The Vatican’s standing pat on the requirement to do accurate Mass translations!
Some time ago the Holy See issued an instruction called Liturgiam Authenticam, which ordered and end to the hippy-dippy-squishy translations that ICEL has been ramming down the throats of English-speaking Catholics for the last 40 years.
WOO-HOO!!!
So a new translation of the Mass has been in the works–and it’s quite good! (I’ve seen drafts, and it’s worlds better than the inaccurate, tin-eared one we hear every Sunday.)
BUT NOT EVERYONE IS HAPPY WITH THE NEW TRANSLATION.
Yet time is growing short, because the Holy See has made it clear it wants these translations done without unnecessary delays, and a vote on the new translation is scheduled for the USCCB’s meeting next month.
This apparently led some bishops to have a meeting with Cardinal Arinze in whic they apparently felt him out about the possibility of just sticking with the current translation of the Mass instead of using the new and improved one.
His response, leaked to Catholic World News (CHT to the readre who e-mailed), is found in the following letter:
2 May 2006
The Most Reverend William Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Prot. n. 499/06/LYour Excellency,
With reference to the conversation between yourself, the Vice President and General Secretary of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, together with me and other Superiors and Officials when you kindly visited our Congregation on 27 April 2006, I wish to recall the following:
The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is the latest document of the Holy See which guides translations from the original-language liturgical texts into the various modern languages in the Latin Church. Both this Congregation and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow its directives. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is therefore not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam. If, however, there are difficulties regarding the translation of a particular part of a text, then this Congregation is always open to dialogue in view of some mutually agreeable solution, still keeping in mind, however, that Liturgiam authenticam remains the guiding norm.
The attention of your Bishops’ Conference was also recalled to the fact that Liturgiam authenticam was issued at the directive of the Holy Father at the time, Pope John Paul II, to guide new translations as well as the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, to bring them into greater fidelity to the original-language official liturgical texts. For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.
Requesting Your Excellency to share these reflections with the Bishops of your Conference I assure you of the continued collaboration of this Congregation and express my religious esteem,
Devotedly yours in Christ,
+Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect,
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Do progressive bishops really think that making changes like going from the saccharinly “and also with you (dude)” to the more accurate “and with thy spirit” will cause Catholics to leave the Church at any faster rate than they already have been over the last 40 years? And gee, could the fact that 75% of Catholics don’t even bother showing up to mass anymore be a result of the constant liturgical innovation and de-sacrilization of the mass since the late 60’s. Skylstad is talking our both sides of his mouth.
Jimmy-
I read about this and was going to e-mail and ask you to post on it.
Thanks! And to your “WOO-HOO!” I add “YEE-HAW”!
“BUT NOT EVERYONE IS HAPPY WITH THE NEW TRANSLATION”
How did I know that would link to the National Catholic Distorter?
Eewww!
I read that National Catholic Reporter link, and now I feel like I need to brush my teeth, or take a shower, or something.
I am looking forward to the changes — it will be an interesting transition.
I wonder how long it will be before new musical settings are composed? My music director (ALL directors, I’m sure) will go nuts. But, hey, it may be the end of some of the worse Mass settings!
And I can’t wait to see the look of confusion of the C&E Catholics when they make their semi-annual appearances.
‘thann
Ruthann–
What I would love to see happen (in my dreams!) re. the new musical settings would be that the local bishop, publishing house, whatever, would actually require the new music to conform to some basic standards of musical quality and sacred character. Any settings that modify the new translation would be out, as would any that call for bongos, electric guitars or clapping mid-phrase. 🙂 (Gloria! Clapclap! Gloria! Clapclap! In excelsis Deo! Gloria! Clapclap! Gloria! Clapclap! Lord we worship You!) would be right out. 🙂 In my dreams…
as a fairly recent convert to Rome, I first heard about this a few years ago, and so I have been waiting until it actually happens and becomes the new norm… then, I will purchase my copy of the Missal.
I also add my YEE HAWW!!! and YIPPEEE!!!
: )
p.s. here Tim J (passing the soap to you 🙂
Margaret! How can you not LOVE that Gloria! YOU HERETIC!
I had a friend who’s solution was to sing too loud and slightly off key to all these ghastly pieces. In college we could nip in before mass, look over the song sheet they handed out for the day, and if it was too bad we could nip right back out and walk over to the Dominican Priory for their mass which started 15 minutes later. I miss that option.
As I mentioned elsewhere recently,
even if albino monks put something in the water at the bishop’s meeting and they all agreed, zombie-like, to everything that Arinze wanted, and a new Authenticam approved translation was delievered by Christmas 2006,
well, it doesn’t matter.
The problem is not the translation.
The problem is that so priests do not use the Missal (or Sacramentary) that we do have. They just ignore it. Or they edit, modify, inclusivise, inculturate, relativize the text on the fly. Or they replace it with “local” variations in loose-leaf “Presider’s Notebooks.” I think that in eight years, I’ve only heard one Mass where the priest actually read and prayed the prayers printed in the Sacramentary…because he was a foreigner and was not strong in English.
