand or fall on their merits: but people like Bishop Saratelli, Cardinal George, Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Coleridge and Bishop Roche telling different versions of the story, none of which are ever entirely true (not to mention the fact that each of these men have publicly given entirely different answers to the question 'What does "And with your spirit" mean?'!!) don't help the situation at all.

[Sister Judith S.]

Can anyone verify the widely-disseminated story that the MIS- TRANSLATION of Eucharistic Prayer II in the forthcoming ICEL Roman Missal,

"adstare coram te" - now, "to stand in your presence" - but soon to be changed to "to be"
rather than, as the Latin plainly says, "to stand"

was due to the direct intervention of Cardinal Pell who did not want the accurate translation to give justification to those promoting standing throughout the Eucharistic Prayer?

If the alleged "doctoring" of translations by the "liberals" of the old ICEL is one of the reasons for imposing a new translation, isn't this obvious "doctoring" by the "conservatives" of the new ICEL equally as wrong?

[Chris Grady]

Sister Judith S: It's one of those stories I've heard from numerous sources, and has 'the ring of truth' given Cardinal Pell's conviction as an 'ideological warrior' (to quote Archbishop Coleridge), not to mention his love of getting his own way.

But the only people who could really tell you are Cardinal Pell and the other members (and co-opted officials) of Vox Clara, people in the Congregation in Rome, Monsignor Harbert, Bishop Roche and maybe one or two others . . . and this list doesn't include many people known for their openness, so don't hold your breath waiting for such verification!

Oh and my apologies for mis-spelling Bishop Serratelli's surname in my earlier post!

[cor ad cor loquitur]

I cannot understand how anyone can find the new translations "utterly beautiful", except as a political statement. It is true that a lot of the richness was bleached out of the current (1973) ICEL English liturgy, but at least it is written in reasonably idiomatic English.

These new translations aren't in English at all, but in a bizarre schoolboy rendition of the Latin. The cadences don't work and the parallel constructions and cascading purpose clauses that flow gracefully in Latin sound pompous and affected in English. You can get a flavour of this by listening to the podcast prayers, scripture readings and sermons of a very popular traditionalist "internet priest": self-conscious, affected and bombastic.

Either the bishops and bloggers who praise this stuff are linguistically tone-deaf or, more likely, they have sensed the tone at the top of the Church and are trying to get onto the bandwagon. As Chris Grady says, the translations are coming. Perhaps the people of God will accept them in due course. But they are not in any way beautiful.

[cor ad cor loquitur]

There is a fine article by Alan Griffiths in THE PASTORAL REVIEW, worth reading in its entirety at

http://www.thepastoralreview.org/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?priestsppl-00100

A few paragraphs from it follow:

Readers of a certain age who learned Latin at school may remember the crib known as Kelly’s Keys To The Classics – the word-for-word translation of literary masterworks that we kept hidden beneath the desk. While ‘Kelly’ might have helped us decipher the mysteries of word order, it offered no help towards appreciation or understanding.

I know of no serious translator in the worlds of literature or (more significantly, for it is translation for speaking) drama, who would subscribe to the doctrine of word-for-word equivalence. Such equivalence does not exist, for words are not univocal integers or digits, but allusive, adumbrating symbols. Nor do they function on their own, but in a context: the phrase, sentence or period.

Critics of the Missal translations currently in use maintain that the dimension of ‘reverence’ for the ‘unfamiliar’, the Other, is not sufficiently expressed in the language employed. It is the vocabulary of familiarity rather than of distance that is used. I would agree with that. On the other hand, however, I find it hard to understand how English can easily capture the elaborate style of supplication evident for example in the Roman Canon. What we see in the draft of the Canon when you put it into English is a luxuriance of address excessive even in the Court of Le Roi Soleil:

Most merciful Father,
we therefore humbly pray and implore you ...

... we pray, O God,
deign to make this offering in every way
blessed …

The problem with this style of address is that it is using words that do not express reverence. It has ceased to be Latin, it is not English. Although individually these words may be held to ‘English’ the Latin terms (supplices rogamus ac petimus, and digneris) when strung together they sound distinctly arch or ironic.

Why don’t the translators put aside the dictionary and listen to the English language? What I hear in ‘implore’ is a word that does not suggest sympathy and a ‘listening ear’ on the part of the addressee, still less humble abasement before awesome and dread majesty. I hear a word suggesting desperation on the part of the appellant, in face of the addressee’s proven unwillingness to listen. ‘Deign’, too, is problematic, as it has overwhelmingly sarcastic associations in UK English.

