The final report of the October 2023 session of the synod referred to "the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures."

The English-speaking church has an easy response to this request: the 1998 translation of the Roman missal done by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, known as ICEL.

Its work was rejected by the man who would become Benedict XVI, but the time has come to put it forward again.

Implementing liturgical translations has often been controversial, both recently and in the long ago past.

The first schism in Rome occurred early in the third century after Pope Callistus I translated the liturgy from Greek into vulgar Latin — the informal, popular version of the language at the time — so that the common people could better understand the celebration of the Eucharist.

Hippolytus, the first antipope and author of Eucharistic Prayer II, led a revolt to keep the Greek liturgy. The dispute became so bitter and violent that pagan soldiers arrested both men and sent them to the tin mines of Sardinia.

After the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic Church began translating liturgical texts from Latin into contemporary languages for the same reasons Callistus put the liturgy into Latin: so that people could participate more fully and actively in the liturgy.

The translations were supposed to be made by episcopal conferences and were subject to final approval by Rome.

ICEL's 1998 translation was supposed to replace the translation that had been done quickly after the council.

The group, which comprises 11 bishops' conferences from the U.S. and the United Kingdom to India, the Philippines to New Zealand and Australia, employed experienced translators, liturgical scholars and even poets.

They also added new prayers — for example, presidential prayers after the Gloria that picked up themes from the Sunday Scripture readings.

The 1998 translation followed the 1969 Vatican instruction, "Comme Le Prévoit," which stated, "The language chosen should be that in ‘common' usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithful who speak it in everyday use, even children and persons of small education."

The 1998 translation was well received by English-speaking episcopal conferences, who approved it and sent it to Rome for final approval.

However, by the time the translation got to the Vatican, the rules were changing. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, preferred a word-for-word translation of the Latin rather than one that was easily understood when it was proclaimed.

At first, the English-speaking conferences fought for their translations, but the Vatican was not interested in listening.

In one instance, the American bishops asked to send a delegation to Rome to talk about the translation, but the Vatican agreed only on the condition that Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk not be part of the delegation. Pilarczyk had a doctorate in classics and could run circles around Vatican officials.

In 2001, the Vatican issued new instructions about translations of the Roman missal in "Liturgiam authenticam," which directed "the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses."

Eventually, under new leadership, ICEL followed Ratzinger's directions and produced the flawed 2010 translation that we are now using in church.

Thus, one cardinal in Rome, whose native language was German, was able to overrule years of work by the English-speaking bishops and tell them how they should pray their own language in worship.

Times have again changed. In 2017, Pope Francis revised canon law to emphasize that the main responsibility for liturgical translations lies with episcopal conferences.

According to Francis, the Dicastery for Divine Worship should no longer impose a given translation on episcopal conferences.

Nor should it be involved in a detailed word-by-word examination of translations.

Under these new procedures, the 1998 ICEL translation would have been easily approved by the Vatican.

Because Francis told the synod delegates not to talk to the press, it is hard to know from where the recommendation on liturgical translations came.

Did the push come from the bishops or the lay delegates at the synod?

Was it from Africa? Asia? Latin America?

These parts of the church have certainly wanted more respect for "the diversity of cultures."

But given that the biggest recent fight over translation involved English speakers, the call may have come from one of the ICEL countries.

It certainly did not come from the American bishops, who have no interest in revising liturgical texts. But perhaps other English-speaking bishops want to revisit the translation.

Granted this history, what would be a good way forward for the English-speaking church?

First, since it takes years to do a new translation, ICEL should begin by resurrecting the 1998 translation and reviewing it for minor improvements.

This translation, the fruit of years of work, is much better than the one currently used. There is no need to start from scratch.

Sadly, ICEL, which holds the copyright, does not allow the 1998 translation to be posted on the web (although some creative searching on Google turns it up), so it is difficult for people to see how good it is.

Second, changing the people's responses would probably be a bad idea. Going from "And also with you" to "And with your spirit" and back to "And also with you" would cause whiplash among the laity.

On the other hand, if Christian denominations agree on common English texts for the Gloria, the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer, then adopting these texts would be worth the effort for ecumenical reasons.

Third, in the meantime, priests should be given permission to use the 1998 translation for the parts of the Mass that are said only by the priest: the presidential prayers, prefaces, Eucharistic prayers, etc.

Let priests have the option of using the 1998 version or the current version, and see which one promotes fuller participation in the liturgy.

It would be instructive to see which version becomes more common after five or 10 years of allowing them both.

Which translation do priests find easier to proclaim, and which version do people more easily hear and understand?

One of the problems with how the church does liturgical translations is that they are not tested in the real world before they are imposed throughout the church.

The hierarchy does not believe in market testing translations to see what works.

Allowing priests to use the 1998 ICEL translation would be a good way to test its value.

Sadly, practical problems will foster inertia in liturgical translations.

