I’ll miss the Missal
Let’s pretend, for a moment, that I have no misgivings about the new translation of the Mass we will all be praying with come this Sunday. Forget the infelicities of language; forget the disconcerting process that produced it. I’m open to the change. I hope it will become the opportunity for revitalization and renewal that I keep hearing about. And I don’t doubt that it will be an improvement on the old translation in at least some respects. But I will still miss the old Missal. I think a lot of people will. And I don’t think downplaying the significance of the change is the way to go about making it.
Back in 2008, the Catholic News Service quoted Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, the chairman of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship: “In terms of the people’s part, it’s not gong to require too much adjustment…. Not much of the people’s part is changed, and I think once or twice after they use it, they will hardly notice the change.” I hoped then that this was just an ill-considered off-the-cuff remark, and not a sign of the bishops’ rollout strategy. But as the deadline drew nearer I kept hearing similar dismissive comments, intended, I think, to calm nervous laypeople. A “sample homily” distributed in the Archdiocese of New York (available as a PDF here) says, “The first thing about these changes is that they are not huge, and not hard to learn.” The priest who presided at Mass in my own parish on Sunday followed this lead, saying something like, “Most of the work will be the priest’s.” I’m sure he has been doing a lot more work than I have to prepare. And I do understand the impulse to downplay the magnitude of the change when preparing a congregation to accept it. In some cases I think it’s motivated by discomfort with the process that produced the new translation, along with dissatisfaction with the translation itself, on the part of priests and liturgists who must nevertheless make the transition and bring everybody else along. They’re trying to shoulder the burden cheerfully. Even priests with few misgivings about the process or the product must be aware of the difficulty in explaining the new missal’s value to a congregation that hears about this and wonders what the Church’s priorities really are. Saying “It’s not that big a deal” is a way of saying, “Don’t freak out.” But I think it’s patronizing, and I think it’s a mistake.
There are a few reasons I bristle at the suggestion that the “people’s part” won’t be changing much. First, it isn’t true. The fact is, nearly everything that the congregation says during Mass will be different as of this coming Sunday. We will all be fumbling with something that we used to know by heart, and pretending it’s not a big adjustment only adds insult to injury. Second, putting it that way suggests that all we pew-sitters should concern ourselves with are the words we say, and not those the priest says on our behalf, which are changing dramatically. “You’ll hardly notice the difference!” Do we really want that to be true?
If our leaders want us, the laity, to be fully participating at Mass, fully involved and invested in what we’re saying and hearing, they have to acknowledge that changing all the language is a major adjustment, and even a loss. I’ve been praying with this Missal all my life. I know it backwards and forwards. Suddenly, next Sunday, I won’t recognize the words I hear, and the words I say in response will sound awkward and unfamiliar. How could that be anything but profoundly disorienting? I’ll fumble, and I’ll adjust. And in time—after several decades, if it sticks around that long—this version of the Missal will be just as much a part of my subconscious as the about-to-be-retired one is now. It’s strange for me to think that my infant son will never remember the Mass I know so well. He won’t have to get used to the new version, but we adults will, and being told it’s not a big deal won’t make it easier.
Maybe the new translation will wake me up a little and give me a new appreciation for the liturgy. Maybe having to make this change will energize my parish. I sincerely hope so. But I also know there are people for whom this can only be a source of confusion and frustration, and I don’t like to pretend otherwise. I’m thinking, for example, of my grandmother, who’s ninety-two years old and living in a Catholic nursing home. Her short-term memory started failing a while back, and she hasn’t been able to retain new information for many years. By now even her old memories have faded. But she can sing you any mid-century showtune or standard you can name, and she can pray. Daily Mass is one of the few places where she knows just what to say and do. Like everyone else her age, my grandmother already made one major adjustment in her life as a faithful Catholic—she was well into adulthood when the postconciliar reforms changed everything she’d grown up with. She won’t be able to make another change. It’s sad for her and people like her to have to lose the comfort of praying as they’re used to. Maybe it can’t be helped, but it’s still a loss.
So, I can make the best of the change. But I can’t bring myself to pretend that changing the language of the Mass is no big deal. I don’t know why I should want to.
If there’s not much of a change, then why do it in the first place? The priests are already overworked.
I have also heard a number of people say that the change was no big deal, because the people’s parts were not changing much, and I also find that disturbing.
One of the best description of participation at the Mass is the following famous quote by Pius X. It is found primarily on websites of very conservative Catholics, but I love it nevertheless: “The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass.”
Today I paid particularly close attention to what the presiding priest was saying throughout the Mass. It is a joy that, if I stay focused on the prayer, I can understand it all in spite of not having read it beforehand. It is a source of inspiration to hear a Eucharistic prayer that I am used to. I know parts of it by heart and can fill in the missing bits whenever there happens to be some background noise in the church. The prayer is uplifting. In the words of consecration, the “for all”, said one last time, filled me with gratitude. I love the Mass!
As to what happens next: as I am positioned (along with the rest of the choir) in a part of the church where the acoustics from the altar to us are not so good, and as the English of the next texts is awkward, I am almost sure that next week I will not understand what is being said. I will no longer be able to “pray with the priest the holy words said by him”. It is not just your grandmother who will be disconcerted!
I dislike the new texts very much, but if our pastor puts his heart into trying to get us to follow the prayers, I may try it for his sake.
Still, I have started thinking about what to do if I lose the current Mass and cannot get used to the new Mass. I’m thinking about de-emphasizing the Eucharist and spending more time praying with other prayers instead. I know that the Mass is the “source and summit” of our Christian life, but if it loses what makes it come alive for me, turning to other forms of prayer might be a tolerable alternative. At least, I have a hard time thinking of what else to do.
Look up from your reading and turn your mind’s eye over your shoulder, back to the Mass of your grandparents (and my parents). You’ll find there is a great similarity in the “new” translation to the text of the EF (but without the thees and thines). Perhaps your grandmother won’t have such a hard time after all. It’s really quite familiar.
Here is the heart of the problem, in Mollie’s phrasing, “If our leaders want us, the laity, to be fully participating at Mass, fully involved and invested in what we’re saying and hearing.”
The citation Claire describes as being popular with conservatives, which surely includes the Roman Curia, is focused on people merely “hearing” Mass.
There is a world of difference between these two approaches.
The Roman Curia has imposed these changes and the changes to the General Instructions of the Roman Missal with some very specific goals in mind. None of their goals supports participation, as V2 taught.
To the contrary, these changes are about re-clericalizing the Mass, moving away from full participation to full consciousness of what the priest is doing as the Vatican approved translation of Sacrosanctum Concilium makes clear by consistently mis-translating the key phrase from that document as “fully conscious and active participation” moving fullness away from active participation by all present to Pius X type of full attention to what the priest alone is doing. Neither of the two original translators had “full” modify “conscious” as in the Latin it is an adjective modifying the noun participation. This and the last minute revision of the CCC English translation show that the curialists are not interested in good translations but in promoting their positions through manipulations of language.
What is behind this new translation is opposition to women’s ordination, not any desire to improve the liturgy, just as was the reason for changing the translation of the Catechism. No competent translator into modern English would fail to use inclusive language, so they have fired the competent translators and done a hatchet job.
What shows clearly in the accompanying GIRM is the clericalization through reserving things to the presider instead of the perfectly satisfactory practices of four decades of lay ministries. This continues in the translation debacle when the Latin clearly describes the people as “standing around” the altar but “standing” does not make it into their English translation because they want to distinguish the standing cleric from the kneeling laity.
Other changes emphasize the priestly sacrifice interpretation of the Mass and minimize the historically factual common meal nature of the event only metaphorically seen as sacrifice.
