At the conclusion of Thanksgiving Day Mass, one of my parishioners, who identified himself as 86 years young, came up to me. "I have a question, Father. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Why is our Mass changing?"
I was happy for the question, because it told me that our parish efforts over the past three months were successful. One parishioner had heard that new Mass translations were going to begin!
But I replied, "Well, I'm not sure." It was not the time nor place (with several folks behind him wanting to "grip and rip" out of church) for a long dissertation about the 2000 third typical edition in Latin, the 2001 document Liturgicam Authenticam, and more than a decade of behind the scenes pushing and pulling on the part of liturgists and Roman bureaucrats.
By then I had had a month to skim the surface of the newly translated into English Roman Missal. And in my heart I agreed, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
We've now had almost the entire Advent season to encounter the new texts and translations. Some are hailing their "fidelity to the Latin." The editor of Our Sunday Visitor called the new translation "more poetic and scriptural...loftier, more sacred, more self-consciously different from the ordinary."
I learned a cute Latin phrase years ago, "De gustibus non est disputandum." In matters of taste, all opinions are worthwhile and valued.
So my opinion is just that, an opinion.
But I have to disagree with "more poetic" and "loftier." I have found the new translation difficult, pretentious, stuffy, and in a few cases unintelligible. The translation is certainly "different" though, full of odd English words stuffed into Latin syntax.
Sentences of 70 or 80 or 90 words challenge my ability to proclaim them without losing my breath or my place. (See the beginning of the Third Eucharistic Prayer, or the Preface for Christ the King of the Universe.)
Words such as "ineffably", "exultant", "replenished", "we pray", "prevenient", "beseech", "dewfall", and "oblation" are not in my vocabulary, nor in the vocabulary of the people with whom I pray. Reading these words I feel like a mildly drunken Episcopalian priest, who had an excellent Oxford education, came to the U.S., and now wants to show off his Shakespearean thespian talents and learning in front of the faithful.
Every day I am frustrated by the sentence fragments "Through Christ our Lord" and "Who lives and reigns...". I have taught theology courses on undergraduate and graduate levels for two decades, as well as been on the faculty for our diocesan permanent deason program. I insist that every paper submitted to me for a grade be written with sound English grammar. Sentence fragments are not proper English. Sentence fragments in submitted papers regularly receive my red ink mark-down. Presiding at Mass, I find myself adding "We ask this...through Christ our Lord." Sentences need a subject and a predicate. The same goes for the unattached sentence fragments, where the "Who" in English translation is ambiguous as to whom it references. (See the collects for the Second Sunday of Advent, Wednesday of the Second Week of Advent, and the Fourth Sunday of Advent.)
I would have gotten a C- or worse from Fathers Colgan or Lanahan at the Bishop's Latin School for these translations.
The word "chalice" in the words of consecration is irritating. Jesus did not have a chalice in front of him at the Last Supper. The Greek word in the gospels does not translate into "chalice." It means a simple or common vessel for holding a liquid. My people know a 21st century chalice from a 1st century cup, and wine from the Precious Blood. That word alone is evidence to me of poor translation, and worse, a hidden agenda for what Bishop Trautman called "a sacred language" by those who approved the translation into English.
The other word in the consecration which is simply wrong in translation is "for many." Yes, it is "pro multis" in the Latin. But there are several scholarly studies, commissioned by the Vatican itself in the 1970s, which argue very persuasively that in the ancient world "multis" in Latin meant "all" in contemporary English. Only with a convoluted and arcane long defense can one attempt to defend "for many" as the translation into English. It may be literal, but it isn't a fair translation.
I have to admit that I can live with "consubstantial" in the new English version of the Creed. This word has gotten lots of criticism too. Maybe because I studied Latin and Greek a long time ago, I am fairly comfortable with transliterated words in the liturgy, such as "amen", "alleluia", "catholic", "baptism", and "Christ." We Catholic Christians just have to learn some vocabulary as the price of knowing how to speak intelligently about our faith.
The people in my parishes are going along with the changes. I've heard few comments from them, positive or negative. (From priests it's a different story. The guys I've talked with make most of the same criticisms.) The folks in the pews and I are still four weeks into reading from the grey "cheat sheet" pew cards. Those who regularly attend Sunday liturgy will eventually memorize the changes. (Weddings and funerals are another story. At the several funerals I've had, and one wedding this month, it's still "And also with you" as the given response.)
The faithful in the Diocese of Pittsburgh are an obedient bunch, priests and religious and people together. We will eventually learn these new words. Today I don't see them as more poetic, and certainly not more prayerful. I am curious how I will feel about these words after going through the entire liturgical year once. Will familiarity breed acceptance, or contempt, or...?
What seems to be clear to me is that I better make peace with these texts. It took Rome thirty years after the Mass of 1970 to issue a revised Latin edition. It took more than a decade after that for a new English translation to appear. Unless I live to be 100, these will be these texts I will pray for the rest of my priestly ministry.
No comments:
Post a Comment