[Chris Grady]

For all that, Alan Griffiths is the ONLY person who worked on the 1998 rejected texts allowed (by Rome) to work on the coming translations (not that all his suggestions were accepted by the bishiops, Vox Clara etc - though he did many of the base translations).

And he holds the key to the next version, which will have to come out when the coming texts fail to be wholeheartedly received.

[Elias Nasser]

does anyone know of the whereabouts of the 1998 ICEL translations.

Are they available to be viewed on the internet?

[Chris Grady]

No, they're not online, but bits of them are, here and there.

The new ICEL guards them jealously: they hate nothing more than people seeing those texts, for they show up the coming texts to be the nonsense they are!

[Chris Grady]

There are many instances when the new ICEL has NOT followed their or Liturgiam authenticam’s stated principles.

For instance, in the absolution prayer of the Penitential Act, “eternal life” does NOT follow the word order of the Latin “vitam aeternam,” and is “eternal life” any more rhythmically beautiful than “life everlasting”?

In Eucharistic Prayer IV, “Father most holy” is a paraphrase surely of Pater sancte, presumably to ensure that the prayer is not heard as addressed to the Pope! But surely there were to be no such liberties taken with translating the Latin?

Then there are paraphrases that seem to be chosen for the sake of the “conservative” perspective: for instance, “circumstantium” in the Memento of the Living in the Roman Canon is “standing around” not “gathered here” – the sto has disappeared in this new literal translation! As it has (referred to above by Sister Judith S) in Eucharistic Prayer II, where “adstare coram te” – literally “to stand before you” and currently “to stand in your presence” becomes, in the new ICEL version simply “to be here before you”.

A bishop told me that “stand” had been removed or deliberately MISTRANSLATED in both instances to prevent people from using the text to justify actually standing at that part of the Mass during which the Holy See wants us to kneel.

Are there more instances of this “fiddling” with the Latin text by the NEW ICEL to serve conservative preferences? And are Rome and the bishops OK with this – as they were NOT OK when the OLD ICEL allegedly did the same thing to favor liberal preferences?

[Elias Nasser]

Thanks Chris for relaying the news about the 1998 ICEL translations.

I think that story of the ambush/dismantling of the old ICEL is worth publishing in the form a book to show up the machinations and backstabbing of these oh-so-holy men who dress up in red and purple and never cease to moralise to the world about good and evil

[Chris Grady]

All I need is a healthy publisher's advance!

[Fr P]

As a Catholic Priest for the past 15 years, and who grew up with the Mass of Paul VI, I cannot see how the banality and triteness in the current translation does not scream across the years.

The New translation was met with resistance in places, like Africa, where it was thrown on the people with no explanation as to why the change. Showing up on a Sunday with no warning of a new translation is a disservice to the people of God. And a mistake I hope we learned from the disaster of implementing Vatican II. Catechesis and preparation are key to the implementation of the new translation.

As not being a latin scholar or a proponent to go back to a Latin only liturgy. Your arguments opposed to the new translation and the challenge of the translation of latin, gives an overwhelming support to go back to a latin language only Mass.
Respectfully, FrP

[evagrius]

"Your arguments opposed to the new translation and the challenge of the translation of latin, gives an overwhelming support to go back to a latin language only Mass.
Respectfully, FrP"

That is most likely the purpose.

[Russell Greeley]

Take it a step further back. Old ICEL and new ICEL have both followed a mandate -- different mandates. Comme le prevoit, which carefully implemented the letter and spirit of Vatican II, guided the first official English edition of the texts and the ill-fated second edition. The present clumsy language follows the mandates of Liturgiam Authenticam, allegedly to implement #36 of the Constitution on the Liturgy (but in some ways abrogates that section of the conciliar document). The translators are doing their jobs. The bishops are stuck. The blame falls squarely on the Vatican.

[Chris Grady]

Well, yes and no.

Certainly 'the Vatican' agreed to Liturgiam Authenticam (LA), and deserves much of the blame, but the authors of LA, and its highly-placed sponsors (none of whom cared particurlarly about the translations issue - and some of whom could not even speak English - but all of whom used it as a vehicle to further either their own ecclesiastical ambitions, or their ideological agendas, or both) are much more culpabale, given that they started this whole thing as a result of a weird mix of personal envy, greed, payback, ideological warfare and a couple of other even less appealing reasons.

