"Reports of Catholics leaving for other churches over this issue are merely anecdotal at this point, but a full 25 percent claim to know someone who’s left to worship elsewhere because of the new prayers. "
http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2012/10/words-fail-us-parishioners-respond-new-missal-year-later
Posted at 11:33 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (15)
The bishops of the English speaking world have disgraced themselves in their handling of the new translation of the liturgy. They have failed in their primary duty of ensuring that the faithful have access to a decent celebration of the sacraments. Their treatment of critics of the new liturgy is particularly disheartening -- I refer in particular to how 300 US bishops snickered at Bp Trautman, who had the bad grace to point out that only 5 of them had submitted any written comments on the texts they somnambulistically rubberstamped, and also to a shoot-the-messenger speech from one Bp Blair.
The Eichmann defense, "we were only following orders" is not going to work. The condemnation of the bishops who are reducing the Church and its worship to a shambles will be severe.
But now it is the turn of the lower clergy. What are we supposed to do? Like many bishops we know that this linguistic dreck is an insult to the People of God -- in addition to being transparently part of the rollback of Vatican II, as if the Church had anything better than Vatican II to put in its place. Will we subscribe to the mendacious culture of spin, reciting prayers we know to be near-gibberish?
I suggest that the only honorable thing to do is to quietly boycott the new texts. We should not buy them. Continued use of the 1973 translations, or even of the 1998 translations dumped by the Vatican but used in some places, is the morally correct course. The 1998 translations can be downloaded from the internet.
The bishops were torn between Rome and the faithful. They sold out on the faithful, following their usual spineless submissiveness to Rome -- a submissiveness that is not holy obedience, since it contradicts both the letter and the spirit of the Council. Now the priests are torn between the hierarchy and the faithful --- if they choose spineless submissiveness as well, the faithful will know what to think.
Posted at 09:47 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (43)
Here is another defense of the new translation that is so tepid it almost counts as an attack. http://paulturner.org/pdf_files/dewfall.pdf
“The case for the revised translation has been difficult to sell, but having watched it at the table over the past few years, I’ve become convinced there really is a good case. “
The product must be problematic indeed if we are still at the stage of making out a case for it.
“If making the translation more contemporary means making it more colloquial, then no, that is not happening, but if it means making it more suitable to the spiritual needs and capabilities of the people of God in the light of the Second Vatican Council, then yes, it is a very contemporary translation. It has to be. It can’t not be. It is the work of the Church today.”
“It can’t not be!” Is this an appeal to blind faith or a cry of desperation? If the new translation were indeed a work of the Church today, rather than of a clique who are trapped in yesterday, there would be some grounds for the author’s faith (or his “hope against hope”). But in reality the voice of the Church today is increasingly loud in its rejection of the new translation.
“Some are saying it is being handed to us from on high, and I suppose so, but I’m not convinced those who are “on high” are by definition inconsiderate of those below.”
What a tepid defense! No one say that they are inconsiderate “by definition.” Rather their de facto inconsideration of the faithful in this particular situation is what is in question.
“ We are living through a period in which the liturgy is adapting to its surroundings once again, and people will be encountering the eucharist in a different way that calls for good catechesis to prepare them for a fruitful reception.”
This is “langue de bois” and question-begging. Is the liturgy adapting to its surroundings in the new translation or is it rather steadfastly refusing anything that smells of adaptation (of inculturation)? – the answer is obvious.
“There are plenty of examples where the revised translation has improved the present one, such as the conclusion of the preface dialogue, where “It is right and just” will flow more smoothly into the first line of the preface, “It is truly right and just,” and where we now pray that God will bring the departed into the light of his presence, we will now pray that God will welcome them into the light of his face.”
If these are improvements, one shudder to think of the disimprovements!
“However, there are other examples where, I admit, the revised translation will cause some people to cock their heads, raise their eyes, and look perplexed. Here are three words that will require catechesis to facilitate the reception of Eucharistic Prayer II because they may otherwise be misunderstood.”
“I admit” here sounds close to “j’accuse”! And the phrase “catechesis will be required” is beginning to sound suspiciously like “you’ve got some explaining to do”!
“One is the word “merit”. Today we ask God to “make us worthy to share eternal life,” but the revised translation asks God that “we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life.” The question is how best to translate mereamur… The word is troublesome because it smacks of the Pelagian heresy, as if we can earn our own salvation by our deeds. We believe that Christ alone has merited our salvation, and we share the benefit of his merits. So to pray that we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life has to be understood not in the sense of earning, but in sharing what Christ has earned. It’s a difficult line, and we will have some ‘splaining to do.”
Boy, he actually used that phrase! I don’t think the word “merit” raises serious theological problems; but I find the phrase “we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life” opaque and unbeautiful. I cannot agree with what the author adds: “What saves this line for me is the word “co-heirs” – we are beneficiaries, not earners, of salvation.” With whom are we co-heirs? With Christ, in his humanity? It does not make much sense and will be an irritating puzzle to massgoers, like so many other phrases in this new translation.
“Of course now, during the consecration at every mass, people who hear the word “many” are going to think “few” because they are used to hearing “all”. This will require catechesis. The whole controversy could have been avoided by the insertion of the word “the” – “poured out for you and for the many,” but to be honest, that word is not in the New Testament; Greek has a word for “the”; it ain’t in there in Matthew and it ain’t in there in Mark.. The word “many” is defensible from the biblical tradition, but it will be misunderstood, and its proper reception is going to require patient and hope-filled catechesis.”
Here again the “you’ll need catechesis” masks a serious reservation. The word “hope-filled” recalls the cryptic reply of John Paul II when asked by the President of Maynooth what he thought of the scruffy seminarians who has mobbed him (after singing “He’s got the whole world in his hands”): “They are our hope.” This hope seems closely akin to despair.
“The new rules want all the Latin words represented in English, so “dewfall” has fallen in… Dew, unfortunately, does not fall. It condenses. However, one theory on the etymology of that word is that it is related to a word like “nightfall” – that is, it has more to do with the time of day than with the method of producing moisture.”
And the faithful are supposed to be bothered with such obscure matters when they celebrate the Eucharist?
“There is scant evidence of any preparation of the people for liturgical change ever in the history of the Church. We have more catechetical abilities now than we did in the past, so our preparation for this translation is vaster and deeper than has ever happened before. But above all, texts catechize. For the most part, the revised translation will do this very well, sharpening up the theology of what we believe.”
Is it really sharpening up that we need? Is it not rather opening up, in a more imaginative and world-open and deeply scriptural celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I recall Eugen Drewermann’s devasting diagnosis, to the effect that the way we currently celebrate the Eucharist has nothing to do with what Christ intended.
“A translation has to do with forming people, not just informing people… You can study the words of a prayer, critique the words, teach the words and say the words, but if you’re not looking you may miss out on something more important than all these things: those words are studying you, they are learning you, teaching you and forming you. “
And mediocre words have a malforming, deforming effect on the soul. Soul-destroying language and soul-destroying music make the liturgy an ordeal rather than a joy.
Posted at 01:25 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (8)
If the trumpet give forth an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? The following text from the Archdiocese of Boston's website (and in its diocesan newspaper http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article2.asp?ID=12745) indicates the very uncertain nature of the propaganda being put forward for the new translation of the Missal. There is no joy or enthusiasm at all in the air, and I cannot see the faithful being galvanized by such low-key, apologetic, sheepish efforts at persuasion. I am reminded of another Pauline adage: Whatever does not proceed from conviction, is sin.
How fitting that a lukewarm and half-hearted effort at translation should find only lukewarm and half-hearted defenders and implementers. The whole thing is bound to fizzle out, but the faithful may be forced to live with the fizzle for years.
(I see that this lukewarm text is also found on other diocesan websites: http://catholicdioceseofwichita.org/feature-articles/12919-new-missal-translation-is-a-plus-for-catholics
http://www.arch-no.org/News.php?mode=read&id=758&title=New+translation+a+plus+for+Catholics),
which is rather pathetic.
"New translation is a plus for Catholics
"By James Breig*
"Microsoft Vista and “New Coke” have proven that not every change is for the better.
What a way to begin! It is too close to the bone.
"Furthermore, when change comes to important elements of life, it is often resisted with the cry of “we never did it that way before.” However, experts who are enthusiastic about the changes to the Roman Missal – the book that contains the prayers for the Mass – think the alterations are improvements that will lead to a deeper spiritual experience."
It seems that such experts are a small minority.
"“Because a new edition of the Latin Roman Missal was issued in 2002, it is necessary for all the countries of the world to translate this missal into the vernacular,” says Msgr. Anthony Sherman, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Divine Worship, in explaining why the changes are being made."
A rather minimalist explanation -- sounds rather like an exculpation. In fact the current version of the Mass in English has been due for revision for a long time, with the view to creating more beautiful and communicative liturgy. This was achieved in the 1998 translations, which the Vatican suppressed.
"But translation is not something easy to accomplish, concedes Msgr. Kevin Irwin, dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington. “We all bring our own prejudices and ideas to translation,” he says. “It is hoped that the new texts will be more accurate so that our faith and our statements of faith are reliable.”"
"Concedes..." "It is hoped..." The language of a deep crisis.
"Msgr. Irwin says changes to the Roman Missal are rare. “The previous Roman Missal (in Latin) was published in 1570, with minor adjustments [being made] in editions through 1962,” he says. “After the Second Vatican Council, the new [Roman Missal] was published in 1970, followed by a 1975 edition with minor adjustments and then the third edition in 2002 with additional prayers for new saints’ feasts etc.” Father Paul Turner of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri elaborated on the latter point, saying that the missal “includes additional saints’ days that are now on the calendar, as well as some Masses for other circumstances. In addition, the rubrics in Holy Week have many small emendations.”"
Surely these considerations are relatively insignificant.
"What makes the translation of the 2002 edition of the Roman Missal different is that this translation is carried out under the latest Vatican guidelines for translating the Mass into vernacular languages. This new guideline, Liturgiam Authenticam, published in 2001, urges a stronger adherence to Latin wording and structure than earlier directives.
"The results have led to some concern, voiced even by bishops, that the new English translations of the missal are not user-friendly. In the words of one critic, the language “tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable. The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial’ and ‘inviolate.’”"
The voice of Bp Trautman is heard, but it is set up as the sole classic objection to be answered. In fact, Bp Trautman is only one tiny voice in an avalanche of objections.
"Msgr. Sherman counters that “in the United States today, people are almost daily learning new vocabulary, and sometimes it is quite technical. The words in our liturgical prayers can afford celebrants the opportunity to reflect on the broader context of those words and so lead the faithful in a deeper understanding of the beliefs being explained.”"
People gladly learn useful new vocabulary, but not rancid and uncommunicative rehashes.
"He grants that “the new translation is not perfect because, in a certain sense, no translation can be perfect. The differences of opinion on the translation will be wide. At some future date, the Holy See may substitute a different prayer for what we now have. On the other hand, some have already expressed the opinion that this translation sometimes captures with a greater eloquence the content of the particular prayers.”"
Some? Clearly a minority. All defenders of the new translation ritually intone that "it's not perfect, no translation is" -- but this is lamentably lame. And then to say, "no translation can be perfect" is to let oneself off the hook. All of this is a confession of conscious mediocrity. If you cannot produce an acceptable translation, get someone who can to do it for you. Or go back to the worthy effort of 1998.
And what are we to make of this: "At some future date, the Holy See may substitute a different prayer for what we now have." Does it not mean: Yes, the new translation is a mess, but don't worry, if it turns out to be intolerable the Holy See will solve the problem, at some future date. Unfortunately, if the Vatican blow this opportunity to introduce an elevated and elevating liturgical language, they won't get another chance. The saddest irony is that the work on producing such a beautiful liturgy was already largely accomplished in 1998.
"Msgr. Irwin says that the Church uses technical words in its vocabulary sometimes because those words capture concepts of the faith that would not be easy to understand without using a lot of other words. “For example, since the 13th century, we have used the term ‘transubstantiation’ to describe the change that occurs in the bread and wine at Mass. Before the change, it is bread and wine. After the change, it looks like, smells like and tastes like bread and wine, but now it is something totally different.”"
Sounds like magic. And the new wording of the liturgy only sporadically reflects a competent engagement with theological accuracy; it is usually so myopically atomistic that the effect is simply one of clumsy bumbling.
"In Father Turner’s view, vocabulary is not a major problem. “People will readily understand the texts,” he says. “The reason the missal includes such words is that the vocabulary in the Latin originals is so broad. Latin uses a variety of synonyms for words like ‘sacrifice,’ ‘love,’ ‘mercy’ and ‘wonderful.’ In order to represent that diversity and to provide variety among the prayers in English, a broad vocabulary is being used in the translation.”"