Significantly, the curia has specified that they want to make the Catholic Mass as distinct as possible from all other Christian celebrations of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. The disaster of changing the people’s parts is directly related to this because what is thrown out are the carefully compared and theologically agreeable common texts used in the Eucharist. No longer will Lutherans, Anglicans [Episcopalians], Catholics and others share the same words and be able to use the same music for the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus. It is a deliberate move away from ecumenical cooperation.
I can clearly see these disastrous things happening, but I beg anyone to explain why the Roman Curia have convinced themselves that such is good for the church.
These are the prayers that we will hear next Sunday, and that we will only get one chance to understand, because they change every week. Read them just once – not twice – or have someone read them aloud to you. How much did you understand?
Opening prayer:
Grant your faithful, we pray, almighty God,
the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ
with righteous deeds at his coming, so that, gathered at his right hand,
they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
Prayer over the offerings
Accept, we pray, O Lord, these offerings we make,
gathered from among your gifts to us,
and may what you grant us to celebrate devoutly here below,
gain for us the prize of eternal redemption.
Through Christ our Lord.
Prayer after communion
May these mysteries, O Lord,
in which we have participated,
profit us, we pray,
for even now, as we walk amid passing things,
you teach us by them
to love the things of heaven
and hold fast to what endures.
Through Christ our Lord.
Well, your “old” missal is very new to me, very different from what I grew up with in the fifties. I’m a little surprised that people who pride themselves on being so “progressive” have gotten so worked up about liturgical change, as though it’s never happened before and is something at least shoddy if not disgraceful.
Change is a constant, and it’s seldom the change we’d have designed.
I find it ironic for you to say this. Think of what all the poor people suffered when the Mass was changed substantially in the aftermath of Vatican II.
Within memory, Latin Mass attendance was obligatory and most Catholics met their obligation. It was common to see individuals during Mass variously saying the rosary, reading religious pamphlets, reading English or facing Latin pages in bi-lingual missals, or meditating in some way. Priest and altar boys did their own parts, mostly unintelligible to most people. Each individual and family with children worshipped for an hour in their preferred manner. (One nearby veteran of that era just described it as “Once you were there, it was up to you to figure out how to occupy yourself.”) Some initial reactions suggest those old days may return for some.
High-schoolers have learned to translate accurately the meaning, sense, and flavor of a foreign text in order to communicate precise thoughts purposefully. Samples of the new translation, including above, leave me unclear as to what the motive in their translation may have been. (“Resolve to run forth” sounds as if it should be connected to “Ite, missa est” and is likely to have the same effect.)
Once again, the focus is returning to the role of the priest presider with the “big important changes” which the little folkses in the pews – the observers? – will be given about all their little efforts can handle.
There are times I think that the powers that be constantly view the faithful as so befuddled that, without unctuous instruction, they would confuse the holy water fountain with a birdbath.
Or, to put it another way, what would have happened if the laity’s parts had REALLY changed a lot? The new Gloria really has – it’s way too wordy and written more for a choral presentation rathen than congregational participation.
Jack Barry’s memory is 100% on. Why else would confessions taken place DURING the mass, unless the laity’s role was to be there and figure out what to do. One could catch up on the sports page of the Sunday paper, too — and I know a few who did.
” — what to do if I lose the current Mass and cannot get used to the new Mass –”
Check out the local Episcopal non-Orneryariate churches; you might find a lot of familiarity there. And find that the laity, including women, are treated as adults, not little sheep to be led around by the nose.
As an old priest, my main problem is the arrogant way this translation was forced down our throats, in direct violation to the Council’s instruction that the choice of liturgical translations was up to the bishops of the different language groups. This violation–and it can only be called that–makes me wonder. Rome demands our respect and obedience, but the people now in charge will not respect the Council. Makes me wonder about the whole notion of orthodoxy.
Second, this need to hew close to the Latin, with no concern about how accessible these words will be to the listener. Back to the old pre-Vatican II days, I guess, when whether or not you understood was of no consequence. Just sit through the ritual and hope to be inspired.
As a retired priest, I find myself enjoying the exprience of just being in the midst of the folks. And from that perspective, a lot of things look different. For one, the liturgy is really not that compelling. Somehow, it needs a huge boost and that doesn’t mean with latinized words.
In a Mass with a lot of families with kids, there is a kind of restlessness in the congregation, a sort of barely under the surface hum. Which means that the priest saying the Eucharistic Prayer is not that audible. And, so many do it in a sort of sing-song voice. And so, not that inspiring. Most of the priests I have been listening to are not really praying. I find those who do try to “lead” in an example of prayer, to be truly inspiring.
And finally, I understand how important the music really is. It can reach in and lift up. This was especially important last Sunday when the priest, with an enormous foreign accent, was almost unintelligible. I honestly don’t know how the people can sit through this Sunday after Sunday. And around 44% of the priests in America are now foreign priests with this huge limitation. I can hardly wait to hear them “proclaim” in the wonderful lofty latinized liturgy.
Living in England, I have experienced this new version of Mass for 3 months now as my pp enthusiastically introduced it early. I sincerely hope some people will find their prayer experience and understanding enhanced, and that others will not be particularly aware of any change. I cannot find place in either of those groups.
Personally I am too well aware of the linguistic infelicities of this new version – why call such alien verbal flatulence a translation? I have read and believe the accounts of the gerrymandering of the production process of this text; furthermore I oppose the ornate “splendours” of my pp’s retro-preferences in liturgy, and I am distressed and scandalised by “the conduct of affairs” (let the reader understand) in the Roman Catholic Church. This multiple whammy has brought me to a point where, after being a daily communicant, I now attend Mass only on Sundays and DOBs. (My residual legalism!)
I find spiritual nourishment in the Divine Office, in shared worship with other local Christians (Anglican and Presbyterian in my case) and in a local interchurch Bible study group. I have loving friends in each of these 3 churches I now attend, and it is very good. A crisis can become an opportunity.
But not perhaps for everyone. The people in my parish who find the change really tough are the immigrants, who have learned the English responses with great loyalty, the partially sighted and those with intermittent memories, like Margaret’s grandmother. And what of really ancient priests in retirement care who could still say Mass for their fellow-residents until this major disruption was imposed? There are too many losers in this power-play.
Commonwealers, help me please! What should I do next Sunday? I think the 4 new eucharistic prayers are utterly unusable and to recite any one of them would be to administer a slap in the face of the people of God. I think I shall just quietly recite the current EP 2 from memory. Would that be OK?
The ambiguous postcommunion for next Sunday has been widely commented on. “Teach us by them” refers to “these mysteries” and not to “passing things” as some bishops have imagined.
Sr Mary has given me an idea — I shall plead senility! I am too old to change, like the priests who got a dispensation to go on with Latin after the Council.
For whatever reason, we’ve been doing some of the chants according to the new version the past couple of weeks. Last week, my two daughters starting giggling and laughing in the middle of the Gloria, we all made such a mess of it. I’m sure everyone will eventually get the hang of it, but it is definitely a noticeable change.
My pastor seems to like to sing and chant every part of the Mass he can. I don’t really like chanting at all, so I’m just hoping this new version won’t end up involving even more of it.
EUCHARISTIC PRAYER IV — limp, lifeless, languid
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
…
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.
..
Incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary,
he shared our human nature in all things but sin.
…
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.
Therefore, O Lord, we pray:
may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings,
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.
…
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.
…
Remember also those who have died in the peace of your Christ
and all the dead, whose faith you alone have known.
That was the 2008 text; I don’t know what changes have been introduced since.
George Weigel says the new liturgical language is an opportunity to break “bad habits,” largely admonitions to stand, sit, or turn to page 243:
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/7077?CFID=42564491&CFTOKEN=56805360
As a former spikey Episcopalian, I understand and even sympathize with this kind of fussiness; I have to ask St. Jerome to prevent my eyes from rolling when we have a lector who gets up and begins the readings with “Hey, how ya doin?”