'The Vatican' loved LA because it provided a way to escalate centralisation, in complete contravention of 'the letter and spirit of Vatican II' (enter Vox Clara, such an illegitimate love-child of Papa Wojtyla and Cardinal 'Pinochet' Medina that it could only be headed by George Cardinal Pell).

The bishops needn't have been 'stuck' - if they all HAD 'stuck' together and said 'NO' to this process (or even 'WAIT') much earlier, we wouldn't be in the current predicament, about to get new translations which a majority of the bishops, at least privately, don't think will 'be received' or last . . . if they're stuck, it's only because of their own indivudual ambition and collective gutlessness.

[Jimmy Mac]

The "Latin language only" mass (the one in place when I was young and trained to be an altar boy) was alway accompanied by an inter-linear translation into the local language. I never will understand the slavish adoration of Latin. Few if any of us pray privately in Latin or any language other than our own. Why the communal prayers of the people have to be incomprehensible to them/us is beyond me.

[Bill Foley]

Joseph S. O’Leary and others on this blog who are rebellious against the amended translation of the Sacred Liturgy are simply repeating the age old cry of Lucifer: “Non serviam!” “I will not serve!” because you are revolting against the Vicar of Christ.

Pope John Paul the Great set up Vox Clara and instructed them to implement Liturgiam Authenticam in the following words: “I wish to offer every encouragement to the Vox Clara Committee in its task of assisting the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in ensuring that the texts of the Roman Rite are accurately translated in accordance with the norms of the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam. (Pope John Paul II, from his message in establishing Vox Clara.)”

You also are rebelling against the clear teaching of the Second Vatican Council; here are a few pertinent passages from the documents.

“In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power over the universal Church, the Roman Pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia. These, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors. (Second Vatican Council -- Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, number 9)

And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the force and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible teaching authority, this sacred Synod again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. (Second Vatican Council -- Lumen Gentium, number 18)

For in virtue of his office, that is, as vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church. (Lumen Gentium -- number 22)

This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (Lumen Gentium -- number 25)

Resistance to the will of the Holy Father in the implementation of the new translation of the Sacred Liturgy as given to us by the Holy See is simply not pleasing to Jesus Christ and is contrary to the spiritual teaching of the saints.

Bill Foley

[evagrius]

Mr. Foley,

Thank you for your insight.

[Lucien Rydell]

Hey Bill -

One of the "pontifically appointed" members of Vox Clara once chose as the headline for his diocesan newspaper

HABEMUS EPISCOPAM!

to announce the appointment of his new Bishop.

It would be a lot easier to give "religious submission of mind and heart" to the work of someone who has moved beyond the First Declension in his Latin expertise before being "pontifically appointed" to supervise translations that are being imposed on the whole Church.

And how about the posting above that claims Cardinal Pell has intervened directly to MISTRANSLATE the Latin whose literal English meaning he finds offensive?

Do we have to give "religious submission of will and mind" to those kinds of shenanigans?

[Spirit of Vatican II]

I prayed the Third Eucharistic Prayer at Mass yesterday, and was pleased to note that the present translation is quite smooth and eloquent, something we have tended to underestimate. None of the new translations of Eucharistic Prayers are smooth or eloquent. They are, in fact, theological and literary sawdust.

I suppose Bill Foley would say that the prayer of the Church can never be sawdust. But we need only look at the current collects, secrets and postcommunions to see that we are saddled with a lot of sawdust even at present (these could have been replaced with better prayers in 1998 -- the Vatican preferred to give us 12 years more of sawdust).

With the new translations, EVERYTHING will be sawdust.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

The bishop may not have been personally responsible for the Latin howler in his diocesan paper. However, one of the most ridiculous aspects of the present situation is that bishops' knowledge of Latin is at a historic low ebb. Bishop Serratelli quotes Erasmus, one of the most elegant Latin writers, giving the impression that bishops are awash in Latinate culture. The effect is comic.

[Fred]

Vat II (the letter not vague spirit - lower case s)said “absolutely no person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 22, §3).

The current English translation deletes a chunk of the Gloria, dilutes the theology of the Creed, deletes all the Offertory Antiphons from Scripture and dilutes or deletes Estachological, Christological, Scriptural and Patristic reference after reference.

