Regaining the Language
On June 15, the first day of the biannual meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in Los Angeles, the US bishops decisively approved the new translation of the Order of Mass, prepared by the recently restructured International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). This was the first segment of the English translation of the new Roman Missal in Latin that was released four years ago — the third "typical edition" of the Missal since the Second Vatican Council. ICEL is the "mixed commission" that has produced unified translations of liturgical texts for the English-speaking churches since it was organized in 1963, during the Second Vatican Council — and which was thoroughly reorganized forty years later.
The new translation is a dramatic improvement over the oversimplified 1973 version still in use, which reflects the then-prevailing infatuation with radical transformation and "updating" of Catholic worship. The new version reflects the objectives of the Holy See's Instruction, Liturgiam authenticam, to provide more accurate translations from the Latin, and a greater sense of sacredness, "dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision."
Latin words and phrases from the Missal that were omitted in the first English translation are now restored by the newly restructured ICEL. (Examples: et cum spiritu tuo, is now correctly translated "and with your spirit," replacing "and also with you"; and the Confiteor s "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" returns, accurately, as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault".)
The US bishops' vote was 173 in favor (about 85 percent of those who voted), with only 29 opposed, handily achieving the two-thirds majority of the 254 eligible Latin-rite bishops required without resorting to an absentee ballot. The US conference was the fourth of the eleven ICEL-member conferences to approve the texts. Australia, England and Wales, Scotland, and Canada also approved the translation, though without the amendments added by the US conference.
Before the new texts may be used for Mass, they require approval by the Holy See, and they will be reviewed and amended where necessary by the Vox Clara committee, an international group organized in 2002, a month after the Missal was released, to advise the Holy See on the English translations. It consists of 12 bishops from nine countries and a panel of five consultants.
The Missal translation is not yet complete, and the remaining texts — the Propers, or prayers for particular seasons and feasts — must also be approved by the ICEL-member countries and by the Holy See — a process that may take more than a year to complete. (The bishops have already received the draft version of the Propers, scheduled for vote at their November 2006 meeting.)
The US bishops' positive action on these new English texts for the Mass is a very promising beginning — though it has taken more than two years since the first draft texts were distributed to accomplish this much.
The English translation of the Missal is especially critical because of its international influence. English is the principal language of eleven countries and a significant secondary language in fifteen others; second, because many other languages translate liturgical texts from the English version rather than directly from the Latin.
There were two "Liturgy action items" on the US bishops' agenda at the June meeting:
- Voting on ICEL's English translation of the Order of Mass, preceded by voting on proposed amendments to this text; and
- A list of adaptations, proposed by the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy as additions to the Missal for the United States.
Recent History
To understand the significance of the US bishops' action in June, it may be helpful to review the recent history of the liturgical texts.
The Roman Missal is the book of texts and rubrics for the celebration of Mass in the Latin-rite churches. The new third typical edition of the Missal, released in Latin on March 18, 2002, was originally scheduled to appear during the Jubilee Year 2000; but it was delayed for over a year because of disputes over its introductory chapter containing regulations for celebration of Mass, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, or General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) — and over issues involving translation principles, which had surfaced during nearly a decade of protracted discussions and debates by the US bishops' conference over new translations of the Lectionary (Bible readings for Mass), and a proposed revision of the so-called "Sacramentary" (i.e., the Missal), which was also the work of ICEL.
Though eventually approved by the bishops, the revised "Sacramentary" was officially rejected by the Holy See, accompanied by a detailed critique, just two days before the new Missale Romanum was introduced. (The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments compiled a list of "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal" dated March 16, 2002. The complete text is accessible at www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html)
Mindful of the controversies surrounding liturgical translation, and in anticipation of translating the new edition of the Roman Missal, the Congregation for Divine Worship took two momentous actions. First, it curtailed ICEL's control of English translations by mandating its "radical restructuring" and new statutes to govern its work (finally accomplished in 2003).