Even very good, holy, “orthodox” priests spontaneously muck around with the text of the Missal.
A new “approved” translation is not going to make any difference.
And, all that OCP and GIA music, from “Gather Us In” through “I Am the Bread of Life” to “Walk in the Reign” is also not approved, and will not be leaving any time soon.
New translation? Want the pew potatoes to say, “And also with your spirit” instead of “And also with you?” Alright. Big deal. The music minister still “rewrites” the introductory rites, the communion “anitphon,” etc., and the priest rewrites the Collect, the Offertory, the Eucharistic Prayer, the Post Communion Prayer and the final blessing.
Who cares what words are in the book that so many ignore?
Until bishops require that their priests actually pray the Sacramentary (or Missal) text, this is just fluffing the pillows on a train going the wrong way.
I am fairly young, mid-thirties, and have largely grown up with the translations we now have. However, I am pretty orthodox and so I welcome the effort to bring the texts into a truer translation of the official.
But seriously folks… Do you mean to tell me that you prefer “Consubstantial with the Father” to “One in Being with the Father”?
Campaign for Latin if you like, but if the mass is to be in the common tongue, it should BE in the common tongue. “Consubstantial” has no place in the liturgy in the common tongue.
RE: Chris-2-4
Actually, consubstantial is the english translation of the Latin “consubstantialem”. If one doesn’t know what consubstantial is then they should grab a dictionary, or go to one online: http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Consubstantial
“Consubstantial with the Father”
I have a problem with this as well. I agree with correcting actual problems but I don’t know where the actual problems are with the currently written language we have been using for decades. If this is an issue I am surprised that PJP II didn’t change this.
Some comments after reading Margaret, Old Zhou, and Chris-2-4:
I must consider myself blessed, having grown up in rural South Louisiana. Margaret and Old Zhou mention something that has always seemed strange to me whenever I’ve heard (or read) it before, here or on Catholic Answers; that is the litigurical mess that appears to be happening elsewhere.
I would bet that we’ve got our share of unorthodox things happening in Louisiana churches. However, I am in my mid-30s and a cradle Catholic, and I’ve never noticed any such thing. Sure, we’ve got a few lame hymns, but actually changing Sacred Scripture…never.
I really do feel blessed to have had some very good, very orthodox priests in my parish.
Like, Chris-2-4, I also am glad to see the appropriate translations made, if the translations reinstate the intended meaning of the original texts.
Having said that, the movement to replace text with more “traditional” wording simply for the sake of tradition (which I am not saying is the case with all changes) might not serve us well.
To take Chris-2-4’s example: Does “Consubstantial” get at a theological distinction that, while correct, “One in Being” does not make? If so, then some explanation would be appropriate; if not, then why make the change?
I am sure that the same could be said about “And with your spirit” and other changes.
But, of course, this is why I continue to come back to Jimmy’s blog, listen to Catholic Answers, and subscribe to This Rock; they offer me full, deep explanations that, with good pastoral leadership, help me grow in my faith.
I suppose “of one substance with the Father” may be a closer English unpacking of the word, however, consubstantial, is a bit easier, and more precise.
“One in being” is a bit looser and we know what some folks will do with too much theological wiggle room! 😉
Taking Joe’s advice, I looked up Consubstantial. “Having the same substance, nature, or essence.” Seeing as we speak of the trinity as being the three essences of the one person of God, I think this simply is more confusing even AFTER looking it up.
… or are they three persons of the one essence of God? See… Confusing…
Bishop Trautman from the National Catholic Reporter piece linked above on the “precious chalice”: “Further, the First Eucharistic Prayer refers to a ‘precious chalice,’ not a ‘cup,’ an instance, Trautman argued, of ‘imposing an agenda’ on what the Bible actually says.”
Why is there no explanation of what he means by “agenda”? Without more, I can’t help suspecting he means highlighting the truth of the Real Presence, and that this is somehow wrong. Can a bishop really mean that? Somebody set me straight if that’s not what he means.
Bishop Trautman on catechizing the faithful on the new translations: “We can’t motivate priests to go out and explain these texts unless they’re convinced the changes are really necessary[.]”
What about obedience as a sufficient motivation? Why aren’t binding instructions from Rome enough to convince priests that the changes are “really necessary”?
I welcome improvements to the liturgy, and hope they keep coming. But Rome also urgently needs to do something about the rampant pride and disobedience that lead clergy to disregard even the current norms, and to think that every single last priest must approve changes from Rome before they can be implemented.
Seeing as we speak of the trinity as being the three essences of the one person of God,
When do we speak of the Blessed Trinity as three essences of the one person of God?
+J.M.J+
>>>Does “Consubstantial” get at a theological distinction that, while correct, “One in Being” does not make?
I read an argument over a decade ago that “One in Being” is problematic because “being” in English often denotes a person (ie, “human being”). Since God the Father and Son are not one person but two distinct Persons sharing one Divine Nature, the phrase “One in Being” is ambiguous at best and modalist at worst.