But wasn't one of the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam that the same English word should invariably be used to translate the same Latin word? (LA #57. "The same manner of rendering a given expression is to be maintained throughout the translation, insofar as feasible.") It would not be surprising if the 1973 texts (preces excepted) had the broader vocabulary. At least these texts give the impression that their authors know what they want to communicate, rather than carrying out some atomistic operation on an uninterpreted Latin original.
"In recognition of the disturbance change can bring, he adds that bishops' conferences around the world have repeatedly stressed that these translations should not be used without prior and significant explanation. “One of the things we did not do 40 years ago, when the liturgy was first put into the vernacular, was to explain the changes fully,” he says. “We need several layers of education and instruction about the translations, but even more importantly about the Mass itself.”"
He knows they will bring disturbance and he tries to ward this off by "prior and significant explanation". He insinuates that the 1973 texts caused disturbance; my impression is that they were greeted by most without angst; the new translations are already causing huge angst. And the reason is obvious: because they are so bad.
END
* James Breig, a long-time diocesan newspaper editor and freelance writer, has written hundreds of articles for Catholic magazines. For 25 years, he also authored an award-winning column on the media for Catholic newspapers. Now retired, he continues to write and is working on a book about World War II.
Posted at 09:02 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (1)
"The approval of the translation by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops – and the anticipation of Rome's own approval – did nothing to quell the doubts of those who resisted it."
Note that the text approved (so unwisely) by the US Bishops has since been altered in 10,000 places by bureaucrats in Rome, and the alterations have further worsened the text.
"Indeed, at least in some quarters, it seems to have spurred efforts to block its implementation. Perhaps the most notable of these attempts is the "What If We Just Said Wait?" campaign. Started by Rev. Michael Ryan, the rector of St. James Cathedral in Seattle, the campaign's stated goal is to delay the implementation of the Missal for a "time of reflection and consultation" and a period of "market testing" of a full liturgical year, so as to conduct "carefully planned catechesis" and "thorough, honest evaluation."
"These goals might sound reasonable enough, but in the America magazine article where Father Ryan offers them, he also describes the new Missal translation as part of an effort to "systematically dismantle the great vision" of Vatican II and dismisses it as based on "flawed principles." He accuses the bishops who approved it of having "abandoned their best pastoral instincts," saying that some of the language of the new Missal "border[s] on the unspeakable." Clearly, however he might soften the language of his goals, Father Ryan's object is not merely to "evaluate" or edit the new translation; one does not gently tweak something he finds "flawed" in principle and "unspeakable." Father Ryan wants to stop the new Missal, and the impetus behind it, dead in its tracks."
He originally intended to ask, "What If We Just Said Stop?" -- but he did not want to rush other people into sharing his own negative judgment.
"Visiting the "What If We Just Said Wait?" site and reading the comments of its signatories, many of them also seem to be motivated by a desire to eradicate the new Missal, root and branch."
Yes, because these people, including many experts, can see how bad it is.
"Some commenters confine their objections to linguistic or literary aspects of the new Missal, though many others express much broader complaints. For example, one commenter wrote:
The Vatican Council was a great step forward in the Roman Catholic Church. The translation of the Missal following it was also wonderful advance in the liturgy of the church. The proposed translation is a major step backward…
"One woman found the new translation to be a sign of a much more sinister problem:
Although I have little hope that we will prevail, I sign in order to be with all those who cherish Vatican II and wish with all my heart that the vision of John XXIII will survive. However, realistically, I expect that the power-hungry Vatican Mafia will prevail…
"And finally, one commenter suggested that the Church should stand all principles of translation on their head:
If the English does not conform to the Latin change the Latin. English is the new Vulgate.
"The heated rhetoric of so many comments at "What If We Just Said Wait?" can be found even in places where more sober language usually prevails. The "Pray Tell" liturgical blog, sponsored by the Liturgical Press and St. John's School of Theology in Collegeville, Minnesota, is of self-described liberal leanings; while many of the contributors and commenters there have expressed unhappiness over various aspects of the new Missal, however, most have also expressed their intent to faithfully carry out its implementation.
"Still, the pseudonymous contributor "Paulus" described the Missal as a "deeply threatening reassertion of a tyrannical spirituality, imposed by a high-handed, indeed despotic 'Rome'." In a subsequent post, he writes that if the new Missal is implemented and therefore
the forces of reaction come to mold the language of our worship, it will be as though the Council, and the liberation it brought to a generation of Catholics damaged by the inhumanities of old-style Catholicism, has been finally reversed.
"He concludes his piece with a call for his readers to "cultivate holy resistance." But perhaps Paulus's most extreme post was one in which he compared Rome's and the bishops' efforts to implement the new Missal to the priestly abuse scandal, calling it "liturgical abuse." Paulus justified his remark on the grounds that if the bishops wouldn't listen to "more high-minded arguments," then perhaps "more emotive considerations will persuade them."È
This trawling for allegedly extreme comments did not come up with much; it would be far easier to find something 'compromising' on right wing sites, where in the case of the new translations ideological attack has completely trumped any close examination of the texts.
"Closely allied with the rhetoric of "tyrannical spirituality" and "holy resistance" are various predictions of impending ecclesial doom when the new Missal is implemented. These assertions take their tone from Bishop Trautman, who argued that the Missal could occasion a "pastoral disaster." Some point to last year's ill-executed attempt to prematurely implement the new Missal in South Africa and, like Jesuit Rev. Thomas Reese, predict that "there is going to be a worldwide problem when these new translations are put into effect."
"Whether the South African experience can be generalized does not seem to me self-evident: The U.S. bishops are mounting an extensive preparation and catechesis program, with a lengthy run-up period so that people can become accustomed to the new translation."
The one place where the new translations have come out gives a telling sign of what it to come. It is lame to say that "whether this can be generalized does not seem to me self-evident." Ireland is facing the same situation, since no catechesis is in progress. And many in the USA who have been asked to do catechesis now find themselves in a bind of conscience, knowing they are being asked to sell a pig in a poke.
"Other organizations, such as the Liturgical Institute, are also mounting detailed programs to help people and parishes get ready. It is plausible to imagine that well-prepared and widely targeted programs might succeed where a hasty and poorly executed program has failed.
"Reading these increasingly shrill and, in some cases, unreasonable objections to the new translation, as well as the dire predictions of what will ensue if it is implemented, I began to wonder how the average layman would really react to the new texts."
The laywoman, too, perhaps. They are guinea-pigs in this fatuous experiement. They are supposed to acclaim a mediocre text, salve the vanity of its composers, make the sow's ear into a silk purse. When the South African laity protested, they were told by Cardinal Napier that they had no right to do so, and the we could not have a "free-for-all."
"In the interest of full disclosure, I should state that I am wholeheartedly supportive of the new translation. I have a Master's Degree in Classics and have pursued graduate studies in Patristic Greek and Latin, but even as an undergraduate Latin student, I could see the poverty and banality of the English translation when compared to the beauty and richness of the Latin."
Will Fr Robert refer to the 1998 translation, which was the long-awaited upgrading of the 1973 translation, and which the Vatican suppressed?
"I was mystified by the consistent and oppressive tendency of the English translation to "flatten" any exalted expression or colorful imagery, as well as the seemingly deliberate effort to expunge any trace of supplicatory language from the prayers. Finally, I was shocked at the frequent failure of the English version to actually translate the Latin, instead often passing over words and even whole phrases as if they weren't there. I find the new English version of the Missal to be vastly superior to the current one in the areas of fidelity, beauty, richness of imagery, and the drawing out of scriptural language in the Mass.
"So I do not pretend to be neutral or indifferent on the merits of the new Missal and the necessity of introducing it. But as a priest and former pastor, I know well that, to be pastorally effective, you need to know not only where you stand but where your people stand as well. Obviously, if I were to present texts of the new Missal to faithful Catholics and receive an overwhelmingly negative reaction, such as that predicted by Bishop Trautman and others, I'd have to reexamine my opinion about the advisability of introducing it."
There he shows pastoral sensitivity, but we cannot expect that from the bishops, as Cardinal Napier's response proves.
"So I devised a little survey.
"Visiting three parishes in two dioceses, selected specifically to represent the average parish (containing a mixed lay demographic, with no particular progressivism or traditionalism in the liturgy, etc.), I asked for participants in a "liturgical survey." I wanted to be sure that participants were responding to the text itself, and not questions about the larger revision process or issues of authority and autonomy in the Church, so I mentioned only that they would be reviewing a proposed new translation of one of the prayers of the Mass – the Third Eucharistic Prayer (chosen because it is the most commonly used at Sunday Masses, and therefore probably the most familiar).
"After inviting the participants to read through the text on their own, silently, I then read it aloud to them, while they followed along. Next I distributed the survey, consisting of five questions:
"Only once they had completed the survey did I reveal that the text they had reviewed was in fact the proposed (and now approved) English translation of the new Missal, explaining some of the history of that process and the reasons for this new translation. Forty-four people in total participated, and while I'll be the first to admit that this was by no means a scientific study, the results are nevertheless instructive.
"First, I found that a slight majority of the participants were not even aware that a new translation of the Missal was coming soon, and none were aware of the controversies regarding the Missal or the efforts to resist it. This is consistent with my own experience as a pastor: Most Catholics don't read much material beyond their parish bulletins and diocesan newspapers, where this issue had not yet been introduced. Whether for good or ill, most of the people in the pews are simply unaware of the sorts of things that exercise liturgists and clergy."
But if there is a catechesis on the forthcoming translation, surely the laity will then become aware of it, and become exercised about if for the same reasons as the liturgists and clergy? Or is the catechesis going to be confined to the people's responses?
"In response to my specific questions, I found that the participants were evenly split over whether they found any words or passages unclear or difficult. Those who did have difficulties identified only one or two points in the text: The most common difficulty was with the word "oblation" ("Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church… "), followed by the phrase "inheritance with your elect" ("so that we may obtain an inheritance with your elect"). However, all of the respondents but one indicated that they would be more comfortable with the difficult words and passages, and more comfortable with the text as a whole, if their priest explained them."
A half-full, half-empty scenario -- not terribly impressive; and all of the respondents but one seemed to need priestly explanations, whereas the current translation is self-explanatory.
"In the post-survey discussions, I found that people were satisfied by the explanations of the passages they found difficult, and most displayed a healthy curiosity about the text, rather than any skepticism or suspicion. At the end of one session, one woman exclaimed, "I feel like I learned something already, and we haven't even started using the new prayers yet!"
"Regarding the "flow" of the language, a majority (69 percent) responded that they found it smooth and pleasant. Those who said that they found aspects of the text choppy or awkward mainly pointed to one or two passages. For example, one participant felt that the phrase "he himself took bread" was awkward, though he admitted that it was a minor point. Another objected to the phrase "sacrifice of our reconciliation." But many of those who identified awkward elements also said that part of the "awkwardness" was simply being accustomed to hearing other words. One woman noted that while she was used to the current version, she expected that the new text would feel smoother after she had heard it a few times.
"After having both read the text and heard it proclaimed aloud, 64 percent of respondents said that their reaction to the text changed in a positive way after hearing it read. Some found no change; only one respondent characterized the change as negative, and he advocated a return to an all-Latin liturgy. Finally, 91 percent of respondents identified that they would find it "easy" to adapt to this text if it were used regularly.
"On the whole, the response of these "ordinary Catholics" to the new texts was overwhelmingly positive. While there were some criticisms and difficulties, they were limited, and most of those who identified such difficulties found them surmountable. Indeed, in our post-survey discussion, most found the explanations of why certain words were chosen to be interesting and helpful. In those discussions, a number of participants also observed that the language of the new texts seemed "higher" or "more sacred." When asked whether they thought discussing the new texts and having a chance to learn about them would deepen their experience of the Mass, the answer was a resounding "yes."
"So what explains the difference between my experience and the predictions of "pastoral disaster" offered by Bishop Trautman and others? Why did 9 out of 10 Catholics that I surveyed say they would find it "easy" to adapt to the new texts, whereas one commenter at "What If We Just Said Wait" dismissed the new texts as "not helpful at all to our prayer life as a community"? Not one of the participants in my survey had reactions remotely similar to those who wrote that the new text represented "regression and retrenchment," or that the prospect of celebrating Mass with the text they had reviewed left them "enraged and terrified." There is not only a difference in the kind of reaction, but a difference in its tone and emotional intensity. Clearly, more is going on here than meets the eye."
Perhaps the group were simply charmed to have a priest actually caring for them and communicating with them; and perhaps they are unused to receiving any interesting educational input from priests.
"I have observed that "something more" before, writing and speaking about what I describe as "ideologized" liturgy – that is, liturgy being made to bear ideological burdens that are extrinsic and, in many cases, inimical to it. The highly charged language of many of those objecting to the new Missal is frequently ideological: When I see words like "archaic" and "tyrannical," and phrases like "a great step forward" or "a major step backward," being used in complaints about the Missal, I suspect that the train of thought is carrying heavy ideological freight.