Second, it issued an Instruction on translation of the liturgical books, Liturgiam authenticam, with the purpose of establishing "the true notion of liturgical translation in order that the translations of the Sacred Liturgy into the vernacular languages may stand secure as the authentic voice of the Church of God." This fifth Instruction on the implementation of the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Liturgy "envisions and seeks to prepare for a new era of liturgical renewal, which is consonant with the qualities and the traditions of the particular Churches, but which safeguards also the faith and the unity of the whole Church of God."
The "new era of liturgical renewal" was further advanced by the Holy See when it established, in 2002, a consultative body of bishops from English-speaking countries, Vox Clara, to aid the CDW in overseeing liturgical translations. (Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, is the president of Vox Clara, and US members are Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans and Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb of Mobile.)
Criticism of the New Principles
Not all these developments affecting the liturgy were greeted with enthusiasm by all bishops. One of the most vocal critics of the Holy See's action was the chairman of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL), Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, who had also chaired the US Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) during much of the vigorous debate in the 1990s over the revised Lectionary translation (in use since 2002), and the conflict over ICEL's proposed revision of the "Sacramentary". He pursued his criticism of Liturgiam authenticam, and of the Holy See's intervention in liturgical matters in public speeches and articles in Catholic magazines. His most recent criticisms came in an address delivered this past March at the Benedictine College of St. John's in Collegeville, Minnesota, (home of the Liturgical Press and publishers of the influential liturgical journal, Worship); and at the Los Angeles archdiocesan Religious Education Congress. It was posted on the Diocese of Erie web site.
In his address Bishop Trautman stated that the new ICEL Missal translation fails precisely because it follows the principles of "sacred vernacular as advocated by the Roman document Liturgiam authenticam," which, in his view, fails to "communicate with people of a vastly different time and culture." He criticized the new translation for its increased use of words and phrases that denote transcendence. The "traditional element" of the liturgy, the bishop said, "can and must change with the culture. . . . Liturgy belongs to the people of the Church here and now." He insisted that so-called "inclusive language" is necessary, because "today major newspapers, magazines, textbooks, television, network news anchors, government leaders, best-selling authors, all employ sex-inclusive language," and stated that "to refer to women using masculine language does not promote full participation in the liturgy."
"To produce full, conscious, and active participation," Bishop Trautman said, "a translated text must convey the cultural context of the assembly. If liturgical language is divorced from the reality of people's culture, communication is impossible. Liturgical prayer never happens in a vacuum. There is always a cultural impact."
Indeed. Liturgical prayer uses words, and these words transmit meaning. There is always a cultural impact. And it is the "cultural impact" of language in conveying the truth of the Catholic faith that is at the heart of the controversy over translation. The ancient formula, lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of belief, encapsulates the core objective of translation of liturgical texts, of using words and images that can carry the concept of the sacred — and can transcend our own limited, time-bound experience of the world.
Liturgiam authenticam said:
The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, 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. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet. [Emphasis added]
The importance of sacral language — words that convey a sense of reverence and transcendence — in the vernacular Mass texts was also emphasized in Liturgiam authenticam:
The translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts' dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision. By means of words of praise and adoration that foster reverence and gratitude in the face of God's majesty, His power, His mercy, and His transcendent nature, the translations will respond to the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people of our own time, while contributing also to the dignity and beauty of the liturgical celebration itself.
Defense of the Principles from Outside the US A response to the opposition to the principles of Liturgiam authenticam in the new ICEL Missal texts came first from the Holy See. On May 2, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, sent a letter to Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, the president of the USCCB, stressing that all translations of liturgical texts must conform to Liturgiam authenticam's principles of translation. The letter said, in part,
[I]t is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.
Cardinal Arinze's letter was sent to all bishops only weeks before their meeting in Los Angeles where they would vote on the new ICEL translation of the Order of Mass.
