More translation issues
Some may weary of the translation discussion but Joseph O’Leary brings further light to the matter:
“One of the most horrific statements of Card. George at the recent USCCB meeting was that the Vatican is also insisting that the French translation of the Missal be brought more into line with the original Latin. The current French translation is quite beautiful, thanks to the participation of poet Patrice de la Tour du Pin. Letting the philistines loose on it would be criminal.
“Ken writes: ‘While it is a bit more formal, the new English translation does track closer to the current Spanish translation, and Latinos have been using the current Spanish translation for many years, without much wailing or knashing of teeth.’ ‘Gnashing’ is the word. This comment is unconscionable. That the Spanish is closer to a literal translation of the Latin says nothing about the horrific infelicities of the proposed new English text. Closeness to the Latin is less likely to create problems in Spanish, a Latin language, than in English. But in fact the alleged closeness is not closeness at all: ‘just’ for ‘justum’ is fake closeness, then kind of mistake you get from non-native speakers of English. Even if the English translation were as close to the Latin as it claims to be, this would not excuse its lack of rhythm, syntactical common sense, communicative diction, and prayerfulness.”
“One of the most horrific statements of Card. George at the recent USCCB meeting was that the Vatican is also insisting that the French translation of the Missal be brought more into line with the original Latin.”
Margaret, “horrific” is not too strong a word. This fills me with disgust. Clearly Philistinism is the new “Orthodoxy” and it appears that the Vatican is the force behind it.
I find the last word of this post rather quizzical. “Proclaimable”–that is a neologism I understand. It’s a very clumsy word, but I think I understand that it means more or less 5th grade reading level.
“Prayerful” is another kind of word. Prayerfulness has a subjective element, but the claim here is that there is an objective element as well. I agree with this, but I would be interested to hear about different models of “prayerfulness,” and an account of why the new translations are not “prayerful.”
My working definition: a prayerful liturgical prayer fosters communal recollection and meditation on the mysteries of God’s love, and the heartfelt response of worship.
Under this definition, I think the new translation would hold up rather well, actually.
This is easy to pray:
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.
So is this:
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.
Is the following easier to pray or conducive to deeper prayerfulness?:
In humble prayer we ask you, 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, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
“From this altar” is confusing in the current translation; “this participation at the altar” clears up the confusion somewhat.
You can compare and argue about the translations until the cows come home. This issue is much deeper than just “words” – it is a change in the documents from Vatican II directed by a small minority. This is a change in ecclesiology whatever the value or lack of value of different translations – whether latin to english, latin to French, latin to Spanish (btw – we may have a new Spanish missal but the lectionary is still in 5-7 different translation formats based on the specific spanish language groups – hows that for a change of pace).
I think the revised translation almost totally obscures the point of “this altar”, the haec/hac contrast in the Latin. I struggled with this prayer for a few minutes before I got the point of what was being said — a contrast between the heavenly altar and the altar in front of the participants. The heavenly offering by the hands of the angels is supplanted by the Body and Blood of Christ (sancti/sacrosancti) and attains for us at the earthly altar the blessings from the heavenly.
I started our just to simplify the language, but got carried away. My rewrite may be simply wrong, even bad theology, since I am inexpert. I assume the priest is in the presence of “this altar” when praying and that the point of taking something to any altar is to offer it, and probably a few other things that were not on the mind of the translators. And I probably am missing some things that were on their minds.
I guess I am asking if this idea is correct; is this prayer a contrast of two altars joined through the sacrifice of Christ?
my rewrite:
Humbly we pray to you, almighty God: command these gifts be offered by the hands of your holy angel on your altar in heaven, in the sight of your divine majesty, so that we who participate at this altar, receiving the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, may be filled with all the blessings and graces of heaven.
new Roman Missal: what I changed
In humble prayer we ask you, 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, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
I thought Bernard’s post of December 11, responding to ken was most germane.
Essentially it said that thee’s nothing sacrosanct about Latin!
I wouldn’t catageroize Cardinal George’s statement on this as “horrific”, but it shows his basic approach was to please his Roman (Latin loving) masters and not be attuned to a large pastoral cry.This is true of many bishops who voted as well and to say that’s all that matters is to jus tintensify the divide (again.)
As I said on an earlier thread, I see no reason why some Latin text ought to be treated as the “ur-text” for our liturgies. If there is an argument to be made that shows me wrong, would someone (perhaps Kathy) at least sketch it in outline.
The notion of “the best translation” is nonsensical. So is the notion that Latin, or any other natural language for that matter, is a “sacred Language.”
Once again, for those who worry about loss of “orthodoxy,” let me recall that the Church once had and may still have provisions for the “Nihil obstat.” Of course I agree that every liturgical text ought to be orthodox. The office of “Censor librorum” is, or could be made to be, capable of providing this assurance.
The award for best version should go to Jim McK on my view. In the Latin text the comma after ex hac altaris participatione seems unnecessary if not downright misleading and the phrase itself is odd.
Let me just add that “ex hac altaris participatione” seems to me to want to mean “from this participation in the (sacrificial) offering”, i.e., “altaris” is used by metonymy for some such word a “hostia” (sacrificial offering). How does one participate in an altar? The genitive after the members of this word family is used of that of which one has a share rather than of the location of that of which one has a share.
Bernard,
The Latin text is normative because it is the Roman Rite.
Similarly, translations of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom are based on the Greek text.
http://www.melkite.org/Dliturgy.htm
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/liturgy_of_st_john_chrysostom.htm
I think Kathy’s argument is circular
I am not sure whether Kathy’s argument is circular but it does have some interesting consequences. What if a component part of the Roman rite is itself a translation of a Greek original and what if that Latin version of a Greek original is in some respect erroneous? It would seem to follow from your position, Kathy, that such errors are to be perpetuated in further translation into vernacular languages. This seems an indefensible position, no?
Joseph,
I wasn’t aware that I was advancing a position, as much as explaining the situation.
I would imagine that liturgists work with small problems like the scenario you mentioned all the time.
I see no evidence in the new translation of any such awareness on the part of the new translators. The have actually reversed attempts to remedy such problems in the current translation.
When you say the Latin text is normative, you surely mean that the Latin text must be followed. When the Latin texts is itself a translation, should the original not be normative? Error in translation surely still has no rights.
I don’t see anything circular about Kathy’s reply. Some might want to argue that Catholics in America (or other English speaking countries) ought not be Latin/Roman Rite Catholics, but, given that that is what most of us are, it doesn’t seem that strange that we would use a translation of the Latin liturgy.
The question of appeal to a Greek exemplar lying behind the (faulty) Latin is an interesting one, but I can’t really think of many examples where this would arise, except perhaps the Creed. Was that what you were thinking of? Were there specific places where the Latin seems faulty?
For me, this says it all. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church needs a “normative” Latin language is a straw argument.
“Between the Council of Trent and Vatican II, a distinguished mark of the Catholic Church was its continuing use of Latin in the liturgy. Before that, when literacy was largely restricted to the clergy and Religious, Latin made sense as a universal ecclesial language. Now few Catholics are proficient in Latin nor wish to see it reintroduced. The Church is united not be a common tongue but by a common spirit. Pentecost, not Latin, is the answer to the Tower of Babel. Latin was not the language of Our Lord, nor of St. Peter, nor of St. Paul, but that of Pontius Pilate, Nero and of the early persecutors of the Church. Until St. Jerome, Latin was not even the language of the Bible. It is no longer the language of scholarship, of science, of medicine, nor even of law. Few Catholic parishioners under 40 have heard a Latin Mass. Neither have the majority of those who became converts within the last 40 years. Every parish could institute Latin classes, but perhaps the cause of faith would be better served by teaching greater reverence for, and knowledge of, the Word, together with respect for the sacred in the liturgy. What really matters is that the liturgy should speak to the heart, and that requires not only good music but also communication in the vernacular.”
Letter to The Tablet, July 8, 2006.
The French Mass is under threat? Until now I was following those translation discussions with some detachment, but suddenly this is getting to me. Let me not risk losing the bits and pieces of prayers during the Mass that, through repetition and meditation over the years, have gradually acquired deep meaning for me!
Change has a cost…
There are other reasons why Latin texts are normative, perhaps especially because the music proper to the Roman liturgy is composed to Latin texts. As difficult as it can be to agree on a translation of spoken texts, translation of chants is many times more difficult.
But I think any liturgist would agree that any liturgy is strongly tied to a local church and its local language.
Ah, Kathy, but the Latin of those chanted texts is not normative. The chants of the western church use at least four different Latin translations, a fact of which Liturgiam Authenticam is ignorant.
So far as I can see, the Latin rite is first and foremost a rite. Why its liturgical prayers must always be referred to the language, nmely Latin, in which they were initially formulated is beyond me. Is there not a discernible spirit to this “Latin” rite that is expressible by liturgical prayers formulated in the seveeral vernaculars.
Concerning hymns. I do love Gregorian chant and do believe that large parts of the Common of the Mass can be learned by congregations. It does not follow that all music for the liturgy ought to have Latin texts.
From a philosophical standpoint, we are always trying to make ourselves intelligible to one another. In that sense we are always involved in a form of translation. Why an English speaking congregation, for example, ought to complicate this process by pushing everyone in the congregation to make a detour through some foreign language, here Latin, but logicall it could be Swedish or some other tongue is beyond me. Those who insist upon this complicated process ought to try to justify it.
One example of an erroneous translation is in the the Gloria. The Latin text: et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis, “and on earth peace to men (people) of good will” is a mistranslation of the Greek. The Greek may more properly be translated: “Peace on earth for the people whom he (God) favors.” This is not my version but the rendering by Joseph A. Fitzmyer in his translation of Luke in the Anchor Bible. The current translation has–I quote from memory–”Peace to His people on earth” which is less exact than Fitzmyer’s but relies on the same scholarship.
The question of appeal to a Greek exemplar lying behind the (faulty) Latin is an interesting one
Looking at the prayer earlier today, I googled “ex hac altaris participatione” and discovered this may be an idiom, with uncertain meaning. Various transcribers ‘corrected’ it, as have translators. So one of the questions I ask is whether it is appropriate to correct the text in translation; that may be what I was doing, offering a clear alternative rather than maintaining the ambiguity in the Latin. Clarity would be my choice for liturgy, though maybe not for an academic translation.
Anyway, the Chrism Mass has a prayer that says:
“It is from [Christ] that chrism takes its name
and with chrism you have anointed
for yourself priests and kings,
prophets and martyrs.” (from the Consecration of Chrism)
On its face, this seems “faulty”: the temporal sequence is chrism, then Christ, and that seems strained in this sentence. I cannot provide a Greek exemplar, except perhaps from the Gospel of Phillip, which says it is chrism from which Christ gets his name. That seems to be the meaning of Tertullian as well:
“That is why [the high priest] is called a christ, from ‘chrism’ which is
[the Greek for] ‘anointing’: and from this also our Lord obtained
his title…
unde christus dicitur a chrismate quod est unctio, quae domino nomen accommodavit…” (Tertullian)
When do we correct a sacred text? There is no easy answer to this, I suspect. This problem with ‘chrism’ may be a result of an earlier correction, where someone could not accept that Christ would be named for Chrism rather than vice versa. Do we have to prove the error to make a correction? Does our faith give any guidance on choosing between intelligibility and tradition?
As to the point above about the Gloria I might add that the New American Bible, approved by the American Bishops, has: “and on earth peace to those on whom his (God’s) favor rests.”
Paul,
Do you mean four different translations of the Bible?
If you are interested in a preview of the way the new translation will be pitched to the faithful, check out the materials presented USCCB website.
http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_notes.shtml
“I think the revised translation almost totally obscures the point of “this altar”, the haec/hac contrast in the Latin. I struggled with this prayer for a few minutes before I got the point of what was being said — a contrast between the heavenly altar and the altar in front of the participants. The heavenly offering by the hands of the angels is supplanted by the Body and Blood of Christ (sancti/sacrosancti) and attains for us at the earthly altar the blessings from the heavenly.”
I ran across an article by Fr. Harbert (who directed ICEL’s work on the new translation) a few days ago. In what I believe was a reference to this passage, he criticized the current translation for implying that there were two altars – one on heaven and the one here on earth around which we’re gathered. He stated that the sense of the Latin is that it is a single altar, and the new translation reflects this.
I’ll try to track down the article.
Here is that article of Msgr Harbert that I referenced in my previous comment. It’s quite interesting in that it gives a bit of an “inside view” on how ICEL arrived at some of the locutions in the new translation.
http://www.csbsju.edu/sot/events/documents/Diekmann-Harbert.pdf
“The current French translation is quite beautiful, thanks to the participation of poet Patrice de la Tour du Pin. Letting the philistines loose on it would be criminal.”
The bishops of French-speaking territories are responsible for their own translations. If they commission philistines to do it, it will be their own fault, and will have nothing to do with the folks who translated English.
Liturgiam Authenticam was universal in its scope (as was its predecessor). I’ve read that the German missal also will need to be reworked.
““Proclaimable”–that is a neologism I understand. It’s a very clumsy word, but I think I understand that it means more or less 5th grade reading level.”
Perhaps it does. Of course, 5th graders also go to mass (when their parents bother to bring them along) and it’s not a bad thing if they find it accessible.
In the US, there are many whose first language is Spanish who attend English liturgies. Using some “basic” language might help them follow along.
One more thought on “proclaimable”. I believe the language and syntax of the new translation is no more difficult, and arguably easier, than the English translations in the old St. Andrew and St. Joseph missals. But those were meant for reading in silence, not proclamation. I mention this because I believe it helps highlight the distinctive requirements of a text that is proclaimed. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I believe that the poet and the dramatist are the best-equipped to produce proclaimable texts.
Of course, to take this to its logical conclusion – maybe the bishops should have commissioned Hollywood screenwriters – they’re the ones who are making money for writing the spoken word these days. :-)
“The bishops of French-speaking territories are responsible for their own translations. If they commission philistines to do it, it will be their own fault, and will have nothing to do with the folks who translated English.”
Do the French-speaking territories then enjoy a freer relationship to the Vatican? I imagine something similar to the ICEL-Vox Clara set-up will apply to them as well. Rome is even insisting on writing the Japanese translations! I think you underestimate the degree to which responsibility for the language of the liturgy has been taken out of the hand of bishops — in contradiction with Vatican II.
I just added criticisms of Msgr Harbert on my website (josephsoleary.typepad.com). It is still unclear in the new translation whether the Roman Canon refers to one or two altars; the Latin itself is unclear.
Jim,
Perhaps 5th graders are liturgically underestimated. I teach children gregorian chant. Although they learn some things simply by rote–tunes and words that will be with them for life–they are also able, with very little catechesis, to begin to make sense of the connections that run throughout the liturgy. I ask them, “where else have you heard ‘ad dexteram Pat”Did you notice that Iesu Christe sounds the same hear and here?” After a while they make the connections themselves.
In the link provided here a few days ago for Wise Blood, there is a trailer in which Hazel Motes is preaching, “The Church Without Christ don’t have a Jesus but it needs one! It needs a new Jesus! It needs one that’s all man, without blood to waste!” It’s been a while since I’ve read O’Connor and I didn’t understand this particular kerygma at first. So I played it again (i.e. the fifth grader came back next week, with a question.)
Martin Luther King learned his preaching cadences in church. Whitney Houston learned to sing in church. Why can’t the liturgy be a place where the mind and heart are elevated? Because there is a mystery, and life will change.
“Why can’t the liturgy be a place where the mind and heart are elevated? Because there is a mystery, and life will change.”
Hi, Kathy, I guess I would say that the mystery is the death and resurrection of Jesus. And the “unpacking” of it happen by apprehending and absorbing the meaning of the signs and symbols.
Dr. King’s elevated style was rich in rhythm and Biblical allusion, but his words were understandable by children and unschooled adults.
Our task is different because we’re given a source text to translate, and some of the source (I’m told; you know much more about Latin than I do) is itself pretty dense and complex. Yet that source text was proclaimed, after a fashion, for 1,000 years or more. Do we preserve that complexity? Is there a formula whereby we can convey the depth of meaning yet make it understandable for modern ears? It seems to me that this involves balancing a number of competing goals and finding compromises among them.
And then, our translators don’t have utter freedom; Rome has given them an instruction that seems to privilege transmission of the doctrinal content over other considerations, like meter.
“Do the French-speaking territories then enjoy a freer relationship to the Vatican? I imagine something similar to the ICEL-Vox Clara set-up will apply to them as well. Rome is even insisting on writing the Japanese translations! I think you underestimate the degree to which responsibility for the language of the liturgy has been taken out of the hand of bishops — in contradiction with Vatican II.”
I don’t know if there is a French or Spanish equivalent of ICEL. Nor do I know if that Vatican has a consultative body like Vox Clara for those other languages. Surely there are folks reading this blog who know – hopefully then can enlighten us.
