Bishop Peter J Cullinane says critics describe the present translation as clunky, awkward and a too literal translation of the Latin original.

However, Cullinane believes no purpose will be served by any overhaul unless the current guidelines behind liturgical translations are changed.

These were set out by the 2001 instruction Liturgiam Authenticam and said translations must convey the "integral manner" of the original Latin "even while being verbally or syntactically different from it."

Bishop Cullinane was a member of the Episcopal Board of ICEL between 1983 and 2003.

Another retired Bishop, Donald Trautman is calling "for the 1998 English Missal translation, which was approved by more than two-thirds of the United States bishops, to replace the present failed text of the New Roman Missal."

Bishop Trautman is the emeritus Bishop of Eire, and has also served as chairman of the US bishops' conference's Committee on the Liturgy.

The Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) in Ireland has also called for a review of the current English edition.

The ACP has asked that, as a temporary solution, the Irish Bishops allow priests to use the 1998 translation of the Missal.

Last week Archbishop Arthur Roche, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said the option to use the 1998 translation was not possible as the Roman Liturgy should express the unity of the Church.

Source

• thetabletco.uk
• associationofcatholicpriests.ie
• Image: The Marist Messenger

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

Sadly, this request reads as if this change were not already possible.

It has been available to the New Zealand Church since September 3, 2017, when Pope Francis published Magnum Principium (The Great Principle).

In Magnum Principium, Pope Francis gave the local bishops' conferences permission to work on and issue modifications to liturgical texts.

Although Magnum Principium concerns liturgical texts, it is part of a more extensive programme of curial reform, of which the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium (To Preach the Gospel), March 19, 2022, is the most recent.

Magnum Principium follows Francis' 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium where he addressed the need to rebalance the relationship between the Roman Curia and bishops' conferences.

In referring to the Second Vatican Council, Francis said that the contribution of bishops' conferences brought a ‘collegial spirit' to the task.

Unfortunately, the ‘juridic status' of conferences, complicated by the then Cardinal Ratzinger and the Curia's ‘excessive centralisation' all ‘complicates the Church's life and her missionary outreach.'

In Magnum Principium, Francis shifted the responsibility and the authority for translating liturgical texts to the episcopal conferences by modifying clauses two and three of canon 838 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

He also redefined and limited the role of the then Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, now the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Beforehand the passages read:

§2. It is the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.

§3. It pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare vernacular translations of liturgical books, with appropriate adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of the Holy See, to publish these translations.

The revised text now reads (my italics):

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

Vernacular languages

To understand Magnum Principium, we must look at the larger context of the Second Vatican Council and the central principle of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of 1963, Sacrosanctum Concilium, active participation.

Local or vernacular language in Mass and other rituals predates Vatican Two.

Local vernacular language in worship has been the constant practice of the churches of Orthodoxy.

In the Western Church in the centuries before Vatican Two, Latin was undoubtedly the dominant liturgical language, but not the only one.

In the twentieth century, the Sacred Congregation of Rites permitted the use of vernacular languages in several missionary countries, including China in 1949 and India in 1950. It allowed for local languages in the Mass, except in the Roman Canon or Eucharistic Prayer.

Similarly, bilingual missals and the dialogue Mass became popular in France and Germany.

Other non-eucharistic French (1948) and German (1951) texts were also permitted.

Sacrosanctum Concilium discusses the use of vernacular languages, the need for enhanced lay-formation and participation in liturgy and the process of inculturation and issued in a period of liturgical reform and translation of texts.

Writing from Rome after the Sacrosanctum Concilium, John Kavanagh, Bishop of Dunedin, noted that it was the first Constitution approved because its ‘pre-conciliar preparation proved far more satisfactory than that of other comparable important texts'.

In New Zealand, the seven years between 1963 and 1970 saw the implementation of new rites and the introduction of new translations.

In May 1967, Peter McKeefry, Archbishop of Wellington, petitioned Rome for permission to use English in the ordination rite and received an affirmative answer on June 9 that year.

The most significant change was using vernacular in the Canon of the Mass.

In his letter, Concilium ad Exsequendam Constiutionem de sacra Liturgia od June 21, 1967, Cardinal Lecarno, President of the Concilium, wrote of the place of the vernacular in the Canon as the ‘last step in the gradual extension of the vernacular'.

Towards the end of 1969, the Apostolic Delegate put pressure on the New Zealand bishops to ‘adopt as soon as possible the new liturgical text for the Mass as issued by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy'.

The Vatican had directed that only one liturgical text could exist for the same language group.

All the English-speaking churches shared a single organisation or mixed commission for translations called the International Committee for English in the Liturgy or ICEL.

The English-speaking bishops created ICEL as their official mechanism for translations at their first meeting at the venerable English College in Rome on October 17, 1963.

Geotheological politics

Fast forward to the 1990s and the division in the Church over what has become known as the "liturgy wars".