But ISTM that Catholics themselves need these directions. So I wonder how those who are visiting the Church or would-be converts will respond? If the language seems obtuse and inaccessbile to Catholics (assuming people aren’t just griping about change here), I wonder to what extent that thwarts the attempt to convey the catholicity of the Church to those not yet at the Table?
OTOH, I think that a Mass, joyfully celebrated, can reach even those who find the language awkward. I used to enjoy attending Mass at a Melkite church with a good friend (now deceased), and much of the celebration wasn’t even in English.
From my perspective, the spiritless way in which Mass has always been celebrated in the local parish and the family clannishness of the parish is more detrimental to someone’s spiritual health than the language changes. My kid left Mass in a huff last time b/c he and his girlfriend were told to move by a geezer who said, “That’s where I sit.”
Finally, I think the liturgical changes (awkward but “more Latin”) and the way they were promulgated (not in the spirit of Vat II) are really two different issues, and I think it would be useful not to conflate them.
Joseph,
you declare the prayer “limp and languid.” Undoubtedly it could be better — what translation could not be improved in the eyes of some?
But doesn’t “lifeless” depend upon us and our willingness and ability to be transformed as the prayer hopes:
“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.”
I believe Vatican II termed this “the universal call to holiness.”
Am I the only expecting to hear a cosmic clanging as the gates of heaven are slammed shut against the “some” who were included in the “all” but excluded in the “many” translation of ad multis in the words of institution?
This from a Roman curia that sanctions theologians who explore the meaning of salvation in other non-Christian faith traditions!
I wonder what would happen if I called the local Office of Worship and asked where I might find a parish with a Latin Novus Ordo Eucharist? The ad multis which I understand to be the Latin way of expressing “all” would not be the seemingly heretical version to be imposed next Sunday.
Mary, that is also the change that I hate most of all (and also most of many, by the way.) Unfortunately it has apparently been dictated by Pope Benedict in person, so it is not just a mistake of the Curia but of the Pope himself.
One thing you can do, if you are praying along with the presiding priest in the manner described by Pius X, is to have a mental reservation and mentally substitute “for all” for the words “for many”. That’s my plan. I might even say it sotto voce if it makes me less upset.
Another possibility is to find a priest who will continue saying “for all”. I am sure that there will be many (but not all).
Talking about bad habits, it is important to keep perspective and a good sense of humor. Our parish has recently picked up some odd confusion or amnesia or both. Traditionally it was the custom to remain kneeling after Communion until the priest had placed the extra consecrated hosts in the tabernacle, closed the tabernacle door, walked to his chair and sat down. The priest sitting down was the signal to all that we could sit.
Then a couple years ago, we stopped kneeling after communion; we simply remained standing, again, until the priest had closed the tabernacle and sat down.
Now – for some reason – people plop down whenever they please; while some folks sit before the tabernacle is closed, most wait until it is closed, but sit down before the priest makes his way to a chair. A few still wait for the priest.
I realize that in proper expect to the consecrated hosts, one only need stand (or kneel) until the tabernacle is closed, and obviously we Americans (as everyone tells us anyway) are a bit chubbier these days (ha, ha!), but as a matter of general decorum, is it too much to ask, to remain standing until the priest takes his chair?
This reminds me (a bit) of how our parish priest back in SD in the days just after the altar rail was removed and folks started lining up for Communion. I was just little then, but recall that it was almost all the priest could do to convince people first, to wait until the row in front of them was in line and second, to walk back to their pew via the isle around the outside of the pew along the wall rather than winding their way back down the front isle to their seat. He would mention it in his sermons, along with reminding people that since for Communion he now stood on the first step and that since his arm only reached so far, they should get up close enough rather than forcing him to lean out so far. It probably bothered his shoulder or his back. For a while I recall, to keep the rabble in order, he even had ushers stand at the end of each row, momentarily blocking those in that pew from trying to cram into line!
;-)
“For a while I recall, to keep the rabble in order, he even had ushers stand at the end of each row, momentarily blocking those in that pew from trying to cram into line!”
We still have those guys! Since I don’t receive and I need to step back to let those in the pew out, I was very boxed in. The ushers have cottoned on now and give me room.
“Now – for some reason – people plop down whenever they please.”
Since this rubric changed, we now have standers, kneelers, and sitters. Which shows that when people are confused or resistant, they’ll do whatever they want. I don’t think this is the first time the Church has promulgated rules that fall into that category …
Mary, Claire —
The USCCB take great pains, and probably cause some new ones, in explaining with 6 Q&As their convoluted justification of the translation of “pro multis”. Among other things, they unfortunately appear to open the way to similar questions about the accuracy of translation of a number of other foundational texts.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/frequently-asked-questions/six-questions-on-the-translation-of-pro-multis.cfm
All in all, people wil try to do their best, even if chagrined.
But as some have pointed out – more clericalism “the priest is verything.’
Worse will surely follow.
Unexplained is why we are going through this. There must be some theological reason why we aren’t going to hear that Christ died for all, but only for “many” (that that, Muslims!), although the Catechism reflects “all” several times and offers no theological reason for many.
Ditto the question of why Jesus, who used to die, will now suffer death, even I guess, as the clergy suffer nutty orders from Rome.
I have asked those in charge to remove the padding from the pew in front of mine and restore the wood so I may have something to bang my rosary against as I avoid the distraction of theological quandaries, of which I have mentioned only two.
Meanwhile, in other news, critics are scolding benighted audience members who balk at sitting through four hours of Sanskrit in the Philip Glass opera about Gandhi, Satyagraha. The New York Review of Books urges opera-goers to be open to a spiritual transformation. Their reviewer burst into tears at the end of the opera –he was grateful that only minimal translations from the Sanskrit were available.
Perhaps the Vatican should experiment with Sanskrit translations.
Claire –
Since words mean what we want them to mean, why don’t we just decide to change the meanings of all the plural words to “many”, “some”, “not quite all”, whatever. Then the Our Father would go something like this:
Father of many of us,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy kinddom come,
Thy will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give some of us this day our daily bread,
And forgive many of us most of our trespasses
As some others forgive some of us.
And don’t lead a too many of us into temptation
But deliver a whole bunch of us from evil.
Amen.
Anthony Esolen has some useful thoughts: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/11/restoring-the-words
Claire, note what he goes on to say about the prayer to which you objected (the previous “translation” was very poor).
Esolen (whose translations of Dante are supposed to be good) has authored a pamphlet explaining each of the mass changes. It looks excellent:
http://www.magnificat.com/romanmissal/roman_missal_companion.asp
Sample pages:
http://www.magnificat.com/romanmissal/pdf/MISSAL_COMP.pdf
Regardless, this Sunday will sound different than last Sunday. Many highly qualified and sincere people worked on the new translation and it will be fine.
I do not recall the old Tridentine mass, but I do recall the Novus Ordo mass with parts said using Latin. By the late 1980’s that had eventually faded to all-English mass i.e., into what we have had until now.
This sort of thing will likely happen again. As folks my parents’ age had to deal with the bump; with what to them seemed a sudden jump from the all-Latin Tridentine mass to the lots-of-Latin Novus Ordo and eventually the all-English Novus Ordo, the Novus Ordo became the norm and subsequent groups had few problems with it. In any case, the laity had little say in the matter and frankly, is not qualified to “have a say” in this sort of thing.
Initially all of us will stumble over the words, and younger folks will catch on to the new words easily. I have made it a point to review the cards we have in the pews and will try my best. Older folks will have the harder time of it but eventually will adjust.