"I use "ideology" here in the circumscribed manner of political theorists like Michael Oakeshott and Russell Kirk: to refer to the political fanaticism that results from elevating an abstraction to an absolute, all-explaining and all-encompassing concept, and making everything, including persons, subordinate to that concept. It is to take political concepts and impulses and make them serve ends that are properly religious.
"One of those ideologies most prevalent in American society today, even among Catholics, is egalitarianism: the belief in a radical equality that seeks to level all differences and distinctions between persons. It is true that we are all equal in the eyes of God, but there are distinctions between the members of the Body of Christ. The Church, then, is hierarchical in its very nature, and its liturgy reflects that.
"The ecclesiastical egalitarian seeks to demolish those hierarchical elements of the Church's life, wanting instead to subsume all under the abstraction of Equality. This outlook informs comments like those of one priest at "What If We Just Wait?" who asked, "Why have we wasted all this time and money and energy on 'egotistical' improvements?" Another commenter sees the new Missal as evidence of "elitism," saying "Liturgy is the work of the people rather than just liturgical elites." In an egalitarian worldview, any exercise of hierarchical authority is condemned as elitism or oppression."
This writing itself is over-heated ideology -- it reminds me of Marxist students of the 1960s scanning their opponents texts for evidence of ideological deviation. In any case what the critics of the new translation stress is not egalitarianism but the experience of Christian community fostered by Vatican II.
"Another strain of objection to the new Missal is what I have sometimes called the ideology of "progress," one based in the Enlightenment concept of humanity's development and advancement from darkness to light. This ideology rejects the past as de facto inferior to the present, believing that we necessarily know more and understand better than our forebears. Pope Benedict XVI called this mindset a "hermeneutic of discontinuity," which has as its starting point the assumption that Vatican II marked a point of division between the pre- and post-conciliar Church. Adherents to this ideology reject expressions of piety and liturgical forms from before the Council, seeing them as "regressive" or "unable to speak to our times."
"Adherents to an ideology of progress use language like "up-to-date" or forward-looking" to show approval, and "antiquated" or "backwards" to illustrate disapproval. Examples of this ideological frame of mind abound in the objections to the new Missal: "Please do not ask us to move back in time!" "Yet another retrograde maneuver by the conservative hierarchy." "Many of us are not going to go backwards."
"Even if the new Missal represented a "return" to something former, it does not therefore follow that what is former is worse. After all, truth does not change from day to day. As Benedict wrote in his introductory letter to Summorum Pontificum, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too." The Church must first and foremost be faithful to what she has been given by Christ. That fidelity must include the sacred liturgy, through which Christ speaks to His church. An accurate and faithful translation of the Missal communicates not the truths of today but the truths of eternity. To get caught up in ideas of progress or regression is to think with the spirit of the age, not the eternal Spirit of all ages."
Again, this is an ideological sermon, which rather misses its target. It is not the past that the critics complain about, but a pastiche of the past that fails to come alive. The problem with the new translation is that it is dead.
"But that being said, the new Missal translation does not return to something past. A reading of the texts does not reveal precious or antiquated language; there are no thee's and thou's. This excerpt from the Third Eucharistic Prayer is not Elizabethan or King James English:
Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial
of the saving Passion of your Son,
his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven,
and as we look forward to his second coming,
we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
"This is not antiquated English; this is formal and sacral English. To use this kind of language is not "retrograde," nor does it represent an effort to "freeze" the "Spirit of Vatican II." It is, instead, faithful to the nature of the Liturgy – a formal and public worship, where formal language is therefore appropriate. Sacral language marks what we are doing as sacred and holy, not ordinary or everyday. The Mass, as the "source and summit" from which our life in Christ flows, is the holiest thing that we do, in which we participate in Christ's own prayer as high priest. If that doesn't warrant language set apart from the ordinary, then nothing does."
Most of the new translation EP III differs from the current translation only by slackening its rhythm. But the new translation introduces its own characteristic murkiness at certain points.
"In the end, if you see the liturgy as an engine of egalitarian transformation, then texts that bring its hierarchical aspects to the fore (such as "humbly imploring" God) will be objectionable. If you see the liturgy as a mechanism for asserting human progress, then elements that hearken back to Tradition will seem out of place. These ideological frameworks, of course, are extrinsic to the liturgy, and to the Faith itself. Ideologically driven objections to the Missal, however sincerely felt and expressed, really attempt to invert the proper order of things and make the liturgy serve ends that are antithetical to itself. Those ideological ends derive mainly from the prevailing secular culture, and as such, their presence is a source of confusion.
"The new Missal, because of its greater fidelity, will be an antidote to that confusion. If my own effort to gauge the response of faithful Catholics shows anything, it is that most of the people in the pews will take the implementation of the new language in stride. Far from the "pastoral disaster" feared by some, I believe that the new Missal, if approached in a spirit of fidelity, will provide all Catholics with an opportunity to enrich their faith and lead to the deeper participation in the liturgy that Vatican II envisioned."
Yes, a good new translation, such as that of 1998, which Fr Robert leaves unmentioned, might achieve that goal. Alas, the present mess will not.
Rev. Robert Johansen is a priest of the diocese of Kalamazoo, Michigan, and blogs at thrownback.blogspot.com.
Posted at 07:21 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (4)
The farcical process of the new translations of the missal into English has taken a bizarre new twist. The final, definitive version of the English translation of the second most important text of the Roman Catholic Church, namely the Missal, is announced to the world not by the Vatican and not by the bishops but by Wikileaks.
Looking at this text, one finds that indeed it contains much bad, ungainly English. The Prefaces are horrible:
"For he assumed at his first coming
the lowliness of human flesh,
and so fulfilled the design you formed long ago,
and opened for us the way to eternal salvation,
that, when he comes again in glory and majesty
and all is at last made manifest,
we who watch for that day
may inherit the great promise
in which now we dare to hope."
The two "ands" that I print in bold type are stylistically lame, in a way that any high school student writing a composition should be able to detect. The 'that' introduces a cumbersome, lamely appended clause. Much better is the current text, "Now we watch for the day, hoping that the salvation promised us will be ours..." Anyone with an ear for rhythm can see this, but not the Vatican translators.
"we sing the hymn of your glory,
as without end we acclaim"
The 'hymn of your glory' is opaque and unidiomatic; 'acclaim' is obviously incorrect English. These two lines are perhaps the product of a non-native speaker or of a dozy committee.
Another oddity: 'John the Baptist sang of his coming' -- Perhaps the translators listened to Handel's Messiah when drunk, and imagined the Baptist singing, "Every Valley"? No doubt the Latin is canere, which means to sing, but surely has a wider connotation that would more appropriately be drawn on here. I surmise this a priori, simply on the basis of common sense. The image of John the Baptist singing is a bizarre one, an eccentric innovation.
"For in the mystery of the Word made flesh
a new light of your glory has shone upon the eyes of our mind,
so that, as we recognize in him God made visible,
we may be caught up through him in love of things invisible."
The phrases in bold are typical of the broken-backed, nerveless language of this entire translation. Another example is this, from a Christmas Preface:
"For on the feast of this awe-filled mystery,"
PEOPLE are filled with awe, not THINGS -- this is pretty basic English idiom.
The following, from another Christmas Preface, flirts with mixed metaphor:
"For through him the holy exchange that restores our life
has shone forth today in splendor:
when our frailty is assumed by your Word
not only does human mortality receive unending honor
but by this wondrous union we, too, are made eternal."
An exchange restores life and shines forth? And since when are human beings made "eternal"? Does the Latin say aeterni facti sumus? The idea of being made eternal is a contradiction in terms in any case. The two other phrases in bold type are again off-key.
Insensitivity to the used of tenses is shown in the following:
"For today you have revealed the mystery
of our salvation in Christ
as a light for the nations,
and when he appeared in our mortal nature,
you made us new by the glory of his immortal nature."
Because of the change of tense the utterance is deprived of a secure temporal location and becomes feeble and vague.
From a Lenten Preface:
"For by your gracious gift each year
your faithful await the sacred paschal feasts
with the joy of minds made pure,
so that, more eagerly intent on prayer
and on the works of charity,
and participating in the mysteries"
Again those awkward, unrhythmical 'ands,' and the drab, inexpressive phrasing at every point.
"For you have given your children a sacred time
for the renewing and purifying of their hearts,
that, freed from disordered affections,
they may so deal with the things of this passing world
as to hold rather to the things that eternally endure."
The first phrase here irresistibly evokes "you have given your children a good time" and the second phrase is clunky; the rest is drab.
"For you will that our self-denial should give you thanks,
humble our sinful pride,
contribute to the feeding of the poor,
and so help us imitate you in your kindness."
This is gobbledygook. Self-denial gives thanks to God, humbles pride, contributes to feeding the poor? The last phrase "imitate you in your kindness" is wheezy bathos.
"For through the saving Passion of your Son
the whole world has received a heart
to confess the infinite power of your majesty,
since by the wondrous power of the Cross
your judgment on the world is now revealed
and the authority of Christ crucified."
Shades of a cosmic heart transplant. A heart to confess? The clumsy repetition of 'power,' already occurring in a vacuous pleonasm on its first appearance, voids this language of its substance and makes it unprayable. The final phrase is lame indeed: "by the power of the Cross is revealed the authority of Christ crucified" -- heavily nichtssagend as if the speaker were laboring under some invisible impediment, bodily or mental (such is the effect of the false translation philosophy propagated by Liturgiam Authenticam).
"For the days of his saving Passion
and glorious Resurrection are approaching,
by which the pride of the ancient foe is vanquished
and the mystery of our redemption in Christ is celebrated."
What does 'by which' here referred to? One thinks it must be the Passion, the Resurrection, or both, since it overcomes 'the pride of the ancient foe' (a very undemythologized reference to the Devil). But no, for it is that by which the mystery of our redemption is celebrated. So it must refer to "the days" -- but again are the days those of the original paschal events or those of the forthcoming Holy Week? Again it must be the latter. So it is to these days that the vanquishing of Satan is attributed, not to the Paschal Mystery itself. The translators will say I am quibbling about straws, such is the barbaric insensitivity that they have shown continually throughout this entire sacrilegious farce.
The Easter Prefaces uses the infelicitious phrases "laud you yet more gloriously" (verb-adverb mismatch) and "overcome with paschal joy" (misplaced idiom).
Another Preface has "to live like us in all things but sin" which is intended to mean "to live as one like us in all things but sin" but fails to articulate what it is trying to say.
Here's another clumsy clunker:
"that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
be manifest as the Church."
And again:
"Nourishing your faithful by this sacred mystery,
you make them holy, so that the human race,
bounded by one world,
may be enlightened by one faith
and united by one bond of charity."
Bounded by one world? And the echo between "bounded" and "bond" is tasteless and fails to communicate any significant intention.
In no case is the new translation of a Preface an improvement on what we currently have; in most cases it is a signal disimprovement. Here is the language now to be used at funerals:
"In him the hope of blessed resurrection has dawned,
that those saddened by the certainty of dying,
might be consoled by the promise of immortality to come."
Why not keep "the bright promise of immortality"? Why not keep all the current prefaces? -- there is very little difference in content and the tinkering that produced these new translations has merely rendered that content opaque and hollow-sounding. If it's not broken don't mend it.
"For even though by our own fault we perish,
yet by your compassion and your grace,
when seized by death according to our sins,
we are redeemed through Christ's great victory."
The third line here is characteristic of this translation's failure to locate events in a clear way syntactically and temporally.
I've had enough of this dreck. It is an insult to the People of God, and to the One they seek to worship in fitting language, human language, with the "noble simplicity" urged by the forgotten Second Vatican Council.
Posted at 12:06 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (9)
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
The latest version, which has won the final approval of the English-speaking Bishops worldwide, 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. (In one version published on the USCCB website it even contained an extraordinary theological howler, now corrected: it made the Blessed Virgin the mother of her husband, like Jocasta!)
UPDATE: The “latest version” is no longer the latest version. Since the Bishops gave their approval of the new version the Vatican have unilaterally introduced more than 10,000 changes into the text. A champion of the 2008 version finds these latest alterations deplorable: http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/10/17/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-2010-received-text/
Somehow I feel there is poetic justice in this most recent twist in the farce. It is like watching the last wizened and crippled scions of some decadent imperial dynasty caught in the throes of progressive decrepitude. The bishops sold the pass, failed to assert their authority; now even what they thought they had authority over has been taken away from them, and they are mocked by irresponsible underlings who merrily make an even more total mess of the shoddy product they so obediently, so virtuously rubberstamped. Surrender your authority and your dignity, and this is how you are treated.
When this is dumped on the faithful, who will be blamed? Not the Vatican, and not the illiterates who put the finishing touches to the ghastly texts, but the bishops -- and rightly. Care for the liturgical texts is the responsibility of the bishops and they have not fulfilled it. They will hear thousands repeat the words of one disgruntled South African Catholic: “I hate you, hierarchy.” I remember Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds telling the US Bishops that when he first took on responsibility for the new translations he thought it was “a relatively straightforward matter”; obviously the mistranslators of the last hour share that bishop’s delusions of competence.