Are you claiming that Rome did these English translations? Perhaps I’m naive, but my belief all along has been that ICEL really did produce them, the bishops\s really did consider them, in some cases revised them, and then approved them. That is the way the process is supposed to work, and according to the accounts I have read, that is the way it actually worked.
Just to correct a faulty assumption here, Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) applies to the whole church. English is a test case, but all the language groups will be effected. Eventually everyone will have to retranslate their liturgical texts according to this document. This has been clear from the beginning. Cardinal George, whose interventions are regrettable for many other reasons, is beside the point with respect to this issue.
Varietates Legitimae, the fourth of the five instructions on the right implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Liturgiam Authenticam is the fifth) states that translation into the vernacular languages is the first measure of inculturation.
I would contend that the Vatican is trying to impede inculturation by enforcing the fifth instruction, which attempts to make all the translations as close as possible to the Latin. How people feel about this varies, but it’s an important issue. Vatican II did take a direction here, toward legitimate diversity, and it does seem that this outcome of Vatican II is viewed with considerable reservation in Rome today.
“my belief all along has been that ICEL really did produce them, the bishops\s really did consider them, in some cases revised them, and then approved them. That is the way the process is supposed to work, and according to the accounts I have read, that is the way it actually worked.”
Jim P, we went through this before, but you seem not yet to have acknowledged the very important point that when Rome gave the recognitio to the Order of Mass, the document they recognized was not the one that the bishops amended. How you can say “the process worked” after taking in this fact, is beyond me.
“Jim P, we went through this before, but you seem not yet to have acknowledged the very important point that when Rome gave the recognitio to the Order of Mass, the document they recognized was not the one that the bishops amended. How you can say “the process worked” after taking in this fact, is beyond me.”
I haven’t taken in that fact. Where is it documented, and where can we learn more about it?
Here are suggested questions and answers on the new translation, including the official account of the collegial-sounding process by which it was produced. I expect there will be a flood of pamphlets embodying this wisdom and a major effort to provide the clergy with easily-memorized answers to tlikely queries of parishioners alarmed by the change from “for all” to “for many,” puzzled by what “consubstantial” might mean, and curious about why they now have to pray that the Lord will be with the presider’s “spirit.”
What if, once the pat answers have been rattled off, the rough-and- tumble of discussion really begins? The bishops will have put the parish clergy in a difficult position. And how many will be equipped to deal with the complex issues raised by translation any better than the Bishops could at their last meeting?
http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_notes.shtml
Susan,
Gnashing of teeth aside (thank you Margaret), I read through the USCCB notes page to which you linked, and the expplanation offered is both very understandable and very reasonable.
As for the examples that seem to trouble you so, I do not see why “and with you spirit” would bother anyone, and the meaning of consubstantial is clear enough for most people.
Regarding the change from “for all” to “for many”; the latter it is simply a more literal translation of the original text. The use of “for many” is not a new invention. The Latin liturgy has not changed.
What has happened, is that US Bishops (most likely in cooperation with other English speaking bishops), working with and in obedience to Rome have, per guidelines issued by the Pope, produced a new English translation.
While some Americans seem to not like the result and are spending their time fretting, it is worth keeping in mind that we Americans are not the center of the world and in any case, decisions regarding translating sacred liturgy belong to the Magisterium, not the laity.
I am confident that thanks to the help of the Holy Spirit, both the Vatican and the bishops understand their vocations, that they did not take this particular matter lightly, and that regarding this translation, they actually know what they are doing.
I.m glad Ken thinks liturgical translation isbelongs to the magisterium (another circularity to my mind) and that wanting to make the worship by God’s people as best as can be the same as thinking “we’re the center of the world,” makes me think Ken thinks Rome (romanita) is that center.
And that’s about wheret he divide is here today
So poor Fr. Ryan is “freting” uselessly -another nice semantic for a real division about liturgy, which many consider to be where the rubber meets the road.
So while some may be confident in how the Spirit guides the hierachy, others still think grace builds on nature.
Jim, thanks for the reference to Fr Harbert. It pretty much answers the questions I have, ie one translates to express one’s theology. If there are ‘mistakes’, correct them.
In my totally inexpert opinion, he is wrong about this prayer. I read it in terms of the Lord’s Prayer, “on earth as it is in heaven” rather than as “we are at the altar with Christ in Paradise”. He rests his argument on V2′s “In the earthly liturgy we receive a foretaste of the heavenly one…” but overreaches. An essential paradox of prayer, that we address Our Father while he is heaven and we are not, is missing. IMO.
Unfortunately, the prayer does not convey much meaning at all, though it may be precisely correct. There is no great sense of being joined with the angels at the altar, just a glancing reference to “our participation”. Maybe I will grow to love it. But I am glad to know he has something in mind.
“Jim, thanks for the reference to Fr Harbert. It pretty much answers the questions I have, ie one translates to express one’s theology. If there are ‘mistakes’, correct them. ”
I’d think that, from Rome’s ppoint of view, that’s pretty much the genesis of Liturgiam Authenticam and everything that has followed.
Ken,
“Consubstantial with the Father” is bad English–the “con” already includes the “with.” More importantly, “consubstantial” is an English cognate of a Latin word and that Latin word is a translation of a Greek word which means “one in being with.” So it seems to me to use “consubstantial” in an English recitation of the Creed is just bad translation, using theological jargon instead of a phrase that is in real English and captures the meaning intended by the Fathers at Nicea.
On the issue of “pro multis.” To translate this as “for many” is the same sort of error as translating “justum” as “just” (as Father O’Leary has pointed out, over and over again). Latin has no articles, so “for the many,” might work, but “pro multis” really means the “for the multitude,” that is, everyone, or if you like, “for all.”
Transliteration is not translation and from I can recall from my high school Latin days, turning in an assignment with “for many” and other such English “translations” would have resulted in red pencil marks and low grades.
Here is a little history in terms of how complicated a translation effort can be – starting in 1982:
“Over the years, there was growing awareness that a new and improved translation of the Roman Missal in English was needed.
“An essential element for the translating work of ICEL is fidelity to the substance of the original. The translation is designed to convey the content that the Latin texts embody, which in the texts of the Proprium de tempore [the parts of the missal that vary from day to day] includes a definite tradition of teaching and worship. The purpose of a basic textual criticism is not to ensure a literal translation (a literal translation requires little more than a few years of school Latin). Rather, this function is needed to achieve the richness and variety that is required to convey in English the true thought of the Latin text; or to make explicit, in a way that English may demand, what is cryptic or allusive in the Latin; or to permit a precise reflection of the liturgical occasion, function or context of a text; or to retain the text’s theme, point of view or strength. A basic textual criticism may also be a safeguard against taking Latin words for cognates when they really are not, or against simply presuming the meaning of what looks like a familiar term.” (Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal, ICEL 1988, p.12)
So the complicated and laborious task in ICEL of preparing a revised translation of the Roman Missal began in 1982 and continued carefully until ICEL had completed its work in 1993. Here is a description of ICEL’s procedure for the revised translation of the Missale Romanum. The description comes from the International Commission’s own Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal, 1988, pp.10-11.
“In October 1982 the International Commission on English in the Liturgy issued a consultation book on the revision of the presidential prayers of the Roman Missal. The consultation book was meant to elicit comment on the revision of the 1324 presidential prayers in the Roman Missal. Bishops, consultants and other interested persons in all of the twenty-six conferences of bishops that ICEL serves were invited to submit comments, critical or laudatory, on the Missal oration-texts issued by ICEL in 1973. The consultation period lasted over a year. One hundred and forty responses were received. Perhaps half of the respondents limited their remarks to comments on a few words or phrases in a small number of prayers. Other respondents offered extensive remarks on the 1973 Missal texts and suggested in addition some general principles for translating the collects, exemplified in a few instances by the respondents’ own versions. Through most of 1984 the responses were tabulated and studied, at first within the ICEL Secretariat and then by members of ICEL’s subcommittee on translations and revisions.
“The first meeting of this subcommittee to discuss the approach to be taken to the revision of the Missal prayers was held in 1984. To assist its discussions the subcommittee had before it a set of guidelines for the revision of texts that had been formulated by ICEL’s Advisory Committee in November 1982. By the time that the discussion on the Missal prayers took place the subcommittee had the example of the recently revised prayers of the funeral rite, the first ritual book to undergo the comprehensive process of revision announced by ICEL in 1977. The texts of the revised funeral rite embodied the decisions of the subcommittee that were to influence the approach to the prayers of the Missal: careful attention to a substantive fidelity to the Latin originals; a fuller vocabulary with a greater use of adjectives and strong verbs; greater attention to speech stresses or the rhythm and cadence of the prayers; use of connectives that results in somewhat longer sentences but conveys the subordination of ideas in the text. Yet the subcommittee also kept before it the need to measure all such decisions by the principles of the 1969 Instruction on Translation of Liturgical Texts [‘Comme le prévoit’, issued by Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy] with its emphasis on the requirements of proclamation – ease for those who proclaim the texts and for those who hear them.
“In general the subcommittee agreed that the approach taken in revising the funeral-rite prayers should be followed for the prayers of the Missal, but that the traditional, succinct collect-form makes greater demands on the translator than the often longer, more expanded texts of the funeral rite. The plan for revising the 1324 prayer texts of the Missal involves the following procedures:
1 research on the background of each of the Latin texts is prepared by an expert in the ICEL Secretariat;
2 the research material is sent to “teams” (in practice, one or two people) of translators, along with a page containing the Latin, the present ICEL text, the Italian, French and German official translations of the Missal prayers;
3 the translators prepare a draft;
4 the drafts submitted by each team of translators are reviewed by an editorial committee of three members of the subcommittee;
5 the text agreed on by the editorial committee is then submitted for review by the full subcommittee on translations and revisions;
6 each text approved by the full subcommittee is submitted to the Advisory Committee on a page containing the Latin, present ICEL version, and the several draft versions; the text is reviewed and voted on by the Advisory Committee; texts not accepted at this stage are returned to the subcommittee until they meet with the Advisory Committee’s approval;
7 texts approved by the Advisory Committee are given final review and vote
. by ICEL’s Episcopal Board”.
Throughout the long years of revision, ICEL kept its member-conferences of bishops (and the associate member-conferences) as well as the Congregation in Rome informed of its work. A Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal (quoted at length above) was sent to the conferences and to the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1988. Two more extensive Progress Reports were issued by ICEL in 1990 and 1992, with copies sent to the bishops and to the congregation. Through the bishops who represented their conferences on the Episcopal Board of ICEL, the conferences were apprised of the reasons for the options chosen where there could have been a variety of translations for a word, a phrase or a sentence. Beginning in 1992, the conferences were asked to give their definitive canonical vote on each completed segment (there were eight of these) as it was sent to them by the commission.
Every one of the conferences voted to approve the ICEL revision. Ten of the conferences had unanimous or near-unanimous votes. The only exception was the United States, where there were a number of negative votes on one part of the ICEL text. The part in question was the very important Order of Mass, Ordo Missae, comprising the unchanging texts in Mass, including the eucharistic prayers. Even so and despite the negative votes, there was still a sufficient number of affirmative votes to secure the two-thirds majority required for approval.
After its formal approval by a conference, the final stage before the revised Roman Missal could be published for use in dioceses and churches was to apply to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for that body’s confirmation (“recognitio”) of the conference’s approval. The English-speaking conferences of bishops therefore submitted their requests to Rome, in 1998 or 1999 depending on each conference’s voting schedule.”
Compare the above process and its careful implementation of the Constitution of the Liturgy from Vatican II – a careful, integral, and faithful application and evolution of the liturgical principles set out by more than 2,000 bishops with the abrupt and limited effort that has occurred since just before the publication of LA. Some of you have remarked that this new effort seems circular – I would characterize it as the “tail wagging the dog” – over-emphasis on latin without regard to liturgical history, context, or the spirit of Vatican II; moving from conferences of bishops as the guiding bodies to centralization of the complete process in the hands of Rome which only permits conferences to approve after the fact.
It’s me, again.
When I read the Scriptures, I tend to read The New English Bible which was published in 1971 under the direction of the Christian denominations in Great Britain (Catholic and Protestant). Here is a quote from its introduction:
“This translation of the Bible has the aim of providing a rendering which will be both faithful to the text translated and genuinely English in idiom. The translators have endeavoured to convey the meaning of the original in language which will be the closest natural equivalent. They have tried to avoid free paraphrase on the one hand and, on the other, formal fidelity resulting in a translation which would read like a translation. It is their hope that by their labours these documents have been made more intelligible and more readily accessible.”
It seems a shame, to me, that the new translation of the liturgical texts from Latin to English could not have been carried out with the same sort of goals.
Here you go.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/07/and-with-your-recognitio.html
Note, these texts are “binding.”
In no place in the NT does Jesus say that his blood will be shed “for you and for many”. In Matthew and Mark he says “for many”. In Luke he says “for you”. It is unlikely that Mark and Matthew are independent witnesses. Luke also represents Jesus as offering his body “for you” and in this respect his version is like Paul’s in First Corinthians. It is probable that none of the three evangelists were eye-witnesses. It might be worth asking what the ancient commentators made of these apparent variations as well as when the current formula was devised and with what intent.
To follow up on Ms. Ferrone’s link:
http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=1404
Highlight: “The Council probably suffered its greatest defeat in its endeavours to reduce centralism.
The heaviest attack on the reform of the liturgy was the reinstatement of the old Tridentine rite in 2007. This is a clear disapproval of the Council. The Pope seems to be ready “to question more than ever the achievements of the Second Vatican Council.” (Klaus Nientiedt, HK 8/2008).”
Another: “Today it is less possible than ever to talk about the independence of the local Churches. In fact, the bishops cannot do anything else but receive the orders of the Pope and the Curia. The statements of the Council that the bishops must be considered the “representatives and messengers of Christ” and not the “representatives of the bishops of Rome” (LG 27) have simply been left out in the Corpus Iuris Canonici of 1983. Today the bishops are as powerless as they ever were and are almost non-existent “as partners in an open discussion of controversial questions in the Church. They are under such a pressure to act loyally that they have to defend whatever Rome orders.” (Otto Hermann Presch)
” “pro multis” really means the “for the multitude,” that is, everyone, or if you like, “for all.””
Just having some fun with Latin to English translators on the web.
http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Latin&to=English
This one translates “pro multis” as “for many”.
It translates “for all” as “pro totus”
“For many” comes out “pro plures”
“For the multitude” generates “pro vulgus” (“for the rabble” give the same)
“For everyone” = “pro sulum”
“For the people” is “pro populus”
This is harder than I thought.
“Here you go.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/07/and-with-your-recognitio.html”
Rita, this report from Rocco indicates that what the US bishops approved and submitted was given the recognitio by Rome. That seems to fit the narrative I’ve been recounting in these discussions.
Thinking about your earlier rejoinder to me, I realized you may have been referring to the fact that “Christ has died …” has been dropped (something I wasn’t aware of until you reported it). I’m not happy about that; it’s by far the most-used Memorial Acclamation around here. Pastorally, its deletion is going to be a problem. (Well, “problem” in the sense of, “parishes will just continue to use an acclamation, even though it’s not in the official book anymore”. I won’t lose any sleep over that problem, and I don’t think anyone else here will, either).
Also, as we’ve both mentioned, some of the antiphons apparently were given the recognitio without the bishops approval. I’m not happy about that, either, and believe we’re owed an explanation.
Btw, my new friend the Latin-English dictionary tells me that “for numerous” = “pro multiplex”. That’s the closest I’ve come to “pro multis”, using all of the synonyms for “many” found in MS Word.
From this scientific study I conclude that “for many” is as reasonable a translation of “pro multis” as “for all” – possibly even more so.
I’ve just read the link to the USCCB site that Susan Gannon provided. It talks about “et cum spiritu tuo.”
When I got to the phrase “the general human patrimony” I was sure that the cookoo birds were in full flight!
Folks, I’ll shut up now. This Roman move is either a naked power play or the work of people who live in some other universe.
May the blessings of this Advent prevail for all of us.
Whether any one of you likes the new translation or not, I think it’s pretty clear to anyone whose being honest about things that there are certain improvements in it. Any individual might prefer different phraseology, but the Pope is charged as the guardian of our faith and he was within his rightful authority to push for revisions to correct certain problems with the ICEL’s translations.
Calling the Holy See “Philistine” for making its best efforts to ensure that people have accurate language in the Mass is completely inappropriate and uncalled-for. Quit it with the sour grapes and try to take these translations as an opportunity. At very least, they present a great opportunity for catachesis, explaining to people who otherwise wouldn’t have given the words of the Mass much thought exactly why certain words were chosen and what those words mean.
Mike M, you don’t seem to be au courant with all the aspects of the affair. I do not weary of discussing this because I find every corner of the affair extremely instructive. Even the nitty-gritty details of the translation are revealing of a whole pastoral, theological and literary mentality that is best described as philistine — like the ideas of the tone-deaf on music or the “I know what I like” school of art criticism. “There are certain improvements” in the new translation — perhaps, but in the case of the most important part, the ordo missae, these are few and far between, while the disimprovements stick out glaringly.