Keeping an open mind, a receptive heart, and a sense of humor will make it easy.
Ann: very nice…
Studebaker: I have followed the saga of the new missal and know the arguments that you are pointing to. I am not evaluating the texts as translations, nor in comparison with other texts, but simply as prayers: when we hear those words, how will we pray with them?
I challenge you to be able to pray those prayers in the way that Pius X advocated. Remember: you hear them once (maybe missing a word or two if the acoustics are not perfect), and then that’s it!
I will miss the call-and-response of “The Lord be with you”; “And also with you”.
This is, I think, the most common prayer in the Mass. It’s only somewhat of an exaggeration to say that the Mass is primarily an opportunity for Catholic Christians to come together and pray that “the Lord be with you”. (“And also with you.”) That simple exchange is the load-bearing pillar that holds up the entire structure of the Mass. (Not to mention the Eucharist as the quintessential example of the Lord being with you.)
I first noticed it decades ago while attending morning Mass at our parish in the Bronx. The usual celebrant was a priest who lived in the parish, and worked as a chaplain at Rikers Island. He had a lovely, meditative and powerful way of celebrating Mass and the way he led that exchange (“the Lord be with you,” and also with you”) made me conscious—for the first time—of how often those words appear in the Mass, and how powerful and important they are.
As I’ve gotten older (and as many of the priests I know have gotten older!), I’ve become more conscious of the people’s response (“and also with you”) being a prayer for the well-being—body, mind and spirit—of the celebrant in all his humanity.
Now I will be reduced to praying only for the well-being of his spirit. Alas.
I’ve walked through the “peoples’ parts” several times, and I have come away with the impression that the changes are not huge. Large chunks of the longer prayers were kept as-is. The syntax is almost always the same.
The orations said by the priest are much more thoroughly overhauled, with changes in both vocabulary and word order.
Scene: Heaven, Sunday night, 11/20/11–Postprandial brandy hour
Dramatis personae: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
Son: I can’t believe it! Those nutty English-speaking Latins are realy going to go back to talking about us in terms like ‘consubstantial.’
Father: Apparently they still don’t get it that the Latin for ‘consubstantial’ is itself a translation, a none too felicitous translation of a Greek neologism. They don’t seem to believe that I can understand whatever language they address us in. If I thought they knew what they’re doi8ng, I’d be irritated.
Son: Dear Spirit, can’t you get through to them?
Spirit: No luck so far. But this afternoon I heard on the street that some Commonwwealers are going to push to have the whole Eucharist back in Latin. They figure that’s oonly fair. Then practically nobody will know what’s going on.
Father: Very interesting! I’m always in favor of fairness. Let’s encourage them.
Curtain
What did parishes and priests do before Gutenburg? Many “Presiders” throughout history did the liturgy without texts and managed fine. The Eucharist, the celebration of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, in which we offer all that we are to God in gratitude, contrition and joy, is not rocket science. If all the boys who worked on the translation catered to the wounded and downtrodden among the byways we would be much the better for it.
For those who wonder about the theology there is a dogma tract to preference for the many and many weird groups have been pushing this in the church for years. They are definitely in the 5% of the church who apparently make more noise than the 90%. They are not concerned as much that the leaders have made the church an empire as they are about rigidity and exclusivism.
We would be better served if we had leaders who would gather us to celebrate the freedom in reconciliation that Jesus signifys rather than pompous leaders who still wear ancient garbs which they conceive as the faith rather than their deeds.
Kathy – please; your comment is so condescending…okay, folks, Kathy has tried it and it works. Of course, she skipped over all of the major, key acclamations; the Creed, the Gloria or what impact this has on the majority of parishes that have sung these acclamations and Gloria for 40+ years.
She takes us back to when we “listened and heard” Father’s liturgy……who cares that many have “actively participated” for the past forty years which is so much more than just an individualized, following along with Father type liturgy.
Have often heard from spiritual folks that it takes years to learn to pray – that saying a prayer is not praying and is radically different from “praying”. Folks will now have to go back to saying their reponses for a while and who knows how long before the presiders’ prayers will be heard, understood, and internalized by active participants.
New Zealand has been using the new translation for a year now. It hasn’t really fulfilled the prognostications of either side. Certainly, the liturgical Celestial Jerusalem promised by its backers has not descended.
Kiwis never were very good at liturgy, anyway. So for better and for worse, the Mass continues much as usual. Despite attempts to introduce new Mass settings, the music remains for the most part reassuringly dire. The people’s parts are mumbled with marginally less enthusiasm.
All in all, it makes one glad that we Catholics have the phrase “ex opere operato” in our theological arsenal.
Luke – I do not see anything wrong with the English translation being an accurate reflection of the Latin. Also; are you implying that Spanish speakers are somehow leaving something out when they say “y con tu espiritu”?
The thing is that at those moments in the mass, the people are praying that the Lord be with the priest’s spirit, that unique ministerial spirit he has received be way of holy orders. The priest has a very special role in the life of the Church.
kvetch (kvch) Slang
intr.v. kvetched, kvetch·ing, kvetch·es
To complain persistently and whiningly.
n.
1. A chronic, whining complainer.
2. A nagging complaint: “a rambling kvetch against the system” (Leonard Ross).
[Yiddish kvetshn, to squeeze, complain, from Middle High German quetzen, quetschen, to squeeze.]
Oy.
Luke — I agree with you about “The Lord be with you, etc.” being sort of a refrain that ties a lot together.
Kathy — Thanks.
Bernaard — Funny !
Ken — That interpretation of “and with your spirit” makes no sense to me. What it seems to imply is that the priest’s “spirit” or “spiritual power” to say the Mass sort of needs the a second presence of the Lord and the presence of the Lord that is already with the priest. It’s like saying, “I’m glad you’re here, so come and be here”. Weird.
I don’t know what Episcopalians say these days for Dominus vobiscum, etc But I do know when I was at an Episcopal school sometime in the last millenium, we were taught to say “The Lord be with YOU” (accent on the you, not the with), and the response was, “And with YOUR spirit.” I think the point was to drive home to us teen-age boneheads that we and the priest (or minister, as he was called in those days) were both in this together. That might help to get over the sense of clerical separation which some fear.
Since my memories go back that far, I can’t help wondering whether, as we revert to Latinisms and Latinate forms, we might not also revert to the old, pre-Vatican II mumbled mass at high speed, so that you could be in and out of church, your Sabbath duty allegedly done, your conscience clear, in a matter of 20 minutes. Do you remember the old Holy Saturday reading of the Prophecies, one priest going on at breakneck speed in Latin, the other on, rather more understandably in English, but coming to a full stop in mid-Prophecy when the Latin reader had reached the end of his text?
One might be understandably confused whether it is the Law that killeth, whilst the Spirit giveth life, or the other way round. Which is one of the reasons why I will continue to say “who for us and for our salvation, etc. etc.,” knowing full well it might leave Cardinal Pell weeping and gnashing his teeth if he heard me.
The new translation is a political/ideological act. The rule following Vll was that local bishop conferences would decide on liturgical language. This was upended by the Curia, for reasons I think it’s fair to say were ideological. A year ago, at a parish I was visiting in boston, the reading of the day was about the “narrow gate.” The presider could hardly contain himself that there were now people who could be excluded from salvation. He tied this idea in with the new translation as Christ came for the “many”, but not for “all.” At this point in his homily, my husband leaned over and said to me, “well I guess the good news isn’t so good after all.” I was sickened more about this priest’s glee at this purported outcome, Christ coming only for the many, but not for all, than I was about his fondness for the new translation. The PR surrounding this locally in my parish, and I believe elsewhere, is even though the new translation will bother us for a while, we will come to a deeper understanding of the Eucharist. Oh, please, the condescension.