These wars are not about liturgy but how power operates in the Church.

The growing centralisation of liturgical control during the reign of Pope John Paul II came at the expense of the authority of conferences of bishops, and New Zealand was not immune.

The process that began under John Paul II became calcified during the pontificate of Benedict XVI, who promoted the use of the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly and incorrectly referred to as the Tridentine Rite.

Further centralisation came with revising mixed commissions and ICEL's statutes by the Vatican.

Now, bishops' conferences were less able to control ICEL's work.

At a similar time, in July 2001, a rival committee to ICEL called Vox Clara was set up by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CWD).

Vox Clara was a tool to provide advice to the Holy See concerning English-language liturgical books, but unlike ICEL, it was not a representative group of English-speaking episcopal conferences.

Within this context came the new liturgical translation tool, Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) and the reintroduction of the 1962 Roman Missal in Summorum Pontificum (2007).

Translation tools differences

Following the Council, translators used a philosophy of translation called dynamic equivalence or a sense-for-sense translation.

This translation philosophy was given in the Instruction, Comme le prévoit (January 25 1969). Translations were done hastily following the Council.

But, after the initial translations were ratified, most major language groups then worked on refining and improving their translations. They worked through all the ritual books (baptism, confirmation, funerals, etc.).

Quoting St Jerome, Pope Paul IV told liturgical translators on November 10 1965: ‘If I translate word by word, it sounds absurd; if I am forced to change something in the word order or style, I seem to have stopped being a translator.'

Nevertheless, the Pope proposed that translations should enable the faithful ‘to share actively in the liturgical prayers and rites'; therefore, the Church permitted ‘the translation of texts venerable for their antiquity, devotion, beauty, and long-standing use.'

In this short excerpt, the Pope drew the translators' attention to the liturgical principle of actuosa participation as a principle of liturgical translation, or what Francis has called the Great Principle.

On March 28, 2001, Pope John Paul II replaced Comme le prévoit with a new instruction for translations called Liturgiam authenticam.

As the name suggests, the object was correctness.

Texts "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. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet."

Comme le prevoit had understood that a liturgical text is ‘a ritual sign... a medium of spoken communication', the purpose of which is to ‘proclaim the message of salvation to believers and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord'.

By contrast, Liturgiam authenticam was less concerned with the comprehension of language and more with creating a distinctive liturgical language.

For example, where difficult or archaic expressions ‘hinder comprehension because of their excessively unusual or awkward nature', they should not be avoided but considered ‘as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals', thereby ensuring that the texts are ‘free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression.'

Liturgiam Authenticam was the corrective to Comme le prevoit with the object to ‘create in each vernacular…a sacred style that will come to be recognised as proper to liturgical language' that many would call a staid, clumsy rendering, using words like ‘oblation' and ‘consubstantial with' and ‘man' as the collective noun for all human beings.

The translations were not without controversy nor always honest in their approach to the texts.

In the Second Eucharistic Prayer, the phrase ‘astáre coram te et tibi ministráre', which means to ‘stand as one or as a body and minister [to you]', was translated as ‘to be in your presence and minister to you' as a way of ensuring people remain kneeling for the Eucharistic Prayer.

Interestingly, the episcopal conferences of France, Spain, Italy and Germany rejected their translations using Liturgiam authenticam.

The bishops of Japan contested the Vatican's right to judge the quality of a translation into Japanese, questioning both the quality of the review and the subsidiary position in which the CDW's review placed them.

Magnum Principium

For Pope Francis, the liturgical text and its translations are about the mission.

Their goal is to ‘announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord.'

Following the thinking of Pope Paul IV, Francis writes that ‘individual words must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act'.

Liturgical language belongs to the experience of communication and which gives freedom and the responsibility that some ‘texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.'

Francis hopes vernacular languages will share the ‘elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts' as liturgical Latin and become the languages of authentic liturgy again.

He is inviting local churches, like New Zealand, to work on improving the texts.

In this process, the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments' role is to promote a ‘vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust' between themselves and episcopal conferences.

Cardinal Arthur Roache, then secretary of the Congregation, outlined this in an Accompanying Note where he explained that the Congregation's (Dicastery's) role was to confirm translations but leave the ‘responsibility for the translation…to…the bishops' conference'.

The Dicastery still has a role in reviewing enculturated "adaptations", that is, additions or modifications introduced into a liturgy to incorporate or reflect local culture, which can include practices, movement, costume, and music as well as text.

The Synod's call

The onus has been on the local bishops to take the initiative.

However, this work can only be done by a team of professional liturgical theologians and assisted by other professionals.

Sadly, this work will probably not be undertaken because New Zealand is such a small country without these resources.

Nonetheless, the bishops' conference could easily permit using the ICEL 1998 presidential prayers and propers. It would bring a higher standard of written and proclamatory English into the Mass and other sacraments again.