Wether Mass is prayed in Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German etc Catholics pray “and with your spirit.” Us English folk are the odd ones out, the only ones with a brand new translation. It means and also with you. The current text deletes references to the spirit and soul. The Latin says spirit-u. St James in the Bible says the body without a spirit is dead.

The current translation is banal and un-praiseworthy. How many people still believe in the Real Presence?

I’m no trad Latin Masser or arch conservative or whatever or English or Latin scholar, but I find the new order of Mass readable and pronounceable (after a few read throughs) and sacred and it truly lifts up my heart to the Lord. Lord I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof (Matt 8:8) yet - We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you. We sure do!

[Sister Judith S.]

But we will not be saying "and stand before you" even though the Latin says "adstare coram te" in Eucharistic Prayer II, because Cardinal Pell (?) or some other worthy on the LITERAL TRANSLATION COMMISSION decided that ADSTARE should be MISTRANSLATED "be" in case anyone decided not to kneel after the Consecration?

Sure inspires confidence in the integrity of ecclesiastical authority.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Fred, your complaints about the present translation do not make the proposed new translation a good one. Also those complaints do not refer to the tampering forbidden by Vatican II. On the contrary, Vatican II makes the translation you complain of obligatory, so that priests are not allowed to improve or correct it on their own initiative. The authority behind the current text of the Gloria (which omits nothing of the Latin) is that of Paul VI and the English speaking hierarchies. Now the new translation will be brought in on the same papal and episcopal authority and priests will be forbidden to tamper with it. In South Africa it is said that this has led to a situation of widespread anomie and despair. Such a situation cannot help reinforce faith in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Real Presence.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Great news! Fr Ryan's web page has got access to the 1998 translations and will be making them available.

As we sleepwalk to pastoral disaster, most people are unaware of the coming changes, and very few have heard of the 1998 texts.

[Fred]

spirit of Vatican II you state the current Gloria "omits nothing of the Latin"

In fact it deletes...

Laudàmus te,
benedìcimus te,
adoràmus te,
glorifcàmus te,
gràtias àgimus tibi propter
magnam glòriam tuam,

In South Africa there was no Catechesis, they just went to Mass one day and bamm. Most South Africans according to Cardinal Pell do not attend Mass in English.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Fred, there are conflicting reports on catechetical preparation for the new translations in South Africa. In any case, priests there are utterly depressed at the new texts. One priest reported to the bishops that in a group of 50 lay ministers only 1 had a good word for the new translation, and he was French! See http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/New%20Mass%20Pastoral%20Problems.pdf

The Gloria has: We worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. That is: adoramus te, laudamus te, gratias agimus tibi propter gloriam tuam.

Missing is "benedicimus te" which is a typical Latin liturgical pleonasm repeating what is already said in "laudamus te" and "glorificamus te" which is another pleonasm repeating what is said in "adoramus te". Also missing is "magnam" before "gloriam", again a pleonasm that is flat in literal translation. The classical pleonastic style of liturgical Latin is flat and confusing in English, which is why ICEL 1970 opted to translate the sense of the words. And nothing of the sense and content of the Gloria was lost in their translation.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

NEW TRANSLATION:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father."

The "O" here has no equivalent in Latin ("Deus pater omnipotens"); "O"s are added elsewhere as well, even though "O" is an archaic vocative in today's English.

Notice how flat "your great glory" is in English. It actually diminishes divine glory by appearing to measure and assess it!

CURRENT TRANSLATION:

"Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory."

Nothing has been "deleted". A perfectly sensible translation has been given. You may object that it says "we praise you for your glory" instead of "we give you thanks for your glory", but the phrase "propter magnam gloriam tuam" probably goes with all five preceding verbs - least appropriately with the last one. If this is right, the Latin actually thus says "we glorify you because of your great glory" which is intolerable in English.