I think the current translation of the Roman Canon is fine — I read the ICEL booklet that gives a line by line theological justification of the translation choices.
The new translation is HORRIBLE:
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 the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation. Be pleased to look upon them with serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim. (2008)
Fr Imbelli, my argument is not with the theological content of the new trans, but with its linguistic infelicity and deadness; the sentence you quote is actually not a bad one, and I should have chosen my illustration better (but I chose pretty much at random). The total effect of this new translation is to cast a pall on the spirit; and I speak here as one who would rather have the Mass in Latin, personally, and also as one who has taught English literature for 24 years.
The Prefaces contain some of the worst language: 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. (2008, I think; possibly 2010)
Latin is the liturgical reference language of the Church. Vernaculars are meant to link to it, not replace it. With that understanding, translation has got to be a rocky business. But that’s OK. Even a klunky translation, if it’s klunky because it’s trying to be faithful to the Latin, is a reminder of what’s really being said, on the other side of the language barrier. It would be nice to have both fidelity and grace. The first go had neither; this one at least was created with the object of fidelity uppermost in mind. Let’s hope – and trust – that the next translation will find ways to eliminate some of the bumps.
We’ll be reading lots of articles like this in the coming months: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/11/spinning-new-roman-missal
Bishop Trautman — the one just man in Sodom, and shamefully treated by this colleagues.
“Latin is the liturgical reference language of the Church. Vernaculars are meant to link to it, not replace it. ”
Amazing that so many do not know that Latin was the vernacular when it entered the liturgy. Always helps to know your history.
Ann,
You’re welcome! And thank you!
I find this PDF on the USCCB website helpful http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/peoplesparts.pdf
There are islands of changed text, in bold, surrounded by unchanged text. Most of the text was not changed, and it wasn’t reworked or re-ordered.
The priest’s orations are usually much more thoroughly changed.
Mostly because the people I serve are mobile, we will adopt the changes in the ordinary of the Mass this weekend. We will use the Apostles Creed as is permitted by the rubrics, but will occasionally use the Nicene so they will recognize it when at other parishes. We have spent considerable time examining the required changes in the context of the meaning and purpose of the Eucharist, but I will ask them only to pray as best they can and that if there’s something they don’t think they can wrap their hearts and voices around….not to worry.
We have a truly vital community of faith that sings and prays wholeheartedly. Since this is probably not unrelated to my own manner of leading them in prayer, I will keep on doing what I have always done. I will pray all prayers that are prayable while praying only what the Church actually believes. If the temple police should take exception and haul me off before the Sanhedrin, I will rely on the promise of the Lord to provide me with what to say when the time comes.
Kathy, what is this talk about “the priest’s orations”? — do Catholics just close their ears when the Canon and the preces and the prefaces are being prayed? Why does so much of the spin on the disaster that is the new translations build on the idea of a huge gulf between “the people’s bits” and “the priest’s bits”, constantly assuring the laity that “they don’t have to worry” about the latter. (Just drink the Kool-Aid.)
This is about abuse and about mendacity, and if it has shown up the moral mediocrity of the bishops it has also shown up a deep moral failure of the laity, who show themselves willing to turn their eyes to abuse, or to gladly adopt the role of victim, or to lie themselves into compliance.
Hi, Claire, as a simple exercise in translation, pro multis doesn’t mean “for all”. Even Google Translate translates “pro multis” as “for many”.
The text that we pray at mass is a Latin language text – translated to help us understand. That Latin text is, among many other things, an expression of corporate faith and a bearer of revelation.
One item of that faith, and doctrine, is that Christ’s sacrifice does not guarantee universal salvation. Perhaps, if we weren’t free, it would guarantee that. But we are free, even free to reject this gift that surpasses our understanding. So, because we are free, God has granted us this economy of sacrificial gift and acceptance – this gift offered to all who are willing to receive it, and an imparting of grace to enable us to receive it all the more readily.
It is not just theoretical speculation that there are those who reject the gift, and who do not avail themselves of the sacramental grace that makes acceptance easier. I expect all of us know people in that situation, probably in our own families. My own opinion is that we should be a lot more freaked out about this than we are. Bringing people to Christ seems to me an urgent business. So, in my personal opinion, this fixing the translation from “for all” to “for many” is not an application of some arcane translation philosophy with no real meaning for our lives. It seems to me to resonate with profound pastoral concern. It may well be a cause for rejoicing, to see the truth of our Christian faith expressed with such clarity.
Nunc Dimittis by Diane Macalintal:
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/11/21/nunc-dimittis/
Captures well the emotion some feel around this loss.
Kathy, I agree with you that the changes in the people’s parts shouldn’t be overwhelming. In addition, for people as old as me (and older), we have memories of the first English translation from the ’60′s, and at least some of the new translation hearkens to it, such that it doesn’t seem a wholly new text, but rather reconnecting with a friend from school after the passage of many years.
In addition, singing the texts to well-crafted music, rather than speaking the texts, makes the texts more accessible. Our parish is experiencing this already.
I do expect that it will be much harder for priests – as we are seeing in some of the comments here.
And getting back to Mollie’s original post – I think it’s perfectly okay to mourn what is ending in a few days. I will mourn it, too. To extend my metaphor from a few paragraphs above – it is as if a dear friend is going away, and as far as we know, we will never see her again. I’ve been praying that text since I was in grammar school. To say it has formed my faith over the course of most of my life is an understatement.
Jim, for many years people have understood the words of consecration to mean that Jesus offered his gift to all. People are free to accept it or reject it, but the gift is for all. That is how the “for all” has been interpreted for many years. The ones who claimed it meant that all were automatically saved were wrong, and when they expressed that thought, catechesis was used to explain to them their error.
But now, the “for all” is being changed to “for many”. You are now telling me: not everyone will accept Christ’s gift, so “for many” is correct and “for all” is incorrect. Thus, you are changing the meaning of the rest of the sentence: you are telling me that for all those years, the people who incorrectly thought, based on the words of consecration, that there is automatic universal salvation, were actually right in their interpretation of the words: the words of consecration were wrong. The catechesis should have said: “You’re are believing in universal salvation because that’s what the words say, but the words are wrong, and it should say ” for many”.”
Anyway, that is beside the point. The point is that in my parish, that has a lot of people on the margins, I guarantee that parishioners will hear the words of consecration and understand: “Now the church has changed the words to tell us: “Many means, not you. You’re gay? Not for you. You’re divorced and remarried? Not for you.” You can use catechesis as much as you want to argue that yesterday we were speaking of salvation offered and today we are speaking of salvation accepted. The net result is clearly a move towards exclusion, and the people who already feel excluded and stigmatized are going to be hurt.
No, Jim Pauwels, the new translation is not “hard” for priests. Rather it poses a pastoral dilemma — if they content themselves with saying the black, doing the red, and discover in so doing that they are cheating their flock of a meaningful liturgy (and there is always the quiet drumbeat of feet drifting to the door, never to return), are they not in conscience bound to desist?
@Ken (11/21, 6:57 pm) Ken, thanks for your reply. In response to your question—no, I’m not implying that “Spanish speakers are somehow leaving something out when they say “y con tu espiritu”, nor am I making implications about speakers of other languages. I was just attempting to express some of my own sense of grief at the prospect of losing one of my favorite public prayers.
For as long as I can remember (lo, these many decades now), I’ve been aware that “the priest has a very special role in the life of the Church”.
It may very well be that “at those moments in the mass, (most Catholics) are praying that the Lord be with the priest’s spirit, that unique ministerial spirit he has received be way of holy orders”. I can only say that—with the awareness that it may reflect a large, embarrassing gap and perhaps appalling gap in my religious formation and development—that’s not what I’ve been praying all these years at those moments in the Mass.
