"The Roman Catholic Mass is undergoing a major overhaul."

[Note: I started this post five days ago, then decided to let it go. But I've decided to post it because I'm curious—see the end of this post—for reader's reactions to the approaching changes to the Missal that will take effect at the start of Advent.]

Is it? Really? I guess it depends somewhat on one's perspective.

Here is a longer quote from the post titled, "Big changes to Catholic Mass spur confusion in the pews", on the CNN blog:

The Roman Catholic Mass is undergoing a major overhaul.  In an effort to unify how the global church prays, the English translation of the church's worship service is being modified in order to more accurately reflect the Latin from which the Roman Missal is translated.

The Catholic Church is known by some as a bastion of permanence that has not often yielded to the forces of change in the modern era. In many ways the changes harken back to the Mass spoken in Latin, as it was in the United States prior to the 1960s.

“There is an Italian proverb,” said the Rev. Msgr. Kevin W. Irwin, a professor of liturgical studies at the Catholic University of America, “that ‘every translator is a traitor.' "

“Every translation is less than the original,” he said.

The liturgical changes are “all within the responses and the language of the Mass. In the grand scheme of things, they’re fairly minor,” said Mary DeTurris Poust, whose book on the subject came out in March.

Frankly, I'm of two minds on how to approach this claim of "big changes" and "major overhaul" and "confusion". On one hand, I wince a bit when reading the Mass is "undergoing a major overhaul", especially since what is happening is certainly not as much of an "overhaul" (or "underhaul") as what happened in the early 1970s.

As most readers know well, what has happened and is happening is that a revised version of the Missale Romanum is being implemented in a few weeks, at the start of Advent on November 27th. The changes, especially for the assembly, are not numerous or radical, but are much (much!) better translations from the Latin text. (In many cases, they are now the same or very close to the same as what is heard at Divine Liturgy in a Byzantine Catholic parish, such as the one I attend.) And, frankly, if people are "confused" about what is happening, it causes one to wonder just how capable of clear thought and baseline attentiveness is the average Catholic?

On the other hand, the changes are not simply tweaks or mere revisions, but are part of a focused and important effort to regain the liturgical riches and glorious language of worship that was lost (or tossed aside) forty years ago. Anthony Esolen has written well of what the translators did four decades ago:

Thence came the mischief. They ignored the poetry. They severed thought from thought. They rendered concrete words, or abstract words with concrete substrates, as generalities. They eliminated most of the sense of the sacred. They quietly filed words like “grace” down the memory hole. They muffled the word of God. They did not translate. Or if they did, it was not into English. A more obedient reading of the Vatican instructions would not have produced the thin, pedestrian, and often misleading version Catholics have used these last forty years, one that depended, for whatever reasons, upon the destruction of words, and images, and allusions (particularly biblical allusions) and the truths they convey.

In their work, the wonderful dictum of Thomas Aquinas, bonum diffusivum sui, “the good pours itself forth,” was inverted into malum diminuendum alterius, “evil seeks to diminish the other.” Among other things, that meant the petty withholding of words of praise, presumably because they were considered redundant. But is that the mark of love? Is a second smile, or a second kiss, redundant, because there has been a first? And if there has not been a first smile or kiss, are such things unnecessary, because they seem to serve no strictly utilitarian function?

I have searched the 1973 Order of the Mass alone (a mere fraction of all the prayers that have been retranslated) and found thirty instances of such laudatio interrupta. Most of the time an adjective of praise, such as sanctus, gloriosus, beatus, and a few others, simply disappears: sancte Pater becomes Father, dilectissimi Filii tui becomes your son, beatae Mariae becomes Mary, diem sacratissimam, on Christmas and Epiphany and Easter and all those glorious days in the history of salvation, becomes that day. Sometimes, though, a whole phrase is simply dropped as too hopelessly cast in the language of holiness: sanctas ac venerabilis manus, when Jesus blesses the wine in Eucharistic Prayer I, vanishes; so, in the same prayer, does sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam; so also in conspectu maiestatis tuae. No need, apparently, to dwell upon the holy and venerable hands of the Lord, or the sacred sacrifice and immaculate victim we offer in the Eucharist, or the presence of God’s majesty, which we hope one day to enjoy.