In Jesu et Maria,
“One in being” is so vague that even a unitarian could be persuaded to sign on to it. The point of the creed is to be clear, even if the distinctions made have been completely papered over for 40 years.
PVO
You know, if the Nicene Fathers thought it was substantial enough matter (pardon the pun) to argue over Homoousion vs Homoiousion, then I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they chose that one particular word with great care. In certain translation cases, like “constubstantial” versus “one in being,” I think it’s preferable to go with the more precise, albeit less commonly used word, rather than the less precise…
Innocencio:
You could at least pretend to read my subsequent post before shooting off a retort…
“You could at least pretend to read my subsequent post before shooting off a retort…”
Then you were just confusing yourself?
Ok, now I get it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I don’t think “consubstantial” means anything to most of the people who will be saying it. If it meant much more than “one in being” I would say, ok, lets teach what it means. However “consubstantial” is an awkward Latin translation of “homoousian” which is really better translated into English by “one in being.”
Or, “of the same being”. I don’t think people think of “being” as meaning the same thing as “a being” or “a human being”…ie as equivalent to “a person”. It is hard to say what being is!
but I think people have a general idea that it means being as opposed to nonbeing, the condition of existing. I think with a little prompting you could also get them to express the associated meaning of being…that of essence, as in “What are you essentially, apart from all the adjectives which describe you?” “I’m a man” “I’m a woman” vs tall, short, fat, thin, young, old.
Whereas to explain “consubstantial” first you have to 1. get past the fear of big words and 2,- very difficult for folks in our culture-disabuse them of the idea that substance means “stuff.”
The word “substantia” to translate “ousia” is very familiar to those who studied Aquinas and who studied Aristotle through that lens. But there are now translations of Aristotle being done which completely avoid the use of Latinisms.
They are remarkably much easier to understand for the person who approaches Aristotle naively, not through scholastic philosophy.
Substantia really translates the second understanding of “being” that I mentioned above.
It means “that which stands underneath” and was used to translate “hypokeimenon” -the word, basically, for a noun, or thing, in the grammatical treatises of Aristotle. (the first to be known in Europe, I believe I remember.) Therefore it means the essence of a thing or being, that to which qualities or characteristics are attributed. But ousia conveys a more active meaning of being…it represents the “act” of being, so to speak. Our English word “being” really represents this better than does “substantia”.
Therefore, in my opinion, “one in being” or “of one being” with the Father are better translations of ‘homoousian’ than is ‘consubstantial.’ And, in my opinion, more likely to convey at least some meaning to the average Catholic, and less subject to misunderstanding.
By the way, I used to be a Unitarian, and I never met one who would sign on to a statement that Jesus is “one in being” with the Father. Many of them were there with the Unitarians specifically because they could not believe that.
In general I am in favor of a translation closer to the Latin, although I think the one proposed is closer to the Latin but not especially felicitous in English. However poets are not to be had to order.
Susan F. Peterson
From the linked article: “On a political note, observers of the conference note that approval of a new translation requires two-thirds of the voting bishops. Hence Trautman only needs to sway one-third of his brother bishops, and a consultation at their last meeting suggested a roughly 50-50 split on the new text.”
Meaning what exactly – that these bishops can effectively spit in Rome’s eye and refuse to use the new translation?
Dear Bishop Skylstad….
You want to hold on the Mass that has been used for 40 years because of TRADITION???????????..I hate to say it but thta id the SSPX arguement for the Tridentine Mass!!!!!!!!..Why do we need a new liturgy when the Tridentine was good enough for Peter and Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( I jest.)..But The Tridentine was the faithful liturgy before all this Nass Mess got started!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Susan Peterson, your explanation of the background of the Latin ‘substantia’ is much appreciated. However, to assert that the word ‘consubstantial’ would mean nothing to most people who will be saying it is clearly simplistic.
For instance if I were a troublemaker I could point out that words like ‘Amen’, ‘Ascension’, ‘Asssumption’, ‘Immaculate’, ‘Dogmatic’, ‘Pentecost’, ‘Resurrection’, ‘Cenacle’, ‘Deacon’, ‘Benedictine’, ‘Transubstantiation’, ‘Propitiation’, ‘Hosanna’, ‘Salvific’, ‘Eucharist’, ‘Messiah’, or any one of a thousand other words either only appear in Catholicism or have a particular technical meaning within Catholicism. But they’re only words. Maybe people who haven’t yet been catechised won’t know what those words mean, but they just need to learn them. It’s part of being a Catholic.
So what on earth is all the fuss about ‘consubstantial’? Catholicism is great for words, and I think it’s a great word.
At the end of the day as far as I can see, consubstantial has only attracted attention because it’s prominently different from its predecessor phrase. Deo Gratias, on principle! The English Catholic liturgy has been denuded of all the words that would have made it special, and it’s about time they were all put back in.
SLalley said:
“I have a problem with this as well. I agree with correcting actual problems but I don’t know where the actual problems are with the currently written language we have been using for decades. If this is an issue I am surprised that PJP II didn’t change this.”