[Lucien Rydell]

ICEL MISSAL 1998

Third Sunday of Lent

Translated Collect:

O God, source of all mercy and goodness,
in almsgiving, fasting, and prayer
you have shown us a remedy for sin.
Listen with love as we confess our weakness,
and, when we are bowed down by the knowledge of our guilt,
lift up our hearts with the assurance of your mercy.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition for YEAR A: Gospel of the Samaritan Woman:

O God, living and true,
look upon your people,
whose dry and stony hearts are parched with thirst.
Unseal the living water of your Spirit;
let it become within us an ever-flowing spring,
leaping up to eternal life.
Thus may we worship you in spirit and in truth
through Christ, our deliverance and hope,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Fourth Sunday of Lent

Translated Collect:

In a wonderful manner, Lord God,
you reconcile humankind to yourself
through your only Son, the eternal Word.
Grant that your Christian people
may press on toward the Easter sacraments
with lively faith and ready hearts.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition for Year A: Gospel of the Man Born Blind

God our Creator,
show forth your mighty works
in the midst of your people.
Enlighten your Church,
that we may know your Son
as the true light of the world
and through our worship confess him
as Christ and Lord,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
holy and mighty God for ever and ever.

Fifth Sunday of Lent

Translated Collect:

Come to our aid, Lord God,
that we may walk courageously in that love
of which your Son gave proof
when he handed himself over to death
out of love for the world.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition for Year A: Gospel of the Raising of Lazarus

Merciful God,
you showed your glory to our fallen race
by sending your Son
to confound the powers of death.
Call us forth from sin's dark tomb.
Break the bonds which hold us,
that we may believe and proclaim Christ,
the cause of our freedom
and the source of life,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
holy and mighty God for ever and ever.

Holy Thursday: Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper

Collect translated from the Latin:

Lord God,
we are gathered to celebrate this most holy Supper,
at which your only Son, on the eve of his passion,
bequeathed to the Church
a new and everlasting sacrifice
and the rich banquet of his abiding love.
Grant in your mercy
that we may draw from this great mystery
the fullness of charity and life.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition:

O God,
in the fullness of time you revealed your love
in Jesus the Lord.
On the eve of his death,
as a sign of your covenant,
he washed the feet of his disciples
and gave himself as food and drink.
Give us life at this sacred banquet
and joy in humble service,
that, bound to Christ in all things,
we may pass over from the world to your kingdom,
where he lives and reigns with you now and always in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Good Friday: Celebration of the Lord's Passion

Translated Collects (two are provided in the Missale Romanum):

A
Remember, Lord, your tender mercies,
which you showed in ages past;
watch over and sanctify your servants,
for whom Christ your Son, by shedding his blood,
has established the paschal mystery.
Grant this in the name of Jesus, the Lord.

B
Lord God,
by the suffering and death of your Son
you dissolved the legacy of darkness and death
that had fallen to the lot of every generation.
We were shaped in the likeness of Adam
and must bear the image of his earthly nature.
Reshape us in the image of Christ
that we may bear the stamp of his heavenly glory
through the sanctifying power of your grace.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition:

From the throne of grace, O God of mercy,
at the hour your Son gave himself to death,
hear the devout prayer of your people.
As he is lifted high upon the cross,
draw into his exalted life
all who are reborn
in the blood and water flowing from his opened side.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Easter Vigil: after the GLORIA

Translated Collect:

O God,
you brighten this most holy night
with the radiance of the risen Christ.
Quicken within your Church the spirit of adoption,
so that, renewed in mind and body,
we may dedicate our lives wholeheartedly to your service.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition:

O God,
your saving plan has brought us
to the glory of this night.
Slaves, we become your sons and daughters,
poor, your mercy makes us rich,
sinners, you count us among your saints.
Bring us to know the place that is ours
in the unfolding story of your purpose,
and instill in our hearts
the wonder of your salvation.

Grant this through Jesus Christ, our passover and our peace,
who lives with you now and always
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity

Translated Collect:

God our Father,
you revealed the wonderful mystery of the Godhead
by sending into the world
the Word who speaks all truth
and the Spirit who makes us holy.
Grant that we may proclaim the fullness of faith
by acknowledging and worshiping
three Persons, eternal in glory,
one God of majesty and power.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition for YEAR C readings:

O God,
your name is veiled in mystery,
yet we dare to call you Father;
your Son was begotten before all ages,
yet is born among us in time;
your Holy Spirit fills the whole creation,
yet is poured forth now into our hearts.
Because you have made us and loved us and called us by name,
draw us more deeply into your divine life,
that we may glorify you rightly, through your Son,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Solemnity of Christ the King

Translated Collect:

Almighty and eternal God,
you chose to restore all things in Christ your Son,
who is king of heaven and earth.
Grant that all creation,
set free from the bondage of sin and death,
may offer homage to your majesty
and join in singing your eternal praise.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.