Bishop Brian Dunn’s article
could be read as passing the buck to the Vatican, and it is true that Vatican encroachments are the main cause of the debacle. But the failure of the bishops to resist these was a spineless betrayal of their office. “Conversio textus latini in linguam vernaculam in liturgia adhibenda, a competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica terriroriali, de qua supra, approbari debet” (Sacrosanctum concilium 36.4); that is, translation from Latin to the vernacular should be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority. The Vatican has arrogated that competence to itself, leaving to the bishops only the right to make “observations” on texts pushed through by the Vatican, observations which the Vatican has freely ignored. Moreover, the latest batch of mistranslations, accepted by the Vatican but not even seen by the bishops, further gravely contradicts the letter and still more the spirit of the Council.
THE ROMAN CANON
Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices, rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas et benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata. In primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.
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, that you accept [or in another version also on the USCCB site: ‘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; the four ideas are more perspiciously presented in the current translation) 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; it translates ‘orthodoxis’), hand on the catholic and apostolic faith. (The ‘holding’ and ‘handing on’ is cumbersome; ‘hold and teach’ was fine.)
[2010 VERSION To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition (the addition of “therefore” improves the rhythm, though it remains unclear as always what the “therefore” (igitur) refers to
which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church (a disimprovement on “first of all”; why not “in the first place”?]
‘that you accept’ is too far removed from the verb governing it, so that it comes as an unrhythmical afterthought or appendage to what had seemed a completed sentence.
********************************************************
Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suisque omnibus: pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae: tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.
CURRENT TEXT
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 (2008)
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.
[In the 2010 VERSION the bizarre repetition is eliminated and a ghastly phrase “paying their homage to you” is introduced: For 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 paying their homage to you, the eternal God, living and true.]
Can this gibberish be seriously proposed as a liturgical text? I cannot believe that the English-speaking bishops have approved it. I shall check the text again (on June 7, 2010). --- I have checked at the USCCB site, and the words are exactly as they appear above. This is redolent of contempt for the People of God. I think we will be hearing the words ‘Abuse’ and ‘Scandal’ when this rubbish hits them.
********************************************************
Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in prímis gloriosae semper Vírginis Mariae, Genetrícis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi : sed et beati Ioseph, eiusdem Vírginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum: Petri et Pauli, Andreae, et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis, precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxílio.
CURRENT TEXT
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 gain us your 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 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).
[2010: and blessed Joseph, her Spouse…
we ask that through their merits and prayers, in all things we may be defended by your protecting help.]
‘In communion with those... especially... and all your Saints... : grant that we...’ The part of the sentence before the colon either hangs ungrammatically loose, or it is in apposition with ‘we’ after the colon, which is very odd in English. In the Latin the ‘Communicantes’ also hangs loose, unless attached to the ‘reddunt’ toward the close of the preceding sentence. The translation would be more literal if that sentence ended with a comma or at most a semicolon. Then instead of a break where the colon is in the present sentence, there should be a semicolon followed by ‘to (or by) whose merits and prayers mayst Thou vouchsafe that in all things we may be strengthened by the help of Thy protection.’ That is, in the Latin the phrase ‘in communion with’ is in apposition with a preceding ‘they’ not with a later ‘we’. The half-baked imitation of the Latin destroys its syntax and produces an odd syntax in English as well!
********************************************************
Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae, sed et cunctae familiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, ut placatus accipias; diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari.
CURRENT TEXT:
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)
:
********************************************************
Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat, dilectissimi Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi.
CURRENT TEXT:
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.
********************************************************
Qui, pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis in caelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: ACCIPITE, ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR.
Simili modo, postquam caenatum est, accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, item tibi gratias agens benedixit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM.
CURRENT TEXT:
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, and why add the ‘O’?), 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 ‘for’s 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.
********************************************************
Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta, eiusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis nec non ab inferis resurrectionis, sed et in coelos gloriosae ascensionis : offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae et Calicem salutis perpetuae.Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.
CURRENT TEXT:
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)
[2010: Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate (corrects grammatical error above)
Be pleased to look upon these offerings
With a serene and kindly countenance]
********************************************************
Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae; ut, quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur.
CURRENT TEXT:
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.
********************************************************
Memento etiam, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N., qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fídei, et dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, ut indulgeas, deprecamur.
Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam et societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis et Martyribus, cum Ioanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba… et omnibus Sanctis tuis: intra quorum nos consortium, non aestimator meriti, sed veniae, quaesumus, largítor admítte. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis.
CURRENT TEXT:
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 (unclear) 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).
[2010: To us, also, your servants, who, though sinners, hope in your abundant mercies
admit us, we beseech you, into their company
granting us your pardon]
Through whom you continue to make (“to create” was better) all these good things, O Lord; you sanctify them, (still ungrammatical)]
********************************************************
Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum.
CURRENT TEXT:
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)
********************************************************
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. FUSTIAN: This refers to old, dead diction that cannot be renewed for contemporary use. GROVELING: Liturgical language should not reduce the dignity of the one praying in the name of glorifying God.
Posted at 06:21 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (5)
Michael J. Cassidy points out that the new translation of the Roman Missal is not only a linguistic mess, but an ecclesiological one:
While a discussion of the merits of the English of this new "translation" could be useful, a few other points seem to me more important:
1. We are being lied to regarding the reason(s) this translation was undertaken and about its supposed efficacy. By simply repeating whatever was contained in a USCCB news release, Catholic News Service makes itself a party to these untruths. Furthermore, our pastors are going to be asked to stand up before their congregations and lie to them (i.e., us). Lying is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
2. It is difficult to understand why ANYONE who was around at the time of Vatican II and experienced the complete turnaround in ecumenical relations which resulted, could ever even consider using a liturgical translation which is not merely accidentally anti-ecumenical, but rather was INTENDED as an affront to our ecumenical partners, fellow members of the Body of Christ. Those who were not around for Vatican II might like to ask some of us greybeards what things were like before the Council. This translation is a violation of Vatican II's document on Ecumenism.
3. Similarly, how can anyone in the English-speaking Catholic Churches support this translation when our bishops were so ill-treated in the process, and the whole notion of collegiality was trampled upon? These incidents have been well documented by retired Bishop Maurice Taylor of Canada, and by John Wilkins, former editor of The Tablet of London. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/). What happened to the vaunted principle of subsidiarity? This translation violates the Council's Constitution on the Church.
4. Apart from the merits or lack thereof of the text, the PRINCIPLES of translation espoused by the mis-titled "Liturgiam Authenticam" are absolutely backward, both in terms of ecclesiastical translations and secular ones. In short, they are simply wrong.
To state, as the Voice article does, that, "The missal...has undergone a lengthy and rigourous translation process...." is also simply wrong. The process was indeed lengthy, but the translation is far from rigorous, except in the sense that it is stiff (e.g., rigor mortis).
And what are the implications of this? Among other things, these erroneous "princlples" could well infect the accuracy and objectivity of biblical scholarship, bringing further disrepute upon the Catholic Church. ("Further" because -- in case you missed it -- the pedophilia scandal and its fallout have already done considerable damage.)
5. On the pastoral front, it is good to be concerned with those already members of the Catholic Church, but what about those who are not? In our diocese, about 63% of the people living here belong to no formal religion at all.* So we have some scope for mission, for evangelization. Will these 'unclaimed' souls be attracted to a Church whose leaders do not have the courage to tell the truth? We need to be concerned about the effects of this translation upon evangelization -- in other words, look outward, not just inward. Will the language of this new missal help or hinder evangelization?
6. The German Bishops were recently 'given' a new translation of the funeral rites similar in methodology and spirit to this new Roman Missal. They refused to implement it, for pastoral reasons. (See http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/newsjuly15.htm)
Posted at 11:58 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (15)
UPDATE: A must-read comment from Australia: http://www.catholica.com.au/gc3/gr/009_gr_010510.php
Dear Cardinals,
Dear Brother Bishops and Priests,
Members and Consultors of the Vox Clara Committee,
I thank you for the work that Vox Clara has done over the last eight years, assisting and advising the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in fulfilling its responsibilities with regard to the English translations of liturgical texts. This has been a truly collegial enterprise. Not only are all five continents represented in the membership of the Committee, but you have been assiduous in drawing together contributions from Bishops’ Conferences in English-speaking territories all over the world. I thank you for the great labour you have expended in your study of the translations and in processing the results of the many consultations that have been conducted. I thank the expert assistants for offering the fruits of their scholarship in order to render a service to the universal Church. And I thank the Superiors and Officials of the Congregation for their daily, painstaking work of overseeing the preparation and translation of texts that proclaim the truth of our redemption in Christ, the Incarnate Word of God.
Saint Augustine spoke beautifully of the relation between John the Baptist, the vox clara that resounded on the banks of the Jordan, and the Word that he spoke. A voice, he said, serves to share with the listener the message that is already in the speaker’s heart. Once the word has been spoken, it is present in the hearts of both, and so the voice, its task having been completed, can fade away (cf. Sermon 293). I welcome the news that the English translation of the Roman Missal will soon be ready for publication, so that the texts you have worked so hard to prepare may be proclaimed in the liturgy that is celebrated across the anglophone world. Through these sacred texts and the actions that accompany them, Christ will be made present and active in the midst of his people. The voice that helped bring these words to birth will have completed its task.
A new task will then present itself, one which falls outside the direct competence of Vox Clara, but which in one way or another will involve all of you – the task of preparing for the reception of the new translation by clergy and lay faithful. Many will find it hard to adjust to unfamiliar texts after nearly forty years of continuous use of the previous translation. The change will need to be introduced with due sensitivity, and the opportunity for catechesis that it presents will need to be firmly grasped. I pray that in this way any risk of confusion or bewilderment will be averted, and the change will serve instead as a springboard for a renewal and a deepening of Eucharistic devotion all over the English-speaking world.
Dear Brother Bishops, Reverend Fathers, Friends, I want you to know how much I appreciate the great collaborative endeavour to which you have contributed. Soon the fruits of your labours will be made available to English-speaking congregations everywhere. As the prayers of God’s people rise before him like incense (cf. Psalm 140:2), may the Lord’s blessing come down upon all who have contributed their time and expertise to crafting the texts in which those prayers are expressed. Thank you, and may you be abundantly rewarded for your generous service to God’s people.
The Catholic liturgy is only half alive, and the new English translations will further decrease its vitality.
Pope Benedict, who is not a native English speaker, believes that the mediocre (or worse) new translations can bring renewal to the liturgy. Or does he?
There is a trace of unease in his remark on the "new task" of "preparing the clergy and lay faithful for the reception of the changes."
It seems that Benedict is aware of the South Africa debacle and, keeping his fingers crossed, is hoping that with sufficient tact and sensitivity in the way they are presented the new texts can be swallowed smoothly elsewhere.
He wants to believe that the objections to the new text come solely from people's attachment to what they have become used to over 40 years.
Given his disappointing experience with Cardinal Castillon Hoyos, the Pope should be asking some questions about the late Cardinal Medina Estévez, chief architect of the new translation.
Perhaps he knows the whole project is a mistake, for his anxiety is scarcely concealed. He refers to risks of "confusion or bewilderment."
This is hardly the most upbeat way to introduce a new translation, touted as a wonderful gift to the Church by its perpetrators.
What does not proceed from conviction is sin, according to St Paul. The Church deserves better than shoddy goods.
"Soon the fruits of your labors will be made available to English-speaking congregations everywhere."" Quite so; by their fruits shall they be known.
Meanwhile, Fr Ryan's petition seems stalled at 20,500. Are we sleepwalking toward a huge pastoral disaster, or slump? http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/signatures.aspx
Posted at 02:33 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (5)
EUCHARISTIC PRAYER III: Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae, et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari, concede, ut qui Corpore et Sanguine Filii tui reficimur, Spiritu eius Sancto repleti, unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo.
CURRENT TRANSLATION: Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.
PROPOSED NEW TRANSLATION: Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son, and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.
The Third Eucharistic Prayer was put together by Fr Cipriano Vagaggini (1909-1999) from North African sources. A literal translation of the Latin suggests that it has retained some rather primeval notions of sacrifice: ‘Look, we pray, on the oblation of your Church, and perceiving the Victim, by whose immolation you willed to be placated…’
The translators of the new version did not have the courage of their literalist convictions, knowing that this primitive sacrificial language would not wash with a contemporary congregation. So they resort to the very things they scold the current translation for: PARAPHRASE and DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE. In fact they build on the current translation and not on the original Latin: ‘whose death has reconciled us to yourself’ becomes ‘by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself’ – immolation and placation are gone and only the nuance of ‘you willed’ is added from the Latin.