SLalley, there are indeed actual problems, and lots of them. You could read for days about it; there’s plenty of stuff out here on the net. Start with http://www.adoremus.org, and with Fr John Zuhlsdorf’s superb blog/site ‘What does the prayer really say?’ (http://wdtprs.com/blog/).
If you do get chance to read any of this, you will see that JPII did indeed try to change things: in fact he spent the last decade or so of his life trying (through and with his colleagues at the CDW), in vain, to get the English speaking liturgy back on track. The reason nothing changed is that not enough Priests and Bishops in the English, American or Australian (etc.) hierarchies listened or cared what he thought on the subject.
Eventually the Vatican had to have a crackdown (this was back in 2002), and hence the creation of the ‘Vox Clara’ committee, the release of the instruction ‘Liturgiam Autenticam’, the rewriting of ICEL’s statutes, and subsequently, finally, this new translation. A lot of harm was caused in the process (for example the senior two people from ICEL both resigned in protest), but bear in mind that more than a decade of diplomacy and consultation had been fruitless, and we don’t have another decade to waste on this.
And now we have Bishop Trautman, still trying to ignore the Vatican to this day, putting up increasingly feeble objections to perfectly reasonable words like ‘chalice’ and spouting the nonsense that Cardinal Arinze is refuting in this latest letter. I hate to think ill of a Bishop, but the stubbornness of that man beggars belief.
I’m sorry if I seem very harsh, but it’s a subject which makes me angry (and you will see why if you read a bit more).
Once we get the Gloria back in the proper order, people will _have_ to use the old settings. Mwahaha!
Interesting post Tom. I will try to look that stuff up. Thanks.
It’s great to talk about these proposed changes, but is there a website or other link where one may actually see them?
“Chalice” is a controversial word?!? It’s such a beautiful and specific English word. Much better than “cup” – sounds like those “sippy cups” the toddlers bring to church.
What I don’t get is the apparent problem he has with “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”. We’ve been saying that all along in Australia! And I’m pretty sure that many other English-speaking countries use it too. No one’s been storming the cathedral to get it changed. No one goes around after Mass saying “Incarnate??? Incarnate??? What the heck is that??” We can cope. Really. We can.
So I have no problem with “consubstantial” for the same reason. Really, when are you going to be able to translate all Christian concepts into everyday language? Who goes around in the streets saying words like “Eucharist”, “Consubstantial”, “Incarnate”, or even “the Lord be with you”? Who ever answers “have a good weekend” with “and also may you”?
Do you “fellowship” around the water fountain at work? Tell everyone to “lift up your hearts, guys”? Talk about your son as being “begotten” of you? Shout “Hosannah”! in jubilation? Accuse criminals of “trespasses”?
(Well perhaps some of you might, over such a wide audience. I did have an American colleague who once described himself as a “neophyte” at something that had nothing to do with baptism! Hey, there’s another word – baptism! It’s Ancient Greek for crying out loud – should we change it to “washing” or “immersion”?)
We already have a religous language – and for most of us that’s okay. We only know most of these words and phrases because they’re in our religious practice. If any more pop up in the next translation, give us 2 months to get used to it, and I promise we’ll get our tongues around them. Maybe even our dictionaries. Treat us like adults and we’ll try to act accordingly.
Sorry for the rant. But Jimmy, two other things that people do ask about from time to time – in the new Missal, is it “for many” or “for all”? And did they keep the ICEL-invented Mystery of Faith verses?
If the new translation isn’t ready, why not use the Anglican Use Liturgy, which is approved, and beautiful, and logical for the English-speaking world?
I don’t think “consubstantial” means anything to most of the people who will be saying it.
Ultimately, it will not make any difference whether we say “one in being” or “consubstantial.” Either way, it will end up being translated into “one in being.” Either it will be translated on our lips, as we say those actual words, or it will be translated in our minds, as we say “consubstantial,” but since that is not a self-defining word, we will necessarily have to think of the definition, which is more or less “one in being.”
Similarly with “Dominus vobiscum” and “et cum spiritu tuo.” We could say “and with your spirit also,” in response to “the Lord be with you,” but then the question would arise, do we really mean to intend to limit the Lord being with the priest’s spirit, and not his body or mind? or by saying it, do we mean that the Lord should be with the priest’s entire self — spirit, body, and mind? It is my understanding that by “et cum spiritu tuo” we mean the latter, and if that is the case, we should simply say what we mean, which is the more inclusive “and also with you.” Perhaps that is not a precise translation of the literal words in Latin, but it seems to be to be a truer translation of meaning of those Latin words.
Let’s be honest. Bp. Troutman’s “pastoral concerns” are just a bunch of political games he and his gang are playing with Cdl. Arinze and company.
Come on. Consubstantial, incarnate, chalice are too foreign or hard or technical for use in Church?
Anybody go to a Mexican restaurant and complain about the foreign jargons like taco, enchilada and burrito being too esoteric?
