Joseph S. O'Leary homepage

Virgin Mary Accused of Incest by Befuddled American Bishops

The Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) is a prayer loved by all Catholic priests. It was well translated by ICEL back in the late 1960s, and they explained the rationale of their translation, line by line, in a booklet published at the time. It remains one of the more successful and prayable sections of the current liturgy in English. In an earlier posting I criticized a draft of the new translation of the Roman Canon that I found on Fr Zuhlsdorf’s website.

See: http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/bishop-donald-t.html

Now I have downloaded the translation in its current form as posted on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

http://usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

The latest version, which appears to have won the final approval of the Bishops, is not an improvement on previous drafts. Apart from being a very tawdry piece of English prose, it is riddled with grammatical and syntactical infelicities or errors. It even contains an extraordinary theological howler: it makes the Blessed Virgin the mother of her husband, like Jocasta! It may be asked how bishops, one of whose primary responsibilities is care for the worship of their churches, could allow such howlers to escape their notice. Perhaps they have just not done their homework. They should have studied the text carefully in the quiet of their studies, with experts at their side. Instead the matter is handled at hurried and confused meetings. Here is a glimpse of the proceedings:

http://www.adoremus.org/0809USCCBJuneMeeting.html

Bishop Donald Trautman: My question deals with the timetable. Four hundred and six pages were given to us of English texts, four hundred and six pages of Latin texts: a total of eight hundred and twelve pages to review. The material was given out around Holy Week, Easter Week, Confirmation season. In reality I judge we had two and a half weeks to review eight hundred and twelve pages.

Only five bishops out of this body have submitted amendments. In truth, I believe most bishops have not had the opportunity to review these translated texts. We should give our best consideration to what will become a new Missal, and be the prayer of our Church for decades and decades. We owe our people and the Vatican our best review of these texts. To follow an imposed timetable that does not allow adequate review is counterproductive. I cite only three examples why these texts are really not ready to move forward.

Cardinal George: Bishop, could you bring this into the discussion tomorrow, early? It’s not a clarification.

Bishop Trautman: Well, it deals with the timetable for each one of these ICEL texts. When is the best time to do that?

Cardinal George: This is a reason not to vote for the texts, I believe — because it’s not mature, if I understood. This is not a clarification, and this is the time for clarification.

Bishop Trautman: Well, I guess my question was: Is there a possibility of adjusting the timetable? That’s my question.

Bishop Serratelli: My understanding is the Holy See wants all our comments in by November, and that’s the timetable they’ve given us. Also the texts did go out in March. So we had them.

****

Bishop Serratelli: The present text has undergone thorough study and revision and the committee has accepted a number of modifications to the text. Any additional serious concerns you may have can be submitted as amendments, which are due at 5 p.m. this afternoon. This section again requires 2/3 of the Latin Church members of the USCCB with subsequent confirmation by the Holy See. Are there any questions of clarification at this time?

****

Cardinal George: Are there other questions of clarification? [More laughter] Thank you for being so clear. It seems as if there is nothing else to be clarified. The amendments are due by 5 p.m. this evening. And Bishop Serratelli do you have anything else?

Bishop Serratelli: No, that’s fine.

Cardinal George: OK, thank you very much. [Applause]

Press conference

Helen Hull Hitchcock: Do you think that the new translations will make the message more transparent, A; and B, as far as preparing people to receive the new texts and new approaches, is that something that we ought to be looking at catechetically and if so how and what can guys like us do to help?

Bishop Serratelli: …

I think the texts are more accurate in the sense — [that] the texts are certainly very well-suited for passing on the Faith. And with the proper catechesis people can deepen their understanding of the Catholic Faith, claiming some words in liturgy that we haven’t used, but will make the passing on of the Faith much easier: words like Incarnation.

Bishop Gerald Kicanas: If I may just add to Bishop Serratelli’s fine response, Helen. Among the priorities of the Conference are faith formation and sacramental practice, and one of the major activities under that goal and objective is the preparation and catechesis for the revised Roman Missal. So it’s very much on the minds of the bishops.

Archbishop George Niederauer: I think, too, it’s good to reflect where the basis of all of this work lies. The challenge is in working with living languages in terms of being true to the editio typica of the Latin text. We are working under the aegis of ICEL, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. We’re working with many different English-language groups around the entire world.

And I would imagine the people who work on the Portuguese text find that the Brazilians have some misgivings about what the Portuguese — how they may express it, and vice versa. I think it’s true from our own Latino bishops saying that Spanish is not exactly the same in every land. So that it has taken a long time, but you can get back to that saying, “Do you want it right, or do you want it Thursday?” And I think we have pretty much gone for wanting it right.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz: Helen, I would also like to add from the perspective of your question about its being in readiness to receive the text. I can speak only for the Archdiocese of Louisville. I think we’ve looked very carefully, and I think well, at the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

And I’ve tried to use the example of my golf game and taking golf instructions. And that even though I don’t often like to take instructions, I should take them more frequently. When I do, it not only improves my game, but it makes me enjoy the game more. And I think in this sense, I believe there is the potential for people being readied by saying this is not just a burden to be received, but actually the possibility for us to please God more, first of all, which is the intent of liturgy. And so to be more engaged and inspired.

Pat Zapor (CNS): This kind of follows up on Archbishop Neiderauer’s point about “Do you want it right, or do you want it Thursday?” Bishop Trautman raised the point of 812 pages that not many people have commented on. Is there really a chance that there might be an opportunity to just delay a little longer so they can comment?

Archbishop Niederauer: Didn’t Bishop Serratelli add that it was made available electronically in March?

Bishop Serratelli: It was made available electronically in March, and there was more than enough time to review it. In fact, with these books that have recently come out, more time was given to these books than to previous Gray Books.

****

Bishop Trautman: I say “yes” to a more accurate Latin translation, “yes” to a more transcendent tone, “yes” to a more elevated tone.

But a resounding “no” to incomplete sentences, to two and three clauses in one sentence. “No” to thirteen lines in one sentence as found in this Action Item. “No” to archaic phrases. “No” to texts that are not proclaimable, intelligible or pastorally sensitive to our people.

I believe the text before us is not ready for approval, not ready for the liturgical prayer life of our Church in the United States.

Cardinal George: Thank you, Bishop. Are there other comments to be made at this time? Then if you’re ready we will —

Bishop Serratelli: There being no further discussion or amendments —

Cardinal George: Do you want to say something to that at all?

Bishop Serratelli: No, that’s his personal opinion, I think.

Cardinal George: No, no. I mean it’s clear; it’s well thought out. So, then —

Bishop Serratelli: There being no further discussion or amendments, I now move that the Latin Church members of the USCCB approve the ICEL Gray Book translation of the Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Intentions for use in the dioceses of the United States of America.

****

Bishop Wester: I realize it was very brief, but Bishop Trautman made an intervention. Will that be included in the mail? [mail vote, since the live vote was inconclusive]…

Archbishop John Vlazny: One of the problems is that last year, for example, people did receive in the mail an explanation of why you should vote “no”, and there was no explanation of why you should vote “yes”. So when you’re not at the meeting, you’re not present for the dynamic…

Bishop Victor Galeone: My question is for Bishop Art Serratelli. Some six months or so ago, maybe seven, an article appeared in the London Tablet that pointed out that through a misunderstanding of a letter that was sent by then still-functioning Cardinal Arinze as head of the Congregation of Worship, that the archbishop there in South Africa actually thought that they were supposed to inaugurate, initiate the texts that had been approved up to that point. Which they did.

And the first Sunday that those texts were proclaimed in the churches of that archdiocese the priests, the people went up in arms, and said: “This is unintelligible. This is unacceptable.”

They called Rome; Rome said: “Oh, no, no, you misunderstood it. This is not to be initiated until the whole series of translations has been approved.”

My question, Bishop, were you aware of that article in the London Tablet?

Bishop Serratelli: I was aware of the fact. I didn’t read the article.

Bishop Galeone: I see. I have a copy. I left it home unfortunately. But it’s very interesting, very enlightening. Because I fear that what occurred there in South Africa could well happen in 2010, ’11 or ’12, whenever we initiate these new texts here in the United States. Our people are going to say: “What happened? This doesn’t sound like proper English.”

****

Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb (emeritus Mobile, Vox Clara member):I think we’re to a point now where Rome has tired of our hunting for reasons to delay this. And it is doing its best to insist on catechesis. We cannot do the proper catechesis until the texts are in place. Once the catechesis happens, there should probably not be the kind of exercise that took place in South Africa. Wherever those erupt — that’s our problem…

Bishop Serratelli: And it’s also important to keep in mind that if we reject these texts now they will come back to us in November along with three other texts, and if we reject them then, then we will have no say after that. So considering all the tremendous work that has gone into it, the many, many, many, many, many modifications that have been reviewed and accepted not only by our committee, but by ICEL, and the fact that other episcopal conferences have already accepted this, and considering the fact that Rome is open to the amendments that we offer now, to me it seems best to pass these, or we lose our opportunity to in any way influence the translations.

****

Bishop Kicanas: Bishop Serratelli, if this vote were deferred to November, would that be a problem, or not?

Bishop Serratelli: Well, I’d like to address that, and I’m glad you asked the question. Any of the — the vote on the —If it’s negative, it’s the work you mean, correct? Any of the texts that we do not accept, then, will go to November and will be added to the other three texts we have to look at, so the work will get greater.

And secondly, if we reject it then, then our chance to have anything to say about it will end. Because Cardinal Cañizares’s letter clearly indicated that the Holy See would like us to have our input in by the end of this year. All the other episcopal conferences — I think mostly all of them — have already given their approbation to the text. And considering the tremendous amount of work that has gone in, and the fact that the modifications or amendments that have been given now are not that substantial in terms of number or in terms of their style, I would suggest that rejecting these texts would eventually mean that we would have little say in what will be given to us as a final product.

****

Bishop Trautman: “May the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Lord, cleanse our hearts, and make them fruitful within by the sprinkling of His dew.”

I do not believe that is an intelligible or proclaimable translation. So I’m speaking against the very motion that I had submitted. I appreciate what the committee has done, but I think that’s a good illustration of why this text, this whole segment, is not worthy to go forward. That is not a text to be prayed by our people. Can you tell me what it means? “By the sprinkling of His dew”. What does that mean?

