CNS STORY: Bishops to vote on new Order of Mass in English

[NLM Commentary at the end...]

By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The U.S. bishops will be asked to approve a new translation of the Order of Mass when they meet in Los Angeles June 15-17.

If the new translation is adopted as proposed and subsequently approved by the Vatican, Catholics will have to learn a number of changes in their Mass prayers and responses. Among the more obvious will be:

-- Whenever the priest says "The Lord be with you," the people will respond, "And with your spirit." The current response is "And also with you."

-- In the first form of the penitential rite, the people will confess that "I have sinned greatly ... through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault." In the current version, that part of the prayer is much shorter: "I have sinned through my own fault."

-- The Nicene Creed will begin "I believe" instead of "We believe" -- a translation of the Latin text instead of the original Greek text.

-- The Sanctus will start, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hosts." The current version says, "Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might."

Approving a new text of the Order of Mass is only the first step in a long process of considering and approving a new translation of the entire book of prayers said at Mass. In the United States that book has been called the Sacramentary since 1970, but the Vatican wishes to restore the name Roman Missal, since it is an English translation, with minor adaptations, of the normative Latin "Missale Romanum."

Officials of the bishops' Secretariat for the Liturgy told Catholic News Service May 23 that it is uncertain whether the bishops will seek to publish the new Order of Mass for U.S. use as soon as possible or wait until they have the new English translation of the entire Roman Missal completed. Completing the entire Roman Missal is likely to take at least two more years.

Once the bishops adopt new liturgical texts, they must also be confirmed by the Vatican before they can be authorized for use.

In general, people will find many of the Mass prayers in the new version slightly longer and fuller, as the new translation is based on rules for liturgical translations issued by the Vatican in a 2001 instruction. Unlike the previous Vatican rules -- which encouraged freer translations more adapted to the language into which one was translating -- the new rules require closer adherence to the normative Latin text.

In a recent letter Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, told the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that if a current text does not conform to the new translation norms it must be changed.

"It is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past 30 or 40 years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. ... The revised text should make the needed changes," he wrote.

He said his congregation is open to dialogue about "difficulties regarding the translation of a particular text," but the 2001 instruction calling for translations more faithful to the Latin text "remains the guiding norm."

His letter, dated May 2 and addressed to Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., USCCB president, was posted on the Catholic World News Web site in late May.

In response to a query from CNS, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., chairman of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy, said Bishop Skylstad sent the letter to all Latin-rite bishops in advance of the June meeting.

"I see this letter as a clarification and further restatement of criteria for translation previously authored by the congregation," Bishop Trautman said. He said it "offers additional input for the deliberation of the bishops."

The Order of Mass, found at the center of the Roman Missal, consists of the prayers recited every day at Mass, as distinct from the Scripture readings and prayers that are proper to the day's feast.

Thus what the bishops are to vote on in June are new versions of the prayers that Massgoers are most familiar with because they hear or say them so regularly.

Within the Order of Mass are some prayers for which there are a limited number of alternatives, such as the forms of the penitential rite, the four different eucharistic prayers or the various acclamations following the consecration.

The text the bishops are to vote on in June does not include the prefaces, solemn blessings, prayers over the people or elements found in the appendix that also form part of the Order of Mass.

The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, which prepared the text to be voted on, is still consulting with English-speaking bishops' conferences around the world on the translation of the prefaces and other elements and does not have a final version of them yet.

Churchgoers will have to learn a different version of the Gloria when the new texts are put into use because part of the current prayer in English does not follow the structure of the Latin version.

In the Nicene Creed, where the current version refers to Christ as "one in being with the Father," the new ICEL translation says, "consubstantial with the Father." In the documentation sent to the bishops before the meeting, however, the Committee on the Liturgy has recommended keeping the "one in being" translation in the United States.

The new ICEL text for the people's prayer before Communion says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

The committee proposed that the bishops seek to keep the current shorter version of the beginning of that prayer, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you." The committee did not, however, propose a change from the ICEL translation at the end, where the people currently pray, "but only say the word and I shall be healed."