How about going to a baseball game and complaining about pinch hitter, dugout and clearing the bench?
Do people using their computers to read this complain about LCD, RAM, blog and ipod? Talk about an esoteric vocabulary!
It is all just a game, folks, between juvenile American bishops who want to say, “No!” to the Vatican and say, “My way!” to God, and who do their level best to avoid having to say any word that might smell of Latin.
While they play their game, the rest of the world enjoys the 3rd edition of the Missal, while English speakers are stuck with the elementary translation of the 1st edition from the 1970’s. So much for pastoral concern.
Trautman said;
“Liturgical language must not just be faithful and accurate, but intelligible, proclaimable, dignified, and reflective of the contemporary mainstream of the English language as spoken in the United States”.
So, we should re-translate the language of the Mass to the reading level of a third-grader? Good idea.
Then, when the priest says “Peace be with you”, we can just reply, “You, too.”
I am actually old enough to remember having to learn not to say “And with your Spirit” when the current sacramentary came out. I still have a copy of the “interim missal” which was given me by my pastor who had thrown them all in the dumpster. I intervened and asked if I could have all those old books he threw away. he said I could because they were no longer being used. How we treat sacred things!
By the way, that was also when we had to learn to put a “vocal” comma in after the second holy in the Sanctus. we used to say: Holy Holy Holy, Lord God of power and might” now we say Holy Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might.
Then there was the (supposedly) hackneyed “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. But only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.” Now we say Lord I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”
Hmmm the change didn’t hurt then! –but I was much younger. I guess the NCR liturgists must be getting to old to learn new tricks 😉
“Dear Bishop Skylstad….
You want to hold on the Mass that has been used for 40 years because of TRADITION???????????”
Exactly… now tradition is a GOOD thing, because it is preserving what HE likes?
New Traditionalists! Forward, into the past!
I think it’s possible that some people have an orthodox understanding of the phrase “one in being with the Father,” and Unitarians who shared such an understanding would therefore reject it, but to maintain that that particular phrasing is the obvious one for English speakers is obtuse–where else in English does one use that phrase?
Is there anything else in English we describe in that way? I don’t think appeals to common usage will have much traction here in any event.
PVO
I don’t have a dog in the ‘consubstantial’ fight, but I would insist that liturgical language should be beautiful as well as precise. If the new translation simply tries to be precise by inserting a lot of stilted latinisms I’m not sure we’re going to be richer for it.
I refuse to accept that the choices are among 1) stilted latinism, 2) dumbed-down English, or 3) creative ‘adaptation’ or whatever they call it. I refuse to accept that English, or any language, cannot state the truths of faith in a way that is both precise and poetic.
What is needed are words that will live in your soul long after you’ve heard them in Mass, repeating themselves to your heart over and over and dwelling there in that inmost core of your being.
If the new translation does that, I’ll be a happy camper.
WRY:
If the new translation does that you’ll be a very lucky camper!
On the whole I agree with you. The targets are poetic AND doctrinally precise, and you are absolutely right to have high expectations. May the Lord deliver us from
‘creative adaptation’, particularly when Bishop Trautman has anything to do with the creativity.
I would query your very strong opposition between ‘poetic/rich’ and ‘stilted latinism’. Could you give me an example of a stilted latinism? (Babelfish auto-translations not
accepatble :-p)
Latin has been enriching the English language for centuries. I think latinisms can be poetic – take words like ‘romantic’ and ‘celestial’. Stilted English is stilted English:
much more the result of poor sentence structure, metre, and cadence than of the words’ etymology.
Paul R. Hoffer:
“It’s great to talk about these proposed changes, but is there a website or other link where one may actually see them?”
Not really.
The texts have mostly been kept very strictly under wraps. This secrecy is due to a specific request from the CDW. The ‘old’ ICEL was prone to releasing its ‘drafts’ to the general public, to give them chance to ‘get used to the coming changes’ (this even included protestant liturgical publishers, for ‘ecumenical reasons’). Then, when it came around to submitting the draft to the Holy See for approval, ICEL could protest ‘oh, we can’t make any of the changes you’re asking for now; we’ve already given out drafts to everybody. OCP will be publishing next week…’. The request for discretion was partly designed to put a stop to this, and partly to ring-fence the whole vexed question of translation as much as possible – the more opinions you involve, the longer it all takes…
This said, there have been some leaks.
– The whole of the first draft was leaked to an Australian broadcaster (ABC?) which put it up on its website until the Vatican asked that it be removed. No-one other than some Priests and Bishops really knows exactly how much things have changed since then. As far as I know complete copies of the first draft have now been completely purged from the web.
-however some snippets of the first draft appear on adoremus.org (including the opening of the Roman Canon and the memorial acclamationas)
– whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com released some chunks of the second draft (including the Gloria and Credo)
-a CNS article gave some tantalising snippets of the second draft, including the Ecce Agnus Dei, the opening of Eucharistic Prayer II.