Cardinal George: What are we discussing now? [Laughter]

Bishop Serratelli: The committee partially accepted Bishop Trautman’s amendment, but now he’s spoken against the whole prayer, even with the amendment.

Cardinal George: But we can only, at this point, admit for discussion by everyone amendments. Are we — ? There’s only one amendment, so let’s — go ahead.

Monsignor Malloy: I think if I understand it correctly, the body would have to decide whether we accept the fact that — Bishop Trautman’s suggestion was that this phrase be struck from the text. The committee did not strike it from the text, they just modified it. So I think we’d have to accept consideration of this amendment by the body. And then decide whether Bishop Trautman’s modification is acceptable or not. I think we’d first have to decide whether his amendment should be considered.

Cardinal George: Do you move that?

Bishop Serratelli: I so move that.

Cardinal George: All those in favor please signify — Does everybody understand what we’re voting on now?
[Many voices: No]

Monsignor Malloy: I think what we’re voting on is whether to discuss and vote against the committee on striking the phrase “inner sprinkling of His dew”, which was the modification. So we have to decide whether or not to accept Bishop Trautman’s bringing this back to the body because the committee did not change it in the way he is suggesting.

Cardinal George: Cardinal Rigali.

Cardinal Rigali: If we are back to discussing this terminology, “the inner sprinkling of His dew”, I would like to speak against that, in favor of what the committee did. The committee says: “May the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Lord, cleanse our hearts, and make them fruitful within by the sprinkling of His dew.” Well, I would suggest that this is quite acceptable for our people. It can be read very nicely.

But the real question is the biblical image of dew. And just because we think that “dew” might not be the ordinary word, we have to be careful about eliminating biblical concepts and restricting our liturgical usage. And this is not only biblical, I think it’s also mystical. It’s been held in the tradition of the Church. And I believe it is something that reads very, very well, and that our people can meditate on. And these two petitions: “cleanse our hearts and make them fruitful by” the dew of the Spirit. That word is in Canon II, and it had difficulty there, but it’s part of our terminology, it’s part of our Scripture, it’s part of our tradition. So I think we should be very careful in eliminating it.

Cardinal George: May I first have — Thank you, Cardinal Rigali. Do we want to open up this discussion or not? That is, should we consider this phrase? And then it would seem to me, if you want to consider it, then there would be people who — This is what’s not clear, Bishop Trautman. You don’t have a suggestion; you just want to reject the committee’s suggestion. We can debate the committee’s suggestion because they have given us something positive to discuss. But —

Bishop Trautman: I think the committee was trying to be helpful. It really has not solved the issue. I would suggest we reject what the committee has recommended, and we reject this entire text. Reject the entire segment.

Cardinal George: Yes but we have to — There’s nothing to vote on if we reject the committee’s work.

Bishop William Murphy: I apologize if I confuse, which I suspect I probably will. But if I’m not mistaken, what has happened here is that the committee has presented a change that they have accepted as a committee. And so the question now is: Does the body agree with the committee? And say “yes” or “no” to that. And Bishop Trautman says “no”, and he has every right to say that. But it seems to me that the first question is: Does the body accept what the committee recommends? And then if that were to be rejected, the second thing would be for Bishop Trautman to present his suggestion of a better way to handle that particular piece of translation. [Applause]

****

Archbishop Hughes: But in light of the discussions that we’ve had and the votes that we’ve experienced, I would just like to acknowledge, first of all, every translation is imperfect and can be continually improved. If we contrast what is being presented to us with what we had before, it’s immensely improved.

We’re guided now by new norms presented to us in Liturgiam authenticam. We are to be not just faithful to the Latin text, but to the doctrinal meaning, the Scriptural references and even patristic references that are present in that text.

And we’re to use sacral language that stretches us. It’s not always the language that we hear in ordinary conversation, but language that is poetic sometimes, and elevates the spirit…

Cardinal George: Please vote. [Pause for voting] All right, we’ve closed the vote. Would you please tabulate it, and publish it. [The vote:] Yes–155; No–25; abstain–2.

So we have not the 163 necessary in order to accept the text, and so the text has not passed.

****

Cardinal Rigali: I would just like to mention the origin of the collaborative effort to turn out a translation in English. Going back to Vatican II, it was the Constitution on Divine Liturgy that foresaw the possibility of having different countries get together and try and put out a common translation. This then became the origin of ICEL. Obviously this is a very difficult job because there are many differences, etc. However, it was judged that the unity involved was still better than having multiple translations of these sacred texts. So that was the origin of it.

Actually, as it’s worked out, it’s gone through a tremendous amount of revision. Different people have looked at the text, the different conferences of bishops, and it’s going to be an international text, which does have a practical consequence. And that practical consequence is it’s really impossible — if we’re going to turn out, according to the thought of Vatican II, a common text — it’s impossible for any particular conference to have everything exactly the way you would want it. However, there’s been an awful lot of collaboration. We’ve been working to make sure it’s acceptable, it’s acceptable to ourselves, the other conferences. And that’s where we are right now. So we can’t have everything — and an individual bishop can’t have everything — that you want.

For example, I’m happy to be on the Vox Clara with Archbishop Lipscomb, Cardinal George and with Archbishop Hughes, and we make suggestions also, and nobody can have his way completely. But I recommend it as the best possible thing that we have, and without this we don’t have anything. And on further examination we’ll see that so many of these things that are presented, when you read them out loud they really do make a great deal of sense.

So I encourage the acceptance of this text. Thank you.

****

Archbishop Mansell: But I just want to be sure because, while it’s going over, that we can have some confidence that they will look at this matter of the subordinate clauses that are not complete sentences. It’s a pervasive fundamental flaw. It runs through virtually every one. When you take the personal pronouns, the relative pronouns and the question of “for” it’s in virtually every preface that’s suggested. The matter is corrected, as I mentioned yesterday, on page 153 with the formula for Consecration and the subsequent formulas.

We’re talking about the canons of basic English syntax. And for this to go forward could be truly embarrassing. If this comes back with all of these prefaces so fundamentally flawed, it’s a major embarrassment. I would hope that, you know, the bishops from the Conference who are on Vox Clara give a lot of confidence by their very experience and their outlook that this can be done. But I hope that there will be people sitting there on these issues to make sure that we don’t come back with a major problem.

****

Bishop Serratelli: I’d just like to reiterate what we’ve said, but say it again more clearly, that we’re at the end of the process.

The Holy See has clearly indicated by this November — all the work that we need to hand in to have an influence on the translations should be done by this November. If we uselessly delay the process then we will limit our ability to influence the final translations that are finally received…

Having said that, the present text that has been proposed to us is a very, very good text. And I know on ICEL and I also know in the Committee on Divine Worship that when we go over the texts we actually pray them out loud. And with the proper breathing, with the proper attention to the words, these texts — even in their present forms, even those that still may have to be changed — can easily and readily be understood and be proclaimed.

So we do not have a perfect text, but we have a text that certainly represents the end result of a long, healthy process that has made some very positive contributions to the sacral language of the liturgy.

****

Helen Hull Hitchcock: We know, at least as I understand it, these new texts are inevitable, whatever they look like in the end, that it’s not a case of the Americans having a different text from the rest of the world…

Archbishop Niederauer: …We’re already in conversation with the publishers. They want to know what they’re going to set in type — what are the actual words. And that’s what we’re going to have after we get back the recognitio from the Holy See, including the recognitio for the items that are going to be voted on in November.

Then what we’re told is that the publishers, from the moment we have that for them, they need a year — a year in which to advertise it, to publish it, to bind it, to distribute it so that it’s off their shelves onto the shelf of the sacristy where it’s going to be used…

Pat Zapor: And if there is not a 2/3 vote supporting the translations, then it comes back for November? What is the expectation?

Bishop Serratelli: I hope we don’t face that possibility. The votes seemed to indicate that most of the bishops were in favor of the translations. So I was kind of glad that the votes were revealed. The translations do have the support of the majority of bishops, it’s just getting the exact number. And I think part of the difficulty is that our numbers are down in the spring meeting. Having said that, if it does not get the proper number of bishops voting to pass it, then it would go to the bishops again in November.

 

THE ROMAN CANON

1. Te igitur

CURRENT TEXT:

We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes from the apostles.

NEW VERSION:

To you, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition, (unidiomatic and pleonastic) through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord. We ask you to accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, (pleonastic and fulsome), which we offer (offerings which we offer – clumsy) you first of all for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her (pleonastic and uncommunicative) throughout the whole world, together with (the Church together with the bishops?) your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth (sounds like propaganda, and is rather vague in its denotation), hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.

2．Commemoration of the Living

CURRENT VERSION:

Remember, Lord, your people, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. Remember all of us gathered here before you. You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well being and redemption.

NEW VERSION

Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them and all who are dear to them (confusing), we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves (confusing) and all who are dear to them (bizarre repetition), for the redemption of their souls (fustian), in hope of health and well-being (flat, unidiomatic), and fulfilling their vows to you (obscure), the eternal God, living and true.

3. Communicantes

CURRENT VERSION:

In union with the whole Church, we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, and all the saints. May their merits and prayers grant usyour constant help and protection.

NEW VERSION:

In communion with those whose memory we venerate, (fustian) especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ (heavy-handed), and of (ungrammatical; makes Mary the mother of Joseph) blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin (clumsy, unidiomatic), your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew and all your Saints: through their merits and prayers, grant that in all things we may be defended by your protecting help (pleonastic, unidiomatic)

How did the bishops succeed in making Mary the new Jocasta and Joseph the new Oedipus? Well, this text is the corrected version of an earlier draft, which read: ‘In communion with the whole Church,　they venerate above all others the memory　of the glorious ever-virgin Mary,　Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ,　then of blessed Joseph, husband of the Virgin.’

When the first ‘of’ was omitted, the ‘of’ before ‘blessed Joseph’ had no antecedent except the ‘of’ before Jesus. NOBODY NOTICED that the new text thus makes Mary the mother of Jesus and of Joseph.

One does not know whether to laugh or to cry at such pathetic incompetence. Given what is at stake, one is tempted to speak of criminal illiteracy.

It is shocking to think that this blasphemous text has already been used in public worship in South Africa. Perhaps the bishops will say it is only a minor issue and doesn't matter very much. That is as good a saying that words no longer mean what they say.