I have reviewed hundreds of pages of Latin text, with the first Novus Ordo’s rendering beside me. I defy any English-speaking Catholic in the world to defend the work, on any grounds whatsoever, linguistic, poetic, scriptural, or theological. Eventually, the Vatican, noticing that the liturgy had in fact not been translated into English, ordered that the job be done. Hence every prayer said at every Mass for every day of the year and every purpose for which a Mass may be said has in the last few years been translated, an immense undertaking.

This recent article in the New York Daily News does a good job of outlining, in terms accessible to non-specialists, the basic issue at hand:

A decade in the making, the new Mass is a more precise translation from Latin than the current version, peppered with more theological words and Biblical images.

Supporters say it will bring a more reverent, solemn tone to services, while detractors think the new language is too obscure or stilted.

However, it includes this vague statement, without supporting quotes:

Others say the translation is a step backward because of its grammatical similarity to the Latin-language Mass and its use of unfamiliar vocabulary.

If you're keeping score at home, some of the alleged failings of the new translation are:

1. The language is too obscure and stilted
2. The language is too similar to the "Latin-language Mass"
3. The language includes "unfamiliar vocabulary"

Here's one simple (and hardly original) take, which isn't offered as a complete theory or explanation, but I think makes sense: The original English translation of forty years ago, as Esolen documents well, purposefully simplified—or "dumbed down", in my view—or eliminated biblical images and theological terms deemed too complex, or confusing, or whatever. Throw in forty years of mostly mediocre to horrible catechesis and you have a generation of folks who are, generally speaking, historically, biblically, theologically, and liturgically illiterate. Then, when it becomes evident that the new translation is in fact going to be enacted, the same people who were largely responsible for this mess (or their faithful disciples) begin whining and complaining about how difficult, stilted, challenging, outdated, unfamiliar, irrelevant, and so forth is the new translation. In sum, the cult of liturgical experimentation and expertism is finally being put in its place, and those running the silly (but serious) show are throwing hissy fits.

Here is the most telling quote from the Daily News piece:

The theological precision of the new translation got a thumbs-up from schoolteacher Timothy Thomas, 29, of the upper East Side. “There’s more meat on the bone — something you can really sink your teeth into,” said Thomas, a parishioner at the Church of Saint Vincent Ferrer.

We all know that many Catholics are sick of mediocrity and banality; they want meat and richness and fullness and beauty. Which is why the theologically challenging works of Benedict XVI are being read rather widely and why Fr. Robert Barron's "Catholicism" has been so successful, to give just two prominent examples.

To come full circle, I don't think the new translation is a "major overhaul" in the sense it is going to demand some sort of superhuman, radical effort on the part of the laity to learn. In that regard, the number of changes are relatively few (I know they are more substantial for clergy) and, in my opinion, easily managed. But, again, the nature of the changes are indeed substantial and significant—and in a very good way. That said, I'm curious to hear from readers on this topic; specifically:

• What do you think of the new translation?
• What have you done to prepare for its implementation?
• What is your sense of how the implementation will go in your particular parish or diocese? (I'm not looking for dirt or trying to play liturgical police, but am hoping to better understand how this is actually working.)

Related Links, Articles, and Book Excerpts:

• The Adoremus Missal website
• A New Translation for a New Roman Missal (DVD)
• Mass Revision: How the Liturgy is Changing and What it Means for You, by Jimmy Akin
• A Biblical Walk Through the Mass, by Dr. Edward Sri
• The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
• The Spirit of the Liturgy page
• For "Many" or For "All"? | From God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Foreword to U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Music and Liturgy | From The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer | From The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• On Saying the Tridentine Mass | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Reform or Return? | An Interview with Rev. Thomas M. Kocik
• Does Christianity Need A Liturgy? | From The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy | Martin Mosebach
• Walking To Heaven Backward | Interview with Father Jonathan Robinson of the Oratory
• Rite and Liturgy | Denis Crouan, STD
• The Liturgy Lived: The Divinization of Man | Jean Corbon, OP
• Worshipping at the Feet of the Lord: Pope Benedict XVI and the Liturgy | Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D.
• The Latin Mass: Old Rites and New Rites in Today's World | Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D.