Jim, for me the “all” referred to are the ones described in the reading from Revelations a few weeks ago:
After this I had a vision of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue.
They stood before the throne and before the Lamb,
wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands.
They cried out in a loud voice:
“Salvation comes from our God, who is seated on the throne,
and from the Lamb.”
In my mind this multitude is the “pro multis” in question.
When you say: “His blood will be shed for all”, you are dropping to notion that this refers to many, many, many people, and the awe at the number of people that that represents.
When you say: “His blood will be shed for many”, in plain English that means some large number but not everyone, otherwise you would just say it (Would you say, at a large family reunion, “I invited many family members” instead of “I invited all family members”? No, never. If you wanted to convey the large numbers involved, you would word it differently). You can explain all you want — explanations are just a way to distort the straightforward meaning and implications of the word “many”. It would be different (ugly in style, but more accurate in meaning) if the proposed translation said “His blood will be shed for many, many, many”, and it would not be quite as bad if the translation said “His blood will be shed for the multitude”.
Not being a native English speaker, I’ll be glad to hear if my opinion is incorrect.
This is dangerous because we gradually shape our understanding of our faith from the words of the Mass, and over time this will change people’s perception. With the new translation, in one generation many people will be convinced that Christ shed his blood for a proper subset of human beings and they will start arguing about it.
Infants can’t sin, so it seems to me that Jedis didnt t die for them. If this is true, then saying that Jesus died for the many (not all) makes perferctly good sense.
That wasn’t t clear — I should have said “those who died in infancy could not have sinned”.
It is claimed that Jesus died even for his immaculate mother, preemptively freeing her from the taint of original sin.
Sin, atonement, yes, difficult concepts. We feel their still powerful pertinence but our convenient old ways of thinking about them are creaky and inadequate.
The current translations do not play down sin, but they avoid a fustian language that in the name of rubbing in our sinfulness actually reduced sin to a stage trapping. “Through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault” is far less convincing a confession of sin than “through my own fault”.
Claire, your reasoning and grasp of English usage is perfect. Thank you for your lucid and convincing post.
If we are now obliged to recite “for many” does this not mean that the faithful will be absorbing the Jansenistic view that Christ died not for everyone but only for the elect? Clement XI’s Unigenitus in 1713, condemning Quesnel, was supposed to put an end to this. Are we to suspect that there are moles of Jansenism at work in the Vatican?
I asked that question about Jansenism flippantly. But now looking up the Bull of 1713 on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unigenitus I am beginnng to wonder if there are not really some diehard Jansenists in the Vatican. We have seen them bend over backward to humor the Lefebvrites, who hold archaic views on religious freedom and Judaism (in contradiction with Vatican II). Why would it be surprising if they also had a petit faible for the Jansenists as well?
Claire,
Thank you for your excellent comment.
Father O’Leary,
I agree too that “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” is just a rattle of words. “Through my own fault” is so much stronger. (And many people have trouble with the word “grievous.” It often comes out “grievious.”) This is a small but telling example of where literalism takes us.
Nor am I happy with “I have sinned GREATLY” (emphasis supplied) in the same text (the Confiteor). Yes, the Latin has “nimis,” but this is rhetorical hyperbole. How many people gathered for the Eucharist sin greatly? We all sin, even daily. But greatly? I don’t want to see a return to scrupulosity. It ruined a great part of my young life.
As has been pointed out more than once and as everyone–well at least many–have long known it is the teaching of the church that Christ died for all. (I think I first learned this many years ago from reading Graham Green.)
That is why the formula used the current translation says “for all”. It is dogmatically perfect, but it is not in the accounts of the Lord’s supper in the NT. If it were, we would have “hyper pantwn” (using W for omega), instead of “hyper pollwn” which most would take to mean “for many”. The translation “for the many” which has been proposed is not supported by the text. It would require “hyper twn pollwn”.
As I pointed out above Luke simply says “for you”–so also Paul in the oldest written account of the occasion. Surely that cannot be translated as “for all”. It is the Mark/Matthew tradition–here I think the common view is still that Matthew is copying Mark–which says “for many” but does not say “for you”. The formula in the ordo is a conflation! What did Jesus actually say? Do we know? Whatever the actual words, I conjecture that the point he was making is that he was about to give his life for others, any further specification being illustrative rather than definitive Is there a way to get this point across without getting too far from the words of the NT? How about something like “for you and not only for you” or “for you and for others”? Or we could be really radical and and deflate the formula to “pro vobis” and leave out the “pro multis” of the Mark/Matthew tradition.
If the sense of sin were increased by the current formula, one might have expected that the current translation would have led the faithful to avail themselves of sacramental confession to a greater extent in the past forty years.
As to the breast beating, it is not part of our culture any more than rolling around on the ground is to express sorrow or kissing people we don’t now to wish them well. It is one thing to understand a symbolic gesture, another to feel it as part of one’s gestural vocabulary. Also odd is the hand raising gesture that some priests use with “lift up your hearts”. One wants to giggle, but one thinks better of it.
Sue has just pointed out to me that the Apostic Tradition now ascribed to St. Hippolytus (early third century) simply has “for you”!
Claire, yes, I completely agree with you. The beautiful reflection you provided is the sort of thing that we should be hearing from our pulpits.
FWIW, Romans 5:18-19 conveys the notion that Jesus dies for all:
18
In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.
19
For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.
Note St. Jerome’s Latin in this passage, including his seemingly equivalent use of “omnes” in v. 18 and “multi” in v. 19:
18
igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae
19
sicut enim per inoboedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi ita et per unius oboeditionem iusti constituentur multi
“With the new translation, in one generation many people will be convinced that Christ shed his blood for a proper subset of human beings and they will start arguing about it.”
The words “pro multis” were spoken (silently, it is true) for many generations, and the missals that worshippers brought with them to mass always translated it “for many”. And indeed there were arguments about the subset it referred to. One famous priest in the Boston area was upbraided by the Vatican for teaching that only Catholics can be saved.
We’ve had “for all” prayed, aloud, for a couple of generations now – and questionable opinions have grown up around that as well. There are many folks (some who comment here) who believe that everyone is saved, no matter what. Surely that is more simplistic than what the church believes.
Do we need faith in order to be saved? Do we need to be baptized in order to be saved? Is the church necessary for salvation in some way? These are complex and even controverial issues. And in the midst of it, we have a normative text, in Latin, which we believe is an important repository and transmitter of the content of our faith. Volumes could be written about what “pro multis” means. And yet our translators are given two words to capture its meaning. Which two words are the right ones?
Jim:
In the NAB translation: “Rom 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous” there is something odd. In the Greek there are definite articles before each occurrence of “one” and I have taken the liberty of inserting the articles above in angle brackets. Joseph A. Fitzmyer SJ omits all the definite articles in his translation in the Anchor Bible and writes simply “one…many…one…many”. This is probably correct but I cannot find an exact parallel. In Greek “the many” by itelf tends to mean “the ordinary run of humanity”, but that does not seem to fit the present context. It never means simply “all”.
Jim, saying Jesus died for all (good Catholic doctrine) doesn’t take a position on whether all will be saved. Questionable opinions on the likelihood of one’s own salvation or that of others no doubt abound, and are easy to come by. It is safer to leave such questions to the mercy and justice of God.
I always liked the reply of Joan of Arc to the ecclesiastics who were badgering her at her trial. They asked her whether she was in the state of grace, obviously a trick question: say “no and you are in trouble, say “yes” and you are also in trouble for presumption. She said something to the effect that if she was, she hoped God would keep her there, and if she wasn’t that he would put her there. I think that was a wise answer.
As with other liturgy threads, I suspect this one will go on and on with many discssions of specific texts/translations.
I hav ea general question about the word “normative” used by several here.
Is this a canonical usage and as such does it contribute to the the tension between canonical legalese and pastoral exceptionalism, and, if so, should it be a startin gpoint in the discussion?
I believe it was Geoffrey Wainwright who made the following helpful distinction: The All who are Many (in the sense of the multitude of ethnicities) rather than the Many who are Not All (n the sense of the number to be saved).
Fr. O’Leary and John Page:
I couldn’t agree more about the breast beating and exaggerated language. There is something stagy and almost operatically over the top about the gesture and the wording. In our culture we don’t rend our garments or tear our hair or beat our breasts when expressing utterly sincere sorrow in ordinary life. Why should we be required to do so at mass?
Americans haven’t engaged in group singing for fifty years, except at church. Should we therefore stop singing at mass?
Bob,
I believe I was the one to first use the word “normative” here. I meant it in a textual sense. There might be a few different editions of any document, one of which is considered the most authoritative.
The canonical expression is “editio typica”.
“I couldn’t agree more about the breast beating and exaggerated language. There is something stagy and almost operatically over the top about the gesture and the wording. In our culture we don’t rend our garments or tear our hair or beat our breasts when expressing utterly sincere sorrow in ordinary life.”
That’s true. On the other hand, in America we abuse prescription drugs, or cut ourselves, or become depressed.
It really is, on some ways, a *Roman* Rite, and many other cultures, not just ours, has to figure out how to make it real.
Jim
Uniformity is not a requirement for membership in the universal Church. If the Roman Rite is inflexible–and I do not see why it should be–then we need more rites–but flexibility is much to be preferred.
On pro multis the article by M. Zerwick, S. J., philologist and biblical scholar, (Pro Vobis et Pro Multis Effundetur) shows the rich biblical tradition that lies behind pro multis and how it may be translated. He clarifies a lot in this article:
http://www.americancatholicpress.org/Father_Zerwick_Pro_Multis.html
That’s why we have several articles (37-40) in the Constitution on the Liturgy as well as the 1994 Roman Instruction Varietates Legitimae that deal with inculturation in the liturgy.
Sorry. I should have made clear that I was replying to Jim’s comment at 2:39 pm.
Per Susan: “.. I couldn’t agree more about the breast beating and exaggerated language. There is something stagy and almost operatically over the top about the gesture and the wording. In our culture we don’t rend our garments or tear our hair or beat our breasts when expressing utterly sincere sorrow in ordinary life. Why should we be required to do so at mass?”
————————————-
Well if one is going to get into critiquing exaggerated gestures, I think it bestto start with the more recent ones. I still cringe when I see people forcing the arms-outstretched in prayer during the Our Father or other responses.
It is like:
Priest – “The Lord be with you”
People – (raise arms quickly) “And also with you” (lower arms quickly)
This robotic and fast and for most folks, forced routine goes on for how ever many times the priest say “Lord be with you”. Honestly sometimes people look like little tin soldiers or jack-in-box toys. Oh well, the new response of “and with your spirit” is a longer, and so those folks will be able to move a bit slower and that might help the gesture appear a bit less comedic.
As for the old “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”, has been around for probably a thousand years. Sure it is a bit operatic and over the top, but then Italians and other Mediterranean peoples and cultures tend to be over the top. Generally speaking they are very emotional, dramatic and artistic, and frankly, the Roman Catholic Church has been more heavily influenced by the more emotional, dramatic and artistic Mediterranean (i.e. the Latin and Latino) cultures than by anything else.
Please help me understand you Susan; are you saying then, that Latin cultural influences are bad, or at best are ridiculous and in any case should be discouraged?
Alan C. Mitchell
I find Fr. Zerwick’s article most helpful in explaining why we find “many” where we might expect to find “all”, i.e., where “many” is not in any way meant to imply “many but not all”. The reference to the Suffering Servant passage as background seems very much to the point. The passages Rom 5:15ff., perhaps, combine Semitic idiom with Greek rhetoric to exploit the possibilities of a one-many contrast.
Sorry for the delay in responding to Jim P’s post at 5:15 pm. I do think that the point concerning what the bishops did and what Rome did is important.
The relevant passage in the Palmo link, Jim, is this: “Comprising the standard set of prayers used at each Eucharist (Gloria, Creed, Eucharistic Prayers, dialogues, etc.), the USCCB approved OM1 at its Spring 2006 meeting in Los Angeles, but only after a number of amendments were accepted to secure the assent of skeptical pockets among the bishops. As similar amendments were submitted to Rome by each conference, and considering the Holy See’s firm intent that, in a change from current practice, the new translations be precisely the same across the English-speaking world, the “guts” of what’s actually been approved — i.e. the dews and consubstantials of things… not to mention the precious chalices — remain to be seen.”
I am sorry I don’t have a link for the list of amendments. I’ve read about them in journalistic accounts from 2006, which are necessarily incomplete, and therefore I can only provide you with illustrative examples rather than a complete list. They were numerous. 174 amendments were proposed. The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy sifted through them and proposed about a dozen for acceptance. They were accepted. Among them were: saying “for all” rather than “for many;” and saying “one in being,” rather than “consubstantial.” These changes were voted in by the bishops. This means that the text they voted on included these changes. But that is NOT the text that was approved.
The memorial acclamation “Christ has died…” falls under the heading of American adaptations (rather than amendments of an existing ICEL text). All of the American adaptations were also approved by vote, by the bishops, but I believe that none appear in the text that was returned from Rome.
Here is a link to the text that was given the recognitio: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/OrdoMissaeWhiteBook.pdf
Also—just to clarify—the Latin antiphons were given over Rome to translate into English without the bishops’ approval. It’s not a question of a recognitio from Rome being given for a text already voted on by the American bishops, but of the entire project being handed over by Cardinal George, on behalf of the bishops, but without their permission. By doing this, George has, in effect, promised that the US bishops will accept any translation Rome makes of them, sight unseen.
If I may add to Rita’s comments – the role of your dear Cardinal goes back to the end of the ICEL as most of us knew it:
“…….in 1996 the finishing touches put to our definitive new translation of the revised Roman Missal and its despatch to the conferences so that, as long as each had taken its formal canonical vote and the necessary majority had been obtained, the conference could then seek Rome’s confirmation. In addition, we continued with work on a number of other liturgical books – some revised translations, some translations of new books issued by Rome. But during all my time in office, we were aware of the increasing hostility of the Congregation for Divine Worship. There were various demands for changes to which we attempted to respond appropriately; but the threatening situation induced in us a growing fear for the very existence of the international commission.
For example, a translation of the revised Latin edition of The Rites of Ordination of a Bishop, of Priests and of Deacons was done. When the translation, approved by English-speaking conferences of bishops, was sent to Rome for confirmation, the response (20th September 1997) came back in very scathing terms. The translation was deemed full of unacceptable elements: errors, liberties taken with the original Latin text, unlawful changes etc. Not only was the congregation’s confirmation denied, but the peremptory and unfriendly tone of the response was unprecedented and ominous.
There was an important player in the developing situation. When ICEL chairman Archbishop Pilarczyk left office, he also retired from ICEL. He was succeeded, as the United States member of the Episcopal Board, by Cardinal Francis E. George O.M.I., the newly appointed archbishop of Chicago. Although he became a member of the Episcopal Board in 1997, the first meeting which he was able to attend was in summer of 1998, a few months after he had been made a cardinal.
Cardinal George arrived at that meeting straight from Rome. His message to the other bishops, members of the board, was stark and dramatic: if ICEL did not change radically, it was finished. Rome, he said, was very dissatisfied and its patience was not inexhaustible; moreover, the United States bishops felt that the revised missal had already been too long in its preparation. They wanted texts and, if ICEL could not oblige, they might leave the commission and provide their own translations.
Cardinal George’s statement to the Episcopal Board produced very mixed, but strong, reactions – dismay, fear, anger. Apart from the dissatisfaction of Rome, the threat of United States withdrawal from ICEL was rightly seen, if it were to happen, as the end of the international commission. The United States’ importance and influence in the commission (because of the size of the Church there) were far greater than those of any other bishops’ conference. The rest could not possibly operate as an international commission without the United States, especially if the latter were operating as an alternative commission.
The Episcopal Board took a very serious view of the situation. Felt vulnerable, maligned and unjustly treated but, in the dire circumstances, knew that something would have to be done. What had to be done was not easy to decide. Just how radical were the demands being made came in a letter from Cardinal Medina and dated 26th October 1999; informing that “certain steps” which his letter required to be taken by ICEL would render earlier Rome-ICEL communications methods unnecessary at that time; and, in fact, he added, such meetings between the congregation and the commission had no formal basis and were of doubtful feasibility. His message, couched in diplomatically courteous language, clearly rebuffed ICEL.
The cardinal’s letter went on to speak of “the gravity of the present situation of the Mixed Commission” (the congregation seemed reluctant to use the words “International Commission on English in the Liturgy” or even “ICEL”) and adduced a number of examples to illustrate his assertion.
The behind the back manuveurs have been going on for over 10 years.
An excellent post by Bill!
I just want to add that running through the discussion not onl yhere, but also recent important threads about liturgy and theological investigation/methodoogoy and how it is treated, is the question of how Rome operates directly and through its hierachy here.
The Romanita system continues at best to be divisive and as at worse, as a friend recently wrote severalof us, an obstacle to his salvation.
