We English speaking Catholics are now into the third week of praying the Roman Missal at Mass, with its new translation of the third typical Latin edition. I cannot say I am praying the Mass when I preside. My eyes are glued to the grey "cheat sheet" card I purchased for my churches, or fixed on the Missal itself. I'm self-conscious as I stand in front of the congregation. I made the decision to only pray the second Eucharistic prayer until I got it down pat. I'm weeks away from using another one.
Humor is one way of responding to these awkward new texts. One priest friend of mine (who shall go nameless) emailed this to a bunch of us on December 8:
"Use the new words you learned in today's liturgy in a sentence. My prevenient observations were consubstantially those of a host others who partoke in my perspective before they were oblated. Inauthentic translation: The things I said ahead of time were the same as a large number of people who shared my point of view, before they were sacrificed."
I think my friend has too much time on his hands.
Another priest, in response said, "Practice, hard you must, as Yoda proclaims to young Luke Skywalker."
And spirit with his.
Instead of offering my own two cents of criticism, let me quote an authority. Bishop Donald Trautman is the bishop of Erie, with earned degrees in theology and Sacred Scripture. He was the chairman of the U.S. Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy for six years. And for the past several years was probably the only American bishop to publicly criticize the proposed (and now implemented) translation of the Roman Missal, Third Edition. (See Ann Rodgers' story on him at http://post-gazette.com/pg/11177/1156350-455-0.stm .)
On October 22, 2009, Bishop Trautman gave a lecture at The Catholic University of America, in a series honoring Msgr. Frederick R. McManus, a noted liturgist, and, in the words of Bishop Trautman, "an apostle of the liturgical renewal." The title of his lecture is "The Language of the New Missal in Light of the Translation Principles of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy." At the time of this lecture, the final final English translation had not yet been distributed to the bishops worldwide by the Vatican. A few words of the translation were changed by Rome from the text Trautman was using. Nevertheless, his trenchant comments bear repeating. I'm going to quote Bishop Trautman extensively. You can read his entire lecture at http://catholicview.typepad.com/files/trautman-mcmanus-lecture.pdf .
... I ask: Are these new texts accessible? Are they proclaimable and intelligible? Do they reflect correct English syntax and sentence structure? Are they pastorally sensitive to the liturgical assembly? Do they lead to full, conscious and active participation? Is the New Missal faithful to the translation principles of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [of the Second Vatican Council], in particular paragraphs 21 and 34?
The translated texts of the Third Edition of the Missale Romanum must be more than accurate and faithful to the Latin original; they must communicate -- they must be intelligible, proclaimable, reflective of a sentence structure, vocabulary and idiom of contemporary American English. The primary purpose of the Missal is to provide spoken and sung prayer texts for the liturgical assembly. If those texts employ lengthy sentences with clauses and dangling participial phrases, comprehension by the assembly will be nearly impossible. If those texts use esoteric words, archaic expressions, technical theological vocabulary, incomplete sentences and Latin syntax in place of English syntax, then we have a translation that is not pastoral -- a text that does not promote full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy. The New Missal is intended for public prayer, worship, lifting up the heart and mind to God. People in the pews must own the prayer text, its vocabulary, its style, its idiom, its cadence. The people in the assembly must be able to make the proclaimed prayer their own, and so raise their hearts and minds to God....
The English translation of the New Missal has intentionally employed a "sacred language" which tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable. For example, the Preface of the Assumption reads: "She brought forth ineffably your Incarnate Son." There is repeated use of the word "ineffable" throughout the New Translation of the Missal. In the Nicene Creed we will pray "consubstantial with the Father" which replaces the present wording "one in being with the Father". Also in the Creed the new wording "by the Holy Spirit he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary" replaces "he was born of the Virgin Mary". The vast majority of God's people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the New Missal like "ineffable", "consubstantial", incarnate", "inviolate", "oblation", "ignominy", "precursor", "suffused", or "unvanquished". This vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic....
When the Council Fathers of Vatican II made the historic decision that the liturgy of the Church should be in the vernacular, there was no emphasis on a sacred language. The Council Fathers' intent was pastoral -- to have the liturgy of the Church prayed in vernacular or living languages. There was no mention of any sacred language or sacred vocabulary. Such concepts flow from the 2001 Instruction on Vernacular Translations, a Roman Congregational document (Liturgicam Authenticam). Certainly translated liturgical texts should be reverent, noble, inspiring, uplifting, but that does not mean archaic, remote, incomprehensible. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language....
A major defect of the translated Missal is the number of lengthy, cumbersome sentences with complex syntax. For example, the Collect after the Third Reading at the Paschal Vigil has one sentence of 65 words in ten lines....This is too long for a proclaimed text....Many of the Prefaces in the New Missal have lengthy sentences that hinder their proclaimability and comprehension. For example, in the Preface of Christ the King there are 13 lines and 88 words in one sentence. How will this promote intelligible and meaningful prayer? How can the assembly remember what is being prayed for? Eucharistic Prayer III begins with 70 words in one sentence. In almost all instances the Collects or opening prayers, prayers over the gifts, and prayers after Communion follow a single sentence format with one or more clauses. Again proclaimability and comprehension are sacrificed for the sake of maintaining the Latin single sentence structure. Latin word order is not English word order. The translators have adhered slavishly to the literal Latin syntax, so that the English translation results in a jumbled English syntax, a lengthy sentence with clauses or participial phrases with an unnatural rhythm of speaking in English. In view of the examples already presented, I would contend that the translated Missal does not have a pastoral style....
The Council Fathers of Vatican II specify a pastoral approach in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Paragraph 21 of that document states: "Both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. The Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them easily." This is the pastoral dimension lacking in the New Missal. In paragraph 34 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, we have an even stronger statement that rites and texts: "...should radiate a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, free from useless repetition. They should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation." These statements of the Council Fathers constitute a pastoral principle -- a pastoral perspective -- for judging the translation of the New Missal. How do the words "ineffable", "consubstantial", "inviolate", "ignominy", "precursor", "suffuse" fulfill the words of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that texts be "within the people's powers of comprehension" and "not require much explanation"?...
There are those who disagree with the way the liturgical reform of Vatican II was interpreted and implemented. They blame a diminishing religiosity, declining Mass attendance and priestly and religious vocations on less transcendence, less awe, less mystery in the New Order of Mass. In reaction to this perception they advocate a reform of the reform. They believe ordinary language weakens the sense of the transcendent. In 2001 the Congregation of Divine Worship and discipline of the Sacraments decreed a shift to a more sacred vocabulary in vernacular worship with a more literal translation of the Latin original texts.
The Latin text is not inspired. It is a human text, reflecting a certain mind-set, theology, and world view. There are good Latin texts -- balanced, carefully crafted -- and there are bad Latin texts -- convoluted, lengthy, complicated, abstract -- that become a translator's herculean task. Because of literal translation in the New Missal, complicated Latin wording has become complicated English wording.
In the New Missal all prayers, originally composed in English, are banned. This gives the impression that original vernacular prayers are less holy, less pleasing to God, than Latin. We need to remember that the original liturgical language of the Church was not Latin, but the vernacular....
I could quote Bishop Trautman further, with specific examples of his principles, but I would tax your patience. I think you hear what this 75 year old bishop is saying. I do encourage you to read his lecture, with its detailed examples of poor translation, in its entirety.
In a future post I'll offer some comments from the pews and altars in my parishes.
No comments:
Post a Comment