It has been slightly puzzling therefore, to see so many official sources speaking of the need for catechesis and training before these translations are brought into use. The very wording of the new ICEL will itself be a great catechetical improvement on the poverty of language that we have been forced to put up with for so long. Let me once again quote my favourite example:
Latin textSo what is the training for? Do some people perhaps need to be taught how to pronounce "them fancy words" like gibbet or wrought?
accipens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas
Old ICEL
he took the cup
New ICEL
he took this precious chalice into his holy and venerable hands,
The other day I was speaking to someone who had been to a training day and had come back with the impression that ICEL has written a collection of new texts and virtually composed a new Missal. Since this might well become a widespread misunderstanding, here are some points for catechesis:
1. The original text of the Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI is written in the Latin language. This is the "typical edition", that is to say, the edition which Missals in the other languages are supposed to reflect accurately.
2. The ICEL translation that we have been using for so many years is unsatisfactory. It does not accurately translate the Latin text and therefore the Holy See has insisted that a better translation be provided.
3. The new ICEL translation is a much better translation and at last we will be able to hear the richness of the Church's liturgical prayers when Mass is celebrated in English.
Training or catechesis that does not get across these essential points risks misleading the People of God.
19 comments:
There's an excellent article in this month's Adoremus by Bishops Serratelli (Paterson, NJ), who is the head of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship. It's about the style of language used in the new translation. Give it a read!
And, on a personal note, I hope to have two books published (this summer and autumn, God willing) on the new translation, providing a decent and practical mystagogical catechesis.
God save the liturgy!
Dear Father Finigan:
First of all, congratulations on being Irish.
Second, I agree with your blog on the presumed need for catechesis on the re-done ICEL texts.
Here in California, there is a strong English-only movement. We expect people to speak English once they get there. Now, leaving aside the whole issue of cultural sensitivity, it is reasonable to assume that English-speaking parishes dont' need to be trained to understand the language they have been speaking from the cradle. If the whole point of putting the Holy Mass into the vernacular was to make it understandable, and if we are to trust this ancient body of Church-approved translators, what's the problem?
Well, your comments were so enjoyable, I'd like to invite you to come and address our, please forgive us, English-speaking parishioners here at St. Margaret Mary Church, in Oakland, California. St. Margaret Marians are sort of a 'wild tribe' out here on the Left Coast to begin with. We offer several forms of the Holy Mass: English Novus Ordo, Latin Novus Ordo, and Tridentine 1962 Missal in Latin with Gregorian chant. I'm sure we'd get a kick out of you. So, next time you want to journey to the Western Wilderness, let us know.
God bless you!
Rebecca C. Spencer-O'Hare
Latin Instructor
St. Margaret Mary Church
1219 Excelsior Avenue
Oakland, California 94610
latin4all@sbcglobal.net
Oh wow! What a beautiful, rich translation of the Latin text!
Maybe they need this re-edumucation training for all of those who want to cling, like Velcro, to "The Spirit of Vatican II"? After all, anything that is remotely reverent and sacred is going to "drag us back into the dark days of authority"...
To help further my understanding of the Extraordinary Form I recently got hold of a copy of ‘The Mass In Slow Motion’ by Msgr. Knox. I have not read very much yet but it is turning out to be a fantastic read and just wondering about a tiny little detail I read. It says that when the priest turns to the congregation to say Dominus vobiscum he is not allowed to lift his eyes from the ground to prevent him from getting distracted.
I know it is only a small detail but I find such things fascinating and just wondered if this jester is still employed when priests say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass today and also whether it applies to the Novus Order as well.
I went to a Novus Order Mass today and watched the priest closely and he did not look up. I am not sure if this is just the personal choice of a more conservative priest as the jester is so small few if any would actually notice or perhaps I was seeing something that was not actually there (but he seemed to me to be purposely keeping his eyes low while his head was raised, then again perhaps I just wanted to think that).
To me this little jester which more than likely goes unnoticed by nearly everyone emphasises the importance of the Mass and how it simply won’t do to be distracted from performing such an important task. I would even go as far to say that to allow oneself to be distracted would be to dishonor and disrespect God. (Then again it is difficult enough to try and concentrate as part of the congregation when there are screaming children, let alone when a priest is trying to concentrate on what they are saying and doing on the altar.)
I totally know what you mean. Although, actually you misstate it a little. I think in "Eucharistic Prayer 1" they do it "He took the cup in his holy and venerable hands"... but almost no priests do that prayer... most do the "he took the cup" one.
Just a thought ;-)
Quite, but there will be objections because the new translations are a change, and change is disruptive.
Second, the question arises: if the old translations were so inadequate, how is it that the appropriate authorities took so long to rectify them?