• Dr Joe Grayland is a theologian and a priest of the Diocese of Palmerston North. His latest book is: Liturgical Lockdown. Covid and the Absence of the Laity (Te Hepara Pai, 2020).

In fact, this past week we just witnessed a bit of irony that stretched right across the Atlantic Ocean, though most people seem to have missed it.

On October 4, as English Archbishop Arthur Roche had just finished giving his first major address as prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) here in Rome, people were gathering in a cathedral some 7,400 miles away in Santiago de Chile for the funeral of his predecessor, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez.

The 71-year-old Roche only got the job last May, while Medina, who would have been 95 in December, held the post from 1996-2002.

Even though three other men (all cardinals) served as CDWDS prefect at one time or another during the two decades that separated Medina's tenure from Roche's, the lives and liturgical activities of the gentlemanly Englishman and the gruff Chilean would frequently coincide.

Collide is probably the more appropriate word.

The man who announced the new pope

Most people around the world probably don't know much about Cardinal Medina's time as the Vatican's liturgy chief.

Their clearest memory of him will be that he was the cardinal who, with great flare, stood on the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on April 19, 2005 and announced that Joseph Ratzinger had just been elected pope, taking the name Benedict XVI.

But most liturgists and proponents of the liturgical renewal stemming from the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) will remember the Chilean cardinal as the one who ruthlessly rode roughshod over the world's English-speaking bishops and aggressively stripped them of their rightful authority to oversee the translations of Latin liturgical texts.

When Medina was called to Rome in 1996 to take the reins of Divine Worship (he got his red hat in 1998), Roche had just been named secretary-general of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

Roche would hold that post until 2001 when he was named auxiliary bishop of Westminster. A year later he was appointed to the Diocese of Leeds, first as coadjutor and then ordinary.

The International Commission for English in the Liturgy

During his six years as CDWDS prefect, Cardinal Medina set the course that would lead more than a decade later to the current English translation of the Roman Missal, the prayers that are used to celebrate Mass.

He did this primarily by violently blocking with the work of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL), a body set up in 1963 and sponsored by 11 bishops' conferences to draft common English versions of liturgical prayers.

ICEL had prepared the first English translation of the Roman Missal (or Sacramentary) for the reformed liturgy. It came out in the early 1970s, but in 1982 the mixed-commission began working on a new and more careful translation.

It was a painstaking project that was finally finished and approved in 1998 by the bishops' conferences that were part of ICEL. Medina's office, however, refused to give it Vatican approval.

Changing the rules for translations

Instead, the CDWDS prefect — who spoke no English — moved hard on ICEL.

He informed the bishops of ICEL in 1998, through the recently created Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, that the commission had to be changed drastically according to Rome's wishes or it was finished.

Medina formalized the threat personally in a sharp letter in 1999 to the ICEL chairman, Bishop Maurice Taylor of Scotland.

The Chilean's next move was to issue a new set of principles and guidelines for liturgical translations. Issued in 2001 under the title Liturgiam authenticam, this document insisted on translations that were as close as possible to Latin.

Vox Clara

That same year Medina's congregation set up the Vox Clara Committee, a group of senior bishops from English-speaking countries. It held its inaugural meeting in Rome in April 2002 under the chairmanship of then-Archbishop George Pell of Sydney (Australia).

Vox Clara's official brief was "to advise (the CDWDS) in its responsibilities related to the translation of liturgical texts in the English language and to strengthen effective cooperation with the Conferences of Bishops".

But, in reality, it was a tool that the Vatican used to usurp the authority of the bishops' conferences and effectively gut ICEL.

Throughout his time at the worship office, Medina constantly and mercilessly bullied ICEL officials.

"From the start of his reign Cardinal Medina let it be known that relations with ICEL, if any, would be formal and cold," wrote Bishop Taylor in his 2009 book A Cold Wind from Rome.

"There were no further collaborative meetings, no advice or comments were forthcoming in the course of our work and, in general, we thought that we were under suspicion," Taylor noted.

Indeed they were.

A new ICEL and a new chairman

By the time Cardinal Medina retired as CDWDS prefect in October 2002 at age 75, he had forced a complete change in ICEL's statutes and leadership.

Bishop Taylor was actually replaced as ICEL chairman a few months earlier. His replacement was the recently-named coadjutor bishop of Leeds, Arthur Roche.

During his ten years as chairman, Bishop Roche tried to walk the tightrope that was set by Liturgiam Authenticam. And he and his staff thought they had put together a good English translation of the Roman Missal, finally completed in 2008.

It was controversial and contested by many, but the ICEL's member conferences all approved it the next year and the text was sent to Rome for final approval, which was granted.

But when the English version of the Missal was actually printed and presented to Benedict XVI in April 2010 it contained some 10,000 more changes, which ICEL had not made.