The systemic change needs to begin not in doingf away with abolishing bishops conferences bt in a sea change in the operation of the curia and establishing a real place for the voices of the laity to be heard.
Ken, the Instruction “Varietatis Legitimae” mentioned by John Page, above, is all about inculturation in the liturgy and has some interesting comments on the way the gestures of the faithful might appropriately vary in different cultural circumstances:
“The gestures and postures of the assembly are signs of its unity and express its active participation and foster the spiritual attitude of the participants.[89] Each culture will choose those gestures and bodily postures which express the attitude of humanity before God, giving them a Christian significance, having some relationship if possible, with the gestures and postures of the Bible.”
Notice, though, the tentativeness of that “some relationship if possible.” We aren’t living in ancient Palestine. Kneeling, standing, bowing of heads do seem to me to have for Americans the same sort of meaning they had in Bible times. Breast-beating doesn’t seem to be a natural, sincere gesture to most people in 2009, at least not here in the leafy hills of the Hudson Valley. (That is not to say that in some traditionalist group or religious order accustomed to such actions as part of their tradition it might not be felt as genuine. More power to them, then. For those to whom it is a natural gesture, I see no reason to deny them the option. ) The problem is the mandating of a practice– for a whole nation– that many people would feel to be a false, affected gesture, quite inappropriate when asking humble forgiveness for their very real faults.
“That’s why we have several articles (37-40) in the Constitution on the Liturgy as well as the 1994 Roman Instruction Varietates Legitimae that deal with inculturation in the liturgy.”
Sure. Nevertheless, I question the premise that, because Americans don’t unthinkingly beat their breasts at time of penitance and grief in their everyday lives, it follows that it’s somehow so strange to us that it should be eliminated. That would be so even if many generations of Americans, including a lot of folks still living today, have done it countless times in Catholic worship. Or if ‘mea culpa … mea maxima culpa’ hadn’t entered the vernacular as a way of expressing culpability for anything from crashing the car to dropping the coffeepot.
At the very least, I’d think the default assumption should be to say and do what the text stipulates, unless there is a strong cultural reason not to. Stronger than, ‘we don’t usually do that’. Now, if beating one’s breast was a sign of joy in our culture, or sexual attraction …
As I also commented above, group singing is strange for most of us in the office or the home, yet we’re exhorted to do it with gusto in church. It seems that there are things we do in ritual worship that are not the same as our routine daily activities.
Hi, Rita, thanks for the clarification. I think the Palma post was written before the shoe had actually dropped.
It’s all troubling, or at least open to investigation. If the bishops sent “for all” and Rome sent back “consubstantial”, then istm the bishops should be given a chance to reconsider “consubstantial”. Or, they can appoint some negotiators who are empowered to come to agreement on their behalf. I believe that’s how it worked when the Lectionary was being revised: Rome didn’t agree with a few details of what the US bishops had submitted, so the US bishops appointed a committee who met with Rome and they hammered it out. Are we certain something similar didn’t happen in these recent instances?
The fact that the bishops submitted only a handful of amendments when what was needed was as assessment of the entire text shows the superficiality of the bishops’ involvement. As far as I know, the whole idea of “negotiators” is baseless; negotiation happens between parties who have some relative autonomy; in the case of the new liturgical translations the bishops have no autonomy relative to the Vatican; they are simply asked to send observations and propose amendments to the text Rome has decided on, and then these amendments are accepted or rejected as Rome decides. Had any episcopal conference rejected the translations in toto, I presume this would be interpreted as a hostile act by Rome.
The situation seems to have been the opposite when the current translations were proposed; then it was the bishops who took charge of the translations, as Vatican II prescribed, and Rome who made objections. The coup by which Rome took charge of liturgical translations in 1998 is a hubristic act that will meet its nemesis when the translations are exposed to the faithful.
Jim Pauwels are you mixing up For all and Consubstantial?
“homoousios to patri” means “of the same substance as the Father”; “of the same being as the Father”; Nicea clarified that the Son is “from the substance/being of the Father” (ek tes ousias tou Patrou). The precise meaning of the term has never been clear.
My problem with the new translation is not just with the Order of the Mass but also with the presidential prayers. We may get used to the new texts for the former, but the latter will be new week by week.
Here are the texts for the Vigil of Christmas, in the Latin of the Missale Romanum, in the old ICEL of the Sacramentary, and in the new ICEL of the Roman Missal (these last may have been adjusted before they were sent to Rome but this is what the US bishops worked on).
I have studied these translations side by side (and with the Spanish of the Mexican Misal Romano) for many Sundays, solemnities, and feasts. What follows is not particularly egregious; but presiders will have to practice (not a bad thing) praying them aloud and, even at that, the assembly might find themselves not praying but asking, “What did he just say?”
Pay particular attention to the prayer after communion. Far too many leave me scratching my head after many read-throughs and comparing with the original.
Ad Missam in Vigilia
Collecta
Deus, qui nos redemptionis nostrae
annua exspectatione laetificas,
praesta, ut Unigenitum tuum,
quem laeti suscipimus Redemptorem,
venientem quoque Iudicem securi videre mereamur
Dominum nostrum, Iesum Christum.
Qui tecum.
Super oblata
Tanto nos, Domine, quaesumus,
promptiore servitio haec praecurrere concede sollemnia,
quanto in his constare principium
nostrae redemptionis ostendis.
Per Christum.
Post communionem
Da nobis, quaesumus, Domine,
unigeniti Filii tui recensita nativitate vegetari,
cuius caelesti mysterio
pascimur et potamur.
Qui vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.
Opening Prayer (old ICEL)
God our Father,
every year we rejoice
as we look forward to this feast of our salvation.
May we welcome Christ as our Redeemer,
and meet him with confidence when he comes to be our judge,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
Prayer over the Gifts (old ICEL)
Lord,
as we keep tonight the vigil of Christmas,
may we celebrate this eucharist
with greater joy than ever
since it marks the beginning of our redemption.
We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord.
Prayer after Communion (old ICEL)
Father,
we ask you to give us a new birth
as we celebrate the beginning
of your Son’s life on earth.
Strengthen us in spirit
as we take your food and drink.
Grant this through Christ our Lord.
Collect (new ICEL)
O God, who gladden us year by year
as we wait in hope for our redemption,
grant that we who joyfully receive
your Only-Begotten Son as Redeemer
may also be able to face him confidently
when he comes as Judge.
Who . . .
Prayer over the Offerings (new ICEL)
Grant us, Lord, we pray,
that as we welcome this festive season,
we may serve you all the more eagerly
for knowing that you reveal therein
the beginning of our redemption.
Through Christ our Lord.
Prayer after Communion (new ICEL)
Grant, we pray, O Lord, that we may be nourished
as we celebrate anew the birth of your Only-Begotten Son,
by means of whose heavenly mystery
we are given food and drink.
Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.
I write without any documents to refresh fading memory. The history of the discussions over the Lectionary for Mass that went on between Rome and the US bishops in the mid/late 1990s is very complex. The first US committe to go over to Rome for “talks” was made up of bishops, including bishops with Scripture degrees, and experts appointed by the conference. Rome wasn’t happy with those sessions.The second time round, Rome appointed the (arch)bishops, none with a Scripture background, and its own American (one Maltese) experts based in Rome. The result was the 1998/2002 (Sundays,then weekdays) Lectionary now in use. This was greeted with so many evidences of dissatisfaction that the bishops, faced with so much criticism, initiated a survey sent to each diocese to invite reactions to the Lectionary texts. These reactions were collated with a view to revising many words, phrases, overlong sentences in the present Lectionary. What is holding up a revised revised Lectionary is the incorporation of the two decades of work of revising the NAB Old Testament translation by teams of dedicated scholars. That work is largely finished. So, we will in the next few years have another new Lectionary, and this for two reasons. 1. To incorporate the revised Old Testament pericopes or passages that are used in the Lectionary; 2. to remedy the many stylistic faults in the present Lectionary. (Any knowledgeable reader — priest, deacon, religious, lay — can readily provide a list. Look for instance at the second reading [Paul to Titus] for the Christmas Mass at Midnight.) Is there a cautionary tale here?
“Jim Pauwels are you mixing up For all and Consubstantial?”
I apologize the carelessness.
… and insert “for” in the appropriate place in the previous comment!
Paul, I agree that simple, short declarative sentences are more suitable for public proclamation. I can see that the more complex syntax of the new translation will challenge priests to proclaim them well. (Worth keeping in mind that a larger number of our priests do not speak English as a first language).
It’s quite interesting how different the old and new are. For example, in the prayer after communion example you presented, in the old we *take* the food and drink, whereas in the new we are given them by the only-begotten Son. I can’t wade through the Latin well enough to tell which is the better sense of the original, but the theology between the two translations seems different.
In the prayer over the gifts, the old asks that we celebrate with joy, whereas the new asks that we be able to serve eagerly – really not the same thing. The former is attending a Christmas party, whereas the latter is volunteering at the soup kitchen on Christmas afternoon.
The old opening prayer asks that we be able to *meet* the judge confidently, whereas the new asks that we be able to *face* him confidently. Meeting a judge may take place in chambers or at Starbucks, whereas facing him summons, to my mind anyway, the image of God on the bench and me in the dock. Again, two quite different notions operating here, seemingly, of our relationship with God.
“Grant us, Lord, we pray,
that as we welcome this festive season,
we may serve you all the more eagerly
for knowing that you reveal therein
the beginning of our redemption.”
“serve you all the more eagerly for knowing” — is this good English? The Latin has nothing about “knowing”.
“therein” referring to a time (“Festive season”) is very odd as well. In the Latin the reference of “in his” is to “sollemnia”.
“Grant, we pray, O Lord, that we may be nourished
as we celebrate anew the birth of your Only-Begotten Son,
by means of whose heavenly mystery
we are given food and drink.”
“by whose heavenly mystery we are nourished and refreshed” would be better, changing the first “be nourished” to “thrive” or “be fortified”.
The Latin of the Collect has “Securi videre” — “see” (the judge).
The Latin has “mereamur” — “that we may merit” — which the new translation make “that we may be able” (anxious to avoid Pelagianism the new ICEL translations systematically translate mereri in this way).
Paul,
Based on the criterion of “prayerfulness,” the presidential prayers you cite make a strong case for the “new ICEL,” I think.
“O God, come to my assistance.” Most prayers of the day begin with this invocation, which is a recognition of our need for God’s help before we can begin to pray, and a hopefully efficacious invocation of God, that he will do this that. This recognition is explicit in the new ICEL and toned down in the old ICEL.
In the first two prayers (collect and offertory) the difference is most notable in the formula of asking. Instead of the petitionarily weak “may we,” the new ICEL has “grant that we.” The old asks to be allowed to have a good disposition; the new asks for the gift of the good disposition.
The difference is primarily one of intimacy and dependence. Does our very prayer, our life breath, our sharing in the Spirit, depend moment by moment on the grace of God–or not?
The post-Communion in the old ICEL is virtually unrecognizable as a translation of the Latin. The “spin”–on Christmas–is quite blatantly towards a low Christology.
“The fact that the bishops submitted only a handful of amendments when what was needed was as assessment of the entire text shows the superficiality of the bishops’ involvement … Had any episcopal conference rejected the translations in toto, I presume this would be interpreted as a hostile act by Rome.”
No doubt.
One of my theories as an observer is that the bishops are quite divided on liturgical issues, and consequently they are not able to take a definitive stand, on either side of a controversial issue. If they had rejected the new translation by, say, 250-10, Rome would have not been pleased, but it also would have had no choice except to sit up and take notice. As it is, though, the American bishops couldn’t summon enough of a consensus to pass some of these texts at their meetings – they had to mail out absentee ballots to reach the critical number of votes. Their division works to the advantage of the reform-the-reformers in this case.
I don’t think the issue of avoiding Pelagianism is something to be downplayed.
Heresies are heresies because they distort truths about the faith, especially truths about relationships. Pelagians deny a certain kind of intimacy and dependence that we have on God.
Jim – those same bishops are appointed by the same small minority in Rome. Why do you think we are at this point in which George and company merely pass the buck?
They owe their positions to Rome; their allegiance, etc. and they have sold the church down the river.
Kathy, all agree that the current collects, secrets and postcommunions are unprayerful sawdust. The 1998 replacements, dumped by the Vatican, were apparently excellent. The new proposals seem to have the same problematic qualities as noted in the Ordo Missae.
Of course Pelagianism is to be avoided. But the alleged literal translations look in this case like a theological correction of what the Latin says. It may, however, be argued that “mereri” has a different range of meaning from “merit” in English, just as “justus” has a different range of meaning from “just” in English.
Paul Ford has provided a great service by presenting the Latin for The Vigil of Christmas and the 1973 ICEL translations of same, as well as the (2011?) versions prepared by the re-founded ICEL. It may be of interest to some to see how the lost version of 1998 (the then ICEL’s revision of 1973) handled these same prayers.
OPENING PRAYER
Eternal God,
every year you gladden our hearts
by renewing our hope of redemption;
grant that we who accept your only Son as our Redeemer
may face him with confidence as our Judge,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.
PRAYER OVER THE GIFTS
Lord,
make are hearts more ready
to observe the solemn vigil,
for you teach us to see in these myteries
the beginning of our redemption.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.
PRAYER AFTER COMMUNION
Give us new life, Lord God,
as we celebrate the birth of your only Son,
who in this heavenly sacrament
has become our food and drink.
We ask this in the name of Jesus, the Lord.
The 1998 Missal also provided 400 prayers originally composed in English, especially for Sundays and Solemnities. The inspiration for these prayers was the day’s Scripture readings, particularly the Gospel. (The 1973 Missal provides Alternative Opening Prayers, composed in English for Sundays and Solemnities. They are not Scripture-related but rather are expansions on the Latin collect of the day. Many priests use them. They will not be found in the coming Missal, nor it appears will any originally-composed texts. This seems a great step backwards. Liturgiam authenticam allows such newly-composed prayers as long as they come directly from each conference, not ICEL. Most conferences simply don’t have the resources to prepare original prayers. The US does, but chose not to. I am not sure whether the posibility was even considered in the desire to please Rome’s insistence on a new Missal as soon as possible.
The original Opening Prayer provided for the Christmas Vigil Mass in the 1998 text reads:
God of Abraham and Sarah,
of David and his descendants,
unwearied is your love for us
and steadfast your covenant;
wonderful beyond words
is your gift of the Savior,
born of the Virgin Mary.
Count us among the people in whom you delight,
and by this night’s marriage of earth and heaven
draw all generations into the embrace of your love.
We ask this through Jesus Christ, your Word made flesh,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.
One further example of these newly-composed texts, in this case for the Christmas Mass at Midnight:
Good and gracious God,
on this holy night you gave us your Son,
the Lord of the universe, wrapped in swaddling clothes,
the Savior of all, lying in a manger.
On this holy night
draw us into the mystery of your love.
Join our voices with the heavenly host,
that we may sing your glory on high.
Give us a place among the shepherds,
that we may find the one for whom we have waited,
Jesus Christ, your Word made flesh,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
in the splendor of eternal light,
God for ever and ever.
Correction in the Prayer over the Gifts, line 2: For “the solemn vigil” READ “this solemn vigil”
The 1998 texts and the prayers originally composed in English are clearly just what is required. They shed an unflattering light on the efforts of the new ICEL. Where can we find the full texts of the 1998 prayers?
John, I haven’t seen any of the 1998 prayers before, and the examples you provide–the translations, which keep God at a distance, and the long, admirably scriptural but theologically weak newly-composed collects–show very clearly that the 1998 translation would have been rightly rejected on theological grounds.
Up till now, based on others’ accounts, I have doubted whether the rejection was simply political. It is not. It has to do with the theological and spiritual basis of our religion.
Dr. Page – other than some ignoring your years of work and experts weighing in on the translations plus taking the documents points about incultration, not sure you will ever convince a few self appointed experts on the exceptionalism of the 1998 translations (and this from some who have never even read them much less the various instructions over the years in which the ICEL explained how and why they choose to translate in various ways).
It always amazes me how some can take a few sections out of context and reach a sweeping conclusion. The grace of the church’s liturgy is that it is both/and not just top down or vertical only or “sacral” only – depending upon how one chooses to interpret that word.
Bill,
The problem here is not verticality, but the limits set on immanence.
Kathy
You say that the translations that John Page has provided “keep God at a distance”; I am not sure what you mean by that, much less what criteria you use in arriving at your conclusion. You need to provide a thoroughgoing analytical commentary if you expect to be convincing.
Fair enough. I hope to provide such a commentary as soon as I can. I apologize for being brief at the moment but other duties loom.
The first comment I would make has to do with decision to translate qui with you. “God, you do…” rather than “God, who do…”
In the Latin, expressions such as “qui nos redemptionis nostrae
annua exspectatione laetificas” say something about our relationship with God without leaving the vocative. The gifts God gives are appositive to Him. The old ICEL and the 1998 ICEL immediately slip into 2nd person direct discourse. The gifts of God are given in verbal terms, as it were.