Comments

[Charles E Flynn]

Fr. Barron comments on the new translation of the Roman Missal. video 13m 40 sec.

[Charles E Flynn]

For years I have wondered why the Roman Catholic Church used an English translation of its liturgy that was demonstrably inferior to the translations of The Divine Comedy done by
Allen Mandelbaum, who died October 27, and Anthony Esolen.

It has been painful to use the now lame duck ICEL translation. I think the new translation is clearly better, and I look forward to reading Esolen's Magnificat Roman Missal Companion.

It is my hope that the improved translation will lead to the use of hymns that are not the musical equivalent of the lame duck translation, and that the mismatch between the new translation and the banal hymns will not long be tolerated.

My parish has cards in the pews, with the changes in the text in red. We have started to use the new cards, and the first time our pastor said, "The Lord be with you" and we replied, "And with your spirit" the pastor paused for a moment and said, "You're so smart."

I do not expect anyone in my parish to complain about the new translation, except for the occasional visitor who is now saying, instead of "It is right to give Him thanks and praise", "It is right to give God thanks and praise." If I hear that, I am going to tell her, very softly, "The sixties are over."

[Marguerite]

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Perhaps as the formality of the language changes at Mass so will the lax and flippant demeanor of the congregants. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

[Lauri Friesen]

To answer your questions, Carl, I am so grateful for this "new" translation of the Mass. As a big fan of the English language, I am thrilled at the prospect of more poetry and mystery in the words of the Mass. I get a little frustrated at the detractors who argue that the language will be stilted and the vocabulary too obscure, since in North America we have universal public education and ever-growing enrollment for college education, yet "consubstantial" and "chalice" will prove too big a challenge to the people in the pews?

I have attended a workshop on the changes and, for the first time in twenty years, purchased a missalette to help me learn the responses, postures, and prayers.

In my parish church, there seems to be little interest, either positive or negative, in the changes, save the "Spirit of Vatican II" Catholics, whose numbers are few and ever dwindling. Thankfully, our pastor is also the diocesan liturgist, so no concerns there!

Finally, as I noted to my sister a few days ago, I am most irked by the criticims of the new translation because they largely intimate a desire to deny God reverence, adoration, and glory so that Man might feel more comfortable.

[Richard M]

The new translation, or what I have seen of it, is not perfect. At points it is a little more clunky than I might like. But at almost every point, it is superior to the dumbed down one we have been working with for the last four decades, especially in the responses. In my neck of the woods (Archdiocese of Washington), preparation for the new missal varies. Some people are going to be caught off guard. But some priests have made a real effort to prepare people for the changes, and by and large they are the priests you would expect to do so. I am most keen to see what impact this has on the sacred music of the mass.

The new translation only scratches the surface of what needs to be reformed. But it is a good starting point. If indeed what we pray is what we believe, its catechetical effect may open the door a little more for the changes that will be needed, and the further reduction of other common abuses that have been tolerated for so long.

[J.T. Lebherz]

I've been following this for months and am glad that the day for using the new/old translation is near. As a former altar boy from the late fifties/early sixties, I have had to do a head slap when I realized that for years, when the priest says "the Lord be with you" and we respond with "and also with you", that we were not responding as I was taught as an altal boy. And, that was "et cum spiritu tuo" or, as translated properly "and with your spirit". I look forward to using the up and coming format and Anthony Esolen's articles on the "new" translation have been wonderful.

[Steve Cianca]

Like Richard M, I have a couple of nits to pick with the new translation (e.g., "consubstantial" sounds like a theological term of art, I would have preferred a more concrete word or phrase; same with "incarnated"--why use a term of art when "became flesh" is a literally accurate and more concrete translation of incarnatus est?). But these are quibbles. This translation is far superior to the doggerel we've had to endure for the past 40 years. I still have my Sunday Missal from 1962 (a gift from my grandmother for my First Communion) which has a very good translation of the Latin and has been a wonderful link to a time of when the Mass was an experience of the sacred.