It's suspected that Vox Clara — the body that Jorge Medina set up and George Pell oversaw — was responsible for making those changes.

The presentation ceremony itself says it all. It was a gala luncheon for the pope, CDWDS officials and.... Vox Clara. No one from ICEL was invited, not even Bishop Roche.

Tempering liturgical traditionalism

But his story did not end there, of course.

Benedict XVI named him secretary of the CDCWS in 2012 and gave him the title "archbishop".

During his nine years as the No. 2 at Divine Worship, he had to temper the liturgical traditionalism of the former prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah.

But don't expect Archbishop Roche to make any moves to repair what English-speaking Catholics — priests and people — believe is a very flawed translation of the Roman Missal.

The talk he gave on October 4 was for the opening of the academic year at the Atheneum of Sant'Anselmo, home of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute.

After Cardinal Sarah's tenure at the CDWDS, it was reassuring to hear the new prefect reaffirm the normative nature of the Vatican II liturgical reform. But his address was otherwise unremarkable.

And his comments on translations will disappoint those who still hope that the current English-language Missal can be repaired.

"Of course, when it comes to translation there are many theories and controversies," the archbishop said.

"If waylaid by that, it can be a battlefield of contrasting and opposing opinions. Even the most inexpert of protagonists have their opinions and can be highly vocal and self-opinionated," he continued.

And then he added this:

The old adage of being able to negotiate with terrorists but not with liturgists can take on an all too real an aspect, but we should be consoled by Saint Paul's Second Letter to Timothy where he writes: "Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers..."

Archbishop Roche, who will probably get a red hat at the next consistory, concluded his address by wishing the professors and students of Sant'Anselmo "a good academic year, the love of the Lord you serve, a humble perseverance, and above all a good sense of humour".

Sadly, it feels like Cardinal Medina Estévez, who was buried just hours later, got the last laugh.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

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 pope normally celebrates Mass in Italian.

The approved Italian translation from Latin of the new Roman Missal comes nine years after the English version was controversially released.

The English translation of the missal, uses the phrase "for many," suggesting, on the face of it, Jesus did not shed his blood for all.

The change of just two words in the Italian translation is a hallmark of Francis' papacy according to Christopher Lamb, the Rome Correspondent for The Tablet.

In 2006, Rome ruled that "pro multis" should be translated as "for many" with Benedict XVI insistent on this point, however the Italian bishops held out, resisting Rome and voted overwhelmingly to keep the "for all" phrase.

The consistent theme of the Francis pontificate is that God's mercy is all-embracing, and the Church is a field hospital welcoming all sinners. No one is excluded, says Lamb.

"Although a less literal translation of the Latin, the phrase 'for all' better reflects the teaching that Christ's sacrifice was for the whole of humanity, and is in keeping with Vatican II.

"As the old Latin motto explains: lex orandi, lex credendi. The rule of prayer is the rule of belief," comments Lamb.

Bishop Claudio Maniago, president of the Italian bishops' liturgy commission, said the commission worked hard to remain faithful to the Latin text.

There was "also, and most of all, an effort to render the text as usable as possible and, so, also make it an instrument of growth for the Italian church," he said.

Admitting there were also some changes to the Our Father and Gloria, Maniago said the bishops worked hard to keep changes to the people's prayers to a minimum.

He said the differences in the Italian translation have been thoroughly discussed with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

This is the same body the English translation was discussed with.

Controversy and confusion

Controversy surrounded the 2011 release of the English translation, some calling it "wooden", "archaic" and "inflated".

Others accused the translators of producing convoluted syntax.

In 2015, Emeritus Bishop of Palmerston North, Peter Cullinane, called for an overhaul of the new English Missal.

Cullinane told the London Tablet the translation was clunky, awkward and a too literal translation of the Latin original.

In 2017 the New Zealand Bishops' Conference responded to widespread criticism of the translation saying it hoped for liturgical texts that are both accurate and that speak to the heart.

Later in 2017, in "Magnum Principium" Francis removed the requirement that Rome authorise every aspect of translations; instead, its role is to review translations that have been commissioned and approved by the bishops' conference.

Removing Rome's authorisation mandate is consistent with Francis "manifesto" document number 32 in Evangelii Gaudium, where he writes "Excessive centralisation complicates the Church's life and her missionary outreach."

"When it comes to the wordings of prayers, it is the bishops on the ground, not curial officials in Rome, who are the best judges of what is going to most effectively aid evangelisation," explains Lamb.

Twenty years after the work of the Italian translation began and ten years after the English edition was released, priests in Italy will use the new Italian translation from Easter 2021.

Sources

• The Boston Pilot
• CathNews NZ

President of France's Episcopal Commission for Liturgy and Sacramental Pastoral Care, Bishop Buy de Kerimel told La Croix that it changes very little for the people.

Kerimel said the changes were more significant for the priests.