That is already a distancing. We go from a kind of pillow talk with God to a kind of speech about him, to him.
With the change from qui to you, a very biblical point is lost. Petitions are based on memory. God, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, grant us peace in this new land. The break (in the 1998 collect the break is marked with a semicolon) between God’s past or current blessings and the blessings we ask for, weakens the underlying connection between the two, between gratitude and hope.
Sorry again to be brief. I will write more when possible.
New Missal:
Grant, we pray, O Lord, that we may be nourished
as we celebrate anew the birth of your Only-Begotten Son,
by means of whose heavenly mystery
we are given food and drink.”
Fr O’Leary’s suggestion:
“by whose heavenly mystery we are nourished and refreshed” would be better,
1998 version
who in this heavenly sacrament
has become our food and drink.
My problem is complexity. Why are passive forms being used? Why not:
‘who refreshes us with his heavenly mystery.’
“whose heavenly mystery gives us food and drink.”
“whose heavenly mystery feeds us”
I am not talking about translating Latin, but about simplifying the English.
“By means of whose”? “We are given”? (not to mention “as we celebrate anew”)
Speaking for myself, I have to say that the 1998 texts don’t “keep God at a distance” at all, much less undermine our faith. They invite genuine prayer and contemplation of the mysteries we celebrate. They are also more beautiful. The contrast between these texts and the texts now being proposed is like the contrast between a clean and a dirty window. When one beholds the latter, one is distracted and cannot see through it. Its oddities, awkwardness, and infelicitious use of the English language draw attention to the window, not to the mystery. Half the time, I wish for my Latin text, so I can find out what the prayer in English is “really” saying, because if I knew the Latin at least I’d have a fighting chance at parsing the meaning. The 1998 texts, by contrast, are pelucidly clear. They engage one not as a puzzle but as a clear window through which one is drawn to the light. Through them one might better approach the mystery that is beyond words.
Kathy, the qui clauses have always been a problem. I quite agree. But the solution is not as you propose, nor is the struggle with this issue to be cast as a case of theological truth combatting error. Listen to yourself: “God who do” — does this work, really? No, it does not.
Another point, re Kathy’s observations at 10:34: With all due respect to intimacy with God, none of this is “pillow talk” even by a long shot. I’m floored by the very suggestion, so I have to admit I don’t understand what Kathy is getting at and I’d need an explanation. These are solemn utterances made in the gathered assembly in the most public manner.
The possible didacticism involved in the act of describing God and naming God’s glorious works in these prayers (either by “who” or by “you”) certainly must be fought against by HOW they are proclaimed, it seems to me. Some celebrants do come across as cut and dried, and indeed didactic; I’ve sometimes wondered if some of them wouldn’t be better employed by the railroads than by the church. :) But I think this will happen even moreso with the new translations, when the priests themselves will be struggling to hold together all those long and complex sentences.
WHAT???
Subordinate “who” clauses are intimate? You would use them in “pillow talk” rather than directly addressing your partner? I can’t even imagine it. “Clara, who took the garbage out, please…” Even leaving aside that my wife’s response would be “ME! I took…”, I cannot conceive of an instance for such usage.
Direct address is the epitome of intimacy. It establishes God as having done something for which I am grateful, not simply something I remember.
I often address my wife directly.
So now I can spend the day contemplating how to use a who clause with my wife without sounding ridiculous. “Clara, who is going to the movies with me…” Hopefully, I will discover how wrong I am about all this.
Railroads. Good one. Seriously.
I will have to explain pillow talk later. For now, let me just say that the idea that I’m worried about being lost is the immanence of the transcendent God–the living, majestic God who is closer to us than we are to ourselves, and a more active agent of all our good activities than we are ourselves.
The qui formula of “who” survives in two of the devotional prayers, the closing prayer of the rosary and of the Angelus, and they seem to go over okay with the people.
Jim McK, I haven’t researched the prayer in question to see what historical basis might exist for any particular interpretation, but the 1998 translation does point in the direction of the food and drink being the sacrament of the Eucharist. I am assuming this is a researched point, although of course there may be various witnesses in the tradition.
This would mean that a discernment was made on the basis of some facts not in evidence in the prayer itself. Gerald Moore’s study on the collects of the 1970 Missal offers some good illustrations of how the history of the prayers gives one insight into their meaning and direction.
In short, it’s not enough–or it was not thought to be enough, before Liturgiam Authenticam–to merely render the Latin word-for-word. One had to know where the prayer came from, and what it meant, in order to have a true representation of that prayer in English. Felicity of English style is important, but it takes its place alongside an appreciation for the historical background of the text.
So the question is properly not just why not simplify, but what is the best understanding of the meaning of this text? Are our hungers and thirsts being satisfied by Eucharist (good liturgical theology), by Christ’s teaching (a Johannine theme, certainly), by the presence of God (cf. ps. 42, the prophets, etc.)?
Yes, Kathy. Good point. The closing prayer of the rosary and the Angelus are two of the sexiest prayers around.
At any rate, the new texts will need to be proclaimed, and soon. Perhaps publishing them in sense-lines, as is done with the Lectionary, would help the priest.
This seems like a fitting moment to acknowledge John Page’s service to all of us. He and his team have given us a prayer text that has fostered my relationship with the Triune God for the last forty years. My entire family – me, my wife, my children – have been formed in the faith by your words, John. It’s difficult to find the words to express our gratitude. Thank you.
“In short, it’s not enough–or it was not thought to be enough, before Liturgiam Authenticam–to merely render the Latin word-for-word. One had to know where the prayer came from, and what it meant, in order to have a true representation of that prayer in English. Felicity of English style is important, but it takes its place alongside an appreciation for the historical background of the text.”
In fairness to Msgr Harbert, his public writings indicate that ICEL has taken these same factors into consideration in the new translation- with the added burden of conforming to Liturgiam Authenticam’s translation principles.
Here is what LA says about it:
“23. In the translation of texts of ecclesiastical composition, while it is useful with the assistance of historical and other scientific tools to consult a source that may have been discovered for the same text, nevertheless it is always the text of the Latin editio typica itself that is to be translated.
Whenever the biblical or liturgical text preserves words taken from other ancient languages (as, for example, the words Alleluia and Amen, the Aramaic words contained in the New Testament, the Greek words drawn from the Trisagion which are recited in the Improperia of Good Friday, and the Kyrie eleison of the Order of Mass, as well as many proper names) consideration should be given to preserving the same words in the new vernacular translation, at least as one option among others. Indeed, a careful respect for the original text will sometimes require that this be done. “
“Jim – those same bishops are appointed by the same small minority in Rome. …They owe their positions to Rome; their allegiance, etc. ”
Sure, it seems reasonable that this is a factor. But if it were the overriding factor, we would expect that the translations would have been approved very quickly and near-unanimously. But that was not the case. As I say, they seem to be divided.
If memory serves me:
Pour forth, we beseech you, O Lord, your grace into our hearts, that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ your Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by his passion and cross be brought to the glory of his resurrection. Through Christ our Lord.
I fail to find a relative clause following the invocation (“Gratiam tuam, quaesumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde, ….”). And, yes, I do change “Thee/Thy” to “you/your” when I say the Angelus. But then I am a modernist, as all here know.
The present ICEL proposes sense lines, continuing the practice begun by ICEL in 1967 with the publication of EP I. Was this ever in doubt? See the examples from present ICEL, given above by Paul Ford.
And now I must get ready for the “O” antiphons
Jim, you are too kind. Kinder than I, for sure. May the Lord who comes give us peace.
Jim,
Regarding pillow talk, a man might say, “Clara, my love” or “Clara, thank you, I love you.” But would he say, “Clara, you generously take out the trash even sometimes when it is my turn.” I’m guessing not.
I can think of times when he might say, “Clara, you are the mother of my children, always by my side. And you have excellent taste in movies.” These would be public occasions, and the expressions would be less intimate, because they are intended for the ears of those outside of the relationship.
Within the relationship, the talk has to take on a character that is closer than a public announcement at an awards ceremony, “You have always…” The relationship, I believe, should be presumed between the congregation and God.
Although I agree that the “who” expression is problematic, since there isn’t a perfect solution, I think we should go with the expression that does not have a perfect mundane counterpart–the “who” expression. Not only because it is in some sense elevated, but because it is appositive. It is personal. What we are trying to express in these prayers is something like, “Clara, warmth of my heart…” “Clara, delight of my soul…”
“…who brought us into being and sustain us with your grace…” That’s what the qui clauses say, each in their own way. They ascribe our own interior activity to God’s agency.
I hope the question about the antiphonary of the new Roman Missal does not get lost.
One of the glories of the 1998 ICEL missal was the antiphonary. Not only did it have fresh, singable translations of the antiphons, but it also included suggestions for psalms and canticles that might be sung together with these antiphons. Having studied this resource for Psallite, I am in awe of the scholarship, both biblical and liturgical, that went into this.
If I were a betting man, I would lay odds that whatever Rome presents us with will not come up to the glory of this resource. Indeed, I predict a list of antiphons alone.
John,
You are right. I was thinking of the prayer beginning, “Come, Holy Spirit.”
Jim P., I’m afraid your post of 12:56 misses my meaning entirely. The paragraph you quote from LA is about variant versions of the same text. What I am talking about is the origin of the thoughts expressed in the texts. Do they relate, for example, to a particular scripture passage, or have a known association with a particular struggle or controversy in the church’s history, and does this in turn help to specify what they mean? For LA, it’s enough that the Latin says “heavenly mysteries.” But perhaps it is a good idea to find out which heavenly mystery we are talking about here, right? I thought my example posted at 11:33 made this clear. We don’t have to belabor it, but since you began your post with a quote from mine, I thought it important to clarify that I was NOT talking about the same thing that LA is addressing in the passage you quoted.
Thank you, Paul Ford, for mentioning the ICEL antiphonary that came with the 1998 translation, which is now buried. Was it the practice then to share these texts with composers then, and do you know if the same will be true of the new translations?
I spoke to someone regretfully about the antiphons being translated without review, and he scoffed at me. “No one uses those,” he said. I begged to differ, and of course should have brought up Psallite. One hopes more people would use the antiphons in the future, but not if they are like this rest of this new translation. It’s indeed one of the ironies of this project that the promotion of the full and authentic use of the Roman Rite–its stated goal–will in all probability actually impede it.
Sorry for the confused final sentence. Here is what I meant to say: It’s indeed one of the ironies of this project that the new translation will actually impede the achievement of its own stated goal–the promotion of the full and authentic use of the Roman Rite.
By the way, did anyone else notice that we are back to being addressed as “brethren” and we now have “bidding prayers”? What is the Latin for “bidding prayers”? Is this perhaps a concession to the Anglicans? It seems anachronistic without any scriptural warrant, and at any rate is obscure to me. Who is bidding whom here?
“What I am talking about is the origin of the thoughts expressed in the texts. Do they relate, for example, to a particular scripture passage, or have a known association with a particular struggle or controversy in the church’s history, and does this in turn help to specify what they mean? For LA, it’s enough that the Latin says “heavenly mysteries.” But perhaps it is a good idea to find out which heavenly mystery we are talking about here, right? ”
Hi, Rita, the passage I posted from LA acknowledges that the translators can/should “find out which heavenly mystery we are talking about”; (it refers to “historic and other scientific tools” to consult “sources” of the prayers, which I take to encompass a much broader range of scholarship and criticism than simply comparing “variant versions of the same text”).
The point would be that these researches should be performed in the service of translating the Latin base text, not overly restricting its meaning or improving upon it via the translation.
A concert pianist who plays a Liszt concerto has a lot of interpretive choices, and can dazzle us with his mastery of the piece, but the notes he plays should be the ones that Liszt wrote down.
The context of the prayer under discussion seems to provide the interpretive key to “heavenly mysteries”: it is prayed immediately after ythe people receive communion. But LA is pretty clear that the translator should not pre-digest the text for us by adding that interpretive layer to the translation itself.
I have read on this and other threads about a translation that was produced in 1998 but which ultimately (in 2002) was rejected by the Vatican.
Finally I found a link to a sight that has enough about that translation that I have a better understanding of what it (the 1998 ICEL translation) was about and consequently, what all the fuss about the newest translation is about. I must say I think the newer translation is better than what I has read about the 1998 translation, which from what I can tell, was pretty sad in that it strived to be unisex and somehow politically correct. Thank God the Vatican rejected it.
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html
It seems the 1998 translation involved a lot of inclusive language, avoiding noting gender of things, and in general, was not at all appropriate for mass. Here is a sample:
“…III. Examples of problems related to questions of “inclusive language” and of the use of masculine and feminine terms
A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term “man” as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term “humankind”, coined for purposes of “inclusive language”, remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English “man”, which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.
B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural “We believe” instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term “men” has effects that are theologically grave. This text ¬”For us and for our salvation”-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The “us” thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.
C. After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy ¬ a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.
D. For the Church, the neuter pronoun “it” is always used, instead of “she”. So designated, the Church can appear to be a mere social aggregate, deprived of much of the mystery that has been emphasized especially in relatively recent teaching by the Magisterium. The pronoun “it” does not seem to refer properly to the reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and Christ’s Bride….”
And from a September 2006 artcile in Adoremus regarding the ICEL and the new Roman Missal, it seems the old ICEL has become unreasonable and in need of change:
Sept 2002
By Helen Hull Hitchcock
“…The call for changes in ICEL’s operation did not come out of the blue.
Concern over principles of translation had been building throughout the 1990s, during discussions of proposed revisions of both the Missal and the Lectionary. ICEL proposed a complete revision and re-translation of the Missal texts used for Mass since 1975, and, simultaneously, newly updated Scripture translations were proposed for use in the Lectionary.
In 1990, the US bishops approved Criteria for Evaluation of Inclusive Language Translations of Scriptural Texts Proposed for Liturgical Use, developed by its Joint Committee on Inclusive Language. These Criteria were intended to guide the re-translation of the New American Bible used for the American Lectionary. The Revised NAB translators employed “inclusive language” as a matter of “justice” to women — as did the translators of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
The English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church figured in the debate over “inclusive language”, as well. Eventually the Catechism translation was completed by a committee appointed by the Holy See, in 1994.
In the mid-1990s, during the process of approval of the Lectionary for Mass, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had intervened, and produced norms for Scripture translation for liturgical use. These norms were employed by a special Vatican “working committee” including US archbishops to correct the Lectionary texts.
In 1994, ICEL produced a modernized version of the Psalms and Canticles. Although this was not proposed for use in the Lectionary, it was intended for use in the Liturgy of the Hours. Although the ICEL Psalter had been granted an imprimatur by the US bishops and published in 1995, it was rejected by the Holy See, it’s imprimatur removed, and it was ordered withdrawn from publication.
ICEL’s translating staff said they had used for the Psalter the “dynamic equivalency” theory of “free” translation that justified “correcting” the original text for gender and other reasons — a theory found in a 1969 document on translation, Comme le prévoit (“As foreseen.”) that had governed all of ICEL’s translations and revisions of the Missal texts.
In addition, for the Missal revision, ICEL had composed original texts, non-existent in the Latin edition, expanding considerably on its original mandate to translate.
During the years of debate on ICEL’s proposed revision of the Missal (1993-1998) concern grew steadily among the bishops that ICEL’s translation methods were inadequate, or worse. Many bishops also became frustrated at ICEL’s complete independence from the conferences. Though ICEL was financially supported by the conferences through assessments, the conferences had no control over ICEL’s work.
Need for change in ICEL’s old ways
At a meeting with ICEL’s episcopal board in June 1996, Archbishop Geraldo Majella Agnelo, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, told the bishops, “We have no doubt that the meaning of what the Holy Father states in No. 20 of Vicesimus Quintus Annos [1988] about the serious responsibility of the episcopal conferences will not have escaped ICEL. It would be difficult to avoid, also, applying such affirmations to the structure, the method of work and all the initiatives taken by ICEL on behalf of the conferences themselves. The examination that the Holy Father calls for concerning all the work carried out by the commissions also concerns the relationship between the episcopal conferences and ICEL”.
Archbishop Agnelo also said that Comme le prévoit “must be recognized as a text dated 1969, from the first period of liturgical reform. Its current value is therefore conditioned by the experience of the last 27 years, along with the fact that there exist new canon law norms regarding the approval of such translations”, he said. “Perhaps along this line there is a need to make further clarification to the bishops’ conferences, in order to increase their involvement and their influence in something that is their right and duty: translating liturgical books and texts”.
A month later, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Jorge Medina Estévez was appointed prefect of the CDW, and in December 1996, seven US cardinals met with him and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to discuss how to resolve problems with the Lectionary translation.
Early the next year, the “working committee” of US archbishops and Vatican experts met in Rome to make the necessary corrections, using translation norms provided by the CDF.
Renewal continues – duc in altum
In June 1997, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago was elected by the US bishops as representative to ICEL, ending the eleven year term of Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, then chairman of the ICEL episcopal board. That same year, the CDF’s norms for Scripture translation were made public.