I’ve been praying that the Lord be with the entire person—body, mind and spirit—of the celebrant. That the Lord strengthen him in his priestly ministry. That the Lord help him to lose the 20 (or 50, or 100) pounds that he’s put on and is trying to lose because (among other things) it’s interfering with his ministry. That the Lord heal him from his heart attack, or from the effects of chemo and radiation after his cancer surgery. That the Lord ease his mind from the worries of the aging boiler in the church basement, or the school roof that needs to be replaced, or the intra-parish disputes between old-timers and newcomers, or the headaches of dealing with the chancery. That the Lord renew his mind so that the flame that inspired his ministry from the beginning doesn’t get snuffed out by the daily grind of priestly work. Yes, that “the Lord be with the priest’s spirit, that unique ministerial spirit he has received be way of holy orders”. But also that the Lord be with the ordinary and universal human spirit that he has had for his entire life.
So, as I said, maybe I’ve been doing it wrong all these years. (I don’t think so, but it’s certainly possible!) In any case, speaking just for myself, I’m going to miss praying “and also with *you*” (emphasis added).
@Jim Pauwels (11/22, 12:11 am) Jim, somewhere in the dim recesses of my mind is a partial memory of a priest explaining, basically, that “pro multis” is better translated into English as “for all” than “for many” because in Latin (or maybe the original Greek?) that phrase had a meaning closer to what modern English speakers mean by “all” than what we mean when we say “many”.
Can any Latin and/or Greek scholars set me straight?
Also, I’ve often thought of (and prayed) “It is offered for you and for all” as a reminder of God’s bottomless love for all—whether accepted or not. It’s a notion that stretches my understanding of God in a way that “for the many” doesn’t (or at least, seems to do less well).
Fr. O’Leary, you are right–the orations belong to the people as well. However, I thought the post was more about the prayers we speak, than the prayers in which we participate by listening. In the prayers we speak, there are large sections that have been kept identical.
We’ve spoken many times before about our differences of opinion regarding the translation of the orations. I think that pleonasms are common in the best English public speech, for example, while, if I understand correctly, you feel they indicate naive translation.
I feel nervous about Sunday, as though I’m going to be introduced to someone new, who is important and somewhat demanding, and very attractive. This is the first time I will hear the Roman liturgy in my own language. It’s exciting but a little daunting. I may have to change my life as a result.
“This is the first time I will hear the Roman liturgy in my own language.”
A bit condescending?
Is accuracy condescension, John?
@Kathy (11/22, 7:39 am) I’m sorry, Kathy, but what do you mean when you say “This is the first time I will hear the Roman liturgy in my own language”?
(Talk to me like I’m stupid.)
Luke,
I just don’t think we’ve had an accurate translation before, at least according to my own theories of translation.
When I translate things, my prime directive, if you will, is to make it say in English what it says in Latin. Don’t add, don’t subtract, don’t spin. Make it say the same thing.
I just don’t think that was the thinking behind the translation that we’ve been using for the last decades. They had a different theory, as outlined in the General Principles of Comme le prevoit.
Kathy,
Thanks for the explanation.
Dear Kathy,
And you are the judge of accuracy? There is, I believe, a lot more to this than “accuracy.” But perhaps my experience is not as wide as yours.
I wish it were all as simple as that. Everything in order, everything in its place. Wouldn’t it be grand!
When the perfect comes ….
Kind wishes,
John
And a blessed feast of Saint Cecilia!
Thank you, John, and a blessed feast to you as well, and a happy thanksgiving.
You have the most experience of anyone on these questions, of course. And yet, I would suggest that although accuracy is not the most important thing, it is for me the most essential thing. I don’t want to be met where I’m at, as much as I’d like an encounter in truth.
“But now, the “for all” is being changed to “for many”. You are now telling me: not everyone will accept Christ’s gift, so “for many” is correct and “for all” is incorrect. Thus, you are changing the meaning of the rest of the sentence: you are telling me that for all those years, the people who incorrectly thought, based on the words of consecration, that there is automatic universal salvation, were actually right in their interpretation of the words: the words of consecration were wrong.”
Claire, this is what I am telling you: the phrase which we pray every time we go to mass is “pro multis”. In the Roman Rite, it has been “pro multis” for hundreds of years, it is “pro multis” today, it will be “pro multis” on the First Sunday of Advent, and for many years thereafter.
What does “pro multis” mean? What truth of our faith does that phrase convey to us? In what way does that phrase correspond to our actual faith when the priest prays it to God on our behalf?
The translation is not the Roman Missal. It is a worship aid. The translation’s job is to help us understand the truth contained in the actual Missal. The translation needs to help us understand “pro multis” and the doctrinal truth that “pro multis” conveys.
There can be no doubt that belief in universal salvation, irrespective of our interior disposition, of our acceptance of the gift offered to us, is abroad in the land. Some regulars here have stated that they believe in it. Why do they think this? Those who believe in it need to answer the question. Certainly, I don’t place all of the blame an incorrect understanding of “for all” – but surely, that translation at least has the possibility of reinforcing that incorrect understanding. It seems prudent to me to avoid that possibility.
No, I don’t think that gays are excluded from the kingdom of heaven by reason of being gay, and neither does the church. The divorced and remarried (without annulling previous marriages) are in a different situation – they are in a state of serious sin. The remedy for them is not quick and easy, but neither is it an insurmountable obstacle. Thousands of people walk that path every year, so we know it can be done. The church, by the way, always needs faithful people, both lay and clerical, who are willing to walk this path with divorced and remarried people who want to reconcile with the church. It seems to me a holy ministry.
The path to salvation is never foreclosed, except when we slam the gate shut ourselves. The divorced and remarried, like everyone else (like *all*), can either accept or reject the gift offered to them. We can’t simultaneously accept the gift and yet not allow it to transform our lives. Keeping our lives the same in the face of the proferred gift seems to be evidence that we *haven’t* accepted it, at least not yet or not fully – that we have work to do in our lives. The time allotted to us to say “Yes” is not infinite – it is measured by the days of our lives. I don’t know with assurance if time has ever run out on anyone without accepting the gift, but I fear that it has, and I *know* it is possible that it could happen to me and to people I love.
Certainly, transforming our lives can be very hard. When folks struggle, we need to help them however we can – with due respect for the truth, of course.
The translation is not the Roman Missal. It is a worship aid. The translation’s job is to help us understand the truth contained in the actual Missal.
I don’t think that way. I don’t think of the Mass as primarily a translation, but as a worship aid in and of its own. If I really thought it was just some translation of the Latin, and that the Latin was “the real thing”, then I would be much more worried about which of the various Latin missals is the right one. As it is, I don’t particularly care… I don’t see the Latin Mass as inherently superior to the French Mass, or to the English Mass, or to the ancient Greek Mass, or to the Spanish Mass.
I think you have hit a main source of disagreement, a real difference in perspective.
John Page and Joseph O’Leary — you should really read this article that I linked above: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/11/restoring-the-words
I have read it.
Imagine for the sake of discussion that the vast majority of those Catholics who still go to Mass are not professionally involved or personally interested in Latin composition, linguistics, liturgical theory, theological arcana, translational art, courtly rhetoric, or anti-collegial Vatican politics.
What does the missal change provide for them? And especially for those often charged with having inadequately catechized themselves who nevertheless voluntarily continue to go to Mass for some reason? And for those who see no reason to be there except to receive the Holy Eucharist? And for those departed with regrets who may look back now and then? Do they have recognized needs related to the missal change other than training aids, practice time, and occasional sympathy? How are these to be met? By whom? When?
