It’s harder than you might think to produce a vernacular (eg English) missal. What should be included? Well, everything that’s in the Latin missal, you say. And then the discussion between the Center and the Locales begins.
What about notated prefaces? The Latin missal has several prefaces notated, but most of them are not. Because of the regular accentuation of Latin cadences, it is possible for the really skilled celebrant to chant from just the Latin text if he has the formula in his ear. But not so English. There are so many variant English accent patterns that each cadence, i.e. every preface, has to be notated if it is to be sung, unless if we want the celebrant to make a hash of it. And even for Latin, the monks of Solesmes published the helpful Ordo Missae in Cantu with all the Latin prefaces notated, and the Holy See approved it. (BTW, the Holy See prevented one Midwestern publisher from issuing a “book for the chair” for the orations proclaimed from there so that the big missal/sacramentary wouldn’t have to be dragged back and forth. It is not permitted to create a new genre of liturgical book. But if the monks of Solesmes can…) I suppose the English missal could include music where the Latin has music, just text where the Latin has just text, and put all the notated English prefaces in the appendix. But what does that say about singing the liturgy, which everyone wants to promote in accordance with the 1967 Roman instruction Musicam Sacram? Let us hope that the English prefaces can appear in place with notation to encourage good pastoral practice.
What about the Latin intonation of the celebrant for the Gloria? It’s in the Latin missal for use in conjunction with the Graduale, and there’s no need to print the entire Gloria in the missal which the choir or congregation sings. There’s no such official English Graduale, so it would make no sense to include just an English intonation which refers to nothing. Is it permitted to print in the missal an entire English Gloria based on a Latin chant? ICEL has provided such a setting, and I expect it will be included in the English missals, perhaps in the appendix, with encouragement for reprinting it in congregational books and booklets. Same with the Credo – but here ICEL has provided two English chant settings, based on Credo I and Credo III, both of which will probably appear somewhere in the new English missal.
There are three settings of Pater Noster in the Latin missal, one in the Order of Mass and two in the appendix. Congregations in the US know and sing well the eminently usable English chant setting of Robert Snow. If that is included in the Order of Mass in the US missal, that would leave three settings instead of two for the appendix – the new ICEL setting of the common Latin one, plus the two others of the Latin missal appendix. Permitted?
And this one is really fun (and maddeningly frustrating): the ICEL translation of the introduction to the readings, which is found with notation in the Latin missal appendix, gives us a different text than what it is the various English lectionaries. This isn’t ICEL’s fault – they followed the Latin of the missal. What text to include in English missals?
In all these things, some tension is inevitable between the Center and the Locales. The Center will push for unity – or is it uniformity? The Locales will push for pastoral practicality – or is it unnecessary innovation? Let us hope and pray for constructive conversations and a wise decisions.
awr
#1 by Cody C. Unterseher on March 7, 2010 - 12:24 pm
Quote
It is not permitted to create a new genre of liturgical book.
Undoubtedly that’s what was said when the Book for the Chair had the plug pulled on it. But a collectary is not a new genre of liturgical book, unless one considers something that originated in the 9th century and had its heyday in the 11th century “new.” The plenary missal was a new genre once as well, also emerging about the 9th century. Somebody didn’t do their homework….
Of course, the happy (?) side effect of disallowing the Collectary has been the implementation/utilization of the personal binder — often with a well designed, liturgically appropriate (and overpriced) cover — in which individual celebrants or their liturgists can place the needed prayers for the day (or variations thereof. . . not that anyone would ever depart from the received/approved text.)
#2 by Fr. Allan McDonald on March 7, 2010 - 12:59 pm
Quote
I used to use the Book of the Chair years ago when it was published and what an expensive waste of money. We now use a small sacramentary at the chair and a large one at the altar–much cheaper, nicer and if I misplace the big sacramentary the “book of the chair” sacramentary can serve two purposes. I think notebooks, no matter how nice the cover, are not nice at Mass, at the chair or the altar, kind of chintzy.
#3 by Adam Bartlett on March 7, 2010 - 6:50 pm
Quote
Fr. Ruff said:
“…the ICEL translation of the introduction to the readings, which is found with notation in the Latin missal appendix, gives us a different text than what it is the various English lectionaries.”
This is a question that I have not yet found and answer to:
With the appearance of the newly translated Roman Missal will there be an a new Lectionary to accompany it? The discrepancy illustrated above is one reason for this need, and also we have the need for the updating of the Psalms to accord with the forthcoming revised psalter (possibly the Revised Grail?). And lastly, being that the Lectionary is technically a part of the “Roman Missal”, wouldn’t it, too, need to be updated to be in accord with Liturgia Authenticam? Does a more accurate scriptural translation need to be used?
Any light that can be shed on this would be very appreciated.
#4 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on March 7, 2010 - 6:55 pm
Quote
Adam, as far as a know from the BCL (ie, BCDW) newsletter, the US lectionary revision is moving along, slowly, slowly – on a different timeclock than the missal.
awr
#5 by Karl Liam Saur on March 7, 2010 - 7:21 pm
Quote
The 1998 edition of the English-language Lectionary was approved only on a provisional basis, IIRC, so it too is still technically not “final”.
#6 by Adam Bartlett on March 7, 2010 - 8:03 pm
Quote
Ah, thank you for this, Father. Much appreciated!