‘Recognizing’ is an infelicitous translation of ‘agnoscens’ for it either suggests that God is short-sighted and has trouble recognizing the Victim, or else that he may refuse recognition to the Victim – denying its sacral status or its identity with the Victim of Calvary. The latter sense of recognize is no doubt what the translators intend, following the common use of agnosco in such phrases as agnoscere filium – to recognize as one’s son. However, agnosco can also mean simply ‘perceive’; in a sentence like Virgil's 'agnosco veteris vestigia flammae' one may translate the verb either way. 'Perceive' is the sense chosen by the current translation, ‘see the Victim.’ The French translation has 'Regarde, Seigneur, le sacrifice de ton Eglise, et daigne y reconnaitre celui de ton Fils, qui nous a rétablis dans ton Alliance.' This makes much better sense than the murky language of the new English translation.
Meanwhile, 18691 people have now signed Fr Ryan's petition: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/signatures.aspx
He has also posted a fresh batch of Comments: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/readcomments.htm
Posted at 12:27 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (11)
America, March 1, 2010, has published a defense of the new liturgical translations by Bishop Serratelli. Whispers in the Loggia headlines it, "Beseeching a 'Welcome'". Indeed, bishops everywhere are beginning to realize that the new translations are going to be a hard sell. To see their main US proponent "beseeching" on their behalf is telling. It is a reaction to the outrage expressed at forums such as the following: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/signatures.aspx
The Bishop drapes the bad new translations in the mantle of change: "To change indicates that one is alive. This applies to people, institutions and even language." Of course disease and decomposition are forms of change too. Not every change "is a natural development" and "when it meets resistance" that is not necessarily "because we can become comfortable in old and familiar ways." The whole way Bp Serratelli sets up the debate shows a lack of reflection.
" Many have asked questions, expressed concerns, or simply wondered about the reasons for the new translation and the goals of its implementation."
Those who have read the new translation carefully have done more than that. They have expressed outrage. In South Africa the bad new translations have brought reactions ranging from rebellion to despair. There has been NO enthuiasm for them.
"In his popular rhetorical guide, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum, the 16th century Dutch humanist and theologian Erasmus showed students 150 different styles they could use when phrasing the Latin sentence, Tuae literae me magnopere delectarunt (“Your letter has delighted me very much”). He amply demonstrated that no single translation will ever completely satisfy everyone."
Erasmus, what distinguished reading! Allow me to doubt if any American bishop reads Erasmus.
"Our words in the liturgy are not simply expressions of one individual in one particular place at one time in history. Rather, they pass on the faith of the church from one generation to the next. For this reason, we bishops take seriously our responsibility to provide translations of liturgical texts that are at the same time accurate and inspiring, hence, the sometimes rather passionate discussion of words, syntax and phrases. "
I watched and/or read the transcripts of the two major discussions of this among the bishops last year. I know very well the culture of clerical get-togethers. The little boys keep their heads down and let the boss get on with it, unless they are very heavily encouraged to speak up. In fact only 5 of the bishops had any comments to make on the translations at the November meeting. THEY HAD NOT EVEN READ THEM. So it is chutzpah for Bp Serratelli to claim that the bishops took their responsibility seriously and engaged in passionate debate. They didn't. And they were not encouraged to. They are guilty of a huge failure in pastoral vigilance.
"The new translation provides us with prayers that are theologically accurate, in a language with dignity and beauty that can be understood."
On the contrary, the new translation has theological inaccuracies, and its langauge is generally clumsy, rhytmless and ignorant of the expressive resources of the English tongue. See the comments on Fr Ryan's website for ample testimony to this: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/readcomments.htm
"The process of translation of the new edition of the Roman Missal has involved linguistic, biblical, and liturgical scholars from each of the eleven English-speaking countries which ICEL serves."
Who are they? Why do we not hear them speaking up in defense of the lousy translation? They may have been consulted, but they do not appear to be happy with the result.
"This process has been thorough and it has been collaborative on an international level, because this text will be used by the church throughout the English-speaking world."
Again, this seems to be untrue. Certainly the vast armies of the clergy and laity have not been consulted in any significant degree. Even bishops and even heads of episcopal conferences express, at least in private, a sense of powerlessness. All Rome asked them to offer were "observations" on the translation, not an assessment of its overall worth. And more often than not Rome ignored the observations.
" It is important for us to remember that we Americans are but one part of a larger English–speaking community. The preparation of this translation has been an international effort to produce an international text. The result is a text that draws us together and situates us as Americans within a much larger ecclesial communion."
This sort of argument has been trotted out ad nauseam. It is utterly specious. It bespeaks an uneasy sense among the US Bishops that they are doing the wrong thing. But again just like little boys they look to what bishops are doing elsewhere and say to themselves, "Well, the others are doing it, so I suppose that lets us off the hook."
"Proponents of the new text sometimes argue, perhaps unfairly, that the texts currently in use in our liturgy (in the present Sacramentary), the product of great efforts by translators from 1969 to 1973, are marked by a style of English that is flat and uninspiring. That text, however, has served the church in the English-speaking world well for more than thirty years, and has enabled us to take great strides in working toward the Council’s goal of “full, conscious, and active participation” in the liturgy. We should be careful not judge too hastily what has been the language of our worship. Our present texts are familiar and comfortable."
Note the careful omission of any reference to the 1998 text approved by the English speaking bishops, which was far superior to the dreck now being offered by the jumped-up group who call themselves ICEL but have little in common with the ICEL who produced the 1973 and 1998 translations.
"Those who have already been critical of the new text, often without having seen more than a few examples out of context, express concern about unfamiliar vocabulary and unnecessarily complicated sentence structures."
What a pathetic account of the massive criticism the texts have received from liturgists, Latinists, professors of literature and theologians, not to mention the subtle and articulate feedback from laity, lay ministers, religious and priests! How condescending and dismissive!
" Having been involved in the work of translation with ICEL and with the bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, I can attest that the new translation is good and worthy of our use."
Bishop Serratelli, what are your qualifications as a liturgist, theologian, and handler of the English and Latin tongues?
" It is not perfect, but perfection will come only when the liturgy on earth gives way to that of heaven, where all the saints praise God with one voice. "
This comes close to taking the Lord's name in vain. If a student handed me a bad, sloppy essay, and said "It's not perfect, but I am not Shakespeare" I would be unimpressed.
"It is natural to resist such changes simply to remain grounded in the familiar because it is comfortable."
Bishops Serratelli seems to be stuck in this groove. The implicit dismissiveness toward the laity and toward qualified critics is redolent of abuse.
"First, get to know the text."
Only the Ordo Missae is published on the Bishops' website (when I last looked). There does not seem to be any haste to let us see the rest of this horrible production.
"Many have pointed out that the vocabulary, syntax and sentence structure will be markedly different from the current text. The guiding principles of translation call for the preservation of biblical imagery and poetic language (and structure). The new texts contain many beautiful examples of language drawn directly from the Scriptures, especially the Gospels and the Psalms: “from the rising of the sun to its setting” (Psalm 113, Eucharistic Prayer III ), “sending down your Spirit… like the dewfall” (Psalm 133, Eucharistic Prayer II), “blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb” (See Rev. 19, Communion Rite), and “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…” (Mt. 8, Communion Rite). These are but a few examples."
This refers to local items of diction, not to the total impact of the nerveless texts.
"Of particular note in the new texts are expressions of reverence for God, articulated not only by the vocabulary but by the style of expression in addressing God. Some may find the use of such self-deprecatory language uncomfortable at first, but it effectively acknowledges the primacy of God’s grace and our dependence on it for salvation."
Well, calling God "eternal majesty" is wrong not because it is reverent but because is it unidiomatic and untraditional.
"The texts may be unfamiliar now, but the more one understands their meaning, the more meaningful their use will be in the liturgy. We are invited to undergo a process of theological reflection or even the practice lectio divina with the texts of the new Roman Missal. To pray with and reflect on these words will help us all to open our hearts to the mysteries the texts express."
Again, I think most people understand the meaning, but the expression of that meaning is far too often labored, opaque, inexpressive, unidiomatic, turgid, and insipid.
"The implementation of the new Roman Missal ought to be an opportunity to recommit ourselves to prayerful, faithful and vibrant celebration of the liturgy."
Yet it is those most committed to this who have been loudest in their criticisms. Is the Bishop trying to insinuate that the critics are lacking in spirituality?
"A wide range of resources is being developed by the USCCB, the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, and many catechetical and liturgical publishers."
At enormous expense, no doubt. But as one who has to buy textbooks for students, I know that textbook publishers often produce rubbish (sometimes letting desire of financial gain override pedagogics or concern for students' convenience). If the bishop thinks that a publishing flurry can change a sow's ear into a silken purse, he underestimates the difficulties.
I urge Bishop Serratelli to come to his senses and disassociate himself from this embarrassing farce. Many people are already very angry with him at the moment. But if the incompetent translations are thrust on the faithful the good bishop will find himself facing a tsunami of rage from the People of God.
Posted at 02:44 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (65)
Thanks to "Cor ad Cor Loquitur" for this link. http://jbebeau.net16.net/transcompt.pdf
Let's compare one prayer in the three translations -- that currently in use, the one rejected by the Vatican in 1998, and the proposed new translation.
1973
All-powerful God,
increase our strength of will for doing good [FLAT, BANAL, UNIDIOMATIC]
that Christ may find an eager welcome at his coming [VAGUE]
and call us to his side in the kingdom of heaven, [FLAT, INEXPRESSIVE]
where he lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
1998
Almighty God,
strengthen the resolve of your faithful people
to prepare for the coming of your Christ
by works of justice and mercy,
so that when we go forth to meet him
he may call us to sit at his right hand
and possess the kingdom of heaven.
2008
Grant, we pray, almighty God,
that your faithful may resolve [HORRENDOUSLY CIRCUITOUS AND ABSTRACT]
to run forth with righteous deeds, [UNIDIOMATIC, CLUMSY]
to meet your Christ who is coming,
so that gathered at his right hand
they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.
Clearly the 1998 text is the only one that is passable.
Let's take a look at the proposed new translation of the Preface for the Ascension:
It is truly right and just,
our duty and our salvation,
always and everywhere to give you thanks,
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God.
For the Lord Jesus, the King of glory,
conqueror of sin and death,
has ascended [today] into highest heaven
as Angels gazed in wonder; AWKWARD COORDINATION OF TENSES
Mediator between God and humanity,
Judge of the world and Lord of hosts, INEXPRESSIVE AND NOT PARTICULARLY COHERENT LIST OF TITLES
he ascended, not to abandon our lowly state
but that we, his members, might confidently hope to follow
where he, our Head and origin, has gone before. MORE AWKWARD COORDINATION OF TENSES AND MOODS; "OUR HEAD AND ORIGIN" IS ODD
Therefore, overflowing with paschal joy,
the whole world exults with your praises; THIS PSEUDO-EXALTED LANGUAGE DOES NOT WORK
the heavenly powers also and the angelic hosts
sing together the hymn of your glory
and acclaim without end:
Here is 1998:
It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, I DISLIKE "Just"
that we should always sing your glory, Lord;
but we praise you with greater joy than ever
in this Easter season
when Christ became our paschal sacrifice.
[Today] the Lord Jesus, the King of glory,
who has conquered sin and death,
ascended to the highest heavens while angels gazed in wonder. TENSE COORDINATION IS CORRECT HERE
He is the mediator between God and humanity,
judge of the world and Lord of heavenly powers.
He has not abandoned our human condition
but has filled us with hope
that where he, our head, has gone before us
we, his members, shall follow after. AGAIN THE MOOD AND TENSES ARE CONSISTENT
Therefore, the universe resounds with Easter joy,
and the choirs of angels sing the endless hymn of your glory:
1973 is OK:
Father, all-powerful and ever-living God,
we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks.
(Today) the Lord Jesus, the king of glory,
the conqueror of sin and death,
ascended to heaven while the angels sang his praises.
Christ, the mediator between God and man,
judge of the world, and Lord of all,
has passed beyond our sight,
not to abandon us but to be our hope.
Christ is the beginning, the head of the Church;
Where he has gone, we hope to follow.
The joy of the resurrection and ascension renews the whole world,
while the choirs of heaven sing for ever to your glory:
Posted at 01:11 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (3)
The parts in bold print represent the revisions of the current version. For such a hugely expensive exercise, I cannot see that any substantive improvements have been made. There are a few clear disimprovements. The highest praise that this new translation can reasonably hope to garner is that it is... passable. Meanwhile, we should certainly wait before imposing it worldwide on an unsuspecting church: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/signatures.aspx
EUCHARISTIC PRAYER IV
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):
*truly just… you are the one God…, existing… [,] and abide… glory of your light… glory of your face, glorify you…
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.
*all… those who seek… them… look forward to salvation…
And you so loved the world, Father most holy, that in the fullness of time you sent your Only Begotten Son to be our Savior. Incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, he shared our human nature in all things but sin. To the poor he proclaimed the good news of salvation, to prisoners, freedom, and to the sorrowful of heart, joy. To accomplish your plan, he gave himself up to death, and, rising from the dead, he destroyed death and restored life. 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
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.