This translation is decades overdue. Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. The changes for the congregation are few and sensible. Our parish priests have been preparing us for the new translation for the past few weeks, so I don't think we'll have any problems. There will be cards in the pews with the new responses to help people follow along. Now if only we can scrap the insipid music we've had to put up with for the past 40 years and get back to Gregorian chant and traditional hymnody, then we will have really turned a corner.

Frankly, we could solve a lot of problems by going back to the original Latin (and Greek) for the common prayers and just having the propers (and the readings and the canon)in English. But I am grateful for this new translation--it is a promising start.

The long dark liturgical night is about to come to an end. Deo gratias!

[Robert Miller]

The new translation is very good, indeed. The only thing I would have liked to see is use of the second person singular to address the Persons of the Holy Trinity, Our Lady and the saints. People seem to forget that this form of address is a privilege that was conferred on us by God Himself.
I have been preparing for this for more than 40 years. During the 1970s, I continued to adapt my St. Joseph's Latin/English Daily Missal (which contained an excellent literal English translation) to the new liturgical environment. After that, I just started responding in Latin most of the time (or in the literal English translation -- e.g., "and with your spirit", "consubstantial"). So I'm more than ready for the change. Frankly, I don't much like the English language, so that, if I must hear Mass in the vernacular, I would prefer to hear it in Castellano.
As for reception of the new translation, I think it is going to break along generational lines. Boomers and older will be least sympathetic -- both because old people don't like to change and because for many of them (across the spectrum from "conservative" to "liberal") the old English Mass, with lyrics by Father McManus and music (if you can call it that)by Marty Haugen & Co., is a kind of book of common prayer that supports and encourages the sort of multidoxy and multipraxis that the old folks got comfortable with in their youth. The middle aged folks will be all over the map on it, as they are on most matters religious. But I suspect that it will be people under 40 who will embrace the new translation with enthusiasm.
My only fear is that reception of the new translation will retard progress of the reintroduction of the 1962 Roman Missal and more widespread use of Latin in the Novus Ordo. A lot of people love English, and they will be enchanted by an English version of the Mass that rises to the best that language has to offer. Until now, many of them have preferred the use of Latin to the use of the bowdlerized English of the 1960s Liturgy Club. Furthermore, I hope the introduction of "better English" in the Mass doesn't divert attention from the thorough-going reform of the reform that the Novus Ordo desperately needs.

[LJ]

...the sort of multidoxy and multipraxis that the old folks got comfortable with in their youth.

LOL. First time I have seen those two words, Robert Miller, but I like them.

Interestingly, they feed into one of the complaints that Carl linked to in his post, and if I recall, this complaint was the center of much debate in the course of the revision of the translation. That is; "for many" as opposed to "for all," the Latin being "pro multis."

In my opinion, the use of the expression "for many" ought perhaps to jar some people into reflecting upon their universalism. I am not sure what combination of ignorance of Catholic teaching, fuzzy thinking, and/or heresy that is most common but I hear that kind of universalist thinking from Catholics quite often.
Yes, Jesus died for each and every person. The problem is that they forget the other part, the part that Jesus emphasized over and over. Not everyone will be saved. And that by their own choice, not God's desire.

I don't know if that was in the minds of the translators or not, or in the intent of the Holy Father, but it seems that it may have a beneficial side effect. Could it cause an examination of conscience here and there? Perhaps. An increase in the length of the confession line? Perhaps. A reassessment by some of us about worthiness to receive at any given mass? Perhaps.

Or perhaps those things are unlikely, but it does seem to me that the lack of recognition of the Real Presence (statistics demonstrate this), the casual approach to reception of the Eucharist, and the general nonchalance regarding morality on the part of many Catholics; all tend from the common wellspring of universalism, indifferentism and syncretism. It seems to me that where there is a healthy recognition of the fact of heaven and hell and that Jesus himself indicated that both will be populated, the objection to the use of "the many" fades somewhat in importance.

Another complaint Carl links to I find quite humorous;

The ACP argues that a word-for-word translation “demonstrates a lack of awareness of the insights gained from linguistics and anthropology during the past 100 years.”