Publishers have warehouses full of the current missal that they want to sell. Pastors don't want to spend money on new missals.

Bishops do not want to risk backlash from conservative Catholics who oppose any change in the liturgy.

All of this makes it likely that we will have to endure the current translation unless liturgists, priests and people in the pews support the synod's call for change.

If the United States is going to experience a true Eucharistic revival, then it needs liturgical texts that promote the full and active participation by all people in the liturgy. The current text does not do that.

The 1998 ICEL translation is a step in the right direction.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Improved translations for the opening and post-Communion prayers are also under consideration.

The initiative was confirmed by Bishop Stephen Lowe, president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and the bishops' representative on the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

The revised inclusive lectionary, a joint venture among the bishops' conferences from Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, will incorporate the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB).

Lowe cited the RNJB's affinity with the well-established Jerusalem Bible translation, currently approved for New Zealand, and for its embracing inclusive language.

The New Zealand Bishops' Conference has endorsed the project. "We await the same from our Australian and Irish counterparts," said Lowe.

The undertaking of the new lectionary is expected to span approximately three years.

During this phase, the conferences will spearhead a programme aimed at acquainting parishes and schools with the new edition.

New priest's prayers too

Since its introduction in 2011, New Zealand's Catholics have voiced concerns about the English used in the prayers of the Mass.

In 2011, Vox Clara a Vatican committee, pushed through an English translation that was more in line with the original Latin.

Direct translations from Latin, maintaining Latin syntax, have occasionally muddled the meaning in English, and the 'muddled meanings' is a prominent point emerging from New Zealand's Synodal feedback.

Reflecting on the potential of the improved Mass prayer translations as a solution to the existing translation's critiques, Lowe hinted at a solution with the release of a revised book of prayers the priest uses at Mass.

Welcoming the intent of the move, New Zealand liturgical theologian Dr Joe Grayland said the facility has been available to all bishops since September 3, 2017, when Pope Francis published Magnum Principium (The Great Principle).

In releasing Magnum Principium, Pope Francis emphasised the need for translations to

• remain loyal to the original text
• loyal to the language it is translated into, and
• be comprehensible to congregants

The Australian, Ireland and New Zealand bishops' solution keeps the status quo for the congregation's prayers and responses.

1998 Roman Missal translation

From 1983 - 2003, New Zealand Bishop Peter Cullinane was a respected member of the Episcopal Board of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

It was a time when the 1998 Sacramentary was developed.

In 1998, all the bishops of the English-speaking world agreed on a translation of the Roman Missal.

However, also in 1998, the prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, blocked ICEL's work.

Medina, a Chilean, spoke no English and set up Vox Clara, a group of senior bishops from English-speaking countries.

Vox Clara held its inaugural meeting in Rome in April 2002 under the chairmanship of then-Archbishop George Pell of Sydney.

According to columnist Robert Mickens, Medina mercilessly bullied ICEL officials.

The universally acceptable and inclusive translation is not lost and is still available:

• The Sacramentary - Volume One - Part 1
• The Sacramentary - Volume One - Part 2
• The Sacramentary - Volume Two - Part 1
• The Sacramentary - Volume Two - Part 2

Sources

• NZ Catholic
• CathNews NZ
• CathNews NZ

Roche replaces controversial conservative Cardinal, Robert Sarah, whose resignation Pope Francis accepted on 20 February.

The Vatican liturgy office is charged with overseeing the Catholic Church's liturgical rites, and senior New Zealand people involved in liturgy told CathNews they quietly optimistic about him pressing ahead with post-conciliar liturgical reform.

They say Roche seems to have worked well with Francis and cite two examples of the relationship, the reform to the "mandatum" to include the washing of women and even non-Catholics feet on Holy Thursday, and the 2017 Magnum Principium document giving bishops' conferences more say over the liturgical translations they use.

While hopeful, they remain cautious and are keen to see if the appointment will lead to a more intelligible English Missal.

"It will be interesting to see what Roche will do in his own right", a senior priest told CathNews.

"It's hard to see that despite Magnum Principium, an improved version of the Missal was going to go anywhere because Sarah was in charge", the priest told CathNews.

Appointed as Secretary in the Liturgy Office (No 2), by former Pope, Benedict XVI, Roche (71) came from Leeds, where he was also the chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

In his role as Liturgy Secretary, he ruled out using the 1998 ICEL translation, a document he as chairman of ICEL had close involvement with.

A former head of the Diocese of Leeds, England, Roche is known in Rome as something of a quiet voice and more of a team player than his predecessor.

Unlike Sarah, who was often seen as an opponent of Francis' vision for the global church, Roche is not known to maintain a Twitter account, he does not often give interviews and prefers to stay out of the limelight except when making press statements.

The new prefect has been leading the liturgy office on an interim basis since Francis accepted Sarah's resignation.

Beyond Roche, Francis also appointed new No. 2 and No. 3 officials for the congregation.