*Become the body and blood… for the celebration…
For when the hour had come for him to be glorified by you, Father most holy, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end:
*When the hour had come… having loved… he loved..
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 now celebrate… and as we await…
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.
*grant… to all… that they may truly become…
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.
*all for whom we make this offering… especially… those who make this offering…
Remember also those who have died in the peace of your Christ and all the dead, whose faith you alone have known. To all of us, your children, grant, O merciful Father, that we may enter into a heavenly inheritance with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and with your Apostles and Saints in your kingdom. There, with the whole of creation, freed from the corruption of sin and death, may we glorify you through Christ our Lord, through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.
*you alone have known…
Posted at 08:42 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (1)
http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/readcomments.htm
The petition to call a halt to the farcical new translations of the liturgy seems to be gathering steam -- it has just shot up to 14000 signatories.
A reflection that many are making is this: Where were the Bishops? Was it not their bounden duty to watch over the worship of their flock? Was it not their duty to resist the pressure of curial bureaucrats who claimed to know their language and their people better than they did themselves? Why were the likes of Bishop Donald Trautman ridiculized and marginalized? Why did the bulk of the bishops act like schoolboys cowering before a bullying master? Has the John Paul II breed of bishops been trained in cowardly subservience at the expense of the manly virtues of a Shepherd?
Posted at 06:04 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (7)
Highlights from ‘Defending the New Roman Missal: A response to Father Michael Ryan,’ Peter Stravinskas (America, Feb. 1, 2010) http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12097&comments=1#readcomments
Having majored in classical languages [LATIN AND GREEK – BUT HE MAKES AN ELEMENTARY MISTAKE IN GREEK BELOW], I naturally was quite interested in the process and flattered when I was invited by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to participate in the translation effort. Frankly, I was also surprised that someone of my thin experience had been asked to take part in a project that would influence the spiritual lives of millions of Catholics for decades to come.
When I first reviewed the translation guidelines sent by ICEL, I was disappointed. Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy… The goal was to capture the general meaning of the text, rather than a faithful rendering of a rich and historically layered Latin prose. I tried to work within these parameters, but I found it difficult to do and still remain true to the original text. My translations were evidently unsatisfactory because, upon submitting them, I was politely but firmly uninvited from serving on the commission.
When the English Missale Romanum appeared in 1970, it was clear we had been handed a paraphrase instead of a translation. As a young priest required to use these texts, I quickly determined that something needed to be done to return to the people of God what Father Ryan dubs “their baptismal birthright”—that is, an English liturgy that seeks to convey all the depth, truth and beauty of the original Latin. By 1992, I had assembled a team of scholars who produced an alternative translation of the Ordinary of the Mass and presented that effort to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy in Washington, D.C., and the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. Hostility was the response from Washington—copies of our draft were gathered and destroyed at the bishops’ meeting—while Rome expressed a guarded interest in our project.
Ultimately, the Holy See came to the realization that many of the vernacular translations of the liturgy were problematic…
In his essay, Father Ryan argues that not enough consultation has taken place, and that “we should just say, “Wait’” before implementing the new translations. I disagree…
Ryan argues that the Roman Curia and other parties are involved in a “systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council’s decree” and that the Congregation for Divine Worship is raising “rubricism to an art form,” with liturgy being used “as a weapon—to advance specific agendas.” In my view, present efforts are precisely seeking to reclaim “the great vision of the council’s” constitution. Over the years my various apostolates have provided me with a vantage point from which to consider liturgical life in this country and abroad. So much of what I have witnessed or had described to me by eyewitnesses has been nothing shy of a betrayal of the council’s great vision and, in my judgment, largely responsible for the rapid emptying of the pews.
What curial officials and the pope are arguing for, with the enthusiastic support of junior clergy, is not a moribund “rubricism” but a genuine ars celebrandi that makes the sacred mysteries palpable. Not a few observers have noted that much of the liturgical change that occurred after the council—both officially sanctioned as well as in explicit violation of church law—would have been unthinkable to the council fathers. What is required now is a careful re-building process. Is this “turning back the clock”? In some sense, it is. Permit me a mundane example. If a man is told by his physician that he must lose 50 pounds or face serious problems, he must “turn back the clock” to the time when he was lighter in order to save his life. Mutatis mutandis—that is what the church at the highest levels is calling us to do.
Father Ryan writes that “before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program…” The author makes such efforts sound almost sinister, but in my book he is simply describing the process of catechesis…
Bishop Trautman cited paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which he argued gave the episcopal conferences the authority to produce and approve liturgical translations. Yet the paragraph in question in no way calls for what Bishop Trautman demands: it stipulates that episcopal conferences are to approve translations (not produce them), with subsequent approval by the Holy See. Ironically, the very same paragraph of the conciliar constitution also states that, “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites... Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” In other words, if paragraph 36 had been followed in regard to the primacy of Latin, the Ordinary of the Mass would not have been translated into the vernacular in the first place!…
Joseph, spouse of the same Virgin. This line comes from the Roman Canon. The Latin speaks of Joseph as eiusdem Virginis sponsi, which is exactly “spouse of the same Virgin.” One reason the church was reluctant to highlight St. Joseph until relatively recent centuries was the fear that his relationship to Mary would or could be misunderstood. And so when Pope John XXIII added Joseph’s name to the Canon, it was determined that no one should be led into error or confusion, thus giving us “of the same Virgin.” Which is to say, that while Joseph and Mary were indeed husband and wife, Mary remained a virgin—a critical theological point.
We are warned by Father Ryan to expect “discredit to the church” and “disillusionment to the people” if the new translation sees the light of day. He tells us of the “chilling reception” it has received in South Africa, in spite of a “careful program of catechesis in the parishes.” I beg to differ. There was no “program of catechesis” to speak of in South Africa and, in fact, some liturgical observers even argue that the translation was thrust onto the faithful precisely to cause a negative reaction. [CONSPIRACY THEORY?] Having conducted several workshops on the new texts over the past year, I can only attest to very positive reactions, from clergy and laity alike.
How did the final texts receive such overwhelming support from the American bishops, if they are so bad? Father Ryan contends that the bishops were just “worn down” by the Holy See and so caved in. I disagree. The majority of the bishops saw the merit of the work and were tired of the delaying tactics of a vocal if tiny minority of opponents. [IN FACT THEY DID NOT READ THEM.] Is this translation perfect? Of course not. No translation is, but we ought never make the best the enemy of the good. It is a vast improvement over the uninspiring, banal and all-too-often theologically problematic texts we have been using for nearly 40 years. The New Testament speaks of chairos, [RECTE: KAIROS – the author does not know basic Greek; why should we trust his Latin?] an especially fortuitous moment. We are approaching a liturgical chairos for English-speaking Catholics, which we should embrace with gusto.
In addition to Father Ryan’s article and the Web site he set up to summon support for further delays, he has also written to the rectors of all the cathedrals in the country seeking to rally them to his cause. His campaign has provoked a counterreaction among younger clergy and seminarians who have helped to set up the site “We’ve waited long enough.” The site has already garnered thousand of signatures and should give pause to Ryan and his supporters. [WHO GARNERED FOUR TIMES AS MANY SIGNATURES] It is these young priests, after all, who will be using these texts when our generation (God willing) will be participating in the Liturgy of Heaven, where language will not be an issue.
Responses:
*Fr. Stravinskas's article ignores a major point. The new translation of the Mass is different, to be sure, but it's based on an assumption that is not in evidence: the closer the English version is to the Latin version in all respects - including vocabulary, grammar, and syntax - the more appropriate it is. Such schoolboyish touches as literal translation of the ablative absolute, as is present in the absolution prayer in the penitential rite, do not lead us to an English text that conveys the cognitive and affective substance of the Mass in any kind of effective manner. The text we've used the last 40 years is in no way artistic, but neither is this new version. This whole project needs to back to the drawing board, with our best artists in English prose fully involved. Otherwise it is nothing more than a liturgical version of laetrile: a quack remedy that will not cure what ails the celebration of the Mass in most places (poor music and poor preaching).
*Unlike Father Ryan, Father Stravinskas seems to have had very "thin" pastoral experience. He has hopscotched from diocese to diocese, including a change at one point from a Latin to an Eastern Rite diocese. He is rather hard to keep up with in terms of ecclesiastical provenance. For sure, he has for many years associated himself with various small, highly conservative fringe movements. On the other hand, Father Ryan has faithfully served in the archdiocese of Seattle for forty-three years. Scoring (tendentious) points seems to be Father Stravinskas's metier; being a devoted pastor, Father Ryan's life's work. I go with the priest who is close to the people rather than the one who travels to Rome frequently to meet with friends in the Roman Curia. Couldn't AMERICA have found a more credible respondent to Father Michael Ryan? Strangely, Father Stravinskas passes over the fact that ICEL engaged in a total revision of the 1973 Missal during a fifteen-year period, from 1982 to 1997. Eleven conferences of bishops gave their canonical approvals to that thorough and careful revision. After a four-year review, Rome refused its confirmation of the eleven conferences' canonical decisions and also refused to enter into dialogue with the bishops' conferences on the rejected text. As a text that was literate, memorable, uplifting, the rejected text was far superior to the present proposal, which is often rhythmically insecure and syntactically disjointed. It is a slavishly literal translation that so exalts the Latin that the result is in too many instances scarcely recognizable as English. If Rome had only allowed reasonable dialogue, a workable compromise could have been achieved several years ago. Instead Roman power prevailed, and the whole process was begun all over again. The money, the people's money, that has been wasted and continues to be wasted is itself a scandal, which no one seems to be addressing.
Posted at 02:38 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (16)
MONSIGNOR BRUCE E. HARBERT, one of those directly responsible for the disastrous new liturgical translations, boasts of his achievement in a speech given at SAINT JOHN’S, COLLEGEVILLE, MINNESOTA, 20 SEPTEMBER 2009.
He is very keen to get angels back into the liturgy in places from which he feels they have been unjustly excluded:
“When we reached the Preface of the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer, alternatives were sought to the words ‘lead all men to the joyful vision of your light’ to avoid using the manifestly masculine noun ‘men’ to refer to the whole human race. I ventured to suggest that.. the Preface is concerned with the creation of the angels… The new English translation reads: ‘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.’ The angels are not explicitly mentioned, but nor are they excluded, as they have been hitherto in English.
“Room is made for the angels on a much larger scale in the Sanctus, where ‘Lord God of Hosts’ replaces ‘Lord God of power and might’… ICET acknowledged that Sabaoth literally means ‘heavenly hosts of angels’, but added that ‘some people object to its military metaphor’. These ‘some people’ - whoever they may have been - were thus allowed to dislodge from the heart of the liturgy the iconography of the attendants who throng God’s throne which has been so abundant in East and West. So many examples come to mind… Welcome back, heavenly hosts.”
He complains that there has been “an emphasis on the horizontal aspect of liturgy at the expense of its vertical aspect.” Commenting on, “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,” he says: “In the original there are not two altars: rather, our participation at the earthly altar is a participation at the heavenly one” (not at all clear, nor does the new translation make it clear; I took it rather to be marking the distinction of the two altars more clearly: “command that these gifts be borne.. to your altar on high… that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive…”).
“A linguistic symptom of the horizontalisation of liturgy after the Council is the translation of the Latin word Dominus as ‘Father’ rather than ‘Lord.’” He admits that this creates unease when “Dominus is used of both Father and Son in close proximity. But there is no way out of this, for the word used so constantly of Christ in the New Testament, kyrios, is used equally of God in the Septuagint. When we apply the Divine Name to Christ, we are acknowledging his divinity. The Latin liturgy follows this pattern, beginning many prayers with Domine, addressed to the Father, and ending with Per Dominum, referring to the Son.The new version consistently translates Deus as ‘God’ and Dominus as ‘Lord’. So the Third Eucharistic Prayer, instead of beginning ‘Father, you are holy indeed’, begins: ‘You are indeed Holy, O Lord,’ and continues.. ‘through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ… you give life to all things…’ The reinstatement of this honorific title will give a stronger sense of the majesty of God and of the divinity of Christ, not by means of artificial rhetoric, but simply by using the language of Scripture.” An objection to this could by that the phrase “the Lord” in the New Testament mainly refers to Christ, whereas the word “God” invariably refers to the Father (the Son is theos in Jn 1.1 and ho theos mou in Jn 20:28, but never ho Theos absolutely). The title kyrios refers to God the Father only rarely in the New Testament. In short the current translation is more biblical than the proposed new translation.
“Those who claim that liturgy should follow the patterns of ordinary speech overlook the existence of a silent consensus that liturgical language should have a degree of formality.” “A survey was conducted, and most respondents said they would prefer a more elevated and complex style than that of the current texts.” So would I, but this does not excuse the horrible English produced by the new ICEL’s poor understanding of formal English.
.