The complicated and confusing debate and vote on the ICEL revision of the Missal that had begun in 1993, finally reached a conclusion in 1998 – not without difficulty. The result, a compromise text that many bishops found unsatisfactory, was sent to the Holy See for recognitio in January 1999.
In October 1999, Cardinal Medina Estévez called for a “thoroughgoing restructure” of ICEL. (Proposed statutes were drafted and submitted to the Holy See, but have not yet been approved.)
Meanwhile, the third “typical edition” of the Roman Missal was announced by the Holy See in the Jubilee Year 2000, and its introductory rules for the celebration of Mass, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani [IGMR] was released in advance of publication of the entire Missal. Obviously, the new Missal will require translation.
The translation landscape was changed dramatically by the appearance in May 2001 of Liturgiam authenticam, the Fifth Instruction for the correct implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
On March 16, 2002, Cardinal Medina Estévez officially rejected ICEL’s translation of the Missal, accompanied by Observations critical of the text. In the letter, the cardinal observed that problems with restructuring ICEL had not been resolved:
“As of the present date, the member Conferences of the Mixed Commission known as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy have taken a number of steps in response to the Congregation’s request for such a restructuring of the Commission. Certain procedures have been set in place which — while falling short of those for which the Congregation continues to ask — would not be without positive effect in terms of the formulation of new translations. Unfortunately, however, such measures have not yet resulted, as the Congregation had hoped, in a fresh group of experts and administrators appropriately positioned to collaborate with the Holy See in the implementation of new norms represented by the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, as approved by the Holy Father on March 20, 2001, for the appropriate emendation of texts already in progress”.
These Observations, the cardinal stressed, were not intended to be an exhaustive critique of the ICEL revision. But they were nonetheless revealing, and entirely consistent with other recent critiques from the Holy See on other translations of texts that are used for Catholic worship and Catholic teaching. (Observations accessible on our web site)
In April 2002 a Vatican committee of bishops, Vox Clara, was created to oversee the translations of liturgical texts.
The dominant message- to ICEL and all translators of texts that transmit the Catholic faith – is that in matters of translation, translation matters…”
Ken: I don’t think you’re going to convince anyone by citing Adoremus and Helen Hull Hitchcock–and you may be violating their copyrights by quoting at such length!
Jim P., the LA text you cite is about variant textual sources. The following paragraph, about words in ancient languages, confirms this.
Good point Margaret – I thouhgt it was a bit long too. I was just surprised to finally find something about the 1998 translation.
Everyone interprets. Without exception. The new translation is also an interpretation.
The most virulent forms of religion today are fundamentalisms of various kinds. They are united in their denial of the legitimacy of interpretation.
The Second Vatican Council opted for “substantial unity” rather than “formal unity” or uniformity in worship. This includes texts.
It would be nice if we could sort out the theological-spiritual issues first, and all agree, and then vote on the translations. But since that would take decades, and since the present prayers are theologically inadequate, and since the new prayers, while not absolutely perfect, are light years better, and since the bishops have voted, overwhelmingly, to accept the new prayers, let’s just go forward.
I thought the issue is whether thej new prayers are (light years?) better?
Bob, the issue is ecclesiological.
Rita,
‘mystery’ can be translated as either, or both, mystery and sacrament. I was not concerned with that at all. I dropped out a remark that mentioned that, since I thought my focus on complexity made that clear. My apologies if you that was my concern.
I was just wondering about the syntax, ie why use “by means of whose heavenly mystery we are given food and drink” Latin allows the syntax to be expressed by declension and conjugation, but English tends to multiply multiply words. But English has other ways of simplifying. “Who, with his heavenly mystery, gives us food and drink” conveys the same idea as “by means of…” About the only thing that changes is that God is the acting subject in the sentence, in place of a passive ‘we’ with an implied active God.
So why the circumlocutions? Is the Latin like that? (I still have not looked it up) Is there a tradition of translating that way? What is motivating such clunky language?
Kathy,
I do not agree. Direct address is more personal; third person speech is by its nature public and tends to be less so. When I say to my wife “Clara, my love” I mean “Clara, you are my love”, not “Clara, who is my love.” The latter I would use with others, but I would never us such a phrasing with her. “You” is the ‘private’, intimate term between two people; ‘who’ is public, admitting a third person into the conversation, and so less intimate. (and that applies to the Latin ‘qui’ as well)
If we both want to use the most intimate language we can with God, as we seem to, we need to agree on what reflects intimacy. I cannot grasp how 3rd person language can be intimate, and your explanation does not help me. Intimacy is between two, expressed grammatically with 1st and 2nd person. ‘You” establishes a relationship which ‘who’ cannot.
If you want to argue, as Rita does, that intimate language is inappropriate and we should use the formality of 3rd person, that would be a different discussion altogether. I think we learned intimacy from the Lord, by means of whose prayer we are given instruction.
Jim,
I do agree that we want to use the most intimate language possible, on the presumption that intimate address is appropriate, however inchoately, between the baptized and the God who saves us.
I’m not wedded to the “who” construction, but I cannot think of a better. To my ears, “Clara, you are my love” sounds very appropriate for a toast at an anniversary dinner, with friends, but not quite right for quiet moments at home.
For quiet moments at home, an appositive is needed.
Kathy says the 1998 translations keep God at a distance — a remark that I see no basis for in the translations quoted. But in fact the proposed new translations tend to keep God at a distance, for instance in replacing “Father” with “Lord”. This is supposed to restore the “vertical” dimension — which suggests a very crude idea of biblical divine transcendence.
“The qui formula of “who” survives in two of the devotional prayers, the closing prayer of the rosary and of the Angelus, and they seem to go over okay with the people.”
The Angelus prayer does not exemply the structure, “God, who …” “Pour forth thy grace into our hearts the we to whom the Incarnation of Christ thy Son was made known by the message of an angel may be his passion and cross be brought to the glory of his resurrection”. Or is Kathy referring to some other prayer?
correction “the we” shd be “that we” and “be his passion” shd be “by his passion”.
The “God, who” construction is fine with me, as in “O God, who brought our Fathers out of Egypt, stretch out now thy hand, mighty to save…”, but over-use of it is likely to give prayers a stilted quality, definitely keeping God as a distance.
If “Claudia, my love” is taken to be shorthand for “Claudia, who are my love” then “God, our savior, our refuge and our strength” would count as shorthand for “God who are our savior, our refuge and our strength”. But there is no need to treat appositions as shorthand for relative clauses. The relative clauses in the above cases are cumbersome and put the other at a distance.
The current prayers are not theologically inadequate; they are just flat as language. The new prayers are not light years better; in fact they are worse than inadequate both linguistically and theologically.
Ken, the Vatican might have thought “humankind” faddish in 1998; but now no one feels so, it is a well-established usage; whereas “mankind” sounds very old-fashioned already.
This is my first contribution to the commonweal blog but I have followed the conversations for a long time.
Rather than “Just Say No” to the inadequate new translations, why isn’t there an effort to publish, electronically, the 1998 ICEL translations? Surely someone on this blog or elsewhere must have a copy of the draft. If the more graceful language were available, all sorts of possibilities might arise.
With all due respect, I beg to differ with you Fr. O’Leary. In the real world, in fact the notion of gender-neutral has been discredited as tired old, politically correct nonsense for years.
I am just glad that 1998 translation was rejected. To be sure, even the current English translation sounds better that that one did. For whatever faults it has, at least the current English translation is not irritating.
And as for Adoremus or any other Catholic publication, and this writer, rather than simply rejecting something out of hand because I do not like the source; I try to review things by looking at content. As for convincing anyone, that was not the point or her article; Hitchcock mainly put forth a chronology of the development and ultimate rejection of the 1998 translation.
Oops – I meant to say; “.. the notion of gender-neutral verbiage . . “
Hi, Ken, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Hitchcock or Adoremus, but she has been a … searching for a non-judgemental word here … critic of the “old” ICEL for many years. She is one of the leading lights of the “reform the reform” movement.
She and Adoremus are on one side of a vast war, which that side initiated. That side, whatever the merits of their complaints, has been incredibly uncharitable in lambasting their perceived enemies, some of whom have logged comments in this thread.
While I’m sure they see themselves as part of the solution, I have to say that they’re also a big part of the problem.
“I do agree that we want to use the most intimate language possible, on the presumption that intimate address is appropriate, however inchoately, between the baptized and the God who saves us.”
I guess I’d suggest that we should distinguish between personal, private prayer and public liturgical worship. Modes of address that are appropriate for the one may not be as appopriate for the other. To my mind, liturgy calls for a certain formality that is suitable to the public nature of the celebration.
Your metaphor of a toast at an anniversary celebration with family and friends has some merit. Another might be a civic celebration in a public space like a town square – think community Fourth of July festivities.
“Rather than “Just Say No” to the inadequate new translations, why isn’t there an effort to publish, electronically, the 1998 ICEL translations? Surely someone on this blog or elsewhere must have a copy of the draft. If the more graceful language were available, all sorts of possibilities might arise.”
Presumably they are copyrighted by ICEL, and so couldn’t be published without ICEL’s approval. Would that be likely to be given?
As a follow-on to my previous comment: one of the notable aspects of Liturgiam Authenticam is its obsession with intellectual property and copyrights. It goes on for paragraph after paragraph about how texts are to be legally controlled. Does anyone doubt that one of its reasons is to bar exactly the sort of thing that Mary suggests?
Ken –
Gender neutral language has been discredited as nonsense? What a gross over-simplification. I haven’t heard even one single woman agree with your view, and many, mamy men don’t either.
Half the human race is female, Ken. Kindly take our opinions into consideration before you make such extraodrinary generalizations.
Thanks for the background Jim; I try not to deal in personalities or in vast liturgical “wars”. I have neither the time nor the inclination for that sort of thing.
Frankly, while I have never heard of this woman, I have no reason to doubt the chronology she offers; is it in fact mistaken or error-ridden?
As for the “old” ICEL, it seems Hitchcock was not its only critic. The Vatican flatly rejected the results of its 1998 effort. In fact it seems ICEL has changed dramitically; hence this new translation.
That having been said, I agree with you that nobody should be as uncharitable as you say Hitchcock has been; certainly there is no call for that.
And while I do not know if Pope Benedict favors the so-called “reform of the reform”, it does seem like he favors toning down extra-rubrical innovations at mass; that he tends toward having a preference for things orderly and more traditional.
Jim McK, thanks for the clarification. My sense is that it mirrors the Latin. Perhaps Joe Gannon or someone else more expert in Latin style than I am could say whether this sort of thing in the Latin reflects deference or something else recognizable in Christian Latin but mystifying to twenty-first century English-speakers.
Kathy’s quest for words to embody intimacy reminds me of the paradox that thee and thou are terms of intimacy in their origin, but nowadays unless you are a Quaker everyone assumes they are formal, even courtly, address.
I would only add the observation that Latin’s concision makes circumlocutions easier, while English requires many more words to say the same thing.
“As for convincing anyone, that was not the point or her article; Hitchcock mainly put forth a chronology of the development and ultimate rejection of the 1998 translation.”
Her chronology serves her purpose, though, of discrediting the “old” ICEL and justifying the work of the “new” ICEL.
So looking around, this is what I see. On the one hand, there is Adoremus and its allies. They can be expected to be extremely enthusiastic about the new translation. Pastors who sympathize with them will be very eager to roll it out. And, no doubt, they’ll get gold stars from their bishops for being team guys.
Then there are Fr. Ryan and his allies (of whom there are many in ministry) who are advocating open resistance. They will not roll out the new translation until the last possible moment, and perhaps not even then. Pastors who sympathize with them will make it crystal clear to their assemblies (whether they intend to or not) that they are only doing this because their boss is making them, and that personally they thing the whole thing sucks. Pastors who do this will probably catch some flack but given the realities of the priest shortage, they’ll survive.
Then there are God’s people, the vast, vast majority of whom are not tuned into the finer points of “mystery” vs. “sacrament”, don’t understand why it’s something to lose sleep over, and really could care less about all the politics. They come to mass to worship. There are a lot of things rolled up in that simple act, a lot of things that, as Kathy says, go to ecclesiology.
It would be wrong, very wrong, to victimize these people by foisting church politics upon them.
Ultimately, those of us who are pastoral leaders need to do a professional and competent job of rolling out the new translation. There is no rolling this thing back. The train has left the station. We need to make our peace with it and do our ministries. It’s not optional. There are no conscience clauses in this. This goes to the heart of what it means to serve others.
And if we can’t do this in good conscience? Well … then I suppose it’s discernment time.
Jim Pauweis: “publication” without ICEL approval could subject the publisher to a civil suit but ICEL can’t exercise prior restraint on publication. “Commercial” publication might also trigger a criminal statute BUT
Would the “owners” of the 1998 translation really want the pubicity associated with an action against someone providing prayers to the public, espcially since ICEL has made it clear that ICEL is not going to publish and not going to lose any income that might arise from iits own publication?
My last comment, last paragraph, is added in agreement with Jim McK.
“I agree with you that nobody should be as uncharitable as you say Hitchcock has been;”
I don’t know that she personally has been uncharitable. I don’t recall any instances of it. Certainly she has many followers who are uncharitable, appallingly so.
JP: “It would be wrong, very wrong, to victimize these people by foisting church politics upon them.”
Really Jim, thou as an astute Chicagoan, can hardly believe in your heart of hearts that this is not exactly what’s happening to “God’s people” with the new translations.
A out apposites and who clauses. –
B oth have many uses. Sometimes they are used for the same purpose. If, for instance, Percy says to me, “Clara, who is the love of my life, actually is not as pretty as Gertrude, my first love”, both the who clause and the apposites phrase serve to tell me something about each which distinguishes them. On the other hand, if word gets back to Clara, he mght say to her, “Clara, love of my life, I was just jokng.” here the apposites serves a rhetorical function — he’s tryi g to make her feel better plus get himself off the hook.
Itcseems to me that a very different kind of who clause is , “Our Father, Who art in Heaven. . .” The who clause is notesnt to convey a y sort of new information, but to be a declaration to God that the speaker accepts that the Father is not any sort of pagan god, an idol, some mere physical object.
Church politics has already been foisted upon us. THAT train left the station a while ago. Anyone who reads the newspaper knows it too. Witness the abuse scandal, the divisive stands taken by various bishops and pastors concerning the national election, the politicizing of giving communion, and a host of other examples.
To play devil’s advocate for a minute, the last translation was rolled back when pressure was brought to bear. Why not this one?
“Jim Pauweis: “publication” without ICEL approval could subject the publisher to a civil suit but ICEL can’t exercise prior restraint on publication. ”
Hi, Mary, you sound like a lawyer, so I really shouldn’t answer without first consulting my attorney :-).
Isn’t prior restraint something that the government exercises? (Or rather, is not supposed to exercise?) I don’t think this is an issue of freedom of the press. It’s an issue of protecting intellectual property. To me, it seems pretty routine.
I’m not sure of the ins and outs of the review process of the 1998 text. For this latest round of translations, if I’m not mistaken, distribution of the text was pretty carefully controlled, and I believe that folks who were given the opportunity to review the various draft versions signed non-disclosure agreements. A typical NDA would prevent that individual from making it public, and would also prevent him/her from sending it to you so you could make it public (just in case you were thinking of volunteering to become the target of a lawsuit :-)).
Margaret, if my alderman is mad at Mayor Daley, we all understand that – that’s politics as usual.
If, in pursuit of his dispute, he stops the garbage from being collected, now his disagreement is affecting me personally. (All of the wards I lived in except one always had male aldermen, btw, even though we all considered ourselves lakefront liberals). That’s the kind of thing that causes them not to be re-elected. (That and criminal conviction, but that’s another story).
“To play devil’s advocate for a minute, the last translation was rolled back when pressure was brought to bear. Why not this one?”
I just think the political landscape was different in the ’90′s. The bishops and Rome were not so much in cahoots then. That gave the complainers some leverage: if the bishops did something that Adoremus didn’t like, Adoremus could run to momma in Rome and tell on them, and Rome would give the bishops a swat on the fanny.
The bishops have swung around since then. Apparently they and Rome are rowing in the same direction now. I don’t think the dissidents have any friends who can do anything about it. I could be wrong – I’m definitely not plugged into Roman politics. But that’s how it looks from here.
Jim, you’ve got the political analogy backwards: Your alderman is mad at you and so is the mayor. They decide that instead of collecting your garbage, they’re going to dump your neigobor’s garbage in your backyard.
Anent Jim Pauwels’s post on December 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am, I wish you all could read the full text of Louis-Marie Chauvet’s response to the North American Academy of Liturgy’s Godfrey Diekmann award last January. Chauvet is a French priest, professor, pastor, and one of the most significant scholars in sacramental theology. The title is “Are the Words of the Liturgy Worn Out? What Diagnosis? What Pastoral Approach?” It is not on the internet, alas.