Finally, the new translations do nothing to improve much of the cloth-eared flatness of the language of the liturgy. Example: in the Confiteor, we "ask blessed Mary, ever virgin." In the older translation of the Mass we "beseech blessed Mary, " a more intense and appropriate verb. And, indeed, when I consult my "Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary," I discover that the verb "precor" is translated "pray to, beseech, entreat" before we get to "ask for; invoke." I suppose we should be grateful for the improvements, but it clearly could have been better yet.
Paul VI 1962
simili modo, postquam cenatum est,
accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem
in sanctas et venerabiles manus suas….
Novus Ordo
simili modo, postquam cenatum est,
accipiens et calicem…
I'm confused. What exactly is the ICEL supposed to be a translation of?
"Many of us will be profoundly grateful once the new ICEL translations are allowed to be used for the celebration of Mass."
..and I will be among those people!
But, Fr., pardon me if I'm asking naive or stupid questions, but, when the new ICEL translations are allowed to be used, will the use of the older (current one) cease? Will there be a 'hand over' period? Or, or?
Where I am, there is not much information about the expected changes; given that it has taken my parish (5+ years) to re-order the church so that the Tabernacle is now situated on the Sanctuary instead of in a side chapel, behind the music group, should we reasonably expect the use of the new translation to take a similar length of time?
What would be the role of the Diocesan Liturgical Committee in implementing the new ICEL translations?
And a second thought: perhaps a good training in preparation for the new translations would be to start attending the TLM wherever possible!
Has anyone noticed that the new ICEL translations are very similar to the wordings in virtually every bilingual missal in use up tp 1970.
They could have saved a lot of time and money by just adopting the old translations.
Thaumaturgas has answered my dumb question. Thanks
Rebecca - I can't see any possibility of a trip to California in the near future but many thanks indeed for the invitation.
Catherine - "The Mass in Slow Motion" is a very good choice of reading. I think that this custody of the eyes is probably observed mainly by priests who also say the old Mass.
Gregory - no, that is actually the "translation" of the Roman Canon currently in use.
Kate - it will be interesting to see what happens in practice.
I've often wondered if the current style (as opposed to the new ICEL version) purposely has simple English because large numbers of lay people in the English-speaking world consist of people whose first language is not English--often these people are immigrants from places where English is not a primary language. I suspect that's why the English has been so plain and truncated. To people learning English as a second language, the "older ICEL" must be if not more appealing, at least easier to understand.
So far, I like the new ICEL style from what I see in the example in your blog. Reminds me more of the beautiful-sounding language that one might here in the continueing Anglican traditions. Also, if the new ICEL style is closer to the Latin source, that might amplify the meanings to lay people who do understand the richer English.
Perhaps there should be two Masses provided at every Church: one in Simple English for ESL people, and one in the richer, more amplified new ICEL style.
To be honest, Mike, I don't think that was the reason. There were theological issues at stake.
(Of course one way to level the field is to have Mass in Latin.)
Dear "euouae",
I don't quite understand why you, and others, persist in saying the phrase "Novus Ordo"... if you are speaking in Latin (which I doubt), that's fine...
We have the "Ordinary Form" and the "Extra-Ordinary Form".
G.T.
Gregory - there are a number of possible designations. The Holy Father also spoke of the usus antiquior (older use) which is the expression I prefer. The newer form or use would perhaps be the usus recentior a phrase coined by Dr Alcuin Reid. "Novus Ordo" is generally understood and was used officially. A number of other expressions have been used by various authorities so I do not think we are restricted to the rather juridical designation of ordinary and extraordinary form.
In all honesty, aren't we just moving from a badly translated version of theologically vague prayers to a more accurately translated version of the same theologically vague prayers?
Many of the prayers are identical - but Lauren Pristas has highlighted some important problems with those that are not.
The genius of the Roman Church has been that it has recognized that people need a unified language (Latin) in order to achieve civilization. Today, global institutions, international tribunals, etc., need the cohesion, functionality and potential for progress afforded by a unified English language. Society may not yet be willing to admit a need for the benefits of the Church's God-inspired agenda. Nevertheless, I wager that the challenge to civilization that lies ahead will compel nations to trust the Church's long view of history. Will it be Arabic or English? Several hundred million English-speaking Catholics united by a common Liturgy will be a creative leaven.
The (Roman) Church must continue to renew its identity. Our identity has been formed by our Latin heritage. A person who knows not their roots is prone to the sway of the world. Latin (and Aramaic and Greek) must remain in the Liturgy because that is who we are. Denying our past for the last 40 years has been tragic. It's high time, in order to move forward, to embrace the legacy of the past. The new translation is a big step in the right direction. Training is essential because the amnesia from which we have been suffering requires it!
Post a Comment