Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

We were up north of Chicago this weekend to visit my brother and his wife. We had also planned on visiting with some old friends (well they are not old themselves) up near Milwaukee but a snowstorm got in the way. We went to Mass on Sunday at a small community’s chapel run by the Handmaids of the Precious Blood. The Mass was very well done. They used the current Roman Missal said in Latin for all of the parts of Mass that do not change from week to week, with all of the variable aspects of Mass said in English.

The priest said Mass sufficiently slowly that I was able to read along in the Latin text that was available. As I was reading the Latin, I became aware again how far away from the Latin text that the current translation of the Sacramentary actually is in many places. This brought to mind the thread run on Open Book recently, citing the lament by the former editor of the Tablet, of what he sees as the demise of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). There is much that could be said about this article. To say that it was one-sided would be an understatement. In fact, it reminds me of the attitude of a disciplined adolescent who exaggerates his description of even the most mild bit of discipline, into a major case of unjust aggression. A more even handed treatment on the author’s part might have served him better in trying to peddle the many fundamental errors in fact and theology he presented. I thought that I might take one issue at a time, giving me ample material for several posts.

One of the issues that the author, John Wilkins, takes is that the Congregation of Divine Worship (CDW) overturned many of ICEL’s translation policies. He says that ICEL used Sacrosanctum concilium’s direction for the reform of the Liturgy in revising the Latin texts. He said that ICEL’s “aim was to achieve a noble simplicity of language that was true to the original while pleasing to the ear and apt for proclamation.” However, the context of the Vatican II statement presupposed a distinction between the Latin tradition of more concise and theologically precise liturgical texts from the more poetic and lengthy prayers usually found in the Eastern liturgical tradition. It does not mean that the more simple the better. Thus, the problem with ICEL’s approach is two fold. First, this was the direction given for the Latin text. Since “noble simplicity” had already been achieved in the revision of the Latin texts, a further “simplifying” in translation was clearly beyond what was called for by the Council Fathers. Second, the ICEL emphasis seemed to be not on “noble” but on “simplicity.” The result was that the translations often failed to achieve the “noble” goal in that they tended to deemphasize God’s glory, His Transcendence, and our neediness for His grace. The translations seemed in fact to try to “tame” God. Rather than raising man toward the goal of becoming holy, the translations seemed to try to reach up and bring God down to man’s level. One glaring example of this is in the Confiteor.

Current translation: I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do and I ask Blessed Mary . . .

Latin: Confiteor Deo omnipotenti et vobis, fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et ommissione: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam . . .

A more literal translation of this would be: “I confess to You Almighty God and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly (nimis) in thought, word, deed, and omission, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. I beseech (precor) blessed Mary . . . (I base my humble translation on the CREDO translation available from Ignatius Press).

The ICEL “translators” have simplified away the emphasis on man’s fault and repentance (especially the repetition of the confession) and deemphasized the pleading tone of the request for prayers on our behalf.

The beginning of the Roman Canon: 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 to you in sacrifice. . . .

Latin: 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

More literal translation: “Therefore, most merciful Father, to you we humbly pray and beg through Jesus Christ, your Son, Our Lord, to accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy unblemished sacrifices that we offer to you . . . “

We do not humbly pray and beg our most merciful Father but simply ask Him; we bring only gifts, they are no longer offerings, holy and unblemished sacrifices.

Other “simplifications” are the removal of adverbs and adjectives which I assume were deemed redundant such as in the Gloria the removal of “great” from the “praise of God for [His] great glory” and removal of “holy” in the response during the preparation of the gifts when we pray to God for “the good of all His holy Church.”

Was this an agenda? There are those who provide a compelling argument that it was. Regardless, Wilkins’s assumption that ICEL was faithfully following the dictates of Vatican II until the CDW heavy handedly stepped in does not correspond to the evidence. The CDW showed ICEL their problems and gave ICEL plenty of opportunity to correct themselves. The CDW perceived, correctly I believe, intransigent foot dragging on the part of ICEL and finally for the sake of authentic liturgy for the faithful, decided more fundamental changes were needed. The results that have been coming out of the new and improved ICEL suggest that these fundamental translation policy problems have been largely overcome. Yea for the faithful!