Worth a new Mass?

By RUPERT SHORTT

 

How should seminal texts from the remote past be translated or otherwise recast in a contemporary idiom? When it comes to liturgy, the matter is of much more than academic interest. British readers, especially, will be familiar with the ferocity of quarrels between Prayer Book traditionalists and modernizers in the Anglican Church. Now, though, the rumblings are coming from English-speaking Catholics, whose own services have been changed by the new translation of the Missal introduced earlier this month.

 

There are two broad schools of thought about translation. In one, described by the biblical scholar Eugene Nida as dynamic equivalence, entire sentences are reconceived as if written in normal modern English, with subordinate clauses and avoidance of repetition. Others, though – including Robert Alter, another distinguished voice – believe that this approach is based on a misunderstanding of literary translation. For exponents of formal equivalence such as Alter, the translator’s job is not to make the reader believe that the text was written in normal modern English in the first place, but to suggest the flavour of the original language; and this can be achieved only by a measure of imitation and by refusing to gloss the meaning of the original through paraphrase. The King James Version largely sticks to formal equivalence. More recent translations, including the New Jerusalem Bible and the Good News Bible, use dynamic equivalence much more extensively. A notorious liturgical example of formal equivalence comes in the Book of Common Prayer collect that begins "Prevent us O Lord in all our doings", where "Prevent" (a literal rendering of prevenire) means "Go before".   

 

Pope Benedict – who wishes the Latin Mass had never been replaced by vernacular versions in the first place – clearly stands in Alter’s camp. Aware that there is no going back on the vernacular, he has long set his sights on at least securing a more stringent English-language version of the Missal. His chief concern about the liturgy launched in 1973 lay not just with its perceived banality, but also with its whiff of Pelagianism – the heresy of stressing unaided human resources, while downplaying the centrality of divine grace. The new Missal thus sticks more closely to the Latin original in emphasizing the reverence and humility due to God.  

 

But even some of those who share Vatican reservations about the 1973 Missal nevertheless fear that the latest version creates fresh problems in the process of solving others. High among the list of complaints is that the new language is artificial. The “cup” elevated by the celebrant has become the “chalice”, for example; the simplicity of “I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the Word and I shall be healed” has been replaced with a reference to the centurion’s comment “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof”; “one with the Father” has given way to what in English sounds like theological jargon, namely “consubstantial”; and Christ’s blood is no longer shed “for all” but “for many”.

 

The pity is that a fine new translation, agreed by Anglophone bishops’ conferences before the turn of the millennium, was unjustly swept aside by allies of the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who assembled a new team to start the process all over again. Given the difference between English and other languages, the powers that be in Rome would have done better to let native speakers take ownership of the process without interference. My interim verdict is that the 2011 Missal is a curate’s egg. Only time will tell. A TLS review will appear next year.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Clayton Burns]

http://usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/background/articles-documents-and-reflections/changes-in-priests-parts-liturgy-of-the-word.cfm

[Deacon: Your blessing, Father.

Priest: May the Lord be in your
heart and on your lips that you
may proclaim his Gospel
worthily and well, in the name
of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.

Cleanse my heart and my lips,
almighty God, that I may worthily
proclaim your holy Gospel.

Through the words of the
Gospel may our sins be wiped
away.]

RUPERT SHORTT, You raise some fascinating questions. I am interested in oral English in teaching--I like to read Kipling out loud with students, beginning with "The Jungle Books" and working towards "Kim." Reading about 2000 pages--I do a page, the student does a page--is helpful in developing an ear for the language.

I am going to get a print version and work through it. Perhaps some day I will find it admirable. On first contact, when considering the "Kim" test, I would have to say it is atrocious. As if composed by people who had never heard English spoken.

"...may our sins be wiped away." How pedestrian can you get with "may" and "away." At least they could have avoided factitious internal rhymes.

"...that you may proclaim his Gospel
worthily and well...". Not only is the repeated "may" weak, but "worthily and well" sounds bureaucratic.

Too many open long vowels at the ends of words can give the impression of awkward, silly singsong.

If it is all this bad, then it needs to be pulped.

[Clayton Burns]

The language of the Missal is artificial, but despite the hostility that it has aroused, the question is, what kind of English is it, and does it have value? (I have noted the venom at certain Catholic sites).

When we see "consubstantial" in context, it is not quite so shocking. The tessellation of vocabulary links it quite nicely to "incarnate," "crucified," and "Scriptures."

That such formal mosaic patterning is deliberate is revealed in:
"grant that we may be conformed to the image of your Son,
and confirm us in the bond of communion...".

A subtle hand worked over this language, but I think that it is probably the tongue of meditation. The text is pleasant to read silently, but the recoil of traditionalists is palpable, especially in America, perhaps.

If the text is too "Calvinist," I do not take that literally.

New Saint Joseph Sunday Missal:

By our partaking of this mystery, almighty Father,
give us life through your Spirit,
grant that we may be conformed to the image of your Son,
and confirm us in the bond of communion... (65).

God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures (18).

[Peter Carvill]

As a daily Massgoer and a lover of the English language, I find the new Eucharistic prayers beautiful, prayerful, reverent and God-centred. I welcome the changes.