What this howler reveals is that the translation policy of the bishops, the Vatican, ICEL and Vox Clara is atomistic -- the committees discuss one word at a time and ignore the macro-context, the big picture. They are unaware of the holistic nature of texts. Myopic discussions of a word here, a word there, are conducted without any ongoing assessment of the entire text and its impact.

4. Hanc igitur

CURRENT VERSION:

Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.

NEW VERSION:

Therefore, Lord, we pray: graciously accept this oblation of our service (unidiomatic, pleonastic), that of your whole family (clumsy, obscure); order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen. (groveling, verbose)

5. Quam oblationem

CURRENT VERSION:

Bless and approve our offering: make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son our Lord.

NEW VERSION:

Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge (earlier draft: ‘recognize’) and approve this offering in every respect (pleonastic, verbose, flat); make it spiritual and acceptable (unidiomatic, unclear), so that it may become for us (earlier draft: ‘that it become for us’) the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son (fulsome), our Lord Jesus Christ.

6. Institution Narrative

CURRENT VERSION:

The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

NEW VERSION:

On the day before he was to suffer he took bread in his holy and venerable hands (pleonastic, fustian), and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father (fulsome), giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU. (the two ‘fors’ are bad style.

In a similar way (unidiomatic, confusing), when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice (mistranslation; calyx means ‘Cup’ as in the earlier draft) into his holy and venerable hands (clumsy repetition, fustian. pleonastic), and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice (mistranslation) to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE (mistranslation) OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY (mistranslation) FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

7. Anamnesis

CURRENT VERSION:

Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.
Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedech.

NEW VERSION:

Therefore, O Lord, we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, (ungrammatical punctuation; a period is required) we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty (fulsome), from the gifts that you have given us, this (earlier draft: ‘the’) pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, (pleonastic, fustian, fulsome) the holy Bread of eternal life (verbose, fulsome) and the Chalice (mistranslation) of everlasting salvation (pleonastic with ‘eternal life’).

Be pleased to look upon them with serene and kindly countenance, (unidiomatic, pleonastic; earlier draft: ‘with a serene and kindly gaze,’) and to accept them, as you were pleased to (unidiomatic, groveling, clumsy repetition) accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just (clumsy; earlier draft: 'your just servant Abel') the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.　(pleonastic, verbose, reference unclear, appended ungrammatically)

8. Epiclesis

CURRENT VERSION:

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.

NEW VERSION:

In humble prayer we ask you, (self-consciously groveling; pleonastic) almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, (verbose, fustian) so that all of us who through this participation at the altar (unidiomatic, obscure; the earlier draft had ‘sharing’) receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.

9. Intercessions

CURRENT VERSION:

Remember, Lord, those who have died and have gone before us marked with the sign of faith, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. May these, and all who sleep in Christ, find in your presence light, happiness, and peace.

For ourselves, too, we ask some share in the fellowship of your apostles and martyrs, with John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, and all the saints. Though we are sinners, we trust in your mercy and love. Do not consider what we truly deserve, but grant us your forgiveness.

Through Christ our Lord.

Through him you give us all these gifts. You fill them with life and goodness, you bless them and make them holy.

NEW VERSION:

Remember also, Lord, your servants N. and N., who have gone before us with the sign of faith and rest in the sleep of peace (unidiomatic, pleonastic). Grant them, O Lord, we pray, and all (ungrammatical) who sleep in Christ, a place of refreshment, light, and peace.
To us also your sinful servants who hope in your abundant mercies, graciously grant (pleonastic, and groveling) some share and fellowship with (ungrammatical, pleonastic; earlier draft had ‘some share in the communion of’)，your holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, and all your Saints, admit us, we beg you, into their company, (groveling) not weighing our merits but granting us pardon, through Christ our Lord.
Through whom you continue to create all these good things, O Lord, you make them holy, (ungrammatical) fill them with life, bless them, and bestow them on us. (flat, obscure).

10. Doxology

CURRENT VERSION:

Through him, with him, in him, in the　unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and　honor is yours, almighty Father, for　ever and ever.

NEW VERSION:

Through him, and with him, and in　him, to you, O God, almighty Father,　in the unity of the Holy Spirit, is all　honor and glory, for ever and ever　(clumsy, unidiomatic).

FUSTIAN: This refers to old, dead diction that cannot be renewed for contemporary use.

PLEONASM: Pleonasm, using two words that have the same meaning, e.g. ‘holy and venerable hands,’ had been a hallmark of Latin liturgical style since pre-Christian times. It is not experienced as an enrichment or adornment in English, however, perhaps because we have been so influenced by Shakespeare and Milton, who loaded every rift with ore, avoiding the pleonasms that can sound so grand in Latin languages. That is why much of French verse is untranslatable into English. The pleonasms of Racine are sublime: Oublions-les, Madame, et qu’à tout l’avenir/Un silence éternel cache ce souvenir, becomes in English: ‘Let us forget them, Madam, and for all the future/Let an eternal silence hide that memory.’ Nothing sublime about that! The same problem dogs the new translation of the Roman Canon.

GROVELLING: Liturgical language should not reduce the dignity of the one praying in the name of glorifying God.

Oddities of the New Translations of the Missal

The Vatican, egged on by an ignorant claque, are hurtling toward another egregious scandal, which will undercut the credibility of bishops all over the English-speaking world by putting their illiteracy on public display. The one man who is trying to stop this train-wreck is Bishop Donald Trautman. The bishops must heed his warning voice, and not the shrieking ignoramuses of the following variety: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/11/bp-donald-ineffable-trautmans-jihad-against-the-new-translation/

I offer below a small sampling of the illiteracies in the new translations. The problem is far deeper than this can show. The new texts have no merit at all, since they make not the slightest effort at style or rhythm. It is argued that St Jerome, contrary to his usual practice、translated the Bible literalistically, relying on the original to supply the rhythm. But in fact Jerome was a stylist to his fingertips, even when being very literal. The faceless committees who concoct liturgical translations -- and especially the present batch based on the mistaken principles of Liturgiam Authenticam -- simply have no conception of style.

Concern with correct grammar, coherent syntax. communicative and eloquent diction, is mocked as elitism by the boors and philistines who are purveying these corrupt texts. They claim to speak in the name of Joe and Mary Catholic just as Sarah Palin speaks in the name of Joe Six-Pack. And the bishops seem to have the same patronizing attitude, believing that what is shoddy, ugly and dead will do for their flock.

Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them and all who are dear to them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them, for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and fulfilling their vows to you, the eternal God, living and true.

OR THEY OFFER IT FOR THEMSELVES AND AND ALL WHO ARE DEAR TO THEM?

The phrase in Latin is sometimes thought to signal an alternative reading.

FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THEIR SOULS, IN HOPE OF HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, AND FULFLLING THEIR VOWS TO YOU

Gibberish!
 
Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

LIKE THE DEWFALL?

Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify your Son, Jesus Christ.

FALLEN ASLEEP IN THE HOPE?

DIED IN YOUR MERCY?

INTO THE LIGHT OF YOUR FACE?

You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.

A SACRIFICE TO YOUR NAME?

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.

RECOGNIZING?

To our departed brothers and sisters and to all who were pleasing to you at their passing from this life, give kind admittance to your kingdom. There we hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory through Christ our Lord through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.

GIVE KIND ADMITTANCE?

We give you praise, Father most holy, for you are great, and you have fashioned all your works in wisdom and in love. You formed man in your own image, and entrusted the whole world to his care, so that in serving you alone, the Creator, he might have dominion over all creatures. And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship, you did not abandon him to the domain of death. For you came in mercy to the aid of all, so that those who seek might find you. Time and again you offered them covenants and through the prophets taught them to look forward to salvation.

AH, SURE, YOU’RE GREAT!
YOU DID NOT ABANDON HIM… FOR YOU CAME IN MERCY TO THE AID OF ALL.
(I did not abandon my child… FOR I provided money for his education.
I did not neglect my studies… FOR I studied every evening.)

TIME AND AGAIN
(In English it always has a negative sense: ‘Time and again I have told you, but you never listen’ — so is the text scolding the Jews or what?)

LOOK FORWARD TO SALVATION
I look forward to a treat or a good movie. ‘Hey, Lord, I’m looking forward to seeing you again when you come in glory!’

And that we might live no longer for ourselves but for him who died and rose for us, he sent the Holy Spirit from you, Father, as the first fruits for those who believe, so that, bringing to perfection his work in the world, he might sanctify creation to the full.

THE FIRST FRUITS FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE?

SANCTIFY TO THE FULL?

Therefore, O Lord, we pray, may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these gifts, that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery, which he himself left us as an eternal covenant.

FOR THE CELEBRATION
Get your party hat ready for the celebration?

In a similar way, taking the chalice filled with the fruit of the vine, he gave thanks, and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

CALIX is CUP not CHALICE in modern English

IN A SIMILAR WAY — not the same way? What was the difference? Compare and contrast.

THE FRUIT OF THE VINE? GRAPES?

Therefore, O Lord, as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember Christ’s death and his descent to the realm of the dead, we proclaim his Resurrection and his Ascension to your right hand; and as we await his coming in glory, we offer you his Body and Blood, the sacrifice acceptable to you which brings salvation to the whole world.

AS WE CELEBRATE, WE REMEMBER, WE PROCLAIM, AND AS WE AWAIT, WE OFFER.

What exactly is going on here?

Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice which you yourself have provided for your Church and grant in your loving kindness to all who partake of this one Bread and one Chalice that, gathered into one body by the Holy Spirit, they may truly become a living sacrifice in Christ to the praise of your glory.

A COMMA AFTER ‘Church’ MIGHT ALLOW A BREATHING SPACE.

A SACRIFICE TO is usually followed by the person or cause demanding it — e.g. a sacrifice to God or to duty. A SACRIFICE TO THE PRAISE is a solecism. A SACRIFICE OF PRAISE is a biblical locution.

How do we TRULY BECOME A LIVING SACRIFICE IN CHRIST?

Therefore, Lord, remember now all for whom we make this offering: especially your servant, N. our Pope, N. our Bishop and the whole Order of Bishops, all the clergy, those who make this offering, those gathered here before you, your entire people, and all who seek you with a sincere heart.