Italian Bishop Vittorio Viola will serve as secretary and Msgr. Aurelio Marcias, formerly a department head at the office, will now serve as its under-secretary.

After Sarah resigned, Francis broke with tradition and asked an outside consultant to meet with liturgy office staff, review the office's procedures and consider what might be needed in a new prefect.

In 2017, the New Zealand Catholic Bishops called for a prompt review of the 2011 Latinisted Missal and to review the 1998 draft Roman Missal translation.

Five years later the Bishops and New Zealand people still wait.

Bishop Patrick Dunn, then president of the New Zealand Bishop's Conference said at the time, despite Magnum Principium, the New Zealand bishops were also not inclined to go it alone because they acknowledge the importance of working collegially with ICEL.

Source

• National Catholic Reporter
• Image: National Catholic Register

The head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said the bishops cannot do that because mercy is not a valid principle to use in pastoral care where the sacrament is concerned.

Doctrine? Maybe. Faith? Not so much.

In any case, the bishops are going ahead with their plan. They are affirming what Pope Francis has said, that Roman officials do not "outrank" diocesan bishops, but must serve as aids to the bishops' ministry.

The Germans have recently made another move in defiance of Roman commands that deserves attention and belated emulation.

The First Sunday of Advent, was to be the day on which German-speaking Catholics would begin using a new translation of the liturgy. Like the one that has been used for two years in English-speaking churches, it would be more Latin than local.

The English version uses English words in Latin sentence order, Latinate repetition and vocabulary that comes from Latin rather than English roots; presumably the German is similar.

However, the German bishops recently announced that they would not introduce the new version because of wide opposition to the translation's sins against the German language.

Something that English-speaking bishops were afraid to do in the previous papacy is now being done by Germans apparently emboldened by the pastoral approach of Pope Francis.

The new translation two years on

Sunday was the second anniversary of the imposition of the English version.

How have we fared after two years with it?

Congregations have gotten used to their responses, though children probably sometimes think that the Holy, Holy, Holy prayer is to the Lord God of communion wafers.

But what of those for whom the greatest changes were introduced, the priests?

Surveys have shown that a huge majority of priests are still, after two years, united in their dissatisfaction with the maltranslation.

Many say that trying to use it actually hinders their prayerful leading of the liturgy.

If anything, their discomfort has grown as they have struggled to proclaim prayers whose tortured word order and repetitions are close to gibberish if spoken aloud before a congregation that cannot go back over the words to figure out the grammar.

How does one proclaim a sentence that begins with the object of the verb rather than the subject, something entirely possible in Latin, but which English-speaking priests now know is at least strange in their language?

Rewriting to make sense of it

The answer is that increasingly priests are not trying.

A pastor in the United States said that the only good thing he could say about the new translation is that it forces him to read the prayers on Saturday so that he will know how to revise them for proclamation on Sunday.

The majority of priests in his diocese admit among themselves that they engage in the same editing process, turning the prayers into real English. In other words, many congregations do not hear the new version.

Two years ago I wrote: "Priests who want to help their communities pray will gradually, but increasingly, begin to rework and reword the translation we have been given.

Instead of an authorized new translation from Latin such as was approved by the world's English-speaking bishops in 1998, we will now get an unauthorized plethora of ad hoc translations from Gibberish. I am not saying that should happen, but it shall happen."

Well, it has happened. What's next?

Time to implement the 1998 version, officially or unnofficially

The 1998 translation that was meant to correct the hastily done 1973 translation has already been approved unanimously by all the English-speaking bishops' conferences of the world, but was suppressed by curial officials who were not even English speakers.

So, why should not some conferences declare that translation valid for use in their countries? Failing that, individual bishops might take that initiative on their authority as leaders of worship in their dioceses.

Otherwise, my next prediction will come true.

Priests will increasingly on their own initiative begin using the 1998 translation once they get a copy, available for downloading after only a few minutes' search on the Internet.

Or, they will dig out their 1973 Sacramentaries, even in dioceses like that in which my friend the pastor serves and where the bishop thought he had confiscated them all in order to prevent just that sort of thing.

It is time for English-speaking bishops to learn from their German confreres and take back responsibility for the life and worship of their people.

Fr William Grimm is publisher of ucanews.com based in Tokyo.

Image: ucanews.com

The objective of the survey was to determine as accurately as possible the views of U.S. Catholic priests about the new translation of the English Missal which was introduced on the First Sunday of Advent (November 26-27), 2011.

All 178 Roman Catholic Latin rite dioceses in the U.S. were invited to take part in this study.

The 32 participating dioceses are from all parts of the country and 12 of 14 Latin rite ecclesiastical regions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In the period February 21 - May 6, 2013, priests in participating dioceses were invited to participate in the online survey via an email to all priests on the diocesan distribution list.

A total of 1,536 priests responded, with a response rate of 42.5%. Continue reading

Sources

• St John's School of Theology
• Image: CathNews NZ Pacific