Later that month, an article responding to Bishop Trautman's public criticism by the executive director of the ICEL Secretariat, Msgr. Bruce Harbert, was published in the National Catholic Reporter. Referring to the omission from present translations of Latin words and phrases, Msgr. Harbert said that "ICEL seeks to develop a liturgical language that will address God with no less courtesy than we use toward one another in our everyday conversation." He said that ICEL is aiming not only at restoring sacredness to the translation, but also at an international style of English. "The prize at the end of the process is catholicity," he wrote. "For one-and-a-half millennia, Latin secured the unity of a large section of the Church. It remained stable as the Romance languages were growing out of it. Now English often has a similar role. If we can develop a single English-language liturgy, faithful to the traditions of the Roman rite, we shall be handing on to the Church of the future a gift of immeasurable value."
An interview with Cardinal George Pell published in the National Catholic Reporter on June l included the Vox Clara president's comments on progress with the English texts. He revealed that the bishops' conferences of Australia and England and Wales had already approved the texts for the Order of Mass, and commented that if the US bishops approved the texts it would probably "enormously change the balance of things, but I have no doubt there would be isolated and sporadic resistance." He also said that the aim "is to have one Roman Missal for the English-speaking world."
In Los Angeles at the USCCB meeting itself, before the discussion of the liturgy "action items" began, Bishop Trautman introduced Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, England, president of ICEL, who addressed the assembled prelates. His remarks deftly addressed some specific points of the public criticism of the ICEL translation — including the use of "consubstantial" instead of "one in being" in the Creed. Bishop Roche concluded with comments about the hastily completed first English translation of the Mass and the need to repair its deficiencies, which are both stylistic and ideological. He stressed the international importance of the US bishops' action.
The chief preoccupation in many minds was, of course, that the liturgy be brought closer to the people. This aim could, and sometimes did, obscure the other aim, which was to preserve and transmit our inherited liturgical tradition and bring our people closer to that. During the initial stages of consultation on the third edition of the Missale Romanum, two theologians wrote to me, quite independently, and shared with me their belief that the Mass texts we currently use had severely diminished our appreciation of the richness of Eucharistic theology. This is clearly something to which we, as bishops, should be sensitive. The Holy Father said something similar during the course of last year's Synod of Bishops. Of course, if you try to carry a cup of coffee across a room too quickly, much of the contents may spill. This time, we have tried to keep the coffee in the cup.We are at a very important moment in the whole of this process. If the bishops of the English-speaking countries can agree on a single version of the Mass, what a sign of catholicity that will be. But more than that, it will be a guarantee of catholicity for the future, not only in our own time, and not only in our own countries. Clearly I, and all my brother bishops of ICEL, believe that you, the bishops of the United States, have a most important role of leadership to play in just that.
Bishop Roche's address, along with Cardinal Arinze's letter; unquestionably influenced the bishops' vote.
"Inclusive" Problems Persist
The one area where the new ICEL translation disappoints is its continued use of "inclusive language" in a few places — a problem carried over from its earlier draft version of 2004.
Liturgiam authenticam #30 emphasized that the nouns and pronouns in the original text "should be maintained in translation," and suggested "catechesis" to aid in correct understanding, if there is any ambiguity of meaning. But this principle is not observed consistently in the ICEL translation.
One notable example is in the Creed, where "for us men and for our salvation" has become "for us and for our salvation." Considering that the new ICEL rendering of Credo is, accurately, "I believe" instead of "We believe," it is particularly distressing the word homines (men) has been omitted.
This omission (and other similar instances) may reflect ICEL's "translator's bias." In the video recording sent with the 2004 text, the executive director of the ICEL Secretariat, Msgr. Harbert, spoke of changes in the Gloria:
Objections are sometimes raised to the use of the masculine pronoun "his" here and elsewhere in the Liturgy. The new version [of the Gloria], "and peace on earth to people of good will," corresponds more accurately to the Latin, and also removes the unnecessary masculine pronoun. The bishops of ICEL are taking care to make the language of the Mass as inclusive as possible.