Overall, the proposed changes can be summarised as very extensive – there is a significant change of tone and the structure of the texts follows the Latin far more closely. The last full draft I have seen was the first one, and although it definitely needed more work (it was avowedly only a draft for discussion), it was a huge step in the right direction. The Roman Canon in particular was a vast, vast improvement. You could get a good flavour by researching the links above – sorry I can’t give more specific links than this at the moment.
Incidentally, every indication I have seen is that the proposal uses ‘for all’ rather than ‘for many’. The jury is still out on whether ‘Christ has died…’ (a text which the ‘old’ ICEL made up out of thin air – that option is simply not there at all in the Latin) will go into the new Missal or not. In principle, this comes under ‘local adaptations’ rather than under translation.
Often information about the proposals that we get is second-hand or third hand. For example, the only reason I know that the ‘precious chalice’ wording is proposed at the consecration is because Bishop Trautman is complaining about it! The first draft simply had ‘cup’. Of course this and everything else could change between now and imprimatur.
that last post was from me!
Seems to me that over and above the arguments that are set forth, the real eye opener and test will be whether or not the USCCB and priests in this country will be obedient. That will speak volumes, just as it did in the garden!!!
tom,
Hmm, by stilted Latinism I think I really mean English that is stilted by an over-adherence to the structures, syntax and vocabulary of the underlying Latin. Without some research or a text even, hard to think of an example. I remember visiting France and seeing the TGV trains, which in English you’d probably just call a “fast train,” but in French literally would be something like “trains of great speed,” only if you called it that in English it wouldn’t sound right. Does that make any sense as a rough analogy?
By no means am I trying to say that Latin doesn’t or can’t enrich English — although there are people who really do think they sound more intelligent if they say they “departed” rather than “left,” the good old Ango-Saxon, I think).
What I am saying, and I think we agree, is that the English needs to be precise, poetic, noble, flowing naturally, etc.
Without getting too much into the etimology, it is helpful to point out that many words used now in everyday common speech were not in use 40 years ago, and many words are not used now which were used then. So, hopefully, if we are to continue measuring up the language of the sacred liturgy to common speech, if a few words are added to the liturgy now, it just may well reflect the development of common speech.
There are words many Catholics hear at Mass which we don’t hear in everyday common speech – like “liturgy”, “Eucharist”, “sacrament” – and I’m wondering where the debate has been about whether or not these words fit so nicely into common speech. I betcha few in the general Mass-going public ever really get worked up about whether these words match up nicely to common speech. What’s with the addition of a few new words to our “Churchese” to which, if we do the math, we already know the meanings of? (“I used to be saying ‘one in being’ and now I’m saying ‘consubstantial’… hmm… They must mean the same thing! Woo-hoo!”).
It makes me doubt whether the ‘common speech’ excuse is why people really don’t want these words added to the liturgy.
The objection to the likes of “consubstantial” is not that it is new and uncommon. It’s that it is new, uncommon, AND needlessly technically sounding.
It would be like placing “transubstantiate” into the eucharistic prayer when the priest asks God to change these gifts into the body and blood…
It’s a fine word for catechesis and theology, but it’s needlessly complicated without poetry.
“A fine word for catechesis and theology.”
You’re right, my friend. It’s a bit too bad we don’t have more language in the Mass orienting Catholics toward these areas. As if the Mass shouldn’t have much to do with either…
We have many Mass-going Catholics watching the Da Vinci and learning for the first time that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is God.
So, tell me that a few words added to the Mass, despite their character of very specifically belonging to the areas of catechesis and theology, don’t have much of a place in the Mass – even one like “consubstantial” which, depending on how you appreciate its potential catechetical value, could be “needlessly technically sounding” – OR -very likely to prompt some rather NECESSARY catechesis. “Although the sacred liturgy is above all the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful” (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 33).
That being said, I still don’t think this would be as big a deal for Joe Catholic, who if anything else just might be prompted by the changes to stop and think about what he’s rattling off in the Creed every Sunday at Mass.
…that’s Da Vinci Code
Good news. So are they now going to require a decent translation of the Bible as well? That would be even better.
Tom~Thank you for the information! After commenting on an article appearing on on Dr. Blosser’s blog and receiving a response by Dr. Blosser himself (which I greatly appreciated), I decided to I to do some research on how the liturgy has changed since Vatican II. Not two days later, I came across a little booklet at a “trash to treasure” store that was published in 1955 which contains the entire Requiem Mass in English. After reading it through several times, I was amazed at how simplified our present liturgy has become. A lot of the changes discussed here parallel the words used in that Mass. I am excited!
As with what Tom said a few comments ago, the bishops of the US are the true issue. Why is it such a big deal to change a few words in mass? What if the requirement was to actually pray during mass to end contraception, sterilization, abortion, and euthanasia? I used to attend a church that said this every week, now the church I attend is full of people who actually believe that the church says it is okay to have 2 or 3 kids and sterilize yourself.
When is the church going to actually require that the people be told the truth, whether they want to hear it or not???
However, the closer we get to making the mass more sacred and correct, the better I suppose. But I guess when you look at it as a train it is like a few passengers walking backwards while the train keeps going in the wrong direction.