WE MAKE THIS OFFERING FOR THOSE WHO MAKE THIS OFFERING?
 
Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope, and the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ.

BY THE HELP OF YOUR MERCY?

THE BLESSED HOPE, AND THE COMING — two different things?
 
May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation, we pray, O Lord, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity your pilgrim Church on earth, with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, the Order of Bishops, all the clergy, and the entire people you make your own. Listen graciously to the prayers of this family, whom you have summoned before you. In your compassion, O Merciful Father, gather to yourself all of your children scattered throughout the earth.

PLEONASM AND REDUNDANCY ARE ACCEPTED HALLMARKS OF ROMAN LITURGICAL LANGUAGE SINCE PRE-CHRISTIAN TIMES. THEY SOUND DEAD IN ENGLISH.

Gloriosissima Gobbledygook!

It is truly right to give you thanks, truly just to give you glory, Father, most holy, for you are the one God living and true, existing before all ages and abide for all eternity, dwelling in unapproachable light; yet you, who alone are good, the source of life, have made all that is, so that you might fill your creatures with blessings and bring joy to many of them by the glory of your light. And so, in your presence are countless hosts of angels, who serve you day and night and, gazing upon the glory of your face, glorify you without ceasing. With them we too confess your name in exultation, giving voice to every creature under heaven as we sing (say):

This is the start of the 4th Eucharistic Prayer in the new Vatican translation. There is lots more here: http://usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

Vatican Sleepwalks toward yet another Scandal

The Vatican, learning nothing from a string of embarrassing incidents, is still intent on imposing the utterly awful new translations of the liturgy in the English speaking world. It is no exaggeration to say that these translations, which are part of the strategy for imposing the Vatican's 'new interpretation' of Vatican II, are marked by three signal qualities: ignorance of English, ignorance of Latin, and ignorance of Theology. Bishop Donald Trautman, Bishop Kevin Dowling and a host of others have predicted that these new texts will prompt yet another exodus from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

South African Catholics were accidentally exposed to the new translations. and their reaction was damning.

 

Bishop Dowling wrote:

"With reference to the letters concerning the new translation of the Order of the Mass, I feel as a pastor that I needed to express my deep concern at the distress of the people who wrote in. The critical letters only confirm what I have heard from other priests, religious and lay faithful. It was especially sad to read the comment of one correspondent, quoted in the editorial of December 24: “I hate you, hierarchy”. I share the pain and frustration felt by people who wrote to The Southern Cross. Their concerns about the new translation are similar to my own.

When the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) received the new texts from the Vatican, my reaction to many of the proposed changes was that it was a purely arbitrary decision to demand that the English text had to faithfully represent the Latin in the first place, that many of the changes made no sense, and that some of the formulations were simply bad English. I therefore agree with the analysis provided by Fr John Converset MCCJ in his letter in the same issue.

In passing, at the moment we are discussing only the English translation. What is going to be done when it comes to our African indigenous languages, and openness to diverse cultural and linguistic expressions of faith?

I have the impression that some people, perhaps many, think that this idea about conforming to a Latin text and the new translations itself were the work of the SACBC, and therefore their opposition has to be directed at the bishops out here. Fair enough. But in view of fully conveying what actually happened, it must be understood that this new translation was imposed on us by the Vatican and the group with which it worked at that level.

True, as with every other English-speaking conference of bishops, we were requested to go through the text sent out to us, and the views expressed (opinions among bishops will differ) were sent back to the Vatican. But contrary viewpoints did not have to be incorporated at that level, so that what we now have is what was promulgated and sent out by the Vatican. Some people, including bishops, may have no problem with what we have to use now and we have to be open to the reality that people will think differently.

What this decision also means is that years and years of painstaking work on new liturgical texts by the original International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has been set aside in place of implementing what has now been decided by the Vatican and the group with which it consults or works.

My personal views in this article are expressed out of deep concern about the hurt and damage decisions like these can cause to the People of God. It cannot be presumed that thinking lay faithful, priests and religious are simply going to accept what is imposed on them from above when it makes no sense to them. Hence the opposition expressed in the letters.

There are important issues here which need to be discussed honestly. After all, what has been promulgated does not form part of “the deposit of the faith” and can therefore be changed or improved on.

To me there is no cogent reason why the language which the People of God in any place use to express their faith and spirituality, and to celebrate the Eucharist, the sacraments and so on has to conform to a Latin text. People ask why — and rightly so. I am concerned that this latest decision from the Vatican may be interpreted as another example of what is perceived to be a systematic and well-managed dismantling of the vision, theology and ecclesiology of Vatican II during the past years.

I believe the English-speaking conferences of bishops should have stood their ground and challenged the decisions taken at the Vatican as an expression of collegial discernment. We should have communicated to the Vatican that “it seems good to the Spirit and to us” that we proceed with our discernment together with the whole People of God about what is the best way we can express and celebrate our faith in English and every other language.

Our objective as Church should surely be that instead of making everyone conform to a dead-language text we need to allow diversity in cultural and linguistic expressions of faith communities around the world.

It seems to me that we need to take much more seriously our collegial role and mission as bishops in accordance with the vision and theology of Vatican II, and after discernment and consultation with all the People of God stand up for what we believe to be in the best interests of our people."

A Jesuit writes: "No one I meet seems to like the new English translation of the liturgy. Some have objected to its non-inclusive language. Others complain that it is grammatically odd and full of ancient words nobody uses today. It’s even been called a ‘Latinglish Funakalo’, a reference to the crude pidgin of South African languages used in the past on mines and in factories – seen by most black people as an insult to their languages and the rich cultures that underpin them."

"

It is a crisis insofar as it generates deep divisions in the Church. A simple imposition of the liturgy as it stands may have numerous unhappy consequences. At ‘best’, it may lead to an increasingly passive community, with varying degrees of disillusionment and resignation. It will not renew a sense of life to the Church, nor will it probably deepen Eucharistic faith. It may lead to disruptive ‘passive resistance’, with opponents to the new liturgy blurting out the ‘old lines’ as loudly as possible, disrupting the sense of unity that the liturgy calls us to share. At worst, it could lead to some angrily walking out of the church, declaring that ‘it’s not the church I joined’. If we note that this new translation has yet to be implemented in the major English speaking areas of the Church, we might imagine how horribly these scenarios might be magnified, particularly in countries where there is an active, vocal and well-organised laity who are already combative in the wake of the long battles over Humanae Vitae, married and women priests, and sexual abuse scandals."

(http://www.jesuitinstitute.org.za/en/node/96)

Paul Collins has some excellent comments:

“It was always envisaged that the English translation needed to be revised, and in 1981 the English-speaking bishops and ICEL began a careful revision of the whole process which aimed at improving the translation by giving it a more poetic, elevated, sacred feel. At the same time there was a realization that inclusive language also needed to be introduced. Work progressed throughout the 1980s and 1990s and by the late 1990s a Revised English Missal was ready.

“However, the political ground in Rome had already shifted radically. Up until the late-1980s the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW), the Vatican department which deals with liturgical matters, didn’t oppose the work of ICEL and recognized that it was the responsibility of the English-speaking bishops’ conferences. But in the mid-eighties and early nineties the senior personnel at the CDW changed. A series of conservative cardinals prefect of the CDW (Paul Augustin Mayer, OSB (1984-88), Eduardo Martinez Somalo (1988-92) and Antonio Javierre Ortas, SDB (1992-96)) showed little sympathy for the Vatican II vision of the church, let alone for a vernacular liturgy under the control of local bishops’ conferences. Mayer said publicly that ICEL needed to be restructured and redirected.

“But the real crunch came when the Chilean Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, a friend and supporter of the dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who presided at the general’s funeral Mass, was appointed cardinal prefect of the CDW in 1996. He came to the CDW right at the time when ICEL was ready to submit the revised English liturgy to Rome for a recognitio, an approval for use throughout the English-speaking world. Also at this time the centralizing process that had come with John Paul II (1978-2005) was well under-way; it was intolerable to the bureaucrats of the Vatican, and particularly to people like Medina, that English-speaking bishops’ conferences were making decisions about the English used in the liturgy. Bishops were there to do what Rome wanted. It was the high-water mark of the John Paul II years and Romanità, the Roman-Vatican view of the world, was re-asserting itself with a vengeance. What is also significant is that not one of the critics of ICEL was a natural English-speaker: Mayer was a German and the other three were Spanish-speakers! …

“As soon as he (Medina) got to the CDW he set about systematically dismantling the whole liturgical renewal. Essentially he is nothing more than an old-style fascist and liturgical reactionary who had strategically decided that if he could bring the English-speaking bishops to heel, the largest linguistic group in the Catholic world, he would have no trouble bringing other linguistic groups under Roman control, including his own Spanish-speaking world. On 20 March 2001 he issued the Instruction, Liturgiam authenticam (‘Authentic Liturgy’(LA)), an Instruction on the principles of liturgical translation and celebration. (See the Vatican web page at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents). Medina claimed that John Paul II had asked the CDW to prepare LA, but these were the declining years of Pope Wojtyla and the Curia was doing pretty much what it wanted to do. LA actually reflects Medina’s views - and those of the liturgical reactionaries - rather than the views of mainstream liturgical scholars and ordinary Catholics. The former editor of The Tablet, John Wilkins, in an important and detailed article in Commonweal on the liturgy wars says that LA ‘did not recommend, it commanded. It insisted that translations follow an extreme literalism, extending even to syntax and rhythm, punctuation, and capital letters. The clear implication was that in this way it would be possible to achieve a sort of “timeless” English above the change of fashion, a claim reminiscent of that made for the Ronald Knox translation of the Bible, which today is so dated that it is not read except as a period piece’ (Commonweal, 2 December 2005).