I find it very encouraging to see a consensus among many here regarding the importance of the antiphons. The excellent resources that have become available, such as Paul Ford’s By Flowing Waters, with its generous reprint policy and pointed Psalms, and the online St. Meinrad Sacred Music Project, make incorporating the Propers into Sunday Mass very manageable.
Not to discount parish use of the Graduale, but these English resources are an enormous help.
“Church politics has already been foisted upon us. THAT train left the station a while ago. Anyone who reads the newspaper knows it too. Witness the abuse scandal, the divisive stands taken by various bishops and pastors concerning the national election, the politicizing of giving communion, and a host of other examples. ”
The People of God seem admirably resistant to attempts to draw them in to these intramural spats. If polls and newspaper owners’ financial statements are to believed, fewer and fewer people read the newspapers every year, a trend that presumably has the same impact on diocesan weeklies and NCR as it does on the morning daily. Outside of VOTF precincts (an organization that has zero impact on the lives of most Catholics), the abuse scandal is rightly perceived to be a matter of crime and punishment, not church politics. And the bishops fell flat on their faces in their attempts to direct Catholic votes. People don’t care who their bishop wants them to vote for. I doubt that more than one out of two church attendees can even name their bishop. I’d be surprised if one out of four are aware that a new translation will be given to them in a year or two.
Jim – I reveiwed VOTF website and while they seem committed, they are out there (in orbit I mean) and thankfully have zero impact on most Catholics. I do not see them getting very far in their Church-reform efforts.
Certainly during the recent abuse scandals, some (maybe more than some, but certainly not all) bishops were tested and found wanting; that much is obvious.
Finally I think you are correct about some (maybe lots) of Catholics do not listen much to the bishops at election time, and that some do not even know their bishop’s name. I do not however, see that as progress; I think that is a sad development.
You have a point Mary; “…Rather than “Just Say No” to the inadequate new translations, why isn’t there an effort to publish, electronically, the 1998 ICEL translations? Surely someone on this blog or elsewhere must have a copy of the draft. If the more graceful language were available, all sorts of possibilities might arise.”
If you google-search “1998 Missal” via advanced search i.e.; “1998″ in one of the ‘must contain’ fields and “missal” in the other ‘must contain’ fields, you will find many references that at least give portions of that translation of the mass.
People are saved where they are. Not everyone is an insider. Some people sit in the first pew every Sunday, others stand in the back. I tend to doubt that the first question the Lord will ask at the Particular Judgment is, “And who is your bishop?” Sorry, I can’t make one of those smile signs.
Jim, Ken, et.alii – you can twist yourselves in knots trying to figure this out but it was a pure and simple inside political game – power and its agenda won.
This “little” tale has nothing to do with the good of liturgy, the church, or the people of God. It is business as usual. Would suggest that Ms. Steinfels’ image/story above captures it well.
Go back to my history lesson on 12-14 at 2:55 PM – compares how it was done for 30+ years in an open, agreed upon, transparent way in which each bishops’ conferences had materials/translations well ahead of time to review, amend, etc. and then vote on. Compare that to events since 1998 – am glad that some of you finally started to put the dots together.
The train may have left the station but the rails are rusted & twisted; the train is filled with trash, and eventually even the folks in the pews will finally have had enough.
Jim Pauwels, you are very elitist when you write: “Then there are God’s people, the vast, vast majority of whom are not tuned into the finer points of “mystery” vs. “sacrament”, don’t understand why it’s something to lose sleep over, and really could care less about all the politics. They come to mass to worship. There are a lot of things rolled up in that simple act, a lot of things that, as Kathy says, go to ecclesiology.”
You should integrate into your reflection some cognizance of the fact that the People of God in South Africa massively rejected the new translations when they were thrust upon them, so much so that they were quickly withdrawn. If the American church is peopled by disengaged zombies, as you suggest, the new translations will pass without notice in the US.
“The People of God seem admirably resistant to attempts to draw them in to these intramural spats. If polls and newspaper owners’ financial statements are to believed, fewer and fewer people read the newspapers every year, a trend that presumably has the same impact on diocesan weeklies and NCR as it does on the morning daily.”
Is it admirable that the citizens of a democracy are politically disengaged? On the contrary is leaves them a prey of manipulative demagogues. Is it admirable that the people of God have no concern for how their church is run? On the contrary it is a sign that they have been discouraged and disempowered, as the falling numbers show.
” Outside of VOTF precincts (an organization that has zero impact on the lives of most Catholics), the abuse scandal is rightly perceived to be a matter of crime and punishment, not church politics… I’d be surprised if one out of four are aware that a new translation will be given to them in a year or two.”
And this is admirable?
Yes, “the train has left the station” is one of the disgusting slogans of the people who become apologists of this translation debacle. “Get with the program” etc. are slogans that drop trippingly from their lips. This is not the language that makes for upbuilding of the Church.
Mrs. Zawicki: Thank you for that lovely homily, Father. By the way, I went to mass with my sister at St. Sixtus on Friday morning. Do you know, they’ve changed all the words! When are we going to do that?
Pastor [trying to look simultaneously heroic and modest ]: Well, Mrs. Zawicki, here at St. Tupac, we’ve decided to take a stand against those ‘new words’.
Mrs. Zawicki: We have? Why?
Pastor: it’s a matter of justice!
Mrs. Z: Justice?
Pastor: Yes! The voice of the people have been ignored! The hierarchy is engaging in an ultraMontane power grab! Besides, some of the sentences are really long.
Mrs. Z: Er, I see. But my sister says that all the parishes are supposed to be using the new words now.
Pastor: Not St. Tupac! Not as long as I’m pastor.
Mrs. Z: Um, well, have a nice day, Father.
I don’t think anyone is talking about justice. Priests are simply distressed at having to use an unprayable and unproclaimable liturgy.
For the last 40 years we have been readings sawdust collects, secrets and postcommunions, during which the faithful remain wisely deaf. The 1998 versions of these prayers were, from all I have seen of them, vastly superior — our worship could have been so much richer if the Vatican had accepted them.
Now it looks as if even the Eucharistic Prayers are going to be ruined (not that the present versions are beyond improvement). The Mass will be all sawdust, as far as its linguistic aspect goes.
I wonder how many of the defenders have carefully read the four eucharistic prayers in the proposed new translations. See my comments on EP I and III on my weblog josephsoleary.typepad.com — comments that would meet wide agreement among those who are versed in liturgy and its language. I predict that if these translations are imposed the scandal will be as great as that caused by clerical child abuse.
Oh, I get it. Jim Pauwels thinks the objections to the new translations are about the perceived “injustice” of non-inclusive language.
While I believe, unlike Ken, that most Christians today would see this as problematic, it is by no means the only or the most serious problem with the new translations. There is a whole range of issues, but the defenders usually try to caricature the objections by reducing them to one-issue people — as in the hatcheting of Bp Trautman. If there is a single basic issue, it is simply this: the new translations are horrible English, and will be a distraction rather than an aid to worship.
So Kathy and Jim Pauwel, if you really want to defend the new translation, please tell me what the following is “light years” ahead of what we currently have. My critical remarks are in parentheses — am I wrong?
To you, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition, (unidiomatic and pleonastic) through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, that you accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, (pleonastic and fulsome), which we offer (offerings which we offer – clumsy) you first of all for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her (pleonastic and uncommunicative) throughout the whole world, together with (the Church together with the bishops?) your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth (sounds like propaganda, and is rather vague in its denotation), hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.
correction: please tell me why
correction: Jim Pauwels
It’s all like that — murky, mucky, insipid, uncommunicative, fustian, rhythmless or having a meretricious rhythm (just as bad Edgar Allan Poe poems have a meretricious rhythm), clumsy, graceless sawdust language, theologically lacking in character.
Fr. O’Leary,
Is pleonasm such a bad thing in public prayer? Doesn’t it have a long history, most notably in the Psalms?
True. pleonasm is a mark of Roman liturgical prayer from centuries before Christ, and of the Psalms (parallelism is the basic rhythm of OT Hebrew poetry –everything is said twice).
But there is no tradition of beautiful pleonasm in English prose or poetry. Both Shakespeare and Milton, who set the tone for English verse, abhor pleonasm. Racine, on the other hand, as I pointed out several times can make sublime effects of pleonasm, which are untranslatable into English.
So pleonasm is very hard to bring off in English.
“We make humble prayer and petition” for “Supplices rogamus ac petimus” just does not work. “prayer and petition” is just a feeble pleonasm in English. “We make prayer” is not English at all.
“these gifts, these offerings, these sacrifices” is again a feeble and inarticulate utterance in English.
It is perhaps a matter of music. Racine can write: “All afflicts and hurts me and conspires to hurt me”, which sounds pretty feeble in English, but in French is supremely expressive: “Tout m’afflige et me nuit et conspire a me nuire” because of the four long “i” sounds that make one feel the speaker’s affliction.
“Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her”
“quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris”
= “which you deign to make peaceful, guard, unite and govern”
the two “to”s in English introduce a new rhythm and create a sense of clumsy pleonasm.
Fr. O’Leary,
I couldn’t say about Milton or Shakespeare, but American poetry is full of pleonasm, from Dickinson to Cummings.
One might say that without pleonasm there would be no Cummings, and very little Hopkins for that matter.
Robert Frost famously said, “Style is the mind skating circles around itself as it moves forward.” One might say, style is pleonastic.
Sorry, “which mayst thou deign to make peaceful etc.” (subjunctive digneris, not indicative dignaris).
Dickinson pleonastic? Please illustrate.
Hopkins? No, in his lists of adjectives each adds a new component of meaning. Or else it is inspired pleonasm such as “the achieve of, the mastery” in the following poem:
I caught this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding
Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding
High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing,
As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding
Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of, the mastery of the thing!
Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here
Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion
Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!
No wonder of it: sheer plod makes plough down sillion
Shine, and blue-bleak embers, ah my dear,
Fall, gall themselves, and gash gold-vermillion.
And of course the identity statement “immortal diamond is immortal diamond” in another poem is the opposite of the feeble utterance it would be in non-inspired contexts, that is, in ordinary plodding prose such as that of the new missal translations. Likewise “a rose is a rose is a rose” would be ghastly in a normal prose context but makes sense under the pen of Stein who uses repetition and pleonasm as a kind of primitivist idiom.
Pleonasm and repetition are at home in the genre of song, as in Edward Estlin Cummings “a wind has blown the rain away and blown the sky away and all the leaves away” — if our liturgy want songlike rhythm or other hypnotic repetitive effects it should call on poets to create them. Literalistic translation is bound to fail.
Hopkins:
Hope had grown grey hairs,
Hope had mourning on,
Trenched with tears, carved with cares,
Hope was twelve hours gone.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
All felled, felled, are all felled;
World-mothering air, air wild,
Wound with thee, in thee isled,
Fold home, fast fold thy child.
I am gall, I am heartburn.
***********
Dickinson:
I NEVER saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
a quicker blood,
A sudden expectation,
It tossed and tossed,—
A little brig I knew,—
O’ertook by blast,
It spun and spun,
And groped delirious, for morn.
It slipped and slipped,
As one that drunken stepped;
Its white foot tripped,
Then dropped from sight.
It’s such a little thing to weep,
So short a thing to sigh;
Oy vey!
This thread can go on and on, but I just needed to say that I’m dismayed by Jim P.’s views of his fellow Catholics. Someone shoulkd arrange a meeting for him, by the way, with the Chicago VOTF people and have engage in some face to face with these supposed nonentities. I think folks are a lot more aware bu tfeel powerless to bring change when leaders don’t listen.
Of course that makes it a “matter of ecclesiology”
I see Canon law was just changed to make sure we knew that bishops and priests “govern”, deacons “serve” and we’re opf nop account.
But none of this is about canonical thinking?
Please pacify, guard, unite and govern us.
Sounds like a plan for Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe it is, or would be if it were in the prayer our leaders prayed. There it could serve two purposes, both offering a plan and reminding us that it is God who does these things, no matter how much power we think we have as a superpower. (maybe it even shows that the church is not at peace, but in hope of it)
Of course, this will not happen with the new translation, since it is forgettable. The mismatched verb forms and the language, by means of whose neologisms we are given fake archaicism, make it something that should not remain in people’s heads as a model. It is the reverse of sacral language.
“Be pleased to grant her peace” ?? Do we want God to enjoy doing this? That is the root meaning of ‘please’, but we have moved far from that, so that “Be pleased” means something quite different.
(I am not offering my first line as a serious translation. But it is an example of some principles, like ‘be concise’; ‘match parallel verbs’)
Fr. O’Leary,
Just speaking for myself, none of my comments have been about the literary merits of the new translation. I’m not a “defender” of it in that sense. I haven’t studied it nearly as closely as you have. I recognize that this has been your primary concern, and I don’t dispute your specific comments nor the weight you’ve assigned to the issue – in fact, I think you’re quite right to raise this as an issue. Among all of the different factors that go into producing a liturgical translation, literary quality is an eminent one.
My main concern is much different – it is about the process rather than the content. It’s simply this: that those of us at the grass roots parish level can make or break the church’s acceptance of the church’s prayer. That is why this resistance dismays me: because it could very well succeed, and I think that would be very, very bad for the church.
Speaking of repetitions, here’s this Sunday’s second reading… am I confused, or is the repetition dull?
When Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
in holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight.
Then I said, ‘As is written of me in the scroll,
behold, I come to do your will, O God.’“
First he says, “Sacrifices and offerings,
holocausts and sin offerings,
you neither desired nor delighted in.”
These are offered according to the law.
Then he says, :Behold, I come to do your will.”
“Jim Pauwels, you are very elitist”
Certainly not. My respect for God’s People is profound. I see a lot of wisdom in their fundamental disinterest in this ecclesial tic-tac-toe game.
I respect them enough to set aside any personal opinions and do for them what the church asks me to do.
Where I locate the elitism is in the minds of leaders who think they know better than the bishops, better than the Vatican – i.e. who try to prevent the shepherds from shepherding because *they* know better.
Maybe these translations are bad on purpose, so that after using them for a few years, people will be glad to return to Latin!
“No, in his lists of adjectives each adds a new component of meaning.”
This is very frequently the case with repitition in the psalms as well.
For that matter, it is also true of “these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices”. The first suggests a bag of gold; the second an old ram; the third a spotless lamb.
Claire, perhaps your comment at 11:55 was meant to be facetious, but even if it’s not at all likely that this is all a great conspiracy to restore Latin, it’s not such a ridiculous hypothesis to say that the desire to restore Latin plays some role in the case. I mean, just think about it.
What would you, what would anyone do whose goal it is to re-establish the primacy of Latin against the wishes of the great majority of the world’s Catholics, who are–in this view–deluded? Well, you have to work toward your goal gradually. It’s a great help if you get a pope on your side. So far, so good. Then you assure that Latin will be taught again in seminary. That’s been done. Then you make the translations so word-for-word that people can follow a Latin-English missal again. This is a work-in-progress, as we see. (Already in these discussions many people have been dusting off their Latin resources just to figure out what’s going on.)
In a few more years, when all those pesky Vatican II Catholics have died off, you presume the younger generation will carry the torch and start studying Latin themselves (that’s a big “if” but realism isn’t a strong point here). Finally, when everyone is sick of praying in miserable English anyway, you sadly judge the vernacular as a failed experiment and take it away! Because of course at the same time part of the program is that lay Catholics should stop thinking this is “their” liturgy. (“Pacify, guard, unite and govern her” please, for she has run amok!) The people can still follow along in those word-for-word Latin-English missals if they want to.
FYI, the new head of ICEL is evidently a big supporter of the Latin Mass Society. And the Pope has recently given a cordial welcome to representatives of Una Voce, an organization that has opposed the vernacular from day one.
Note that in this construction nobody has to be creating ugly English prayers deliberately. But it’s a byproduct of the big issue, which is the primacy of the Latin text.
Rita, don’t complain – you sound like one of those who know better than the Vatican and we know how evil they are and making things bad for the Church.
What really matters is the process of following whatever comes down from the top like good children.
Of course this mauy get us back to discussion of infantalizing, but this thread is giving me carpotunnel syndrome scrolling down already..
I don’t want to add to Bob Nunz’s pain (yes, Bob, it appears we are all like sheep that have gone astray!), but simply to say: Brava, Rita!
Latin has already made a comeback among the young, not because of a papal initiative, but at least in part because of quite a different ally: Harry Potter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/nyregion/07latin.html
http://news.rutgers.edu/focus/issue.2009-02-02.4357742289/article.2009-02-02.2726936791
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226388/Latin-classroom-comeback-60-primary-schools-make-ancient-language-compulsory.html
And that brings it back to, and effectively resolves Fr. O’Leary’s complaints about the new translation. If an individual priests finds he cannot bear the English translation, he is free to simply use the original Latin.
There now see? After some 200 + posts, the problem is solved.
I always like to help.
:-)
Rita, that was just a random thought, a “what if…?”
I hope that the scenario you suggest will never happen. Scary!