If it were the case that the Anglo-Saxon was always the best linguistic fount for our word choice, we would have no need for the extensive, almost compulsive borrowing which has made the English vocabulary the richest of any language in history.
An actual discussion of the hypostasis (Greek? Throw it OUT!) is impossible in Anglo-Saxon alone without using far more words than the actual approved vocabulary–“substance” “essence” “persona”–which were all borrowed into English for the very good reason that Anglo-Saxon was not equipped to manage these concepts without vagueness or clumsy circumlocution (another Latinism–of with my head!)
A pedestrian English rendering of consubstantial might run along the lines of “of one substance” or “of one underlying being” but no one’s arguing for those, they’re trying to preserve the insubstantial (sorry) “one in being”–how does one get “in” to being?
PVO
I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned that “consubstantial” has the additional merit of anchoring the English text of the Creed in the definitive Latin, subtly reinforcing the truth that all of us in the West are Latin rite and gently nudging us in the direction of our birthright, our ecclesial “mother tongue” that promotes unity in time and space. As Old Zhou has suggested, most of us seem able to acquire a modest “foreign” vocabulary when we feel like it.
I disagree that English/Anglo Saxon was not equipped to express these ideas. Substance and persona etc were used because intellectual activities at the time that Aristotle was brought into Europe were all done in Latin. These terms were kept when the scholastics were translated into English, because the philosophically learned were used to them.
There are translations of Aristotle into English using none of these Latinisms, and they make Aristotle a lot easier to understand.
My problem with “consubstantial” is not that it is too complicated. It is that I think “one in being” is a better translation of homoousian. I particularly think the root word “substance” has confusing connotations for people who know the common and chemical use of the word and nothing about the philosophical use of the word.
I don’t understand what misunderstanding or unorthodoxy “one in being” is supposed to be subject to.
Personally, I can adjust fine: I learned the Nicene Creed in the old “I belive” Book of Common Prayer version,(“who spake by the prophets”) adjusted to saying it one day in the current new mass version and the next at my husband’s Episcopal church in the Rite II version
(thus switching from saying “one in being” to saying “of one being” and from “born of the Virgin Mary” to ” “was incarnate of the Virgin Mary” from “suffered, died, and was buried” to “suffered death and was buried.”) And I have also adjusted to chanting it in the version used in the Byzantine Catholic church. (minus the filioque.) The Byzantine version says “of one substance” with the Father, by the way. So does the old BCP creed…which gives substance a good pedigree as an English translation for ousia, despite my objections. (But see my first paragraph and my third. I still think these observations apply.) Unless someone can show me that “one in being” is less precise, or subject to more misunderstanding than “one in substance” , or is subject to heretical interpretation such that a specific philosophical term is needed to prevent that interpretation, I would still vote for “being.” If you are going to use “substance” why not “of one substance”?
If you are going to use such a technical term as “consubstantial” why not just use “homoousian” ? The latter is the actual word used in the creed in its original language. If you can explain consubstantial, you can explain homoousian. Right? I don’t expect this suggestion to be taken seriously; I just hope it makes those for whom consubstantial has a clear meaning, will realize that there are many to whom it would be no more and no less foreign than “homoousia”.
As for the rest of it, I am still pondering on “cup” vs “chalice” and what it implies to say one or the other. Our historic rite used “chalice” (calix, calicem) and that is an important consideration.
I think that if we made these changes to a more set aside and “holy” language, it might shake up the pattern and assumptions of what worship should be that allow the bad music, or even the ok for some contexts but just not up to what the mass should be music and the whole casual mass at a picnic-a nice, friendly, happy, full of fellowship picnic to be sure- atmosphere of Sunday mass in so many American parishes. It might. I rather think that is a large part of the objection to it.
Susan Peterson
Jimmy-
In the event that the USCCB disregards the Vatican directives on the translation of the Mass and sticks to the current one, what do you recommend we pew-sitters do?
I would find it really difficult mouthing the words of the current English translation knowing that it would constitute participation in an act of disobedience to Rome.
Dear Tim J.,
It is just a translation, one way or the other.
Whether we stick with the “Americans are simple folk” translation of the first edition from the 1970’s, or get a new “closer to Latin” translation of the third edition from 2002, it is still, in the end, a translation.
The English words themselves are nothing magical, nothing special.
I do wish that priests and bishops would actually use the approved words, whichever they are, not because those words are somehow “better,” but because they have been carefully considered, reviewed, and approved by various ecclesial bodies (episcopal conferences, translation committes, Vatican dicasteries), unlike the improv that a priest might want to use, or be fed by a local liturgist.
Every translation, even an approved translation like the one we have, is imperfect, is weak in parts, is just plain (almost) wrong now and then, might be misguided sometimes. That is why Sacrosanctum Concilium said that Latin remains the language of the liturgy. The liturgy is promulgated in Latin, not in any other language. For the sake of those who don’t know Latin, translations are (or are not) approved for use. But they are, in fact, nothing more than aids for those ignorant of Latin.