“LA essentially set out to replace all previous post-conciliar texts from the Vatican which set out the principles of liturgical translation. A kind of ‘overview’ put out by the CDW itself describes Medina’s time at the Congregation as ‘a new era in translation of liturgical texts.’ Essentially LA shifts the emphasis in the translation process from making sense in English to a literal rendering of the Latin, in other words a shift from a focus on the congregation to a focus on the text. It says that the translation of liturgical texts ‘is not so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness in rendering the Latin texts into a vernacular language.’ …

“The English-speaking bishops involved in liturgical translation and ICEL fought very hard against the Medina putsch but this led to ICEL personnel, particularly Dr John Page, the executive secretary of ICEL, being increasingly marginalized by the CDW in the late-1980s and 1990s. The result was that Medina refused a recognitio to the revised English Missal in 2002. Page resigned that same year after 22 years as head of ICEL and thirty years as a translator of liturgical texts, as did ICEL chairman, Bishop Maurice Taylor of Galloway, Scotland. After they left, the complete subversion of ICEL began. All of the old staff were replaced and a new executive secretary was appointed, Father (now Monsignor) Bruce Harbert, a priest of Birmingham archdiocese and a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism. Previously he had been highly critical of the work of the old ICEL. Now he had his chance.

“In 2002 a complete revision of all ICEL’s translation work began in secret. ‘ICEL was no longer to seek the advice of poets and other writers, but only of patristic scholars. The language is to be distinctively Catholic, sacral, Roman; as the mind and heart are raised to God, they should be sure to stop off in Saint Peter’s’ (Austen Ivereigh, The Tablet, 17 January 2004)…

“As the new ICEL worked their way through the ordinary of the Mass they sent out their work to bishops’ conferences for comment. Many bishops were very unhappy with the suggested changes. As they worked through the various English versions the bishops sent in many corrections, amendments, criticisms and suggestions. Clearly they could foresee what was ahead in terms of acceptance by priests and people. But no one in Rome was listening to them and much of their advice was ignored. Rome was determined to push ahead no matter what happened pastorally…

“Bishop Trautman gives voice to the kinds of questions that occur to anyone who has read the new ICEL translation: ‘In evaluating the translations we need to consider whether the texts are both understandable and proclaimable, and whether they use a word order, vocabulary and idiom of the mainstream of English-speaking people. If these texts are to be the prayers of the people, are they owned by them and expressed in their language? The texts include new words … such as "consubstantial to the Father" and "incarnate of the Virgin Mary", while words in the various new Collects include "sullied", "unfeigned",  "ineffable", "gibbet", "wrought", "thwart". Do these texts communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly?’ These are the real pastoral questions we have to ask.

“Austen Ivereigh is perhaps less measured that Bishop Trautman, but nevertheless his comments ring completely true. Having conceded that the new ICEL translation may work, he concludes ‘it is also conceivable that the new Missal will prove a disaster, stuffed with archaisms and artificiality, reeking of a restorationist putsch, reflecting a fundamentalist response to modernity … In that case history may record that at the precise moment when liturgical translation was finding its own better balance between inculturation and fidelity, a fearful Rome intervened aggressively, alienating experienced liturgists just when they needed them.’

“My own view is that this exercise will be a disaster, the last nail in the coffin of the credibility of the leadership of the Church. The history shows that this whole process has been ideologically driven by a tiny, unrepresentative minority who are insensitive to the real pastoral needs of the Catholic community and who, at heart, reject the Second Vatican Council. Worse, they don’t care about what happens, they are not interested in how many more people are driven out of the Church by the pomposity of what is essentially mid-Victorian English rather than some type of ‘sacred’ language.”

http://www.catholicsforministry.com.au/news/another-looming-roman-disaster-this-time-liturgy/

The New English Liturgy's First Outing: A Disaster!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izGBXjejSklazOAV28OEwt9ELS2AD96VLU5G0

http://creativeadvance.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-new-english-liturgy-be-seen-as.html

Bishop Donald Trautman: A Voice Crying in the Desert

1.     WHAT HE SAID

.

The new ICEL translations, prepared without consultation with liturgists or writers or the laity, are kept vigilantly under lock and key, despite the immense benefits that would come from throwing them open to wider criticism. Can anything save the long-suffering worshipers of the English-speaking world from the high-handedness of the bureaucrats who have hijacked their spiritual life? The proposed new translations are horrible as examples of written English, and if used in Church will have a deadening effect on the liturgy, discouraging the lay participation called for by Vatican II.

.

Bishop Trautman of Erie diocese, chair of the United States Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, has now published on his website his much-noticed America article on this looming scandal: http://www.eriercd.org/america.asp. He writes: ‘To what extent are the new prayers of the Missal truly pastoral?  Do these new texts communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly?...  How pastoral are the new Collects when they are all in one single sentence containing a jumble of subordinate clauses and commas?... What happened to the liturgical principles of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? The Council Fathers of Vatican II stated: “Texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify.  Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively and as it befits a community”... The drafting of principles and norms of translation for vernacular languages should have involved the broadest consultation of Episcopal Conferences as well as liturgical and biblical scholars. However, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in 2001 issued a 36-page instruction on liturgical translation without collegial or collaborative effort... When the document Liturgiam Authenticam was issued, the executive board of the Catholic Biblical Association stated that this document “contains provisions detrimental to solid biblical scholarship…and advocates policies that make it difficult to produce good vernacular translations”. Those were prophetic words which have now been verified... I was dismayed when I recently learned that our liturgists — professionals with degrees and experience, teaching at our academic institutions — did not have access to the work of ICEL. No wonder there has been such limited public scrutiny of these translated texts. Some Bishops have consulted individual liturgical experts, but the learned societies of liturgists have been excluded. It would be pastorally prudent and so beneficial to translated texts destined for the worshipping assembly if the laity were involved in the preliminary process for judging the ICEL texts. For example, the proposed liturgical translated prayers could be proclaimed to lay groups to receive their initial reactions: What did they hear; what did they understand; did these texts lift their minds and hearts to God? ... If the language of the liturgy is a stumbling block to intelligibility and proclaimability, then the lex orandi, lex credendi is severely compromised.’  Bishop Trautman calls on the laity to speak up (the bishops having failed them), and he provides a list of addresses to which one should write.

.

2.     THE NEOCATH RESPONSE

.

But how are the laity speaking up? The most audible voices are those of the radtrads or their near cousins the neocaths, and they have decided to make the new translations an issue of orthodoxy, on the pretext that the Novus Ordo translations authorized by Paul VI are riddled with subtle heresy. It is they who are most likely to write to the addresses listed by Bishop Trautman, while the majority of the laity remain disempowered and disaffected.

.

Here is how prominent neocath blogger Amy Welborn greets Bishop Trautman’s warning (http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2007/06/note_to_john_an.html):

.

‘1) He ignores principles. Well, he has one - that of “pastoral” - but there is much more to liturgical language than that, and even that  - “pastoral” doesn’t rise to the level of a principle because who knows what it means? What pleases your ear might grate on mine, so whom should the translators have in mind as they seek to be “pastoral?” No. There is much more to the matter of liturgical texts than that, and there are innumerable other issues related to the purpose and shape of liturgical language, none of which ever seem to appear in anything I read from Bishop Trautman on the issue.’ [Amy Welborn is an expert at turning a deaf ear.]

.

‘2) This “John and Mary Catholic” who haunt Bishop Trautman’s conscience are a worrisome pair. They are worrisome because of what they imply about a cleric’s view of the laity. As I have blogged and written before, many times, clerics and those in the church bureaucracy need to get their stories straight. Are we “the most highly educated laity in the history of the church” capable of making our moral decisions all on our own, without substantive Church guidance... or are we idiots who can’t figure out what “dew” is?’ [This indignation is misplaced; ICEL and the Vatican have deliberately excluded the laity from any role in the production of the new translations; to make it seem as if they were rapturously greeted by the laity in spite of begrudging bishops is the exact opposite of the truth. It is revelatory of a militant ideological outlook that that the fans of the unpublished new translations react so captiously and abrasively to criticism from qualified persons who have actually read the translations.]

.

‘I would gently suggest that those who are worried about translations, who don’t like the more elevated tone, not rely on the “the laity are too stupid to understand this” line of argumentation. There are, indeed, legitimate ways to discuss a translation and its fittingness, but this, in the end, is going to come back to bite you. [The liberal bishops are to blame and they are going to be bitten! The bishop’s perfectly legitimate discussion, which in no way impugned the intelligence of the laity, is met here by mere aggression.] Why? Well, because if it begs the simple question. If the laity can’t understand theological concepts expressed in slightly elevated or layered ways, could it be because no one’s bothered to teach them?’ [Again, this scrupulously misses the point. The ICEL translations may aim at elevation, but they miss their aim. The bishops is pointing to the unproclaimable and ungainly nature of the language, which destroys the elevation that he sees as pastorally required. But Amy Welborn touches on a sore point: these new translations are supposed to be ‘taught’ to the laity -- but where is the theological justification for them, and what theological instruction is supposed to accompany them? Lectures on the use of the metaphor of dew in the Hebrew Bible? Some frustrated pastors have suggested that since the bishops went it alone in composing and/or approving these incompetent translations they should undertake the task of explaining them directly to the laity.]

.

In Amy Welborn’s combox, Bishop Trautman becomes the target of the usual repertory of vitriolic abuse that neocaths systematically hurl at anyone they perceive to belong to the Vatican II generation: ‘Obviously Bishop Trautman wants a translation that an 18 year old with an IQ of 84 will fully comprehend at first hearing.’ ‘The man is an endless stream of complaints. If the carp isn’t a part of his episcopal seal, it should be.’ ‘His bizarre judgments about us indicate that he is really in the wrong post.’ ‘With all due respect to Bishop Trautman: “Your time is up. Move on.”‘ Much more comment in the same sarcastic vein can be found on other blogs: the neocaths have targeted Bishop Trautman as one of the Vatican II fogeys they consider it their mission to liquidate. The plain common sense of his remarks only makes them more offensive in neocath eyes, and his plea for sanity is characterized as dissidence and rebellion against the Pope.

.

3.     ANOTHER NEOCATH RESPONSE

.