A statement from the association said, “The ACP is gravely concerned that this literal translation from Latin has produced texts that are archaic, elitist and obscure and not in keeping with the natural rhythm, cadence and syntax of the English language.”

I think what they are pointing out is the English language is always in flux. That is true. But why is that the case? It is a matter of usage is it not? Expressions, meanings, implications, words all come into being or change as people use them and thereby impose those changes onto the language.

It seems to me that is the best case one can make for the new translation. How many English speaking Catholics are there who will participate in the mass under this new translation? Is that not a significant number of people and will that not cause a ripple, if not a wave, in the common usage of words and expressions? The current state of the English language is not sacred nor frozen. If the Catholic Church expresses the sacred mysteries in a particular style or form of the language, that, in and of itself, is input into the ongoing flux of the language. Some might say for the better.

Imagine for a moment a hugely popular musical group, some sort of teen boy band were to come along and capture the hearts and sanity of a wide swath of young girls, blowing the Bieber kid out the water; and imagine that they decided for some reason to speak in 18th or 19th century English. Shazam! The next generation of girls would all sound like Jane Austen characters overnight and might even carry it into the wider culture.

OK, so its an unlikely scenario. Like...whatever! The point is simply that the English language is what we make of it. The ACP's "grave concerns" are a joke, and embarrassing coming from Ireland, the land which has produced much high quality literature and poetry, not to mention music, in the English language.

[TomD]

"And, frankly, if people are "confused" about what is happening, it causes one to wonder just how capable of clear thought and baseline attentiveness is the average Catholic?"

Wonder indeed. A general lack of catechetical breadth and depth . . . and the realization that catechesis begins with inquisitiveness and personal discovery, through the traditions (and Traditions) of the Church . . . is a major source of "confusion." As a recent initiate to the faith, I am perplexed (and, in my darker moments, very discouraged) by the near total lack of interest in adult religious education in my parish (and in our diocese, for that matter).

And lex orandi, lex credendi is a key to understanding what has happened to our liturgy (and, perhaps more significantly, why it has happened) since Vatican II, and what this new translation has now attempted to correct.

[Charles E Flynn]

Some of you might enjoy Why change the translation of the Mass? pt 4, by Reverend Know-It-All.

[Gary]

I don't see how the new translation of the mass is any better than the old translation of the mass into english. Qhat is better about the new mass tranilation into english.

[Gina Nakagawa]

Maybe it is because the good Lord has allowed me to become an old "croc" that I am pretty excited about the re-translation of the translation of the prayers of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from Latin into English. I cling with a virtual death grip to my 1963 Missal which was in both Latin and well-translated English. If we could educate people on what, exactly, it is that we receive at Holy Communion, bring back the chin paten, get rid of ugly, unworthy music and recognize that the priest should be facing God and not schmoozing the congregation, I think we could be well on our way to true renewal. Get ready for some kicking and screaming along the way. Toddlers, no matter what their age (3,23,33,43, 53,63,...) don't particularly care for being *told* anything.

My only disappointment with the "new" translation is the injection of PC into the translation of the Gloria. Originally it was "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to *men* of good will (meaning all humans not just males). This was from "Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatum." It seems we must now use "people" instead of "men" so as not to upset the angry uninformed.

I can still hardly wait for the first Sunday of Advent!

[Gina Nakagawa]

Oops! Pardon me the Latin should read "bonae voluntatus" not "voluntatum."

[Amy]

I absolutely love the new translation, but I'm very frustrated when I attend diocesan worksops about the new translation and they turn into a whining session about how the "old man in Rome has nothing better to do" than to make everyone learn new Mass responses! I realize that the sisters who run the workshops are the "experts" and I'm a mere self-educated post-Vatican II Catholic lay woman, but finally I couldn't hold my tongue anymore and pointed out to them (and everyone else at one of the workshops) that like it or not, agree with it or not, this IS the new translation, and it's our job as music ministers and other parish leaders to go back and help our congregations not only learn the new translations, but also get excited about it! It's cheating them (and God himself) not to do our best to show enthusiasm for these changes to our congregations.