As is well known, some ICEL bishops from other countries support this linguistic manipulation inspired by Western feminism and militantly advanced by some liturgists since the late 1970s. It is regrettable that such radical ideologies still have influence among Catholic bishops. It is simply untrue that women who are not feminist ideologues object to standard English, with its characteristic use of "man" as a collective noun.
In fact, the opposite is true.
A Roper poll of US Catholics, published in Catholic World Report (March 1997), revealed that, regarding the use of gender-sensitive language in Mass prayers and English translations of the Bible, 71 percent disagreed that "terms such as 'man' and 'mankind' . . . seem to exclude women," while 69 percent disagreed that those specific terms should be avoided "when referring to people in general."
Such errors might be repaired before the Holy See grants recognitio (approval, confirmation). Certainly the issue of altering the English language for essentially political reasons is not merely a matter of personal preference or taste, but has important theological ramifications. Past experience with the Lectionary and the Catechism translations suggests that problems like this can be resolved and corrected by the Holy See — and this may be the most likely scenario.
Amendments and Adaptations
Before they voted on the ICEL text itself, the bishops dealt with the proposed amendments. Altogether, about 175 amendments were submitted, though many of them were duplicates, and some were very minor. The BCL reviewed the amendments before the meeting, accepted some and rejected others. Most of the bishops' discussion concerned a very few of these amendments. Any bishop can ask for "separate consideration" of any item on either list, and only these few are discussed and voted on separately. For the rest, the bishops accepted the decisions of the BCL.
All approved amendments are incorporated into the text they would then vote on. The most notable of these was the amendment that would change the new translation of the Creed, by inserting "I believe" in three places; and by retaining the phrase "one in being with the Father", instead of the ICEL rendering "consubstantial with the Father," translating the original Latin, "consubstantialim Patri."
The BCL's rationale for retaining the earlier translation is that people could not understand the term "consubstantial". Other bishops suggested that this would be an excellent opportunity to explain the meaning. Two of the several bishops who argued against "one in being" and in favor of "consubstantial" were Archbishops Alfred Hughes and Oscar Lipscomb, both of whom are members of Vox Clara. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago observed that the US is "odd man out" on its version of the creed. Cardinal George, vice-president of the USCCB, is the US bishops' representative to ICEL and a member of Vox Clara. (Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia is also a Vox Clara member.)
(It is worth noting that the translation of the Creed now in use was not an ICEL translation, but is one of three "ecumenical texts" of the Mass that were produced by the International Consultation on English Texts. The other two ICET texts are the translation of the Gloria and the Sanctus. When the first English Mass texts were voted on, the US bishops rejected the ICEL version of the Our Father, and retained the traditional version.)
In the voice vote, "consubstantial" lost to "one in being."
In the end, fewer than two dozen actual changes to the ICEL text were accepted by the amendment process before the bishops voted on the final text.
Bishop Trautman said that he thought the ICEL text had been "significantly improved" by the amendments, and, said, "In the name of the Committee, I ask that the body approve this for the dioceses of the United States."
The vote on the ICEL text was taken with no further discussion, although a contentious debate had been anticipated. As the ballots were being collected, Cardinal George spoke in favor of the text as a representative of ICEL, and Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg said that he had intended to enter a motion to delay the vote because the time was not right to introduce changes in the liturgy, and because of concern for "the degree of acceptance by our priests."
American Adaptations
In contrast to the amendments to the ICEL text that would affect the translation of the Order of Mass, the adaptations proposed would become additions to the Missal for the Church in the United States. Because of this, the adaptations also require a two-thirds majority vote of the Latin-rite bishops. Without discussion, the bishops accepted the adaptations as proposed by the BCL (the vote was 184-8).
Most of these adaptations are familiar from books now in use. Surprisingly, the list includes two new prayers (for already-blessed holy water) — both were original compositions of ICEL salvaged from the failed "ICEL Sacramentary" revision of the 1990s.