Hi, Rita,
Of all the good fruits of Vatican II, nothing is so secure as the utter triumph of worship in the vernacular. That toothpaste will never be put back into the tube.
Currently, Latin worship is at the high-water mark of the post-Vatican-II era. Under current law, mass can be celebrated in Latin whenever a priest wants to. You’d think that Latin Mass advocates would be ecstatic right now, but they still fulminate, because desire for the Latin Mass among the people barely registers on any measurement device known to woman or man.
I’d think the outreach to conservative Anglicans is more likely to shake up the liturgical status quo than the outreach to Latin Mass enthusiasts. Formal, “high” worship in the vernacular is likely to be much more appealing to the great mass of Catholics than the old Latin Mass.
“What really matters is the process of following whatever comes down from the top like good children.”
Bob, I’m sorry this is so painful for you, but yes, our church has leaders, and they are expected to lead, and you and I are expected to follow their lead. That’s the way it has worked since Pentacost, and Vatican II reconfirmed it.
So Jim (@2:50), should we all hop over to the local Episcopal Mass for a good English-language liturgy?
Jim, what’s painful is the way you want to infantalize us.
Jim (@2:55) “That’s the way it has worked since Pentacost, and Vatican II reconfirmed it.”
You mean the, the Pentacost?
If so, not sure the first millennium shows that; and there are many spots in the second where leader and follower were contested positions.
“Never, thank God, have I had a single doubt about the divine origin and grace of the Church, on account of the want of tenderness and largeness of mind of some of its official and rulers.”
John Henry Newman to Lady Catherine Simeon, 18 November 1870
officials and rulers
“should we all hop over to the local Episcopal Mass for a good English-language liturgy?”
Sure, I’m sure they do a fine job. Lots of Catholic parishes do, too. What makes for good liturgy, anyway? If we compiled a list of elements that distinguish a good liturgy from a run-of-the-mill liturgy, where would “missal translation” rank?
“You mean the, the Pentacost? ”
No, only since last last May 31st :-)
(Btw, my “last last” was completely inadvertant, as I’m sure your “the the” was, Margaret … no snarky comment intended in that vein!)
Bob – rebelling against Mom and Dad may not be infantile, but in my experience it’s usually what 13 year olds do!
Rita may well be right, but the back up is this, the revanchist plot. If the faithful insist on attending services in the vernacular on the grounds that this is the language that they can understand, let us see to it that the translation is so heavily Latinate that it is technically in the vernacular, but so involute as to be unintelligible, especially as garbled in the proclamation of it–I know of at least one young priest who goes through the current canon so rapidly that it is hardly intelligible, ending with endearing reverence “throughum, withum inum…” But I digress. The revanchist thought would be, if we are to be deprived of the use of our patrimonial Latin, let the faithful be deprived of an intelligible vernacular text.
These predictions presume that these texts will be read as is, but they will not be. Priests are educated people, and they will quickly recognize that they are not obliged to read every word precisely as written if the text is improper, eg verb forms do not match, Mary is the mother of Joseph, it sounds like gibberish, etc.
Simple on the fly rewrites will give way to more drastic revision and greater experimentation than most bishops would like. It is a slippery slope, but it is one set up by deficient language.
You may be right Jim M., about local on the fly improvisation, but don’t foget about the sticklers for detail.
Some laity in the parish might notice, and might tell the bishop.
“Mary is the mother of Joseph” – no, that mistake appeared on the USBBC website and was corrected when I pointed it out.
Ken, I do say Mass in Latin when saying it with another priest but I am certainly not free to say it in Latin with the congregation unless I first negotiate their consent!
Kathy, all the pleonasms you quote are from song-like lyrics. Pleonasm used as a deliberate poetic device is not a model for prose texts in English. If the translators want to reproduce the pleonastic style of liturgical Latin they need to reflect deeply on the aesthetics of this, on its pastoral and theological impact, on its merits as a language of prayer in English. I do not see any sign that such systematic reflection has taken place. Rather there is a blind trust that if we translate as literally as feasible everything will be all right.
On the connection of the new translations with the restoration of Latin, see the important letter of Ratzinger to a liturgical restorationist friend, in which he seems to see the restored 1962 rite as in time influencing the Novus Ordo in a more conservative direction:
“I believe, though, that in the long term the Roman Church must have again a single Roman rite. The existence of two official rites is for bishops and priests difficult to “manage” in practice. The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, an expanded lectionary – more choice than earlier, but not too much, – an “oratio fidelium”, i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier.”
Full text here:
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/a-frightening-l.html
Jim Pauwels, you seem to take a Roma locuta, causa finita est attitude to this. But the reception of church teachings and disciplines by the faithful is more complex that this, I think.
Even very official Vatican teachings, such as the ban on birth control, have met a very differentiated reception from the faithful, or have even been rejected. One cannot write this off as simple rebellion, since there is a theological quantity called the sensus fidelium, which Newman I think characterized as a leading of the Holy Spirit, that church teachers must respect.
Nemo tenetur ad impossibile — if the birth control teaching proved impossible to follow in practice, it could not be binding on the faithful — likewise, if the new translations are impossible to proclaim and pray they cannot be bindingly imposed. Consult the South Africa experience.
Are you all aware of the South Africa debacle?
See http://www.jesuitinstitute.org.za/en/node/96
See also http://www.catholicsforministry.com.au/news/another-looming-roman-disaster-this-time-liturgy/
Note that A. Egan SJ in the post I linked to says that the new translations were not received by the faithful in SA, leaving no alternative but to withdraw them and produced better translations.
Failing that, he predicts:
“It is a crisis insofar as it generates deep divisions in the Church. A simple imposition of the liturgy as it stands may have numerous unhappy consequences. At ‘best’, it may lead to an increasingly passive community, with varying degrees of disillusionment and resignation. It will not renew a sense of life to the Church, nor will it probably deepen Eucharistic faith. It may lead to disruptive ‘passive resistance’, with opponents to the new liturgy blurting out the ‘old lines’ as loudly as possible, disrupting the sense of unity that the liturgy calls us to share. At worst, it could lead to some angrily walking out of the church, declaring that ‘it’s not the church I joined’. If we note that this new translation has yet to be implemented in the major English speaking areas of the Church, we might imagine how horribly these scenarios might be magnified, particularly in countries where there is an active, vocal and well-organised laity who are already combative in the wake of the long battles over Humanae Vitae, married and women priests, and sexual abuse scandals.”
Fr. O’Leary,
Consider the speech, a prose form that employs pleonasm.
Shakespeare’s Henry V: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;”
Lincoln: “we can not dedicate…we can not consecrate…we can not hallow this ground.”
Churchill: “We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”
JFK: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
“not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are;”
Dr. King:
“a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” ”
“Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.”
“we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back”
“we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
(etc.)
***
I simply cannot find a sound basis for questioning the appropriateness of pleonastic expressions in English-language liturgical prayer.
Kathy, you might also quote: “Let Observation, with extensive View,/ Survey the World from China to Peru” which is Dr Johnson’s way of saying: “survey the world.”
Well, I will concede the appropriateness of pleonastic expressions in English liturgical prayer on two conditions: (1) that they are no so frequent as to irritate (they do not irritate in classical Latin liturgical style; (2) they are graceful, appropriate and expressive both literarily and theologically (which seems to be true of hardly any of the pleonasms in the new translation.
Pleonasms are often not only stylistically infelicitous but actual solecisms in English, as in “red scarlet” or “happy cheer” or “melancholy sadness” (unless a poet transforms their function, just as poets can deliberately break rules of grammar and syntax). Some of the pleonasms in the new liturgical translations border on solecism. “Oblation of our service” “defended by your protecting help” “rest in the sleep of peace” “some share and fellowship with”.
A comparable problem is the use of pronouns in Japanese liturgy. Pronouns are used rarely in Japanese and it is a solecism to use them when they are not strictly necessary. Yet the Japanese translation of the liturgy is full of heavy-handed pronouns, as in “You said to your apostles, My peace I leave you, my peace I give you”, which in normal Japanese would be “shito ni o se ni narimashita, Heiwa o nokoshi, heiwa o ataemasu” (apostles to said, [o se ni narimashita -- honorific language] peace leave, peace give) and in the liturgical translates is: “anatawa [you] shito ni o se ni narimashita, “Watashi wa (I) heiwa o anatagata ni (to you) nokoshi, watashi no (my) heiwa o anatagata ni ataeru.” This sort of thing is likely to be much worse in the new Japanese translations based on literalistic fidelity to the Latin.
Pleonasm and anaphora (repetition) are figures in rhetoric, for particular use in speeches. But the use must be conscious and calculated. When we correct pleonasms in student essays we do so on the basis that they are lazy or uncalculated.
“Fermer les maisons closes, c’est plus qu’un crime, c’est un pléonasme” (Arletty).
Quintilian says that adiectio or pleonasmos is a solecism but that some authors distinguish it from the solecism as a different kind of error (Inst. Orat. I, 5, 38-40).
A passage very relevant to our discussion occurs in Bk VIII, 3:
Another fault is πλεονασμός (pleonasmos), “pleonasm,” when a sentence is burdened with superfluous words, as “I saw with my eyes,” for “I saw” is sufficient. 54. Cicero humorously corrected a fault of this kind in Hirtius, who having said, in a declamation against Pansa, that a son had been borne ten months by his mother in her womb, “What,” exclaimed Cicero, “do other women bear their children in their cloaks?” Sometimes, however, that kind of pleonasm, of which I gave an example just before, is used for the purpose of affirming more strongly, as,
Vocumque his auribus hausi,
And with these very ears his voice I heard.
55. But such addition will be a fault whenever it is useless and redundant, not when it is intended. There is also a fault called περιεργία (periergia), superfluous operoseness, if I may so express myself, differing from judicious care, just as a fidgetty man differs from an industrious one, or as superstition from religion; and, to make an end of my remarks on this point, every word that contributes neither to the sense nor to the embellishment of what we write, may be called vicious.
Fr. O’Leary,
I think the examples I’ve given show that pleonasm has a rhetorical value–as Quintilian says, “the purpose of affirming more strongly.”
I also think, as I’ve said before, that they have a quieting effect. In English there are many aural mannerisms that can lead to quiet: alliteration of “l” and other voiced consonants, for example. Rhetorically, repetition can act like an intellectual alliteration, helping the hearers (and in the case of prescribed speech, helping the speakers) “settle into” an idea, and rest in it.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the swiftness of the Latin liturgy, its forward motion. I wouldn’t want it to circle around in a more Eastern style. That is not its character. However, I think it should be reflective and quiet, at least during direct orations. These momentary affirmations of what we are about here, “the oblation of our service,” help quiet recollection.
That sounds very nice, but I don’t think the new translations help quiet recollection at all. Their rhythm is too clumsy and jerky.
“To you, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, that you accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished 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 those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.”
Note the heavy emphasis on “your holy catholic Church”, followed by a period here, whereas in the Latin we roll on smoothly into the following clause, beginning with “quam”. How is that possible, you may ask; is not the sentence already too long?
Well, in the Latin the pause comes after “unblemished sacrifices”: “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:” Then follows: “Imprimis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Pontifice nostro N. et famulo tuo N. Imperatore nostro, sed et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.”
The current text observes this pause after sacrificia illibata:
“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.”
Note that neither the Latin nor the current text has the infelicitous “offerings which we offer” of the new translation.
“We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world.”
Much more rhythmical and communicative than the new translation.
Oops, I downloaded the Ambrosian text with the reference to the Emperor –
Oops 2, Johnson wrote “Survey Mankind” not “Survey the World”.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/vanity49.html
Rhetorical repetition in English is not limited to the singsong. It’s a standard device in poetry and public speech, for which I’ve offered many examples above out of the (primarily American) canon.
Rhetorical repetition is slightly different from pleonasm; the latter is a standard device in liturgical Latin but is not favored in English; hence the reproduction of the pleonasms in English can only with great difficulty meet the criteria of Quintilian — that they add to the sense or to the expressiveness of the text. I don’t find them expressive, or rather they are expressive in a gauche and clunky way, where the Latin is smooth and gracious. “Supplices rogamus ac petimus” is normal liturgical Latin, perfectly at home in its historical cultural context — it was refreshingly modern language in the 4th century. “We make humble prayer and petition” is abnormal English, completely without anchor in 21st century English speaking culture or even in the tradition of English prose of any kind, while managing to sound fustian and old-fashioned despite its invention of a new idiom (“we make prayer”).
http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/readcomments.htm
Here is what the faithful think!
Fr Zuhlsdorf has a counter-petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enoughwaiting/signatures?page=11
“Look on this picture, and on that…”
Rev John D. Whitney, Seattle, said it all, as far as I’m concerned: “I believe that there is no excuse–no matter how pure the Latin or clear the theology–to publish for the faithful a text so rife with ugliness and lacking in grace.”
Please send this “translation” to the trash bin and replenish ICEL with true liturgists, artists, musicians and poets so as to breathe into the English translation of the Latin texts a sacramentary worthy of our worship of God as a full and participatory Body of Christ.
Tom Kilian | Deacon | Ogdensburg | USA
Well I think the introduction will be less dramatic.
Most people know their priest, and he will introduce the changes in a reasonable manner. I imagine our local priest will introduce it in a routine fashion. He has already managed to re-introduce some Latin without difficulty.
No doubt he will mention that this new translation is coming from Rome via our diocesan Bishop, and that will smooth the way. Most laity understand that the Pope is the head of the chuch on earth and are willing to follow him. This is especially so on something like public worship (a new english translation) as oppossed to a more private matter like birth control pills.
There will be dissenters of course. However ultimately they too will adjust to the new translation.
Ken, cherish this piece — it may be a masterpiece of sanguinity!
Again, I urge you, study South Africa — there you will see that your prophecy has already been falsified.
Fr Z is busily soliciting signatures and has over 1700 already; Fr Ryan has over 6800 so far.
But this is not a numbers game. There is a considerable number of teachers, Latin expert, liturgists, ministers, and good priests in Fr Ryan’s column — their testimony has qualitative as well as quantitative weight.
The cheerleaders may get their way; the faithful may be forced to groan under this imposition – if so, the Church will be the loser. That the matter has reached this point already is a stunning proof of episcopal apathy and spinelessness (for bishops generally have not even bothered to read the new translations) and of Vatican reaction and ruthlessness. I predict that we are headed for the greatest scandal of the restorationist pontificates — greater than the support of the Contras, the suppression of theology, the playing footsie with antisemites, the promotion of islamophobia etc. etc. Because all those scandals were ignored by those not directly affected, but this one will affect every single practicing English-speaking Catholic.
You cannot put lipstick on a pig. “Most people know their priest, and he will introduce the changes in a reasonable manner.” Really? Will he be allowed to delay the introduction of the new texts? Efforts to introduce these texts to lay groups have run into disbelief and dismay on the part of the laity, who are not fools. “I imagine our local priest will introduce it in a routine fashion. He has already managed to re-introduce some Latin without difficulty.” But every Catholic loves Latin — that is a totally different proposition. (Note that most Latin teachers who have spoken on the proposed new translations have pointed out that they would fail their students if they offered such dreck as a serious effort at translation.)
My apologies to Bob Nunz and to all – my most recent comment was not worthy of him, me, the topic nor the forum. Bob, I ask your forgiveness.
“Fr Z is busily soliciting signatures and has over 1700 already; Fr Ryan has over 6800 so far”
As predictable as it is regrettable. “That they may be one”.
“Jim Pauwels, you seem to take a Roma locuta, causa finita est attitude to this.”
But it isn’t just Roma. It is also the bishops.
“But the reception of church teachings and disciplines by the faithful is more complex that this, I think.
“Even very official Vatican teachings, such as the ban on birth control, have met a very differentiated reception from the faithful, or have even been rejected. One cannot write this off as simple rebellion, since there is a theological quantity called the sensus fidelium, which Newman I think characterized as a leading of the Holy Spirit, that church teachers must respect.”
I agree.
But one doesn’t therefore conclude that, for example, Fr. Ryan’s online petition, is the work of the Holy Spirit.
And ultimately, who discerns the sensus fidelium? By definition, aren’t the faithful those who are *faithful* to what the church teaches on e.g. birth control?
No, the faithful may disagree with church teachings, have done so in fact, and that has been the motor of doctrinal development. Newman cited the case where the majority of bishops had become compromised with Arianism in the fourth century and where the laity, through support for the position of Athanasius, brought the Nicene Creed to its eventual victory.
Without the sensus fidelium of the laity, an instinct of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ, we would still be stuck with church approval of slavery, torture etc.
Also, a sign that Fr Ryan’s petition better reflects the sensus fidelium is the quality of the signatories, including a high number of lay ministers and of teachers.
Well, I am sure glad that is settled!
Bp Serratelli has a defense of the translation in America, March 1, 2010. Nothing is settled. See http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/02/bishop-serratelli-tries-to-reply-to-msgr-ryan.html
Follow up: Fr Ryan’s petition is now just short of 22000, Fr Z”s just over 5000.