Another neocath blogger, lauded for her ‘measured response’ by Amy Welborn, dismisses Bishop Trautman’s seasoned words of wisdom as ‘a condescendingly and poorly written tantrum’: http://happycatholic.blogspot.com/2007/06/mary-catholic-ponders-new-translations.html. This rather abusive posting, by Julie D., again strikes the pose of the insulted laywoman in archly ironic tones: ‘By the way, thanks so much, Bishop, for thinking that we’re all too stupid to understand large or unfamiliar words. How uncharitable of you to assume the worst and then insult us by shouting it to the world.’ Like Amy Welborn, Julie D. sees nothing lacking in the miserable specimens of English the Bishop quoted. However, she adds: ‘Nice job, Bishop. Way to simultaneously rile up and depress people over something that they have no control over. However that is the way tantrums work. They draw attention and that is the ultimate goal of a tantrum ... to get attention and one’s own way.’ Here she appears to concede her own frustration that the laity have no control over translations; perhaps she is ‘tantrumizing’ about the current translations – if so, she will have much more to agonize about when the new ones are imposed! She admits that ‘words and translations do matter. If they matter in everyday life as we all know, then surely they matter when lifting our hearts and souls to God. Surely this is worth hammering out until it is right, rather than convenient “as is.”‘ Unfortunately, the proposed new translations are NOT an improvement on what we have at present, and though they may in turn be replaced when found wanting, that is unlikely to happen for perhaps as long as the current translation has lasted.

.

However, Julie D., who initially trusted the translation committee rather than the bishop on a priori grounds, has since heard the new Roman Canon (reproduced below) read out by a priest, and her reaction has been ecstatic:

.

‘The words rolled over us and I suddenly was awash in phrases that showed me God’s majesty, Jesus’ sacrifice, my place in it, God’s unending love for me ... and I felt gratitude and love in response. This may sound as if I’m overstating it. I’m not. I practically was in tears. That language literally lifted me to God. Meanwhile, I was astounded at the sparseness of the current text that corresponded to what was being read.’ She describes the present translation as the language of ‘efficiency’ and the new one as the language of ‘mystery’.

.

De gustibus non est disputandum. At least she is one of the fortunate few who have had access to the kind of consultation Bishop Trautman called for. Only it comes too late to have any influence on the translation process. She ends by saying, anyway it’s not up to us, we’ll be used to the new translation after six months, we’ll have something else to worry about, after all who now remembers the brouhaha about the Da Vinci Code. But as thirty years of nagging about the current translation show, this is overoptimistic. I predict that the new translations will be a source of headaches for many years, and will further contribute to the voiding of churches.

.

4.     THE SECRET TEXT

.

Ironically, it seems that Julie D.’s experience of hearing the new translations was illicit, to judge from the following letter:

.

From: “Peter Finn” <pfinn@eliturgy.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007

.

Dear Father Finigan:

It has come to our attention that the proposed translation (Gray Book) of the Order of Mass circulated in January 2006 by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy has been included on your blogspot (the-hermeneutic-of continuity.blogspot.com). This translation has been produced without the Commission’s permission and in violation of the ICEL copyright. We ask therefore that the text be removed immediately from the site.

This proposed translation has been sent to the Conferences for their canonical vote and prepared after consideration of comments from Conferences of Bishops, the Vox clara Committee, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments on the ICEL February 2005 draft translation (Green Book).

The Bishops of the Commission are concerned that these texts not be released to the general public until the requisite votes have been taken and after the preparation of any additional revisions that may follow upon their vote and the recognitio issued by the Congregation to the Conferences. The Bishops of the Commission are especially concerned that these texts be introduced with sufficient catechetical materials intended to aid the reception of the new translation.

In light of these and other concerns, we ask for your kind cooperation in this matter and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Finn
Associate Executive Director
International Commission on English in the Liturgy
1522 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-1202
Phone: 202-347-0800
FAX: 202-347-1839
PFinn@eliturgy.org

.

Here is Fr Tim Finigan’s reply:

Dear Mr Finn

Thank you for your email of yesterday evening (“ICEL2006 text of the Order of Mass”) which I have just read.

I obtained the text of the “Gray Book” draft of the new ICEL translation from the internet and I understand that it is widely available in South Africa. However, I note that ICEL wish to insist that my mirroring of this text is a violation of their copyright and I have removed the translation from my blog.

I am, of course aware that the text which I published is not the final version and I hope that I made this sufficiently clear. Several readers have made intelligent comments on my blog and elsewhere on the internet regarding the translation and I wish that ICEL were able to see the value of involving a wider group of people in consultation. The internet used with discernment is a most effective medium for obtaining fruitful discussion and it seems a pity that the process of producing a translation should exclude the many faithful English-speaking Catholics across the globe who would be glad to contribute their time and expertise free of charge in order to help in establishing the best translation possible for the texts of the Mass.

You say that the Bishops are “especially concerned” that the texts should not be introduced without sufficient catechetical materials that would aid the reception of the new translations. As a priest who has worked in parishes for 21 years, I find it difficult to understand this concern. The existing translations which Catholics are obliged to use every day present such severe shortcomings that they are in themselves a significant barrier to effective catechesis. I cannot see that any harm could come from publishing the draft texts. They have been a great encouragement to many faithful Catholics who have endured inaccurate, theologically impoverished translations of the texts of the Sacred Liturgy for over 30 years. Most Catholics will be immediately delighted with the new translation and amazed that the full richness of the texts of the Mass has been hidden from them for so long.

On the matter of copyright, I know that many good priests and lay people share my concern that the enforcement of copyright by ICEL over the past decades has not served the Church well. The restriction of publishing rights to one or two publishers has given rise to a monopoly with the result that only poorly produced books are available for priests to use in their parishes. The most recent Missal that I purchased for my parish needed to be reinforced with tape after only six weeks of use. The “deluxe” leather-bound “Book of the Chair” fell apart at the seams after a year or so of normal use.

There are many Catholics who would be willing to finance the production of good quality, beautifully produced Missals were it only possible to do so without falling foul of copyright restrictions. When the final text is given recognitio by the Congregation for Divine Worship, I sincerely hope that it will be made freely available on the internet in order that faithful Catholics can foster the production of worthy and dignified books for use in the Sacred Liturgy without unnecessary obstacles being placed in their way. Copyright for ecclesiastical texts is properly used if it prevents profiteering or the production of inaccurate copies. It is an abuse, surely, if it prevents good Catholics from providing excellent materials for our Liturgy.

Yours sincerely in Christ

Fr Timothy Finigan

(http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/04/letter-from-icel.html)

.

5.     REACTIONARY DENUNCIATIONS

.

Amazingly, the Denver Catholic Register has hauled out neocon George Weigel to demolish Bishop Trautman: http://www.archden.org/dcr//news.php?e=424&s=3&a=8902. Weigel attacks the current translation, as if Bishop Trautman were calling for more of the same, and reduces his critique of the new translation to a question of dumbing-down. ‘Are there clunkers in the new translations? Undoubtedly. But will ICEL’s attempt to restore the sacral vocabulary and linguistic rhythms of the Roman Rite to Catholic worship within the Anglosphere destroy our ability to pray as a community? Please; we’re not morons. I’d even venture the guess that prayers translated with far more fidelity to the Latin originals will be a step toward a deeper, more prayerful encounter with what Bishop Trautman rightly calls “the greatest gift of God, the Eucharist.”‘ This is wishful thinking based on a priori trust in the translation committee, and ignores Trautman and St Jerome’s distinction between literal and faithful translation. The clunkiness of the new translations is not incidental, but endemic, because it is due to the underlying false theory of translation.

.

Appallingly, the neocath blogosphere has taken up and orchestrated Weigel’s guffaws, including his captious and specious suggestions that heresy has infiltrated the current translations. Perhaps when the new translations, which Bishop Trautman has read and Weigel hasn’t, are imposed, many who are now cheering will be grinding their teeth, saddled with an embarrassment (much as former enthusiasts for George W. Bush and his Iraq cakewalk are now cringing).

.

Bishop Peter Elliot of Melbourne has written an extremely reactionary denunciation of the current translations: ‘The translations we use have effectively perpetuated elements of a dead and discredited school of theology. I refer to the secularized theology of the 1960s. Some of my generation and those among us who are a little older can recall the “secular city” of Harvey Cox, the “God is dead” theology of Bishop John Robinson and the London “left bank”, when views such as “religionless Christianity” circulated’ (http://www.adoremus.org/0607LiturgicalTranslation.html). This totally jaundiced picture of the present translations (he does not think much of the French ones either, though they are surely far superior) does nothing to guarantee that the new ones are going to be any better. The claimed literal fidelity of the new ones pleases the reactionary instincts of the neocaths. This means that as an ideological imposition that are quite likely to displease and alienate the vast majority of Catholics, who do not sigh for motu proprios, Mass celebrated with the priest’s back to the people, and sacrificial and mariological jargon of the 1950s. The new translations are shaping up to look like a coup from the Catholic right. That the coup is attended by such appalling linguistic incompetence is a reflection on the ill-adjusted nature of their theology as well.

.

The partisan quality of the new translations will be even more apparent if, as is likely, their imposition entails the abolition of the current translations. Perhaps the Vatican feels like Bishop Elliot that the current translations, while not exactly heretical, carry too much of the atmosphere of the regrettable years after Vatican II. There seems to be a momentum to the Vaticanist hijacking/suppression of Vatican II that carries it more and more in the direction of ghastly simulacra of the pre-Vatican II Church. All we have heard about the new translations suggests the worst kind of restoration, where the ambition to revive past beauty results only in hideous travesty. The Roman Canon, in Latin, is a beautiful prayer, albeit not without structural defects; the current English translation captures well enough the movement of the prayer, paring away some expressions that do not communicate in English; the new translation is fussy and verbose in a way that is very false to the style and spirit of the Latin original. The effect of the new translation will be to kill the First Eucharistic Prayer.

.

VOICES OF SANITY
.

Another vox clamans in deserto  is that of Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ, professor of liturgy at Heythrop College, who writes:

.

‘Articles are appearing which are quite insidious in the way in which they polarise the theologians of Vatican II into one of two camps: the von Balthasar camp (true to the tradition, maintaining the authority of the Church over [secular] humanity, emphasis on the holiness of faithful Christians) and the Rahner camp (allowing for the possibility of change and development, of inculturation, of the importance of the human person, of the pastoral needs concerning weakness, sin, suffering). The reconsideration of Rahner is of particular contemporary importance. The aim of his critics seems to be to shift his insights about the Liturgy of the World, of the anonymous Christian, of the inherent goodness of the human person, toward the liberal, relativistic, post-modern views that are presently (and in many ways deservedly) under scrutiny. Better to follow von Balthasar with his emphasis on membership of the Church as saving institution. For these people, the world is inherently sinful and godless. The Mass of the Roman Rite, before the changes, was an organic whole, pure, holy, and beautiful; it offered a refuge in its mystery and mysticism. The reform has done little but tarnish that sacred deposit. As for the liturgists, that joke about us and terrorists continues to be heard, but the reason we are reluctant to negotiate is that we have studied the issues in depth. There are other types of theologian in the world than dogmatic or systematic ones, and liturgical theology could be more valuable today because it has greater relevance at the “front line”‘ (http://www.thepastoralreview.org/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?priestsppl-00101)

.