“The search for a translation of digneris continued. Often ‘be pleased to’ was chosen, as in ‘Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity your pilgrim Church on earth’ in the Third Eucharistic Prayer, which replaces the bald imperative of the current text, ‘Strengthen in faith and love.’” Again, the current text is closer to the Bible; the Psalms, for example, do not abound in “deign” or “be pleased to” and to accuse their style of bad manners would itself show a very poor appreciation of biblical spirituality.
“Occasionally, ‘graciously’ has been used, as in the Epiclesis of the Third Eucharistic Prayer. The two short sentences of the current version: ‘And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit.’ will be replaced by a single sentence: ‘Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you: by the same Spirit graciously make holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration.’ To some these expressions will seem artificial and unnecessary. Others attach great importance to the translation of every word in the Latin. Happily, over the course of time, liturgical texts become hallowed by use despite their deficiencies, as is clear from the love that many feel for our current texts. For that reason, I am not unduly anxious about the initial reception of the new texts: let us wait to see how they are being used after a year or two.”
It is true that shoddy religious art often attracts the devotion of the faithful. But to pawn off shoddy goods on the premise that they will automatically become hallowed over time is the height of elitist cynicism.
“I hope you will not think that ICEL’s search for new ways of addressing God have produced a liturgy of grovel. The Missal addresses God with an awareness not only of his might but of his love. Let us look again at the Latin word dignor. In the liturgy we not only ask God to deign to do things, but we recall that he has already deigned. Currently, we speak of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity…. But ‘humbled himself’ will not do on every occasion as a translation of dignatus est. For instance, ICEL’s new version of the Collect for Saturday in the Fifth Week of Easter begins:
‘Almighty eternal God, who have been pleased to confer on us heavenly life
through our rebirth in Baptism…’ It would not have made sense to speak here of God ‘humbling himself’ to give us heavenly life, since Baptism is more a manifestation of his power than of his humility.” These jejune comments show a rather summary grasp of theology. A sort of verbal fetishism seems in play.
“The Latin benignus has given us the English ‘benign’ and ‘benignity’. Its most obvious translation is ‘kind’. In the liturgy it is most often used adverbially, so the Collect for Wednesday of the Third Week in Lent begins: ‘Pour your grace kindly into our hearts, we pray, O Lord…’ Note that we say ‘Pour your grace kindly’, not ‘Kindly pour your grace’. Adverbs like ‘kindly’, when placed at the beginning of their sentence, express the speaker’s assessment of the action concerned: so if we said ‘Kindly pour your grace’ we would mean that, if God pours his grace into our hearts, we shall regard him as kind. There can be a peremptory or ironical note in the request, as in ‘kindly close the door’. We do not want that note in prayer, so we are careful not to put ‘kindly’ at the beginning of sentences.”
The author is oblivious of how unidiomatic and inexpressive “pour your grace kindly” is in English. Moreover it is a mistranslation. “Speak to your child kindly” is a strong and idiomatic use of the adverb. But to pour kindly sounds rather absurd. In “Kindly pour” the meaning is not the same as in “pour kindly”, just as “Kindly speak” is not the same as “speak kindly”.
“The Missal also speaks of ‘propitiation’ in regard to God. This word forced the translators to think very hard. Do we ask God to be propitiated at Mass? Or to be propitiated by the celebration of Mass? This would seem to imply an image of an angry God that many regard as undesirable. But if that is what is found in the Missal, that is what must be translated.”
Notice that literal translation here explicitly trumps pastoral sensitivity and theological appropriateness.
“Fortunately, whereas in English ‘propitiation’ is something we might do, or try to do, to a God, in Latin it is a quality that belongs permanently to God himself. God has been propitiated, and we appeal to what one prayer calls his ‘perpetual propitiation’. Let me assure you that the translators did not choose that clumsy phrase, but rather ‘unceasing mercy’”. Very odd theology here. God’s mercy is not identical with the idea that God has reconciled us to himself in Christ. And this reconciliation does not exclude the fact that there may be obstacles to the appropriation of redemption on the part of the subject, which may make a language of propitiatory appeal, through Christ’s blood, appropriate.
“In the liturgy, we constantly ask God to do something, so that something else can happen. For instance… ‘Cleanse my heart and my lips, almighty God, that I may worthily proclaim your holy Gospel.’ …the purpose clause, which remains unchanged from the current version, illustrates how the diction of the liturgy is different from that of everyday life. A more normal form of expression would be: ‘so that I can proclaim your holy Gospel worthily.’ But the use of plain ‘that’ for ‘so that’ and the unusual position of ‘worthily’ have been accepted for forty years.”
Yes, because it is quite inoffensive and elegant formal English. Unfortunately it does not guarantee that every use of this structure will automatically be inoffensive and elegant.
“There are far more purpose-clauses in the new translation than in the current one, which tended to avoid subordination. For instance,… ‘With unfailing help, O Lord, gently uphold those you refresh with your Sacraments, that we may obtain the effect of redemption both in the mysteries and in our manner of life.’” This is OK, though ‘so that we may obtain’ would be equally good or better; problems arise however when naked subjunctives, such as ‘that he obtain,’ begin to proliferate.
In “that we may be constantly drawn back from human excesses and be able, through your generosity, to cling to your heavenly commandments,” the “be able” is perilously far from the governing “that we may”. Even in the indicative there is something odd about the coupling of “be drawn back” and “be able”: “We are drawn back from excesses and are able to cling to your commandments.”
“For God, everything is possible. So it is surprising to find in the Missal a prayer that, literally translated, would contain these words: ‘O God… increase your grace within us, so that you may make those who run towards your promises sharers in the good things of heaven.’ We are faced here, I think, with a peculiarity of liturgical syntax. Latin text-books teach us to distinguish clauses of purpose from clauses of result. But in God there is no distinction between purpose and result: what he wills, he does. And this affects his syntax… In fact, the new translation will be: ‘O God . . . increase your grace within us, and so make those who run towards your promises sharers in the good things of heaven.’”
Is literal translation now being trumped by theological appropriateness? The precedent of Cranmer is invoked: “Geve unto us abundauntly thy grace, that we, running to thy promises, may be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; Cranmer makes us, rather than God, the subject of ‘may’. The key point I am making is that, because of God’s omnipotence, we do not use the word ‘may’ with God as its subject. Often, ‘will’ takes its place: ‘We offer you, Lord, the sacrifice of atonement, that in your mercy you will both absolve our offenses and guide our wavering hearts.” Here the principle of literal translation is ignored, and Cranmer is admired, by this ex-Anglican author, where the post-Vatican II translators are scolded for doing the same thing.
“Probably the most serious objection to the texts currently in use is that they overestimate human capabilities and underplay our need for God’s help, that is, that they have a Pelagian tendency.” Pelagianism is the easiest heresy to tax on anybody. Accusations of pelagianism are usually frivolous.
“It is not always wrong to translate the Latin word for word, despite what many critics of Liturgiam authenticam have said: sometimes this approach reveals aspects of the original that would otherwise remain hidden.” What the critics say in reality is that it is wrong always to translate the Latin word for word, nto that it is always wrong to translate the Latin word for word. Such straw-man argumentation is unworthy of such a serious matter.
“In the years during which this new translation has been in preparation, much public comment on it has, to my mind, been disappointingly superficial, creating controversy over small points without getting to the heart of the matter.”
True, but the author has not discovered the deeper problems with the translation he co-authored either.
“The work of ICEL has been less like painting a new picture, and more like cleaning an old one. Re-translating the Missal is like cleaning the Sistine Chapel: the work enables us to see riches that have previously been hidden.”
Yes, it may well be compared to a crudely done restoration. And of course the entire mentality it subserves is that of restorationism.
“My hope for the English translation of the Missal that will soon come into use is that it will enable its users to discover the treasury of the Roman tradition of prayer, and thus to be led into the mystery of God’s redeeming love.” Does this savor of taking the Lord’s name in vain?
Posted at 05:09 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (4)
Now that we see Uganda retreating on its Kill-the-gays bill, perhaps we can hope to see the Vatican retreat from its kill-the-liturgy translations? This article gives hope: http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/seattle-pastor-begins-effort-review-new-missal-translations
Money quote:
"For months I’ve been talking with priest-friends and associates whose reaction to the coming new translations was the same as mine. They lived in dread of them. They felt they were inferior, clumsy, and altogether unworthy of our greatest prayer. And, like me, they knew that the “selling” of the translations to the people would rest on their shoulders and on the shoulders of pastors all over the world. How would they convince their people of the value of making such significant changes if they themselves were not only unconvinced of their value but actually convinced that the translations were a disaster-in-the-making?"
Posted at 03:18 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (0)
From the current issue of America magazine:
During a recent dinner conversation with friends, the issue of the new translations came up. Two at the table were keenly—and quite angrily—aware of the impending changes; two were not. When the uninformed heard a few examples (“and with your spirit”; “consubstantial with the Father”; “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”; “oblation of our service”; “send down your Spirit like the dewfall”; “He took the precious chalice”; “serene and kindly countenance,” for starters), the reaction was somewhere between disbelief and indignation….
Recently the Archdiocese of Seattle sponsored a seminar on the new translations for lay leaders and clergy. Both the priest who led the seminar (an accomplished liturgical theologian) and the participants gathered there in good faith. When passages from the proposed new translation were soberly read aloud by the presenter (I remember especially the phrase from the first eucharistic prayer that currently reads “Joseph, her husband,” but which in the new translation becomes “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin”), there was audible laughter in the room. I found myself thinking that the idea of this happening during the sacred liturgy is no laughing matter but something that should make us all tremble…
What if we, the parish priests of this country who will be charged with the implementation, were to find our voice and tell our bishops that we want to help them avert an almost certain fiasco? What if we told them that we think it unwise to implement these changes until our people have been consulted in an adult manner that truly honors their intelligence and their baptismal birthright?…
What if each region of bishops were to designate certain places where the new translations would receive a trial run: urban parishes and rural parishes, affluent parishes and poor parishes, large, multicultural parishes and small parishes, religious communities and college campuses?…
In short, what if we were to trust our best instincts and defend our people from this ill-conceived disruption of their prayer life? What if collegiality, dialogue and a realistic awareness of the pastoral needs of our people were to be introduced at this late stage of the game?… Why not let the priests who are on the front lines and the laypeople who pay the bills (including the salaries of priests and bishops) have some say in how they are to pray? If you think the idea has merit, I invite you to log on to the Web site www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org and make your voice heard. If our bishops know the depth of our concern, perhaps they will not feel so alone.
Rev. Michael G. Ryan has been pastor of St. James Cathedral in Seattle since 1988 and serves on the board of the national Cathedral Ministry Conference.
Posted at 12:51 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (4)
Bishops world wide, following Vatican guidelines, have plunged the Church into a dark abyss of scandal. Their adoption of the forthcoming new translations of the Roman Missal will create a pastoral crisis of unprecedented proportions. The release of these translations in South Africa showed clearly what will happen in the other English-speaking countries as well. Yet in spite of this, the bishops are going ahead with the plan, apparently in a state of somnambulistic paralysis.
Here are a few of the many voices raised in outrage and incredulity that these manifestly bad translations are being fobbed off on the People of God:
http://www.catholicsforministry.com.au/uploads/28737/ufiles/liturgy1b/liturgywork1b.pdf
http://www.catholica.com.au/gc3/gr/004_gr_print.php
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/search.php?q=baldovin&type=all (subscribers)Posted at 03:35 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (2)
PREX EUCHARISTICA III
Vere sanctus es, Domine,
et merito te laudat omnis a te condita creatura,
quia per Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum,
Spiritus Sancti operante virtute
vivificas et sanctificas universa,
et populum tibi congregare non desinis,
ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum
oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo.
Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
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.
This sentence is too long, and cumbersome. The biblical ‘Father’ has the advantage over “O Lord” of bringing out more clearly the Trinitarian structure of the Eucharist and of this prayer. “All you have created” is awkward; if literalism it to prevail, why not “every creature established by you” or “wrought by you”? “Through your” and “by the” are less effectively combined in the new version than in the current version. “Power and working” is an unidiomatic and unexpressive pleonasm; “to your name” is very odd in English, and “to the glory of your name” captures the meaning better. “Pure oblation” would be better than “pure sacrifice”.
“From the rising of the sun to its setting” reproduces the RSV translation of Malachi 1:11, where the phrase is placed in parallel with “in every place”, suggesting a spatial rather than temporal reference, namely the space of all the nations in contrast to Israel. The new translation conveys the temporal sense “from dawn to dusk”, but the meaning intended by the Latin text probably was “from the place where the sun rises to the place it sets” (the Japanese Mass text has the word tokoro, place, twice here). If so, “from east to west” is more correct in that it avoids this ambiguity.
Supplices ergo te, Domine, deprecamur,
ut haec munera, quae tibi sacranda detulimus,
eodem Spiritu sanctificare digneris,
ut Corpus et + Sanguis fiant Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi,
cuius mandato haec mysteria celebramus.