#7 by Jeffrey Herbert on March 8, 2010 - 4:31 pm
Quote
Good Lord, if we think the translation of the Missal has caused controversy, I can only imagine what a translation of the Lectionary according to Liturgiam Authenticam would do…
#8 by Karl Liam Saur on March 8, 2010 - 4:48 pm
Quote
Jeffrey,
Fortunately, LA would not require translation of the Lectionary from the Latin, so many of complaints about the fetishizing of Latin syntax in the translation of the Missal are not carried over into the Lectionary translation.
#9 by Jeffrey Herbert on March 9, 2010 - 9:48 am
Quote
Hmm…if the Lectionary isn’t translated from Latin, why would it fall under LA then? Or am I misunderstanding the term “revision”….is it just minor changes to be made?
#10 by Karl Liam Saur on March 9, 2010 - 10:03 am
Quote
Jeffrey
LA #24 provides that Scripture is translated from the original languages, not Latin.
#11 by John Foley, S. J. on March 14, 2010 - 10:53 pm
Quote
Karl shows us that in LA 24 it is specified that the bible is to be translated from the original languages, not Latin. It at least seems that LA 37 (any discrepancy in translations “needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained)” forces the Nova Vulgata Editio to be the arbiter. Peter Jeffery shows how very different the Nova Vulgata Editio is from the original Vulgate, and that often the ancient liturgical tradition is based on the original vulgate. (I think I do Peter justice in interpreting him this way.). Use of the Nova Vulgata Editio as arbiter, therefore, would force a departure from tradition. (Jeffrey, Translating Traditiion, chapter 2). The result would be a translation not necessarily in line with ancient tradition. Or am I misreading it?
#12 by Karl Liam Saur on March 15, 2010 - 8:25 am
Quote
Fr Foley,
I read LA 37 as referring to the choice of verses and structure; while the original language texts remain the source for translation, the NV arbiters conflicts among manuscripts. Thanks for pointing this out.
#13 by Adam Bartlett on March 7, 2010 - 6:51 pm
Quote
Thank you for the thought provoking post, by the way, Fr. Ruff!
#14 by Fr. Christopher Costigan on March 8, 2010 - 8:22 am
Quote
I wouldn’t see any encouragement from ICEL to publish anything in congregational booklets with out the requisite groveling and payment of the “tribute” for the grace to pray using the words of the Church.
#15 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on March 8, 2010 - 4:54 pm
Quote
Also, I have the impression that the NAB was already done with formal equivalancy (to the Hebrew or Greek), not dynamic equivalence, so I don’t think there will be huge adjustments.
awr
#16 by Pierre Font on March 9, 2010 - 1:12 pm
Quote
This may be a topic for a future post, but when will there be new
English translations according to Liturgiam Authenticam of all
other liturgical rites? I am particularly interested in:
1. All other sacraments
2. The Liturgy of the Hours
but the list goes on…
3. Order of Christian Funerals
4. Benediction, Adoration, Exposition, etc., of the
Blessed Sacrament
5. Dedication of a Church and an Altar
6. All other blessings that are translated from Latin
7. Other rites for special occasions (ie, Rite of Election in RCIA, commissioning various ministers)
What concerns me is that after the new missal translation comes into effect, we will encounter services where a rite with a translation that does not follow LA (or, for certain blessings and installations of office, an original English text approved by a local bishops’ conf. composed to sound like earlier translations of other rites) is embedded in a rite with a post-LA translation (the shift in tone will be striking).
#17 by Karl Liam Saur on March 9, 2010 - 2:24 pm
Quote
Given that MR3 took about three times as long as MR1, perhaps the editions of those other ritual books will take about 3 times as long as their first editions? Some of them did not appear for about 15-20 years….so perhaps 40-60 years from now…by which time LA may have finally been superseded by translation principles that give more emphasis on musicality and beauty than does LA or than did Comme le prevoit in 1969…one thing that LA did establish (very likely unintentionally, of course) is that translation principles can be changed.
#18 by Jeffery BeBeau on March 9, 2010 - 7:06 pm
Quote
Actually a lot sooner than you might imagine. I actually asked ICEL this very question not too long ago. From what I understand, the next one is the Order of Celebrating Marriage, there may even be a draft in the works. It is the most “pressing” rite at the moment because of its common usage. The 2nd edition was issued in 1990. An interesting practical aspect is that a large amount of the contents of the OCM are found in the Missal, the orations, prefaces, and nuptial blessings are all there, all that has to be translated are the rubrics and the introductions and the exchange of vows. This can apply to other rites as well. Expect the Dedication of the Church and Altar to appear soon, ICEL finished a draft of it in 2003, a few tweaks to make it accord with the Missal and then go to the Bishops. There is also a draft of the Exorcism Rite done. Simpler rites such as Confirmation and Penance will likely take less time than ones like Funerals, Blessings. Benediction could be fairly easy to achieve as well.
#19 by Jeffery BeBeau on March 9, 2010 - 7:14 pm
Quote
I wanted to reply about the Liturgy of the Hours separately. There is a strong desire by many, ICEL and clergy, and laity to revised the LotH. However, like the Missal this will be a large undertaking, especially the texts of the Office of Readings. There are other factors in the LotH that go beyond translation, which biblical texts will be used? How much of a change will there be in familiar texts? Some things that spring to mind, which version of the Psalter will be used? It seems that there is a strong likelihood for the Revised Grail which would preserve a familiar element. What about the biblical texts? NRSV or NAB are the leading candidates, however only the US uses the NAB, most other places use or will use a revised version of the NRSV. What version of the canticles will be used. ICEL has indicated that they are in discussions with the Holy See about the desirability of beginning this project.