Also, as quoted by the Adoremus site:

.

“Imagine the excitement and joy as puzzling, frustrating, repetitive, archaic, discriminatory, illogical, insensitive, tautological, inaudible, ahistorical, invisible, and unintelligible words, gestures, actions and texts were expunged, obliterated, edited, shortened, translated and clarified ... the new mystagogy would be the experience of Liturgy in itself; it would be in its celebration, self-explanatory; this would make more wonderful what we could see, hear, taste, smell, touch; now the Paschal mystery could, as in the earliest times, come alive for us in ways which were directly ‘perceptible to the senses’. It was to be through this mystagogy of our senses that we would come to experience and celebrate the divine mysteries that lie beyond our perception”.

.

“When we come to the time for the ‘reform of the reform’, which we must, I hope we won’t consider going back to the old books and starting again; the next reform should be a further development of the present rites which will acknowledge the importance of variety and pluriformity, and which will give a far greater license to episcopal conferences to shape the Roman Rite (characterized by unity with pluriformity rather than uniformity) in the best way for their cultures and pastoral settings”.

.

Needess to say, these views are trounced with Ann Coulterish sarcasm by Adoremus and the other noisy neocath groups.

.

The voice of reason is also sounded in Amy Welborn’s combox:

‘Where is the artistry? I submit that, in the excerpts we’ve seen, there is none. It’s nothing more than false nostalgia for the lugubrious translations from old popular missals. Plus the added bonus of using a heavily gendered language as an excuse to inoculate liturgy from inclusive language.

‘Since when is Mass supposed to be vocabulary class? Where are the real artists, the poets and novelists and essayists who could really bring the presence of God through their art and craft? Nowhere to be seen, just as the real artists in music have been marginalized these last 35 years.

‘We are about to lose a marvelous opportunity to make real, substantive improvements in our worship: more artistry in music and word, and especially in preaching and teaching. We are going to blow it, big time.

.

‘The right approach to take is at once pastorally solid and artistically excellent. Hire artists in the written word in English, and then evaluate the artistry and richness of their texts on whether they transmit the multi-layered substance of what the Mass is supposed to say.

.

‘The wrong approach is to say that Latinisms, with a few high British archaisms thrown in to show us Americans our place, will automatically transmit all this cognitive and affective substance.

.

‘My bottom line is: The 1970 Mass is not our best work, but what’s being proposed isn’t either. Scrap it and begin again.

‘As a graduate of the Boston Latin School, I can personally attest that some of the translations I have seen, including such things as a literal version of the ablative absolute, would earn a C or worse in any Latin class.’ R. P. Burke (reaction to him was mostly negative)

.

Ryan C., in another combox (http://www.lightondarkwater.com/blog), writes: ‘As for the many Catholics who want this translation, I understand and respect their desire, but I also know Catholics who don’t see the need for it, who will in fact be put off or confused by the new translations, especially if the change is not explained, as I fear may be the case.

‘That all said, I do think there are banal parts to the liturgy. The fact that it has proved an obstacle to you and to others is a serious matter to me, one that strikes me deeply. Yes, the banal translation of the scriptures has not helped me either. That does need fixing. I would certainly welcome a more aesthetically pleasing, more accurate translation of the mass.

‘I just think from what I’ve seen that the new translation is going to cause other problems, other obstacles. It’s also very frustrating to me that there can be no middle ground, that the Church might nauseatingly swing back and forth on a pendulum from progressivist to reactionary movements. I’m intensely bothered by the way this whole process has gone on. For me, a tremendous obstacle in my life as a Catholic is that the Church is even fighting over this to begin with, that attention is not being directed against even more pressing problems, catechesis and charity.

‘Perhaps this is all just because this is the translation I’m used to. But there are a lot of people in that same situation.

‘When the Latin mass is finally allowed in widespread use again (and reports are that it will be soon), I think I’ll go to that. That way I won’t have to deal with clumsy English translations, and can just translate in my head, or follow my grandmother’s aforementioned missal, or just bask in the beauty of the language. And perhaps I can find peace in the liturgy without being self-conscious about what I’m experiencing, or about the controversy raging over the mass I’m worshipping in at the moment.’
.

  JUDGE FOR YOURSELF

.

The new ICEL draft text of the Roman Canon is here:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/04/new-icel-draft-of-the-roman-canon/

I mark [*] words or phrases that seem to me in need of improvement.

.

To you, most[*] merciful Father,
we therefore[*] humbly pray[*]
through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord.
We ask you to accept and bless + these gifts,
these offerings,
these holy[*] and undefiled[*] sacrifices[*],
which we offer you first of all
for your holy Catholic Church.
Be pleased to grant her peace,
to guard[*], unite[*] and govern[*] her
throughout the whole world,
together with your servant N. our Pope
and N. our Bishop,
and all Bishops who, holding to the truth,[*]
hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.
Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N.
and all [*]gathered here,
whose faith and devotion are known to you.
For them we offer you this sacrifice of praise
and they offer it to you for themselves[*]
and all who are theirs,[*]
for the redemption of their souls,[*]
in hope of health and security,[*]
and fulfilling their vows to you,[*]
the eternal God, living and true.

In communion with the whole Church,
they venerate[*] above all others[*] the memory
of the glorious[*] ever-virgin Mary,
Mother of our God [*]and Lord, Jesus Christ,
† then of blessed Joseph, husband of the Virgin[*],
your blessed Apostles and Martyrs,
Peter and Paul, Andrew,
James, John,
Thomas, James, Philip,
Bartholomew, Matthew,
Simon and Jude:
Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus,
Cornelius, Cyprian,
Laurence, Chrysogonus,
John and Paul,
Cosmas and Damian
and all your Saints:
grant through their merits and prayers
that in all things[*] we may be defended
by the help of your protection.[*]
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Therefore, Lord, we pray:
graciously accept this offering from us, your servants,
and from your whole family:
order our days in your peace,
and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation
and counted among the flock[*] of those you have chosen.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

We pray, O God:
be pleased to bless, recognize,[*]
and approve [*]this offering in every way[*]:
make it spiritual[*] and acceptable,
that it become for us[*]
the Body and Blood of your most [*]beloved Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who, on the day before he was to suffer
took bread into his holy and venerable [*]hands:
with eyes raised to heaven
to you, O God, his almighty Father,
giving you thanks he said the blessing,[*]
broke the bread
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and eat of it,
for this is my Body,
which will be given up for you.
In the same way, when supper was ended,
he took this precious chalice[*]
into his holy and venerable [*]hands,
and once more giving you thanks, he[*] said the blessing
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the Cup of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal Covenant;
it will be poured out for you and for all 
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.

The mystery of faith.

We proclaim your death, O Lord,
and profess [*]your resurrection
until you come in glory.
or —
When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,
we proclaim your death, O Lord,
until you come again.
or —
Saviour [*]of the world, save[*] us,
for [*]by your cross and resurrection
you have set us free.

Therefore, O Lord,
as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed passion,[*]
the resurrection from the dead,
and the glorious ascension into heaven
of Christ, your Son, our Lord,
we, your servants and your holy people,[*]
offer to your glorious majesty[*]
from your own generous [*]gifts,
the pure victim,[*]
the holy victim,[*]
the spotless victim,[*]
the holy [*]Bread of eternal life
and the Chalice[*] of everlasting[*] salvation.
Be pleased to look upon them,
with a serene and kindly gaze,[*]
and to accept them
as you were pleased to accept
the gifts of your just servant Abel,
the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith,
and the offering of your high [*]priest Melchizedek,
a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.[*]

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God,
bid that these gifts be borne[*]
by the hands of your holy Angel
to your altar on high
in the sight of your divine majesty,[*]
that all of us who receive
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son
through this sharing at the altar[*]
may be filled with every grace and blessing from above[*].
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Remember also, Lord, your servants N. and N.
who have gone before us with[*] the sign of faith
and rest in the sleep of peace[*].
Grant them, O Lord, we pray,
and all who sleep in Christ,
a place[*] of refreshment, light and peace[*].
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

To us sinners also,
your servants who hope[*] in your abundant mercies,
graciously grant[*] some share[*]
in the communion of your holy Apostles and Martyrs:
with John the Baptist, Stephen,
Matthias, Barnabas,
Ignatius, Alexander,
Marcellinus, Peter,
Felicity, Perpetua,
Agatha, Lucy,
Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia,
and all your saints,
into whose company we beg [*]you [*]admit[*] us,
not weighing our merits but granting us pardon,[*]
through Christ our Lord.
Through whom
you constantly create all these good things,[*] O Lord,
you make them holy and fill them with life,
you bless them and bestow them on us.[*]

Through him, and with him, and in him,
to you, O God, almighty Father,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
is [*]all honour and glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

Also this, from http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-translation-of-novus-ordo-missae.html:

Pray, brothers and sisters, that the sacrifice[*] which is mine and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.

May the Lord accept the sacrifice[*] from your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church. Amen.

Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right and just[*].

Holy, Holy, Holy is[*] the Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

Taught[*] by the Saviour’s command[*] and formed[*] by the word[*] of God, we have the courage to say: Our Father …

Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days[*], that, sustained by the help[*] of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress[*], as we await the blessed hope[*], the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever.

Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles, Peace I leave you, my peace I give you, look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and be pleased[*] to grant[*] her[*] peace and unity in accordance with your will. Amen.

The peace of the Lord be with you always. And with your spirit[*].

Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who[*] takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the banquet of the Lamb. Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof[*], but only say the word and my soul[*] shall be healed.

May the Body of Christ keep me safe[*] unto[*] eternal life.

What has passed our lips[*] as food, O Lord, may we possess[*] in purity of heart, that what has been given us in time may be our healing for eternity[*].

Go forth[*], the Mass[*] is ended[*]. Thanks be to God.