Alternative "Scriptural" Collect not translated, original composition for YEAR C: Gospel of the Good Thief:

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
you gave us your Son,
the beloved one who was rejected,
the Savior who appeared defeated.
Yet the mystery of his kingship illumines our lives.
Show us in his death
the victory that crowns the ages,
and in his broken body
the love that unites heaven and earth.

We ask this . . . (as above)

[cor ad cor loquitur]

Many thanks, Lucien Rydell, for posting more from the ICEL 1998 translations.

I am very impressed by the alternative “Scriptural collects” but set them aside, since composing such new prayers is surely a “hermenutic of scripturally creative discontinuity” or some other such vile offence. So away with them for the moment...

Three things strike me about the 1998 translations.

First, they are all written in clear, grammatical and idiomatic English. They read smoothly. They sound good when chanted (I’ve tried).

Second, unlike the 1973 translations, they capture virtually all of the sense of the Latin, with the exception of the repetitive, pleonastic addresses to God: concede propitius, quaesumus, digneris (mercifully grant, vouchsafe, deign, we humbly pray and implore you, etc. etc.). As any number of traditionalist commentators remind us, this language “reinforces that this covenant we are in with God is not a contract between equals: He is Almighty and eternal, we are lowly and mortal.  We do well to beg, to plead as supplicants before His majesty, not as cowed slaves terrified of a harsh master, but with the reverential awe of children looking at authority with the eyes of truth.  Our prayers should help us to see who we are and who we are not.” (Fr Zuhlsdorf).

As Alan Griffiths points out, this grovelling also runs the severe risk of sounding sarcastic.

Third, the 1998 translators solved the problem of multiple relative clauses in a simple, time-honoured manner: by breaking long sentences into two. Why in the world should it be necessary to render each prayer as a single sentence? That’s how English works. But the new proposed translations, for the most part, aren’t written in anything resembling English.

What if we just said ‘Wait’? What if we just said ‘1998’?

* *

For convenient comparison I’ve provided the Latin texts, ICEL 1998 and ICEL 2008 where available, and ICEL 1973.

+++Third Sunday of Lent, Missale Romanum 2002

Deus, ómnium misericordiárum et totíus bonitátis auctor, qui peccatórum remédia in ieiúniis, oratiónibus et eleemósynis demonstrásti, hanc humilitátis nostrae confessiónem propítius intuére, ut, qui inclinámur consciéntia nostra, tua semper misericórdia sublevémur.

Third Sunday of Lent, ICEL 1998

O God, source of all mercy and goodness,
in almsgiving, fasting, and prayer
you have shown us a remedy for sin.
Listen with love as we confess our weakness,
and, when we are bowed down by the knowledge of our guilt,
lift up our hearts with the assurance of your mercy.

Third Sunday of Lent, ICEL 1973

Father, you have taught us to overcome our sins
by prayer, fasting and works of mercy.
When we are discouraged by our weakness,
give us confidence in your love.

+++Fourth Sunday of Lent, Missale Romanum 2002

Deus, qui per Verbum tuum humáni géneris reconciliatiónem mirabíliter operáris, praesta, quaesumus, ut pópulus christiánus prompta devotióne et álacri fide ad ventúra sollémnia váleat festináre.

Fourth Sunday of Lent, ICEL 1998

In a wonderful manner, Lord God,
you reconcile humankind to yourself
through your only Son, the eternal Word.
Grant that your Christian people
may press on toward the Easter sacraments
with lively faith and ready hearts.

Fourth Sunday of Lent, ICEL 2008

O God, who through your Word are accompanying
in a wonderful way
the reconciliation of the human race,
give the Christian people strength, we pray,
to hasten with keen devotion and eager faith
toward the solemn celebrations to come.

Fourth Sunday of Lent, ICEL 1973

Father of peace,
we are joyful in your Word,
your Son Jesus Christ,
who reconciles us to you.
Let us hasten towards Easter
with the eagerness of faith and love.

+++Fifth Sunday of Lent, Missale Romanum 2002

Quaesumus, Dómine Deus noster, ut in illa caritáte, qua Fílius tuus díligens mundum morti se trádidit, inveniámur ipsi, te opitulánte, alácriter ambulántes.