Acknowledging that liturgy is 'always' a sensitive point, Kerimel suggested it is most likely that everyone will not be fully satisfied by the new translation.

Kerimel acknowledged the process to get the approval had been lengthy.

It began in 2002 as a response to Liturgical authenticam during Pope John Paul II's pontificate, he said.

Kerimel said there had been many round trips to Rome, but progress became more real with Pope Francis' 2017 moto proprio "Magnum principium".

Magnum principium "gave back a flexibility to the translation, according to a triple fidelity: fidelity to the Latin text, fidelity to the language of translation and fidelity to the understanding of the faithful", Kerimel told La Croix.

"This allowed us to adjust the translation", he said.

He acknowledged the need for significant work to help get the new Mass translation received.

Kerimel said the final text was sent to Rome last September and the return was quick.

The Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Robert Sarah, signed the decree of confirmation on October 1.

Kerimel said all the work would be worth it if it helps the Church in France understand what it is communicating, and it allows the Church to rediscover the meaning of the Eucharistic liturgy.

He acknowledges that it is difficult to articulate the mystery of God using words.

The new translation should be ready for implementation in Advent 2020 and become definitive from May 24, 2021, the memorial of Mary, mother of the Church.

The completed English translation received the approval of the Holy See in April 2010 and was put into effect in most countries at the end of November 2011.

Source

• La-Croix

The conference's president, Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn, told the NZ Catholic their request seeks to balance demand for use of the missal while ensuring "unity is preserved with the Roman Rite".

The 1998 draft translation was the result of 15 years of collaborative work that took place between 1982 and 1997.

This draft version had received the approval of all the English-speaking conferences of the world.

But in 2002 the Congregation for Divine Worship refused to give an imprimatur.

It was replaced by a revised translation in 2010 and introduced into parishes in November 2011.

Dunn said as soon as Magnum Principium came out, a number of New Zealand priests started urging their bishops to lead the way and start using the 1998 translation.

He said it was not that simple "because, even with Magnum Principium, you still need to go to the Congregation [for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments] for 'confirmatio' (Latin for confirmation)."

He stressed the Congregation "does play an important role because it preserves the unity of the Roman Rite".

Dunn said the New Zealand bishops are also not inclined to go it alone because they acknowledge the importance of working collegially with ICEL.

He said at ICEL's February meeting that it would be interesting to see what the other episcopal conferences think about revisiting the 1998 translation.

"What I suspect is that many [ICEL] bishops' conferences may not want to be bothered with a whole new Missal. They'll think, ‘dear God, not again'," he said.

Dunn said his personal opinion is that it might be worthwhile reviewing the 1998 translation for the Eucharistic Prayers but keep the people's responses the same.

Source

• NZ Catholic
• LaCroix
• Liturgy
• Image: America Magazine

"New words, deeper meaning, same Mass."

Initially prepared to go with the flow, after a little while I found the cognitive dissonance became too apparent.

What we got were old words with foreign meanings and a Mass that somehow changed my expression of faith.

‘Thumbs up' then to Bishop Drennan, secretary of the New Zealand Bishop's Conference, for his piece in Wel-com, and collectively to the Conference, for their encouragement of Rome to overcome the clunky, awkward new translation.

Of particular mention, ‘two thumbs up' to Bishop Campbell who, when global liturgical ‘group think' was at its peak, swam publicly against the tide, risked a 'rap over the knuckles' from the then pope and criticised the new translation.

Disappointed, Bishop Campbell not only questioned the outcome of the new translation but also its delivery process and, from memory, he warned the ‘new translation' would not be the endpoint.

Importance of language

Sociolinguistics is the study of language and culture; it views language as intrinsic to communication.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity states the structure of a culture's language determines the behaviour, habits and thinking of that culture.

Thus, language forms a culture through the realities embedded in it.

"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood. We are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for our society.

"We see, hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation." (Benjamin Whorf: Language, Thought, and Reality, p 134.)

Some describe the new translation as beautiful, but it is not the kind of developed world beauty people speak to me about; it doesn't talk about the reality of the cultural setting of antipodean life.

It seems to me the language of the new translation, of exclusivity, archaic vocabulary; "dewfall," "consubstantial," "oblation," and the over-inflated language of prayer; "graciously hear," "graciously grant", "holy and unblemished" and, "and with your spirit," belong to a time long past.

These and other similar phrases may have deep meaning, they may be accurate translations of the Latin, but so what?

Language is a living tradition, it's meant to be readily understood and used, and if the language of the liturgy needs sermons and articles in periodicals to interpret various phrases, haven't we lost the point?

Global and local

I find it sad that a global initiative, which included Bishops Denis Browne and Peter Cullinane, started out to positively address such issues as sexism in liturgical texts but, through no fault of theirs, it got diverted into a mash-up of old and new.

For many, the new translation never really hit the mark and probably never really helped shape us as Catholics in the 21st Century.