This is an English text meant to be read by English speakers. One of many obstacles politely referred to as infelicities struck me in the new Gloria in the USCCB 2010 version of Parts of the People to which Kathy links. In English, the one word “you” has two different meanings, singular and plural. In Latin, two recognizably different words are used for the two meanings. The final proofreader obviously neglected the language difference and ended up with the prayer strangely praising, blessing, adoring, and glorifying people of good will until the equivalent of 5 sentences pass. Then, the antecedent of the pronoun “you” is inserted. (“ante” means before.) That’s the text the English speakers are expected to understand and be moved by?
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/peoplesparts.pdf
Claire and Jim P. ==
As I learned it — and believe — the Mass is indeed one thing, the eternal sacrifice of Jesus for our salvation that exists both within all times, within every instant and outside of time as well. At least that’s what the “essential parts” of the Mass do. The Mass is one time-filled and timeless miracle. The words calling in Christ and expressing the miracle are non-essential, except for the essential parts (Offertory, Consecration, and Communion). It makes no difference which language is used, so long as the essential meaning is there.
The variety of languages has been huge. Not very long ago the Pope approved a form of the essential parts of a tiny middle eastern Church in which there are no spoken words at all at the Consecration! The context, the actions of the priest and people point to a shared meaning that is grasped, as i understand it, in the silence. In other words, the silence in that context *means* the Consecration.
So all this talk of “translation” is important only insofar as the translations bring to mind the realities necessary to have a Mass. All the rest is local — about specific expressions of what the different communities bring to the essentials in the way of remembrance, hope, prayer, adoration, etc. Yes, the Church has seen fit to have the various liturgies be extremely similar even in the non-essential parts. But this is not necessary. If the Pope sad to change the Gloria tomorrow, it could be changed, or even dropped.
I have been quite surprised at how strongly most liberals here are attached to the last way of saying Mass. I keep wanting to say, Hey, you guys, you’re starting to sound like the SSPXers, the way you go on about retaining the old exactly. Now you know how they must have felt when the Latin was dropped, only their change was even more drastic.
But I have to admit none of this is a real issue for me. I haven’t been able to literally hear Mass in years. But still I participate. So take heart. All is not lost.
In the absolute monarchy that still governs the church, liturgical change does not evolve from gradual changes in practice on the ground – the way it should – it arrives by fiat from above. Whether controlled by progressives or conservatives, a papal commission that dictates the nature of worship for over a billion Catholics is an act of autocracy. That’s the real problem.
Jack Barry,
Most people in the working world have to learn constantly. Everybody’s momma has a Blackberry. Murder She Wrote holds back more clues than that section of the Gloria.
I resist change. I still hate Word 2007. But I do think the People of God will take these changes in stride–though not without a sense of loss.
Right, Jeanne. The Vatican does seem to realize it has a major communications problem. But it still doesn’t understand that communication is a two way street. And neither do the bishops. Nor the liturgists, so far as I can tell. Have you ever heard of a liturgist group surveying the faithful to find out what they think about liturgical changes, large and small? I haven’t.
Kathy – Your mention of Blackberry is right on the point. The very first thing it brings to mind today is multi-continental communication failure. (Blackberry famously suffered it in Oct.) Ann O. immediately above pointed to the Church’s version of the problem, tragically deeper and without paths to solution in view.
Claire sez “…But now, the “for all” is being changed to “for many”. You are now telling me: not everyone will accept Christ’s gift, so “for many” is correct and “for all” is incorrect. Thus, you are changing the meaning . . .”
What then Claire – in your opinion of course – does the Latin phrase “pro multis” mean?
A few years ago Commonweal published an article by Fr. Toan Joseph Do, “All In?”, about the “pro multis” translation, which I recommend to anybody interested in that aspect of the translation.
Here’s the explanation NY priests are invited to use in the “sample homily” I linked to above:
That last part — “we do not use the word all because…not all take advantage of Jesus’ sacrifice” — sounds to me like an after-the-fact justification that nobody quite believes. While of course we have to keep in mind that Jesus did die for everyone, in our prayer we can’t have him say he died for everyone, since not everyone takes him up on it. What?
Ken: I’ve read a few discussions and forgotten most of what was in there. The shortest explanation is that “pro multis” means “for the multitude”.
Claire – re multitude:
Consider the difference in English between “for many” and “for the many”. Latin lacks articles and cannot duplicate the form of the two English phrases. “Pro multis” could mean either.
As often in translating, the meaning of “multis” is potentially determined, not solely by a dictionary equivalent, but in addition by its context – e.g., phrase, sentence, paragraph, culture, and intended audience. It is easy to imagine several possibilities for “the true meaning” available depending on one’s methods and goal.
Mollie – good catch….the explanation is quite a stretch…it basically turns sacramental theology upside down. Every sacrament gives us the total grace of Christ…it has nothing to do with whether we accept or not. And to suggest that the scriptural saying of Jesus at the Last Supper now needs an explanation because Jesus knew that some might not respond….how my? What complicated webs we weave.
Jack has it just right imo. Context is everything: the phrae is “for you and for all” or “for you and for many.” Jesus is offering his life for those present, and for many more not present that day. That expansion of horizon is better accomplished by “for you and for all” than by a less encompassing definition. Perhaps it would work better if we stopped discussing the Latin pro multis and spoke of the Greek which it translates, hoi polloi.
In any translation, Christ ided for all. That some reject the gift offered does not make it any less a sacrifice for them. “For many” should never be read as excluding some, a Donatist or Calvinist predestination that the Church has long rejected. Benedict XVI explains this quite clearly in The Spirit of the Liturgy.
I wish the same expansive tone had been kept for the quote from the Centurion, “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof…” The Scripture has him asking for his servant to be healed, but the Roman liturgy long ago changed it to a selfish “my soul.” I would have preferred a greater fidelity to the Scripture, with an emphasis that we unite ourselves with Christ not just for ourselves, but for others, for all. But that is omething that should be changed in the Latin, not by the translators.
Yves Congar makes the pont that “and with your spirit” is a congregational affirmation of the ordination of the priest, like the assent by the Church that precedes ordination. The priest is not acting alone, but by affirmation from the community gathered, or more precisely, the Lord who is with the congregation affirms the Spirit that was given at ordination.
As I understand it, this reaffirms the congregation as the place where the Lord is, as the priest has just said, and places the priest’s ministry in that context. The priest acts as head of the Body of Christ, and this exchange fice repeated is the head being supported by the Body. (I was going to say twice, and the thrice, but the exchange happens five times at every liturgy, hance the awful and awkward neologism “fice.” Obviously, it is too late for me to keep writing.)
“Perhaps it would work better if we stopped discussing the Latin pro multis and spoke of the Greek which it translates, hoi polloi.”
The liturgical text in question – “pro multis” – is a clear allusion to Matthew’s account of the Last Supper (Mt 26:28). Matthew’s Gospel is in Greek, so the many New Testament English translations should give us a sense of what the Greek phrase means.
New American Bible: for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
New Revised Standard Version: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
King James Version: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
New International Version: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Douay-Rheims: For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Please note that I am not saying that it is positively *wrong* to interpret “pro multis” as “for all”, or “for the multitude” or “for the many”. I agree that a word or a phrase may have multiple facets of meaning, and many connotations. All of these shades of meaning can be contemplated, and expounded via preaching or articles or scholarly writing.
I am claiming three basic things:
* As an *exercise in translation*, translating “pro multis” as “for many” is a correct translation – and arguably more correct than alternatives such as “for all” or “for the many”.
* Translating “pro multis” as “for many” is also theologically correct
* Translating “pro multis” as “for many” may offer a pastoral corrective to an unfortunate distortion of Christian belief that has gained some currency.