The most familiar of the proposed "American adaptations" inserts the memorial acclamation, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" to those given in the Missal. Though familiar to Americans, this "acclamation" never existed in the Latin Missal. It was an invention of ICEL that was placed first on the list of alternatives given in the printed text.
Providing many options arguably led to the addition of unauthorized acclamations. "Keep in mind . . ." and "We remember . . ." are so often used that even priests have been surprised to learn that these are not legitimate alternatives. Based on past experience, when there many options, people do not know which texts are in the Missal and which are ad-libbed.
Concerning the addition of "original texts," the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in Observations on the English Translation of the Roman Missal (March 16, 2002), stated, in part:
[T]he Congregation must insist that the texts newly composed by the Mixed Commission be excluded from the Missal. Supporting this decision are several serious concerns, namely:
- that the procedures set forth in the 1994 Instruction Varietates legitimae be upheld as regards adaptations to liturgical books for the sake of inculturation;
- that the proliferation of original texts not hinder the meditation of the faithful and of their pastors on the richness already found in the prayers of the Roman Liturgy;
- that the desire for constant variety typical of many consumerist societies, not come to be regarded in itself as constituting a cultural value capable of serving as a vehicle for authentic inculturation.
The adaptations, though technically applicable only to the United States, in fact do affect other countries who use the ICEL texts. In fact, some English-speaking countries have been using the US-adapted version of the "Sacramentary" from the beginning.
What's Next?
When will we get the new texts? When will we begin to see changes in our parishes?
These changes could be seen in parishes within the next year or so. The next step is approval by the ICEL-member conferences of the remaining texts, which should occur before the end of this year. Then there will be the process of examination by the Holy See before recognitio is granted, which is already underway. (Vox Clara is meeting to work on the Order of Mass as CWR goes to press.)
But, as Cardinal Pell observed, there are "sporadic pockets of resistance." Attitudes of the 1960s are still deeply entrenched in some circles, and old attitudes and old habits sometimes die very hard. Some may find it ironic that resistance to change is now rationalized as "pastoral sensitivity" to the people in the pews: "The people cannot be expected to say 'and with your spirit' or 'I believe' without advance preparation." Unsurprisingly, the most vigorous opponents of change now are often the same folks who were the "change agents" of the past. Resistance to the new translation is likely to be expressed in delay tactics, impeding the process as much as possible. One method of delay will likely be through programs of "catechesis."
"We need a full court press to bring this new missal to our people," Bishop Trautman said in an interview after the bishops' meeting, and mentioned established liturgical organizations that must be involved in "catechizing" Catholics for the change.
Nevertheless, a new and far superior translation of the Order of Mass is now assured — even if we must wait patiently for new books to appear in our parishes. The kind of liturgical changes that Catholics will soon experience will be welcomed by most for what they are — a genuine recovery of the sacred dimension of Catholic worship that was sorely diminished by misguided flirtations with the "spirit of the age" that prevailed four decades ago.
One of the things we have learned in the forty years since the Second Vatican Council is that Catholic worship cannot — and must not — be confined to any one culture or age. The Liturgy transcends time, truly drawing believers of today — in our own communities circumscribed by time and place — into genuine communion with all Catholics throughout the world and in every age.
The Second Vatican Council permitted the translation of the timeless Latin Liturgy into contemporary tongues, not to change the Church, but so that she might more effectively transmit the unchanging truth of the ages to the people of our time. To remain vital, the Liturgy must maintain this connection with all ages — past, present, and yet to come. Four decades later, we are now discovering anew what this means and what must be done to accomplish it.
The approval of this translation of the Order of Mass, the first part of the Missal to be presented for vote, is a fundamental first step in the "new era of liturgical reform."
The next step may be Pope Benedict XVI's apostolic exhortation following last October's Synod on the Eucharist, which is expected to appear within the next few months. The Holy Father will surely confirm that the "new era" has truly begun.
Helen Hull Hitchcock is editor of the Adoremus Bulletin, and a founding member of the executive committee of Adoremus, the Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy.
© Ignatius Press
This item 7275 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