So I, for one, welcome Bishop Drennan saying that a better translation of the Mass is possible.

Seemingly under a little pressure to move, I also hear his plea for patience, but I welcome people putting pressure on the bishops for change because it shows interest and involvement in their faith.

A potentially huge task

As the song goes, "Let's start at the very beginning, it's a very good place to start".

I'd note that the global initiative before the new translation, started at the beginning and had input from specialists in pastoral liturgy, languages etc.

It took decades to formulate.

So I wonder if there is a need to go back to the beginning; to as it were, 'recreate the wheel' when the translation that met with almost universal approval, still exists?

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

Thankfully now, with a change in Canon Law, Pope Francis has shifted primary responsibility for liturgical texts to each diocesan bishop. However, Bishop Drennan's comments suggest the New Zealand Bishops, at least, will work as a conference on the new text.

Hopefully, this will make things more simple, but, it may not!

For example, many years prior to the 'new translation', the Christchurch diocese used a different version of the "Our Father", so it was possible then and now more possible for a diocesan bishop to allow e.g. different versions of prayers, and different congregational responses.

Yes, that means there may be different prayers and different responses in dioceses within a country, around the world, and in language groupings.

There are times when I'm sure being a bishop must be a thankless task. However, on this one I think we can be proud of our bishops, for like no others they've knocked on Rome's door expressing our frustrations with the current translation.

To use Pope Francis' expression, they are shepherds living with 'the smell of the sheep'.

• After postgraduate communications study at Victoria University Wellington, Fr John Murphy SM works in new media.

Writing in Welcom, Drennan made a plea for patience in regard to what action may be taken in New Zealand as a consequence of Pope Francis' recent Motu Proprio (personal edict).

In this document, the Pope shifted the responsibility of liturgical translations from Rome back to national Conferences of Bishops.

'What I can say is what we all know: a better translation of the Mass is possible."

"I can also say that our New Zealand Bishops Conference more than any other in the English-speaking world has laid before Rome and the Holy Father himself the frustrations experienced with the current translation, the causes of which Pope Francis has now addressed.

Drennan said that three main factors have given rise to the present situation:

• The decision of Cardinal Medina Estevez (Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1998-2002) to wrest control of translations by distancing the International Commission on English in the Liturgy ‒ which was a group of Bishops and language experts set up by a number of Bishops Conferences (New Zealand included) ‒ to provide translations;
• The publication by Medina's Vatican department in 2001 of Liturgiam Authenticam, which outlined that translations were to be tightly shackled - word by word - to the ‘original' Latin;
• The emergence of a group called Vox Clara whose role was to vet the International Commission.

"These three linked events have now been quietly placed on the sidelines of history and influence.," Drennan said.

Drennan said he did not see the motu proprio as a "progressive versus conservative" tussle.

"Pope Benedict's love for liturgy saw him underline the duty to preserve a sense of the transcendent and reverence."

"Pope Francis's love for liturgy sees him underline [the fact] that liturgy must be comprehensible and should be understood in the context of evangelisation, which draws people in as participants, not observers, of the liturgy."

"Both are right."

Read the full article in Welcom

Image: America Magazine

But they are concerned that the existing rules for translating the texts, contained in Liturgiam Authenticam, produced texts that impose latin syntax on contemporary english.

"We believe that some modification to the principles of liturgical translation as imposed by Liturgiam Authenticam could produce liturgical translations that could speak more easily to the hearts of English-speaking congregations and produce liturgical texts that are truly beautiful, as we believe the liturgy should be," the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference president Bishop Patrick Dunn told NZ Catholic.

Last month Bishop Dunn was in Washington representing the New Zealand bishops at the International Commission for English Language in the Liturgy (ICEL).

Before he departed Dunn said it would be interesting to discuss with his brother bishops the plans of Pope Francis to have the commission review Liturgiam Authenticam.

"The new commission set up by Pope Francis will review this whole matter, together with the issue of inculturation and the question of what decentralisation is desirable in matters relating to the liturgy," he wrote on his FaceBook page.

Dunn told NZ Catholic the New Zealand bishops will be very happy to support Archbishop Arthur Roche who has been appointed the chairman of the commission.

Roche is the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.(CDW)

He was formerly the Bishop of Leeds and was chairman of ICEL for 10 years.

Roche's appointment is considered significant because he has more experience in the liturgical field and a more open approach to liturgical questions than the CDW's prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah.

Officials of the CDW were not informed about Pope Francis' plans to review translations of the liturgy, according to a National Catholic Register report by Edward Pentin.

Pentin said that the Pope's decision to carry out a review were not known to the CDW until they leaked to the press early this year.

Source

• nzcatholic.org.nz
• FaceBook.com
• americamagazine.org
• catholicculture.org
• Image: americamagazine.org

This decree provided the principles that guided the recent translations of liturgical texts.