One more thought regarding “for the many” or “for the multitude” – given current events, these renderings inescapably call to mind the Occupy Wall Street movement and its rhetoric of “We are the 99%”. The best that can be said of “many” and “the many” is that it *might* encompass “all” (or it might not – it’s rather ambiguous). “The multitude”, to my ear, positively excludes the elite few. It is not Catholic doctrine that Jesus intended to exclude “the 1%” from his gift of salvation, although he made it quite clear that it is very hard for them.
Mollie, thanks for the link to the article “All In?” by Fr. Toan Joseph Do above. Everyone interested in the “pro multis” discussion should read it.
Jim,
When Cardinal Arinze sent a letter mandating “for many” he wrote:
Indeed the formula , “for all” would undoubtabley correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. IT IS A DOGMA OF FAITH that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women(cf. John 11:52; Corinthians 5:14-15: Titus 2-11: John 2:2) “
Last year 171 of the 187 Italian bishops voted to retain “per tutti,” for all, with only 11 supporting “per molti.” See http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349710?eng=y
The significant point made above about English use of articles helps point to the correct interpretation of the Latin “pro multis” as being “for the many” in contrast to “for the few”.
The New Testament is all about God’s promises being extended to the many instead of just to Israel. It is important that salvation is available to all, the many, not just the few born or converted to Judaism.
That is why a translation needs to indicate “the many” as the correct English translation of “pro multis”, because the implications and connotations of using or not using the article are quite different. Translation is not about a one to one correspondence. As seven years of Latin teachers had difficulty beating into my head, just getting the vocabulary right does not make a translation. The result in the receiving language needs to express the same concept as the giving language. If the receiving language uses different constructions for the same content, those constructions are necessary to a good translation.
Therefore, translating “pro multis” as merely “for many” which has exclusive connotations is a failure to convey the meaning of the Latin which is expansive rather than exclusive. The failure of the Vatican cabal to use the article “the”, merely demonstrates my contention above, that they had other objectives than producing a good English translation.
The worst effect of all this, however, is not the execrable English text but the surrender of the conferences of bishops. The centralizing of power in a monarchical court where ideas are both conceived and executed without testing against pastoral experience in the local churches is a disaster for Catholicism in its transformation to a Roman Curial Church.
Our spanish priest used to say “por todos”, but sometime during this past summer, he began saying “por muchos”.
[...] we have read, really carefully, a many examples quoted in MWO’Reilly’s post below, of prayers from a new translation. we have declaimed them in my mind, fluctuating a pauses as [...]
Hi, Jim McK, yes, I hope that what I’ve written does not contradict your quote from Cardinal Arinze.
FWIW – as early as 1970, the translation “for all” was being questioned, and the Holy See, in Notitiae, printed the following as an explanation/defense for the translation:
28. In certain popular translations of the formula of consecration of the wine at Mass, the words « pro multis » are rendered thus: in English for all men; in Spanish por todos; in Italian per tutti.
It is asked:
a) whether there is one and what kind of sufficient reason is there for introducing this variation?
b) whether the doctrine handed on regarding this matter in the « Roman Catechism by Decree of the Council of Trent and issued with the authority of St. Pius V » should be regarded as superceded?
c) whether all the translations of this aforementioned biblical text should be regarded as less suitable?
d) whether, in truth, in granting approval to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, something less than correct slipped in which warrants correction or emendation?
Resp.: The variation described above is fully justified:
a) according to the exegetes, the Aramaic word which was translated into Latin as « pro multis », has the significance of « for all »: the multitude for which Christ died is without any limitation, which has the same force as to say: Christ died for all. It will help to to remember what St. Augustine said: « See what he has given and you will find what he has bought. The price is the Blood of Christ. How much is it worth? What, if not the whole world? What, if not all nations? They are very ungrateful for this price or very proud who say that it is so small as to buy only Africans or to claim that they are so great that it was given for them alone » (Enarr. in Ps. 95, n. 5).
b) in no way is the doctrine handed on in the « Catechismus Romanus » to be regarded as superceded: the distinction about the death of Christ as sufficient for all but only efficacious for many retains its value.
c) in giving approval to this vernacular variation in this liturgical text, nothing incorrect has slipped in which requires correction or emendation.
http://notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/tag/pro%20multis
Thanks, Jim – you have now clarified your earlier comment (which was way off base on all three points).
Again, translation must convey “meaning”; not just a literal word. Your earlier three points merely underlined an interlinear approach to translation but that is a middle step. Arrinze’s statement is double speak at its best – that may be why he was moved so quickly from anything having to do with liturgy (a subject and study he has and had no qualifications for).
Happy Thanksgiving, Bill.
Tom,
you wrote:
“Therefore, translating “pro multis” as merely “for many” which has exclusive connotations is a failure to convey the meaning of the Latin which is expansive rather than exclusive. The failure of the Vatican cabal to use the article “the”, merely demonstrates my contention above, that they had other objectives than producing a good English translation.”
Latin has no article, definite or indefinite. When translating from Latin into English, we need to choose whether to add an “a” or a “the” or nothing. How do we decide?
By context (and even then our choice would be subject to dispute).
In the case of “pro multis,” however, we are on former ground because the phrase itself is a translation from the Greek original?
How does Matthew 26:28 (New American Bible: for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins) read in Greek?
τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ***περὶ πολλῶν*** ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
“Peri pollon” (no definite article) = “for many,” NOT for “the many”
What appear to you as “machinations of a curial cabal” in “dropping” a “the” appear to me simply an attempt to translate accurately the sense of the Latin as elucidated by the Greek from which it is itself translated.
From what I’ve learned, the New Roman Missal seeks to bring the words of the Mass CLOSER to the Scripture passages from which they were originally drawn. I can’t see how that can be a bad thing.
Before we can debate over the **interpretation of Scripture,** we should accept the **literal** meaning (as best as that can be discerned amidst the complexities of translation) as our starting point.
Typo:
“In the case of “pro multis,” however, we are on FIRMER ground because the phrase itself is a translation from the Greek original.
***
“For many” does not exclude the meaning “all,” for if all were ultimately saved, they would indeed be a “many.”
I cannot say whether “all” will respond to God’s grace and be saved (knowing how deficient my own response has been all these years). I think it is reading into the phrase to conclude that certain groups are automatically excluded from salvation (that would mean either that some groups lack the free will to respond to God’s grace or that God would extend his grace and then deny it to those who responded to it). In any case, “for many” is more accurate a translation than “for the many,” i.e. it corresponds to what Jesus actually said (Aramaic has a direct article, so the Greek phrase lacking it must reflect what Jesus said in Aramaic).
These are the third set of comments I’ve read on the Commonweal site regarding the new translation. I am depressed.
First, in support of Ms. O’Reilly, the priest at my parish clearly struggled with the new translation at several points yesterday. It was clearly harder on him than the congregants. I also agree that too much has been made of the people’s responses and not enough to changes in the priest’s language. There were far more changes in the priest’s prayers than the responses, and it sounded wooden and strange.
Having said all that, it is obvious to me the controversy it is carrying water for a lot more of what’s going on in the Church than prayer and language. A short list would include the nature of Roman/papal authority, subsidiarity and collegiality, the ongoing attempt to advance/roll back Vatican II and even the sexual abuse crisis. All of these should and must be addressed in their own spheres. Let’s not use changes in the liturgy as a stalking horse for them.
It’s very true that the words of the liturgy are important, and even relatively small changes are important. But it is a little hard to be overly moved by the difficulty of making the changes in the congregation’s words, when a few short decades ago we went through something, shall we say, a bit more momentous. (I am not anti-Vatican II, btw, not in the slightest.) Change in the liturgy is a serious matter, but I think it is perfectly appropriate to note that most of the changes will be in what we (the laity) hear, not what we say.