See also http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/letter_to_bisho.html

https://americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=735

To the Chairman of ICEL

Dear Bishop Arthur Roche,

I should like to comment on your address of June 15, 2006, to the American Bishops.

THE GRAVITY OF THE PROBLEM
  I have spoken to countless Irish Catholics who have given up on the liturgy because of its flatness and dulｌness and its lack of theological perspicuity. Some have found spiritual refreshment in the Anglican Church. Others send their kids to church, knowing the kids will get “zilch” there, but hoping it will be good discipline.
  Soulless and sloppy liturgy has done more to undermine faith in recent decades than the combined labors of Voltaire, Nietszche and all their cohorts.
  Bad preaching, lack of scriptural culture, failure to encourage lay participation, including in the realm of music and art, routinization, and above all soulless language are undermining the vitality of Christian communities, especially in the Roman Catholic world.
  You say you thought that translating the liturgy would be “a reasonably straight-forward task”. This suggests that you are not fully aware of the grievous damage done to the church by the flat, sloppy liturgical translations of the last 35 years.
  The situation needs to be seen and discussed in all its depth. Quick fixes will only make it worse.

MAGICAL THINKING
  I suspect that a lot of magical thinking is going on in Vatican circles. They thought that hurtling pellets of Scripture at the faithful would create a scriptural culture in Catholicism, and must be good for the　faithful in any case. Now they think that literal translation from the Latin will magically render the English liturgy dignified and beautiful.
  This magical thinking is shown in the idea that the authorship of liturgical texts is best accomplished by Bishops, acting in a spirit of prayer and trust (in the words of Liturgiam Authenticam). Bishops are not necessarily skilled writers, nor are they often scholars. Can you tell us exactly who composed the new translations? Did the Bishops involved think of drawing on the work of qualified poets and writers, in accord with Vatican II’s teaching that “the art of our times must be given free scope in the Church.”
  “In using a translation that is more faithful to Sacred Scripture we are teaching ourselves and our people to speak bible! Lex orandi, lex credendi.” You cannot speak bible without years of practice. This is like someone strewing their speech with mispronounced and out-of-context French phrases, a la George Bush, and then having the illusion that he is speaking French and helping others to do so. I suggest that we need the humility of consult the Anglican and Protestant churches whose biblical culture and sensitivity infinitely outstrip our own, as to how to use Scripture in such manner as to enrich, deepen and clarify the liturgical action.

AN UNTRIED THEORY OF TRANSLATION
  You say that the English translation must have literal accuracy because it is to be used by many translators who do not know Latin well enough to translate directly from the Latin. Now, what is so important about translating Latin texts? If someone needs an English crib to translate a Latin text he or she should not be translating them at all. If knowledge of Latin is so scanty as your anecdotes suggest then the retention of the Latin as the Ur-text of the liturgy becomes problematic.
  “Faithfulness in translation” is a difficult idea. The Italian adage, traduttore traditore, works both ways. An excessively literal translation can be unfaithful as much as a loose one. That is why someone who does not know Latin well cannot translate faithfully from the Latin, even if he has an English crib.
  “Its stipulations differ markedly from those of the earlier document known as Comme le prévoit. That was issued in 1969 by the Consilium with the responsibility for putting into effect the Council’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.” The basic norms of translation have been altered, leading to resignation of the old ICEL in 2002. Frankly, many things differ markedly between what the Vatican today does and says and what the Vatican of the 1960s did and said. Some leading church historians have claimed that this is because a spirit of Vaticanism has replaced, or betrayed, Vatican II.
  Liturgiam Authenticam was a quite controverted document. Is it wise to give it such overriding authority in taking a step whose consequences will last for decades? There is even a disturbing hint of strong-arm tactics in the way the new translations have been imposed on the US Bishops.

PSEUDO-POETRY
  You point to the phrase “from the rising to the setting of the sun” and say “we have produced a richer and more evocative version, bringing to the mind of the worshipper the beauties of the sunrise and sunset and the closeness of these texts to Sacred Scripture.” But a poetic prophetical text is not necessarily what one needs for everyday recitation. I find “from the rising to the setting of the sun” an over-heavy adornment of the mass-text for daily use.
  Merely to repeat in 2006 a semitism such as “fruit of the vine”, already used in the Offertory in any case, is not to convey the deliciousness of wine, as you claim. In any case the deliciousness of wine has no bearing on the function of the words in the context of the consecration. To speak of “powerful salvific resonance because of the symbolic value accorded to the vine plant and the vineyard in scripture, as recalled by Jesus’ elaboration in John 15 of the image of Himself as the true vine” is a red-herring. And if one wishes to remind the faithful of John 15 (which is distracting in any case in the context of the words of consecration), this is not the way to do it. Such vague, sloppy and promiscuous allusion cheapens the biblical text.
  An amazing rigmarole about biblical references to dew cannot justify the contested phrase “make holy these gifts, we pray, by the dew of your Spirit”, which introduces distracting associations at one of the most solemn moments in the Church’s worship. (The US Bishops have wisely asked for “dew” to be replaced with “outpouring” as in the Italian “effusione”; but will Rome accept this commonsense proposal?)
  “But surely, dew still exists. I noticed an advert on the street yesterday for a drink called Mountain Dew!” This kind of fatuous remark could sound as if you were mocking the people of God.
  “If we are not to be scorched and made unfruitful, we need the dew of God. Since we have our accuser, we need an Advocate as well.” But no one is objecting to dew. The objection is to speaking of the epiclesis in terms of dew. If one speaks of the dew of the Spirit one speaks of it as refreshing the heart, a quite different context. You might say, to be obtuse, that “in the beginning, the dew of the Spirit was upon the waters” would be an acceptable paraphrase of Gen 1.1-2 by your reasoning.
  One ICEL statement suggested that if people did not like “dew” they could say “dewfall” instead: “Conferences that do not wish to adopt ‘dew’ may wish to consider ‘dewfall’ as an alternative.” Forgive me if I find this somewhat reminiscent of the famous statement attributed to Marie Antoinette: “Let them eat cake!”
  This kind of pseudo-poetic reasoning is that of an amateur who has just signed on for Poetry 101.
  The same remarks apply to the ungainly expression “serene and kindly gaze.” ICEL noted of “gaze” that “some have expressed doubts about the use of this word” but that after its “frequent” presence in the English translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Lenten message earlier this year, the word “seems... to have enhanced its status within Christian vocabulary.” What kind of sycophantism is this? If a pope uses a word it then becomes desirable for liturgical use? And again I note the atomistic focus on single words rather than on context and overall intelligibility.

PLEONASM AND FLATNESS
  Soulless flatness has been the hallmark of ICEL translations. I see signs that the new translations will have the same quality.
  You find exemplary the prayer, “Stir up your power, O Lord, and come to our aid with mighty strength...” But “mighty strength” is a pleonasm, a stylistic fault. No poet would be found dead using it. Why not say “with mighty might” or “with strongest strength” while one is at it? The fact that ICEL presents this weak language as exemplary again undermines confidence in their qualifications for their task.
  Another text you single out has the phrase “grant us the help of your compassion...” Again this is pleonastic and odd. (“Sir, could you kindly grant me the help of your compassion?”), as are “graciously grant” and “sustained by the help of your mercy”, etc.
  What is needed is a real text, not a string of broken flat sentences such as the current Eucharistic Prayers offer. There is no sign that ICEL thinks in terms of such rich unified rhythmical eloquent texts (even the Roman Canon lost much of its luster in the dull translation). Rather we have a fetishism of fuddy-duddy fussing about Latin phrases.
  If what we have seen, or been allowed to see, of the Eucharistic Prayers is so full of dubious English, what must be the case with the Collects, Secrets, Prefaces and Post-Communions? Who ever looks at these pieces of linguistic and spiritual sawdust, so expensively printed in our Missals? Who ever asks for feedback about their value? Why not allow a period of testing, so that the people of God can give their response to these texts?
  You will reply, perhaps, that such an openness to correction would militate against the ideal of having the whole English-speaking world pray in one voice, following a Roman basis. This, you claim, will be a marvelous demonstration of Catholic unity. I see rather a display of uniformity without conviction, and I predict that it will cause nothing but further malaise and embarrassment throughout our paralyzed, silenced Church.
                                        Yours, in sincere concern,
                                                 Joseph S. O’Leary

UPDATE Feb. 2007

The chair of the US bishops’ Committee for Divine Worship (BCDW), Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, writes in The Tablet, Feb. 2, 2007:

“In evaluating the translations we need to consider whether the texts are both understandable and proclaimable, and whether they use a word order, vocabulary and idiom of the mainstream of English-speaking people. If these texts are to be the prayers of the people, are they owned by them and expressed in their language? The texts include new words of the Creed, such as “consubstantial to the Father” and “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”, while words in the various new Collects include “sullied”, “unfeigned”, “ineffable”, “gibbet”, “wrought”, thwart”. Do these translated texts communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly? Will God’s people understand the fourth paragraph of the proposed Blessing of Baptismal Water, which has 56 words or 11 lines in one sentence? Let me treat in particular the new demand for a sacred vocabulary in liturgical texts. The instruction Liturgiam Authenticam (norm 27) of 2001 advocates “a sacred style that will come to be recognised as proper to liturgical language”. But scholars have pointed out that the celebration of the Eucharist always followed the language of the people. There was no such thing in East or West as a sacred language.”

“The term “many” is a Hebrew word that means “for everyone”, since there was no Hebrew word “for all”. The term was originally inclusive and signified “everybody”. The Jesuit scholar Max Zerwick’s Philological Analysis of the Greek New Testament is still an unsurpassed authority. On Matthew 26: 28 Zerwick explains that polloi, the Greek for “the many”, translates a Semitic expression that can signify a multitude and at the same time a totality. It means “all (who are many)”. This was strongly affirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1970 when the Congregation commissioned Zerwick to research and write an article on the meaning of pro multis. That article was published in the official organ of that Congregation (Notitiae) in May 1970... In 1970 the Congregation for Divine Worship made a definitive judgement and published it in its official organ. What reasons now compel the Holy See to reverse itself? The English word “many” is normally taken to exclude some. The Pope’s decision to revert to this literal translation does not seem to express in English the true meaning of the phrase. “Many” does not mean everyone. On a pastoral level we must have from the Vatican a better rationale for this major change than what has been given.”