The report in America Magazine states the commission will also examine what level of decentralisation is desirable in the church on matters such as this.

But experts on the translation of the Roman Missal have cautioned against any expectation of changes

"The idea of a review that would lead to a new publication is a long shot," Bishop John McAreavey told The Irish Catholic.

He is a member of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL),

ICEL is responsible for preparing English translations of Latin liturgical books and texts.

Fr Tom Whelan, told the Irish Catholic he would love to be excited by the news of the creation of this new commission.

But his expectations are rather modest.

Whelan is a member of Ireland's Episcopal Council for Liturgy.

The Vatican has not provided details on the commission, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting soon.

Nor has it published the names of the commission's members.

The commission is said to includes bishops from all the continents.

Archbishop Arthur Roche is said to be president of the commission.

He is secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Roche is the number two official at the congregation.

He has more experience in the liturgical field and a more open approach to liturgical questions than its prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah.

Source

• americamagazine.org
• irishcatholic.ie
• lastampa.it
• Image: romanmissal.org

This is the finding of a survey of clergy views carried out by the Association of Catholic Clergy (ACP) in Ireland.

The survey also showed a significant percentage of priests still use texts from a 1973 missal.

Views were taken from 191 priests, who were randomly selected from the alphabetical listing of clergy in Ireland.

The survey was taken between March 31 and April 11.

It shows 35 per cent of priests surveyed favour replacing the current translation immediately and 45 per cent "as soon as a revised missal becomes available".

Close to two thirds of those surveyed said they were either dissatisfied (33.5 per cent) or very dissatisfied (27.2 per cent) with the missal.

This compared with just a quarter who were either very satisfied (4.7 per cent) or satisfied (19.9 per cent).

Even among those who were satisfied, more than half wanted to see a revised missal within a few years.

Some 147 respondents said they used texts from the new missal exclusively, 32 used a combination of texts from the new missal and a 1973 missal, while ten priests used text solely from the latter.

The findings of the survey were presented to three Irish bishops.

The ACP asked the bishops to encourage parish councils to express their views on the missal and, if possible, to survey those views.

Fr Sean McDonagh, SSC, a linguist who attended a meeting between the ACP and the bishops, said one bishop expressed surprise at the survey findings.

Fr McDonagh called on bishops in England and Wales to conduct a similar survey among their priests and people

The full text in English of the new translation of the Mass was introduced in Advent, 2011.

Before and during its implementation there were complaints from clergy and laity that the translation was too literal, with antiquated words and over-long sentences.

The new missal was translated according to Liturgiam Authenticam, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2001.

This called for a more direct translation from the Latin to vernacular languages.

Sources

• The Tablet
• The Journal
• Association of Catholic Priests (survey)
• Catholic Herald
• Image: Mullingar Parish

The book is about how to achieve real participation and engagement in liturgy.

People who want to find creative solutions to the tension between the needs of the their local church and the official liturgical books will find this book useful.

It is a resource for planning and leading liturgies in parishes and communities.

The authors hope to promote informed discussion and to support those who want to make adaptations and changes so that the liturgy will reflect the culture and people who celebrate it.

Themes include: Eucharist for our time & context; shared leadership & ministry in Eucharist, local spirituality and Eucharist, Eucharist that builds an inclusive church and, overcoming the tensions of planning & celebration.

The authors, Neil Darragh and Jo Ayers, well known in Catholic circles in New Zealand, bring together their experience of teaching liturgy at university and of many years membership of local liturgy committees. They provide differing perspectives and experiences of a layperson and a priest.

Accent is niche publisher that concentrates exclusively on publishing spirituality and theology from Aotearoa-New Zealand.

Accent's intention is to be a resource for people who want to talk about and search out mature responses to the major issues of Christian life in the 21^st Century.

Accent's publications are written by people who live Aotearoa New Zealand .

Accent is interested in establishing a dialogue with others who like them want to create a contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand spirituality.

Source

• Accent Publications
• Image: Pangeablog

If you are a regular Mass-goer, you are probably no longer stumbling over 'Lord I am not worthy to receive you under my roof ...'. You now mumble, 'And with your spirit' in the same reflex, slightly absent minded-way you used to say, 'And also with you'; and you are now used to hearing 'For many ...' where once you heard 'For all' without it striking you as odd.

There's always a certain refreshment in any new translation of a familiar text, just as any new telling of an old story - even a clumsy new version - throws light on a previously neglected episode or character.

In a really successful new translation, the original is brought alive for a new audience with new force and power. In a bad translation, what was clear and elegant becomes muddled and flat-footed, and what was exciting and dramatic becomes colourless and prosaic.

No one seems to have been entirely happy with the process of arriving at the new text for the Mass, and irritation at feeling that it was foisted on us without proper consultation may have clouded our initial judgement of the new translation.

