Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas defends the New Roman Missal...

... in the pages of America magazine (ht: CatholicCulture.org):

In his essay “Why Don’t We Say, ‘Wait?’” (Dec. 14), Father Michael Ryan describes his involvement in the liturgical renewal following the Second Vatican Council. Let me begin my response to his article by doing the same.

I was a freshman in high school when the “vernacularization” of the liturgy began and a junior in college seminary when the process reached its climax. Having majored in classical languages, I naturally was quite interested in the process and flattered when I was invited by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to participate in the translation effort. Frankly, I was also surprised that someone of my thin experience had been asked to take part in a project that would influence the spiritual lives of millions of Catholics for decades to come.

When I first reviewed the translation guidelines sent by ICEL, I was disappointed. Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy. Anima was not to be rendered as “soul,” I was informed, because doing so would set up an unnecessary dichotomy between body and soul. No feminine pronouns were to be used for the church, and common words were favored over precise theological or liturgical vocabulary. The goal was to capture the general meaning of the text, rather than a faithful rendering of a rich and historically layered Latin prose. I tried to work within these parameters, but I found it difficult to do and still remain true to the original text. My translations were evidently unsatisfactory because, upon submitting them, I was politely but firmly uninvited from serving on the commission.

Read the entire piece. Fr. Stravinskas is the author of several books, including The Catholic Church and the Bible and Understanding the Sacraments.

Comments

[Charles E Flynn]

Fr. Stravinskas nails it. Perhaps we will finally have an English translation of the mass as good as Allen Mandelbaum's translation of The Divine Comedy.

[Ed Peters]

Good stuff. As per usual.

[Tom]

Fr. Stravinskas is actually defending the new and more literal English translation over and against the original English translation (more like a paraphrase) as well as the revised translation (flawed with inclusive language and deconstructionism) which the bishops' conferences of most English-speaking countries in the world (including the United States) had previously approved but which the Holy See eventually rejected for those reasons. The Latin texts of the 1970-2002 Roman Missals as well as the Novus Ordo and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) have had serious objections raised in many knowledgeable circles from the "intervention" of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (A Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass) to the writings of Msgr. Klaus Gamber (especially his Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background with an introduction by then-Cardinal Ratzinger) to Tom Droleskey's G.I.R.M. Warfare (originally writen and revised when he had not yet become a Sedevacantist) to the scholarly articles of Lauren Pristas, professor of theology at Caldwell College in New Jersey.

[Donald A. Dohr]

Would not the phrase "as bad as they are" be better put in appositon with the texts as opposed to the bishops where it appears in print in the America article?

[Sandra Miesel]

After years of following the translation wars, I have long wondered how my old Maryknoll Missal from 1961 managed to have accurate translations in standard English without vast bureaucratic input. It renders some of the phrases mentioned thusly: "Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. . ." and "And by the Holy Spirit was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. . ."

[Sandra Miesel]

My 1933 Missal from Benzinger renders the phrases "consubstantial with the Father" and "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgn Mary". Maybe this translation influenced the newest one?

My Fr. Stedman Sunday Missal (the first one I used as a child) says "of one being with the Father" and "was made flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary."

Have to say that I like the Marynoll version best.

[Mark Brumley]

I am fine with "of one substance with the Father" and also with "consubstantial". Does the average person in the pew understand either one? No. But then he doesn't understand "one in being with the Father", either.

"Joe or Josephine Catholic," the questioner asks, "do you know what 'one in being with the Father means'?"

"Sure!" replies Joe/Josephine. "It means Jesus is united with the Father because Jesus is with him in heaven. You know, he's one with the Father in being with him."

"Thanks," replies the questioner, taking back the hand mic. "You can go back to your seat, now."

Ladies and gentlement, let's just take some time to explain "consubstantial" or "of one substance" as best we can to people. If they don't get it, they don't get it.

Just like now with "one in being with the Father".

The word "consubstantial" or the expression "of one substance" may not enlighten anyone beyond their present state of understanding or lack of understanding--certainly it won't help if we have no catechesis on it--but at least it will alert people to the fact that something special is being said about the Son's relation with the Father, so that if people are interested (as they should be) in understanding the words they profess every week to believe, they can be helped to look into the matter, instead of being misled into thinking they understand what is being said/prayed just because everyday language is being used to translate the Creed.

"Consubstantial" or "of one substance" shouldn't be so hard for the "most educated generation of Catholics ever" to grasp. If it is, then let's stop talking about them as the most educated generation of Catholics.

[Jackson]

The solution is to dispense with all translations entirely, and to return to solely Latin.

[DN]

Yeah. Yeah, that'll do it. Same with the Bible. And Augustine and the Fathers. Having it in a foreign language helps prevent misinterpretation. Just ask Bible scholars.

[LJ]

Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy.

That's the heart of the problem isn't it? The liturgical experimentation that followed was the other side of the same coin.

Would that the Church had been as alert as when the Protestants first started churning out Bibles filled with theological errors. Had some of the missals been burned by a Bishop or two, the Vatican may have got right on it. Oh well, better late than never as they say.