Fifth Sunday of Lent, ICEL 1998

Come to our aid, Lord God,
that we may walk courageously in that love
of which your Son gave proof
when he handed himself over to death
out of love for the world.

Fifth Sunday of Lent, ICEL 1973

Father,
help us to be like Christ your Son,
who loved the world and died for our salvation.
Inspire us by your love, guide us by his example.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

As I thought, "accompanying" in one of the prayers above is a misprint for "accomplishing" (operaris) (4th Sunday of Lent). This is but one sign of the sloppiness and incompetence of these wretched new translations. I had to point out to the US Bishops, via Bishop Trautman, that their version of the Roman Canon on their website made Mary the mother of Joseph her Spouse. The howler was quickly rectified. But who will rectify such little howlers as the one I just noted? Is anyone reading these translations with a critical eye to detect even such obvious flaws, let alone the constant tonal wrongness of the entire shoddy product?

[Fred]

Are the howlers typographical errors?

The what if we wait web site lists the re-translation as come under my roof.

The USCCB PDF has enter under my roof.

[cor ad cor loquitur]

The whole thing seems to be happening in a rushed way. I believe that publishers have already been briefed and given copy, even before the translations are finished, so that music can be set and Mass books prepared. The process of ‘catechesis’ (explaining to the faithful why they are being given ungrammatical and incomprehensible texts – because ‘it increases the mystery of it all’, or something like that) is well under way.

Intrepid types like Joseph and Bp Trautman have had some success with interventions over the worst howlers, but I am sure that many gems will not be spotted before the new translations are ‘rolled out’, as they say in the corporate world.

The new translations are coming. I therefore think we should focus on (1) finding and correcting the worst of the errors, as quickly as possible; (2) integrating the new texts so as to minimise pastoral problems and any possibility of schism.

I can’t see how to do (1) without the new translations being published so that people can spot the most egregious howlers. The bishops who are responsible for doing so have either failed to read the texts, or are not sufficiently competent in English to see the problems, or have seen them but fear reprisal from on high if they speak up.

The only thing I can think of to get (2) done is to continue to pray. Is St Jerome the patron of translators?

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Accomplish becomes accompany -- something slightly more than a typo.

The mistake about Mary Mother of Joseph was the result of an alteration in a previous draft that was hastily carried out. Something like, "We celebrate the memory of Mary mother of Christ and of Joseph" to "We remember Mary mother of Christ and of Joseph".

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Cor ad cor, the new translations are coming, unless at the last minute the Vatican withholds its recognitio; or rescinds it before the actual introduction of the translations.

Can we not plead, however, that permission be given to use the current translations as alternatives? The mechanics of this would be messy, but not as messy as the confusion and even the schism you see as possible.

I suppose this amounts to the same proposal as Msgr Ryan's. Some parishes will adopt the new translations and if they are popular (per impossibile) others will take them up as well.

If parishes or dioceses or religious communities simply decided not to use the new translations, that would not necessarily amount to schism.

[Sean]

For your information, Archbishop Mark Coleridge has recently started an online forum regarding the new Roman Missal. The audio and the text of his talk are also available. See http://community.catholiclife.org.au/group/mr3thenewliturgy

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Mark Coleridge is an old friend, a very charming fellow. In his speech he makes some easy points: that the current collects etc. do not do justice to the riches of the Roman Missal -- he glosses over the suppressed 1998 translations.

He is very much on the defensive. He admits that the proposed new translation is "very, very far from perfect".

He says that John XXIII indulged in zilch consultation before calling the Council, whereas the new translations have involved an extraordinary degree of consultation. The bishops, he says, were free to show the texts to anyone at all. In reality the bishops did not even read the texts themselves. The lack of consultation is the bishops' fault, largely.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

He stresses heavily the good faith of the translators and the "blood, sweat and tears" their work has cost. Alas, many a bad text has cost lots of effort.

He plays off the right -- who say Vatican II was a disruption against tradition -- against those he calls the left -- who see the new translations as a disruption of Vatican II. No, he says, they are in the trajectory of Vatican II and of Trent in a profound continuity!

[Spirit of Vatican II]

He invokes "the rhythms and dynamics of the hermeneutics of reform". Vatican II "completes the reforming trajectory of Trent". And he's off! A grandiose politico-historical vision absolves him from actually looking at the new translations or the false theory of translation behind them.