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you: by the same Spirit graciously make holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood of your Son our Lord Jesus Christ at whose command we celebrate these mysteries.
“Therefore” is unsuited to the language of prayer; it is used mostly in the context of logical argument in English. “For consecration” is a misleading translation of “sacranda” – it means dedication of the gifts not their consecration in the sense of transubstantiation. The result is that “consecration” could mean the same thing as “become the Body and Blood” whereas in the Latin the reference is to two different things.
Ipse enim in qua nocte tradebatur
accepit panem et tibi gratias agens
benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens:
On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
For on the night he was betrayed he himself took bread, and giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:
“He himself” grates here, its emphasis heavier than in Latin. In English “he himself” suggests a contrast with someone else, as in “It was not I but he himself who said it.” Here the implied suggestion is “It was not a servant or one of the apostles or a priest of the later Church who took bread, but Jesus himself.”
Simili modo, postquam cenatum est,
accipiens calicem, et tibi gratias agens benedixit,
deditque discipulis suis, dicens:
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
In the same way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice, and giving you thanks he said the blessing, and gave it to his disciples, saying:
The “it” here could suggest the blessing rather than the chalice.
Memores igitur, Domine,
eiusdem Filii tui salutiferae passionis
necnon mirabilis resurrectionis et ascensionis in caelum,
sed et praestolantes alterum eius adventum,
offerimus tibi, gratias referentes,
hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum.
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
Therefore, O Lord, we celebrate the memorial of the saving passion of your Son, his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, and as we look forward to his second coming, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
“Celebrate the memorial of” is a clumsy, verbose translation of “memores”; “calling to mind” is correct. “Wondrous” is an inadequate expression for the Resurrection in English. “Look forward to” has a casual connotation in contemporary English; “await” is more accurate and expressive. The “and as” for “sed et” is hopelessly lame and creates a graceless syntax: “We celebrate X, Y, and as we look forward to W, we offer Z.” Better would have been: “Bearing in mind X, and Y no less, and also awaiting W, we offer Z.” Introducing the indicative verbs “celebrate” and “look forward” spoils the rhythm and natural syntax that was preserved and respected in “calling to mind” and “ready to greet him” in the current translation; which thus turns out to be more faithful to the Latin.
Respice, quaesumus,
in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae
et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari,
concede, ut qui Corpore et Sanguine Filii tui reficimur,
Spiritu eius Sancto repleti,
unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo.
Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son, and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.
“Recognizing” is bizarre in English, suggesting that God is short-sighted. The opening words of this sentence are fustian and in no way improve on the current text in accuracy or expressiveness. The words “recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself” are an unattractive “mouthful” and sound cumbersomely pleonastic, especially because they are packed into a subordinate clause. “See the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself” in contrast is a noble and vivid sentence. The translation shies away from the literal “by whose immolation you willed to be placated.”
Ipse nos tibi perficiat munus aeternum,
ut cum electis tuis hereditatem consequi valeamus,
inprimis cum beatissima Virgine, Dei Genetrice, Maria,
cum beatis Apostolis tuis
et gloriosis Martyribus (cum Sancto N.)
et omnibus Sanctis,
quorum intercessione perpetuo apud te confidimus adiuvari.
May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, [Saint N.] and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
May he make of us an eternal offering to you, so that we may obtain an inheritance with your elect, especially with the most blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with your blessed Apostles and glorious Martyrs, [with Saint N.] and with all the Saints, on whose constant intercession in your presence we rely for unfailing help.
Here “ipse” is translated “he” not “he himself,” which shows it was not necessary to translates it as “he himself” earlier. Calling human beings “eternal” in English is always incorrect. We do not say an “eternal brotherhood” or “the eternal Communion of Saints” but rather a “perpetual brotherhood” and “the everlasting Communion of Saints.” “Your elect” is fustian; it sounds like old-fashioned Protestant jargon to modern English ears. “Those you have chosen” would be a perfectly literal and faithful translation of the Latin. “Obtain an inheritance with” is misleading. “Especially with” is not a good translation of “inprimis.” The correct translation might be something more like: “Attain the inheritance, alongside, in the first place…”
Haec Hostia nostrae reconciliationis proficiat,
quaesumus, Domine,
ad totius mundi pacem atque salutem.
Ecclesiam tuam, peregrinantem in terra,
in fide et caritate firmare digneris
cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.
et Episcopo nostro N.,
cum episcopali ordine et universo clero
et omni populo acquisitionis tuae.
Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth; your servant, Pope N., , our Bishop N., and all the bishops, with the clergy and the entire people your Son has gained for you.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
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.
“Sacrifice of our reconciliation” is incorrect; it is not our reconciliation that is sacrificed; rather the sacrifices effects our reconciliation. Also in English, “our reconciliation” on its own suggests the reconciliation between us, as when an estranged but reunited couple speak of “our reconciliation.” The meaning of the Latin, however, is “our reconciliation with God.” “Firmare” is more accurately translated by “strengthen” than by “confirm,” especially because the latter word brings in misleadings from contemporary usage: “Please confirm that you are coming on the 23rd.” “Consolidate” or “make secure” would perhaps be better. “The order of bishops” is not a piece of jargon in common church use today.
Votis huius familiae,
quam tibi astare voluisti, adesto propitius.
Omnes filios tuos ubique dispersos
tibi, clemens Pater, miseratus coniunge.
Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you. In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
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.
“Summoned” is fustian, and has a grim connotation in contemporary usage: “The headmaster summoned me to his office. A summons was served.” “Compassion” and “merciful” is a displeasing pleonasm, avoidable by translating “clemens” as “loving.”
Fratres nostros defunctos,
et omnes qui, tibi placentes, ex hoc saeculo transierunt,
in regnum tuum benignus admitte,
ubi fore speramus,
ut simul gloria tua perenniter satiemur,
per Christum Dominum nostrum,
per quem mundo bona cuncta largiris.
Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship. We hope to enjoy for ever the vision of your glory, through Christ our Lord, from whom all good things come.
THE NEW TRANSLATION:
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” suggest a ticket office request. The kingdom sounds awfully static here. The “in” of “in regnum tuum” has the dynamic sense of “into” and this is lost in “give admittance to your kingdom.” The inversion, “to our departed… give…” is awkward, as we are kept waiting too long for the verb. “Where we hope we shall be that we may be perennially sated with Thy glory” would be a literal translation; “to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory” is already dynamic equivalence, and as such is no improvement on “the vision of your glory.” “The fullness of your glory” is in any case ambiguous. It suggests that there is a fullness of divine glory as opposed to a partial measure thereof – such a distinction is alien to Scripture and to orthodox theology. The word “simul” is untranslated in both versions. There should be a comma before “through Christ our Lord.” The two “throughs” are graceless and the Prayer ends lamely in the new version.
It seems that the new translation is a careless piece of work, falling short of the much-maligned current translation even in respect of fidelity to the Latin original.
Posted at 07:10 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (13)
UPDATE Nov 17, 2009: Cardinal George and Bishop Serratelli scored a great Pyrrhic victory at the November meeting of the US Bishops; it will come back to haunt them in the months ahead. Bishop Trautman at least exposed the Roman bullying behind the current debacle, and Cardinal George's collusion with it ('If the letter has my signature, I suppose I must have signed it'). Only THREE bishops bothered to send in comments on the final batch of translations; obviously they know that you can't win against city hall, and that the days when liturgy was in the hands of bishops (rather than of dictator-loving Cardinals in the Vatican) are a thing of the past. But wait until they hear the voice of the laity and the lower clergy!
There are even Cardinals who are deeply at odds with the translation principles of Liturgiam Authenticam (signed Medina Estevez), but who find themselves powerless to resist the Vatican juggernaut. The Vatican gives no hearing to anyone who disagrees with LA, regarded as a Magisterial document (though it contradicts all previous documents, and is inconsistent with the spirit and arguably with the letter of Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy). The sphere of cooperation with Rome is strictly limited to offering observations and proposed amendments, as if the bishops were mere schoolboys, and the Vatican rejects many of these. The forgers of the new translation talk about the hundreds of emendations made, all of which they see as improvements. But you do not write a beautiful and uplifting text by such atomistic techniques. The flow and rhythm of the whole has to be apprehended. The current French translations are beautiful because such factors were weighed by its authors including the poet Patrice de la Tour du Pin. Now the Vatican, as Cardinal George informed us, want to replace these texts too with misguided literalistic versions.
The ideological underbelly of this debacle was on display when Cardinal George reminded us that the Roman Missal is what the Elizabethan martyrs died for! Like his Vox Clara colleague George Pell he is living in a world of reactionary fantasy and vainly imagines that the People of God will be simply delighted to follow him there.
I note that the cheerleaders for the new translations have not read them very carefully and are plugging them for purely ideological reasons (e.g. 'Lord God of Hosts' is a blow against pacifism). The commenters in Damian Thompson's and Fr Zuhlsdorf's comboxes hardly shine for literacy or pastoral sensibility. See:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/4846716/The_new_English_Mass_is_nearly_here/
Bp Trautman, the foremost critic of the shoddy new translations, is constantly caricatured as a flaky liberal, a falsification that would not be necessary if these ideologists had solid ground under their feet. In the transcript of the Bishops' June meeting, excerpted from below, Bp Trautman's voice is that of a good pastor, grounded in Scripture and in the outlook of the Council; the other voices seem to be those of harried bureaucrats.
Bp Trautman may have made tactical errors in denouncing diction (ineffable etc.) and sacral language, instead of focusing solely on the real problem: that the new translations are bad English, and in some places correspond to no known variety of English, as in 'we make humble prayer and petition that you accept'. The mockery of Fr Zuhlsdorf and others has, however, no justifications; it is very immature and disedifying, and the USBBC should be very uneasy to find themselves attracting such bedfellows.
In light of this eye-opening account of Cardinal George's behavior
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/?tag=content;col1)
I now understand why the US bishops have goofed off (only 5 of them bothered to comment on the new translations at the June meeting, only 3 at the November meeting!). They have said to themselves: 'Well, we sweated over this in the past, and fat thanks we got; just let them have their way; the faithful will recognize shoddy goods when they see them; and if they don't, well, that lets us all off the hook!'
(Nov 12): The text of the Roman Canon that makes Mary the mother of Joseph: 'In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and of blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin'
has now been corrected on the USCCB website. The version now displayed is still not the same as the other text of the Roman Canon also printed on the same USCCB website, for it does not have the phrase 'we make humble prayer and petition... that you accept' (corresponding to 'supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas'), but rather 'we make humble prayer and petition... We ask you to accept'. http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal.
http://usccb.org/romanmissal/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf,
Like the gaffes of Sarah Palin, the presence of a blasphemous expression on the Catechetical Resources version of the Roman Canon published by the US Bishops and corrected only when I pointed it out is something that should be reflected on in depth. 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 reflects is the peril of the atomistic translation policy of the bishops, the Vatican, ICEL and Vox Clara -- 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.
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.
Correcting this one obvious and undeniable error is only a small step. The translation itself is full of less obvious errors, including errors in taste and style, and is based on an erroneous theory of translation. Moreover, it does not follow the theory consistently, since it forgoes elegant syntax such as 'to whose merits and prayers may you grant that' (quorum meritis precibusque concedas ut), which must have been thought too quaint. The result is a jerky to-and-fro between Latinate syntax and English simplification, wherein neither language is allowed to display its native genius. There is also a loss of meaning and clarity. A straightforward Latin crib would be preferable to this simulated literalism.
****
For my critique of the new translation of the Roman Canon see:
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 of the June 2009 meeting:
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.
Posted at 01:18 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (19)
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.
Posted at 02:50 AM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (12)
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
Posted at 08:57 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (27)
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.
“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/
Posted at 03:08 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (12)
Posted at 05:35 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (5)
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” <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
.
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
Posted at 04:44 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
AN OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP ROCHE, 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, Nietzsche 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.
It suggests that you do not understand the effort and inspiration needed to compose beautiful prose, prose that will endure the wear and tear of decades of daily use, prose that will serve as a vehicle for contemplation. ‘We must labour to be beautiful,’ said Yeats. Have any of the authors of the new ICEL translation gazed in admiration and envy at a page of perfect prose?
You may say that this is an esoteric concern and that the faithful are contented with functional prose as they are happy with mediocre music. The result of such an attitude is the sapping of the faith itself.
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 who actually composed the new translations? Did they read them aloud before a discerning audience so that any awkward, false or hollow part could be detected? 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 to consult the Anglican and Protestant churches whose biblical culture and sensitivity infinitely outstrips 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, many of them of recent vintage in any case? If someone needs an English crib to translate a Latin text he or she should not be translating it at all. If knowledge of Latin is as 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 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, a text with unity, rhythm, persuasive impact, 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 fuddy-duddy fussing about fetishized 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 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
Posted at 04:42 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)