But now that we've been living with it for a year or more, perhaps this is a good time to ask Catholics whether or not the new translation has freshened and deepened their understanding of the extraordinary things that we are celebrating and remembering Mass.

The London Tablet is asking New Zealanders and people throughout English-speaking world to take a survey about their experience of the new English translation. What do you think? Have your say in the Tablet's survey.

Befitting a translation that despite papal calls for opposition to "relativism" begins the Church year by slavishly following Latin word order to pray that "as we walk amid passing things, you teach us by them to love the things of heaven," it ends the year with a 93-word sentence in the Preface. Since the norm in modern English is to speak sentences in a single breath or two, oxygen tanks and oils for anointing the dying may become standard liturgical accoutrements to mark the end of the Church year.

Priests fearful

Lately, I have been asking English-speaking priests about their experience of using the Missal for a year. Just about all admit to editing the texts to make them more comprehensible and more easily proclaimed, since the Missal itself declares that "the primary purpose of the translation of the texts is not for meditation, but rather for their proclamation or singing during an actual celebration."

However, those priests also admit that they are fearful of doing very much because of what they call "the temple police," people who go to Mass not to join their fellow Catholics in worship, but to nose out "crimes" they can report to the Vatican or (as a seeming second choice) the local bishop.

Lay complaints and contempt

Laypeople have complained about their prayers and the wordy incomprehensibility of the priest's prayers, and I have yet to be at a Mass where "Lord, I am not worthy" has not turned into a mumbled jumble.

A year's worth of familiarity has bred increasing contempt for the translation and for those who have imposed it upon the People of God.

Though no one to whom I have spoken personally has admitted to liking the Missal, one priest did mention that he knew a cleric who claims to favor the new translation. He added, though, that everything the man says and does is calculated to advance his goal of one day being a bishop.

Earlier in the year, a priest writing in the English Catholic journal The Tablet asked, "How do we priests recover our enthusiasm for celebrating the liturgy?" Good question.

Personally, every time I "celebrate" Mass in the new form, I am reminded once again of the high-handed chicanery that produced the translation in spite of there already being a generally acclaimed new translation that had been unanimously approved by the English-speaking bishops of the world in 1998. It gives a painful depth of meaning to the phrase "distractions at prayer." Mass has become a cross.

In the year that we obedient ones have endured being forced to "proclaim" Latinate gibberish, the pope continued to woo ultra-traditionalists with promises that they can celebrate the liturgy in whatever form they choose.

Well, Your Holiness, what about the rest of us? If we were to start refusing to use the Missal, could we expect the same solicitude that you are giving the disobedient ones? Or, would our predisposition to obedience be used as a weapon against us?

Judging from the treatment of ultra-traditionalists, there seems to be no other way to be heard.

Originally appeared in ucanews.com

- Fr Bill Grimm is a Maryknoll priest working in Japan. He is the publisher of ucanews.com

Father William Grimm then asks the question: " If a machine that has no faith, no emotions, no aesthetic sense and no connection with the Church produces a translation that is indistinguishable from or even better than the official one, what does that say about the quality of the official translation or translators."

Read Deus ex machina by Fr William Grimm's article

Father William Grimm is a Tokyo-based priest and publisher of UCA News, and former editor-in-chief of "Katorikku Shimbun," Japan's Catholic weekly.

Image: UCA NEWS

The Otago Daily times reports that Monsignor Harrison says he has no problem with a ruling that priests should not use electronic devices when celebrating the Eucharist.

"It is about what is appropriate to use during official worship. Using electronic devices, you could easily confuse the sacred and the secular," he said last week.

He says the decision "had given priests a bit of a chuckle". "The guys can see the sense in it."

• The Otago Daily Times
• Image: Don Michele Bigi. Via www.theapplelounge.com

Such language, so different from the plainspoken words of Jesus in prayer and parable, is in contrast to the directive of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II: "In this restoration [of the liturgy], both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."

We have also become accustomed to hearing presiders stumble over the convoluted syntax of the prayers and watching them hurriedly turning pages as they wend their way through the labyrinthine new missals. Yet, there is one new expression that involves a significant translation error with serious implications for a proper understanding of the Last Supper as a Passover meal, along with implications for continued Jewish-Christian understanding. In the final analysis, it enshrines poor pastoral theology in the Sunday liturgy.

"Traduttore, Traditore"

All translators are familiar with the caution that translations often distort or even betray the nuances of the original language. This is dramatically true in the substitution of the term "chalice" for "cup" in the words of institution in the Eucharistic prayer from the 1970 missal approved by Pope Paul VI:

When supper was ended he took the cup [chalice].
Again he gave you thanks and praise,
Gave the cup [chalice] to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you and drink from it;
This is the cup [chalice] of my blood,
The blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all
So that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me. Continue reading

Sources

• Commonweal
• Image: Marist Messenger
• See also The Marist Messenger, "Chalice versus Cup" by Fr Merv Duffy sm