Did you know that when the ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy – a Joint Commission of Catholic Bishops Conferences) published their own translation in 1998 they had a translation that was readable, coherent, and dare I say it, actually sensitive to inclusive language for the human community: they had removed the “MEN” the Nicene Creed to read, “For us and for our salvation.” I didn’t know that, and therefore I owe the American Bishops who worked on that translation an apology. Sorry!
Imagine – there was a joint commission of national conferences of bishops. That in itself was momentous. But apparently Rome didn’t like these Bishops Conferences acting as if they had any authority on the matter of liturgy.
The issue was and is Rome after all.
From The National Catholic Reporter
” Benedictine Fr. Anthony Ruff wrote: The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church. When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process — and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity … I weep.
The English translation that we have used since 1973 was a rush job done in the first burst of enthusiasm after the Second Vatican Council. The English-speaking bishops asked for a new translation, a richer translation to better capture the beauty of these prayers. ICEL completed a translation in 1998 and all the English-language bishops’ conferences of the world approved it. But the Roman Curia did not.
The Vatican issued new translation guidelines, Liturgiam authenticam, in 2001, reorganized ICEL to report not to the English-speaking bishops but to the Curia, and appointed a committee, Vox Clara, to advise it on the approval of English translations. All this was done ostensibly to ensure the authenticity of the translation, but it was clear from the beginning that a clerical, imperial ideology was being imposed on the translation. The poetry of language and beauty of prayers were secondary concerns.”
The editors at NCR suggest that,
If we become bitter and arrested in anger, then we will be losers. The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” It is all that we are and what we strive to be. All prayer, but especially the Eucharist, is for deepening our commitment to ourselves and to God. The “source and summit” line comes from Lumen Gentium, “Light to the Nations,” the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Later, that same document reminds us that we “in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God.” We are, the document says, “the new people of God.”
No words of any language can ever fully express this mystery. That is some consolation. Until we have better words, we can make do with this faulty translation.
I’m not sure I agree with them, though. I’m not sure that we should “make do.” If National Bishops Conferences have given in to the Curia does that mean that we all should? And if we don’t, what will our actions look like? Alternative Eucharistic gatherings, with or without ordained clergy? Should we return to house masses? Is this the time to let go of the Curia and move on in our faithfulness to Jesus instead of Rome?
I don’t know where this is going with me. But my discomfort with parish liturgy is growing exponentially as these “new” translations make me feel even more unempowered and controlled and that has never been a good feeling.
From an ecumenical liturgy site:
Liturgy: Worship that works – spirituality that connects
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/failed-1998-english-missal-translation/5093
Most Roman Catholics appear not to be aware that in 1998 there was an excellent new English translation of the Roman Missal. The first translation had been released in 1973. In in the mid 1980s translation work began again. It was to be more accurate. There was international cooperation among bishops, scholars, liturgists, Latinists, and other experts. It received the approval of all the English-speaking conferences of the world; in ten of the eleven conferences, its approval was unanimous or near-unanimous.
First, there was no response from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship. In the next decade, when a response was received, it was rejected, and work began anew.
These are the parts of the complete 1998 translation.
Christianity in the 21st Century 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm
Robert Helfman
While remaining in faith and charity with the institutional church is worthwhile, if conscience allows it must be said that as baptized members of the Body of Christ with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit ANY lay person in good conscience and with right intent may preside over a valid Eucharistic celebration. This is, in my view, a fact.
It is important to recognize that Canon law does not allows this and were one to remain a member of the institutional church in good standing one might wish to avoid exercising his or her baptismal rights to this degree.
It is interesting that Protestant congregations where communion is celebrated do not imitate Catholic Eucharistic theology fully. I have thought often about this as there is something unique and substantially (sic) different about the Mass.
I have come to the conclusion that the Church does not have a monopoly on God, that she understands only in part what happens during the consecration and that the theology of transubstantiation should be revisited in the light of tradition, church history and current faith and practice.
Speaking for myself, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is what makes the Catholic Mass unique. This is not to say that other congregations are denied the presence of Christ in their Eucharistic liturgies, such as they may be. It is the understanding of the relationship of the Divine with the material world, one imparting grace to the other. Were on to understand this as Spiritual Presence then one would both move closer to the testimony of the senses and the Gospels and remain both faithful to tradition and the lived experience of the present.
Is there anything less holy about the Eucharist if the presence of Christ is a spiritual one? Do not both the Gospels and the liturgical texts refer to it in this manner on occasion?
While I have no intention of carrying on a reformation within the Catholic communion I think it perfectly credible to believe that it is possible for those sufficiently offended by the exercise of Papal authority in this regard to take up the cause, and celebrate their own liturgies in a private setting.
Were one to understand this from a spiritual perspective then any schismatic group wishing to remain in communion with the Roman Church would have to do their theological homework and find justification for the exercise of the priesthood of the laity in a new and revolutionary way-otherwise what one will find is that another Protestant group has formed with its own rites and rituals or lack thereof, which is nothing new.
What would be unique is courageous men and women who love their Catholic faith and are willing to take a bold stand to defend what they believe is the core and substance of their faith from within, both within the temple of the Holy Spirit he or she is, and the Church.
One would have to overcome intimidation, threats of excommunication and retain a firm foundation in the best of Catholic faith and practice while expressing the freedom to practice the faith in good conscience as conscience directs.
This is my last comment on the issue. Somewhat like Dostoevsky’s character writing NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND I throw my bread upon the water; it is up to the Lord whether it returns void or not. One thing remains: the wisdom of a comic strip writer known for his clever political satire whose trenchant wit has left us with one of the classic aphorisms of all time, a quote from POGO by Pogo, to whit: “We have met the enemy and he is us”.
I am not attempting to introduce novelties (this would have brought me to the attention of the Inquisition at one time) and neither am I suggesting that the faithful adopt heresies to the ruin of their souls. I can point to theological traditions that were current at one time in salvation history. I am suggesting that one might think, imagine, broaden one’s horizon with new ideas, and were one to do nothing more than that, at some point should it be the will of God the Holy Spirit will inspire someone somewhere and the renewal will catch fire and cover the Earth.
Sounds grand, even should the news being new reports of another terrorist attack. Here lies the tragedy-we count angels on the heads of liturgical pins while Rome (the world) burns. Wasted potential, lost opportunity. Were I to take my own advice this would be (and will be, God willing) the last time I address this issue in a public forum. I have better things to do.
August 15, 2016 at 1:01 pm
Mona
Thank you for your reflection.
Blessings,
Mona