The bishops will also vote on several American adaptations in the Order of Mass, such as adding the acclamation, used in the United States since 1970 but not found in the Roman Missal in Latin, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

[NLM Commentary: CNS, Catholic News Service, is the news agency of the U.S. Bishops Conference. As such, and given the debates going on about this, there is perhaps a little spin put into this article that I'd like to analyze. It may reflect some of the underlying debates and tactics that have been going on, and continue to.

For example: "The Nicene Creed will begin "I believe" instead of "We believe" -- a translation of the Latin text instead of the original Greek text.

The comment that this is a translation of the Latin text rather than the "original Greek text", seems to be somewhat of a subtle polemic, but ultimately irrelevant to this matter -- given that the Latin text is that text which has been defined as the normative, typical edition from which all translations are to be based. The inclusion, then, of this subtle comment certainly seems rooted in an underlying debate. Of course, this causes one to pause and question whether the concern is truly about the Greek vs. Latin text, or whether there is a more fundamental ideological concern. Namely this. We know there is a sensitivity in certain progressivist liturgical circles to the individual versus the communal in the liturgy. The liturgy is of course both, but many such would create an unnecessary tension in this regard and over-compensate by giving undue emphasis on the communal, and undue detraction from the individual/personal. With such principles in place, there would certainly be a resistance to that which would have individual import, such as "I believe", and a preference for the communal, "We believe".

What is interesting in this question as well, I should note, is that the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that I know of translate the Nicene Creed as "I believe" and not "we believe".

Another statement: "Unlike the previous Vatican rules -- which encouraged freer translations more adapted to the language into which one was translating -- the new rules require closer adherence to the normative Latin text."

Chock this under the, "Dont' blame us, blame Rome" file. I have typically found this sort of comment raised, either in ecclesiastical or secular matters, as a subtle form of complaint and protest.

As well, to say "freer translations more adapted to the language" seems a touch presumptous and speaks of something else than strictly the English language. What does that mean to be "more adapted to the language"? The underlying principle here seems to be a belief that liturgical language should be adapted to everyday speech habits.

Certainly, if one says "through my fault, my fault, my most grevious fault", people entirely understand this -- though, indeed, the may not speak like this on television or on the street corners. Or to add in descriptive words like "precious Chalice", "sacred hands", certainly does not obscure either, but again, it is a different form of English speech. But that different form of English speech is not without comprehension.

What this must mean, then, is that it isn't merely about the use of English words that are of less use in common-speak, but it is also about speech that would be commonly heard on streets, in shopping malls and on television. That is "being adapted".

But from whence comes this principle? More sacral forms of English are comprehensible and set the sacred liturgy outside the normal, the banal, the secular. This is as it ought to be since the sacred liturgy is not a pedestrian event. Again, it is not merely a horizontal, communal event, but also one of primarily heavenly and transcendent orientation -- the context in which the communal occurs. We do not bring the heavenly down to the banal and everyday, rather we bring the everyday up into the heavenly.

Bishop Trautman: "I see this letter [from Arinze] as a clarification and further restatement of criteria for translation previously authored by the congregation," Bishop Trautman said. He said it "offers additional input for the deliberation of the bishops."

I'm not entirely certain what Bishop Trautman means by his last quote, but it seems to be a good example of where black is called white and vice versa. To anyone reading Arinze's letter, what becomes clear is that there is not as much input on the matter of translation as a certain sector of the U.S. Bishops (and presumably some other English speaking bishops) would wish. Rather, in all but certain specialized exemptions that the CDW would possibly entertain, the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam are the norm.

Without seeing the full context of what Bishop Trautman is saying, certainly his suggestion that Arinze's letter offers "additional input for the deliberation of the bishops" seems to either stubbornly resist the reality which Arinze presented, or turn Arinze's letter, and Liturgiam Authenticam itself, into something merely subjective and optional; mere "advice" for the bishops to consider, but not objective instruction which they are bound to follow. In either case, it seems to be a subtle form of resistance.]

CNS STORY: Bishops to vote on new Order of Mass in English