Don’t fight over a translation. It is like fighting over this or that painting of a living person. The translations are all just “paintings”. The “living person” is the liturgy in Latin.
Alternatively, you could attend Mass in some other language which is often closer to Latin, such as Italian or Spanish, and does not have these semmingly intractable problems of English.
The “disobedience to Rome” is in improvising upon and departing from the approved translation for a given language other than Latin, whichever translation that is.
It would be pride to disobey the bishops; otherwise I’d be using the ICEL drafts today.
PVO
True, mulopwepaul, my default mode is obedience.
It’s just weird that one can, out of obedience, become a party to disobedience.
By obeying a legitimate authority, I might participate in disobeying a still higher authority.
I just want the priests and bishops to give the same obedience to Rome that THEY expect from ME.
Old Zhou-
I understand that no translation is perfect. It’s not the merits of the translation at all that I’m mainly concerned with, but the prospect of the USCCB thumbing their noses at Rome. The current English translation is the only one I have ever known.
I have no problem with it, at long as Rome doesn’t, but if they say that it should be changed, I recognize their authority to do so.
It just bugs the tar out of me that U.S. priests and bishops can take such a lax view of obedience to Vatican directives, but then in their own sphere of authority, it’s “So let it be written, so let it be done…”.
Speaking of the American episcopal conference fighting with Rome, I wonder if part of the current liturgical messiness is not part of some as yet undiscussed compromise from the late 1960’s between the American bishops and Pope Paul VI, along the lines of:
(1) We’ll back you on Humanae Vitae (late 1968)
(2) You cut us lots of slack on the new English liturgy (1971)
I could easily imagine such a deal between the beleagured Pope, stunned at the global negative response, even among bishop, to Humanae Vitae, and the leading American churchmen of the time.
It was, after all, a big surprise when the American bishops came out in support of Humanae Vitae in late 1968.
+J.M.J+
Today I attended the Spanish-language Mass at my parish, and it got me thinking about this. Y’see, the Spanish translation of the Mass is more faithful to the original Latin than the ICEL English translation, and Spanish-speaking Catholics don’t appear to have any trouble understanding stuff like “Y con tu espíritu” (and with your spririt).
So our bishops must think that we English-speaking Catholics are awfully dense, if we supposedly can’t handle the same phrases most of the rest of our brethren use without any trouble.
In Jesu et Maria,
A few statistical notes regarding the Missale Romanum editio tertia (2002), and translation into English.
The Missale Romanum currently has 1,318 pages, distributed as follows:
Pages Content
120 Front matter, including the GIRM (70 pages)
382 Proper of Time (or Season)
206 Ordinary, incl. Eucharistic Prayers & Chant
182 Proper of Saints
80 Commons
104 Ritual Masses
82 Masses for Various Needs
34 Votive Masses
38 Masses for the Dead
70 Appendices
20 Indices
—-
Of these 1318 pages, so far we have English translation of 70 pages, the GIRM, about 5%.
Now the bishops are working on the Ordinary (I’m assuming the full ordinary), which is another 15.6% of the Missale Romanum.
So maybe, if all this goes well in January, and is approved by the Vatican and the US Bishops, we will now have 20% of the Missale Romanum 3rd edition in English.
That still leaves 80% to go, including all the Propers for the various Seasons and Saints, all the Votive and Ritual Masses and Masses for the Dead, etc.
It should also be remembered that the Collects of the Mass are also copied into the Liturgy of the Hours, and changes to the English texts of the Collects (or Opening Prayer of the Mass) will also affect all the English Liturgy of the Hours texts. And the Collects really need better translation.
Personally, I’d also like to see the new Missale materials for use with RCIA in English, and put into use.
It could still be a long, long time until there is a new, approved by everyone English tranlation of the Missal (known in 1971 as the Sacramentary).
I think the USCCB knows where its bread is buttered. A conference that started trully rejecting Vatican decrees in public would soon found itself a conference formally disbanded. Translation would simply be done in Rome. Believe it or not many people in the Vatican actually know how to speak English and could easily translate everything for us with out any input from us in the US of A. They’ll grumble about it but approve it but narrowly. Then all the bishops who didn’t approve it will just not enforce any parish to actually use the new translation. New bishops will enforce the new translation so it will slowly be enforced.
Rosemarie, thank you for pointing that out. I, too, don’t understand why the English translators seemingly went out of their way to change phrases.
Why don’t the bishops go with the Orthodox translation of homoousios — “of one essence with the Father”? To me, it’s the clearest expression. I realize it’s not a direct syllable-by-syllable translation of the Latin, but it’s undisputedly consistent with the underlying Latin and Greek and would have at least some ecumenical benefit. “One in being” is inferior on both grounds.
In case anyone’s still interested, Rocco Palmo has just re-posted some good bits of the new translation on his blog
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2006/06/vote.html
There are also some good bits of the Roman Canon up at wdtprs.com, but you have to hunt around for them.
This should help to give people a flavour of the new texts.
Tom