Then he talks of the Petrine Ministry and the profound point of convergence between John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II -- and between Vatican II and Pius V (1570). Such topics are far, far from what needs to be addressed: the translations themselves.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

The applause is light -- I guess the audience did not hear what they hoped to hear.

[Matthew]

It's all over, bar the shouting. The new English translation is coming (thank God). The current English translation will be abrogated (thank God).

For those people unhappy about this state of affairs, there's always another language they can use...! :-)

[Spirit of Vatican II]

So Matthew, do you really think the former of the following two texts is preferable to the latter -- or have you looked at the texts at all yet?

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.

Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.

[cor ad cor loquitur]

Joseph wrote: "Can we not plead, however, that permission be given to use the current translations as alternatives? The mechanics of this would be messy, but not as messy as the confusion and even the schism you see as possible."

Oddly enough, this move would be in line with the liturgical pluralism that Pope Benedict has advocated – making the Tridentine Mass more available, allowing the Anglican converts to use an adaptation of their own liturgy. He now celebrates Mass in a certain style (candles and crucifix between priest and people) without mandating that use more generally.

The downside of this – and we see this already – is that liturgical pluralism can degenerate into factions and ‘subdenominations’: Novus Ordo Catholics, TLM Catholics, Anglican Use Catholics, Novus Ordo with Two Confiteors Catholics, etc. I am also sure that the bishops would worry that inertia and cost concerns would keep too many parishes from moving to the new translations. Perhaps the 1973 could become an ‘extraordinary ordinary’ option…?!

Most of all, the 1973 texts have become a bugbear of conservative bishops and commentators. Given behaviours thus far I doubt that they would be allowed to continue. It is too bad, because, as you have posted in many places, the 1973 texts are bad but the 2008 are far worse. But power seems to be the overriding consideration here!

The London Jesuits at Farm Street celebrate a beautiful Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, done absolutely according to the rubrics – no Tridentine extras, birettas, maniples, etc. It has the ‘noble simplicity’ of which the Council spoke and is done with great reverence; of course it avoids translation issues entirely. The congregation gets a simple booklet of translations. The scriptures and peoples’ prayers are read in English. This, certainly, won’t change when the new translations arrive; perhaps a Latin Novus Ordo is the easiest way to avoid these ghastly translations without breaking any rules.

[Matthew]

I really do think that the new translation is excellent. And yes, I have looked at the texts--obviously nowhere near all of them, since they're not in the public domain yet, but I have the Order of Mass with EPs I-IV as a PDF. I think the heightened, mysterious, sacral style of speech is altogether a good thing.

As well as that, aren't we currently cheating people out of their heritage with the current translation? For example, in what universe is "through my own fault" an accurate translation of "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"? What we currently have, in the name of "active participation", is for the most part a paraphrase, not a translation. I am very happy it is (finally) being replaced with something a lot closer to the Latin.

And, of course, the L-word is always (and has always been, and will always be) an option for all you 1973 ICEL fans when that's abrogated... :-)

[Spirit of Vatican II]

I wonder if any parish or community that I celebrate the Mass with will allow me to say even the Eucharistic Prayers in Latin, or will provide me with the Latin Missal? Would I really be breaking no rules if I used Latin irrespective of the wishes of the congregation? On one occasion where there was a difference as to whether Mass should be said in Japanese or in English I put it to a vote -- but such democratic procedure is probably considered bizarre and subversive in our Catholic world.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"Mea maxima culpa" is not literally translated as "my own most grievous fault"; it should be "my own very great fault".

Again, we all agree that the current translations are flat -- especially in the preces and prefaces. I find that the Eucharistic Prayers as currently translated are quite satisfactory. The Mass would be greatly enriched if we added a lot more alternative Eucharistic Prayers, something Paul VI resisted.

Again, do you REALLY think that "look upon the oblation and recognize the sacrificial victim" is better than "look with favor on your Church's offering and see the victim"?

The main difference is that the new version strikes the sacrificial note three times: oblation, sacrificial, victim. But Eucharistic Prayer III in its current form already mentions sacrifice quite a lot.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"agnoscens Hostiam cuius voluisti immolatione placari"

"recognizing the Victim by whose immolation you willed to be placated" would be a more literal translation.

"by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself" is PARAPHRASE. The 2008 pretense of being a literal translation is just flimflam.