At Pray Tell’s invitation, gifted hymntext writer Jeffrey Rowthorn offers his thoughts on the literary quality of the Ordo Missae (Order of Mass) in the new English missal. In the second article in this series, hymn text writer Carl Daw will comment on the proper texts. Both Rowthorn and Daw are from The Episcopal Church.
Intelligibility, Euphony, and Proclaimability in the New Missal Texts by Jeffrey Rowthorn
by
Tags:
I have printed the article but not read it yet, but I will address the issues mentioned by Adam Wood.
“Seen and unseen” does not mean the same thing as “visible and invisible”. There are some visible things that none of us have ever seen. “Visible and invisible” in the Creed is there to guard against the heresy which denies that one and the same God is the creator of both the spiritual and material realms.
The deacons words to the priest asking for a blessing are POLITE. Is that a problem? (When I think of “Father, give me…” my mind is drawn to the parable of the Prodigal Son!)
Regarding “My soul shall be healed”: This does not mean we are distinguishing the soul from the rest of our person, for the Latin word anima means more than just “soul.” It also means “mind” and “vital principle.” Our soul is, in a way, our identity. Being healed in our soul is more radical than simply being healed bodily (which is great, but could be superficial); it is being healed at our core. A healed soul manifests its wholeness throughout the rest of our being. Receiving Holy Communion devoutly increases our union with Christ, strengthens our spiritual life, separates us from sin, wipes away venial sin, and strengthens us against committing future mortal sin. (cf. Catechism 1391-1395) This is the healing our souls experience when we receive the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord.
(These all came from my books on the new translation.)
Lastly, the comment about this not being what the Church teaches is troubling, to say the least.
Regarding the Dismissal texts, Mr. Rowthorn is mistaken: the 3rd edition of the Missal now includes three additional formulae for Dismissal; the reason for the new texts was given by Pope Benedict in Sacramentum Caritatis 51: “The People of God might be helped to understand more clearly this essential [missionary] dimension of the Church’s life, taking the dismissal as a starting-point. In this context, it might also be helpful to provide new texts [for] the final blessing, in order to make this connection clear.”
Regarding the avoidance of language which could be misunderstood, I think that general approach will lead to undignified and unnecessarily verbose liturgical texts. Catechize the people! What are people so afraid of?!
Eucharistic Prayer II’s words for Masses for the Dead – “that he who was united with your Son in a death like his, may also be one with him in his Resurrection” – is a quote (modified only slightly) from Rom 6:5 in the Latin; so too it should be in the English. (It is not merely a quote of or allusion to Rom 6:8 or 2 Tim 2:11.)
EP II speaks of being made “co-heirs to eternal life” because inheritance of eternal life is a strong N.T. theme. (cf. Rom 8:17; Tit 3:7; also Lk 20:14)
The remark that “some of what was believed and prayed in 1574 is not believed today” gives me great pause, especially since he says that “the key documents of Vatican II” confirms it. He didn’t qualify that statement at all, and I fear it only serves to show how confused about the Catholic faith some people have become because of the documents of Vatican II and their misinterpretation. And his example, “my sacrifice and yours,” doesn’t make sense to me. Priest and people share one baptism, but there is a difference in the priesthood (both in degree and essence, cf. Lumen Gentium). And if the doctrine was supposed to have changed, why didn’t it change in the Latin?!
Some of what Mr. Rowthorn states seemingly as objective truth, such as saying one translation is superior to be proclaimed than the other, is actually completely subjective. And reading both aloud, I generally much prefer the new translation.
Mr. Rowthorn prefers “Our sacrifice” to “my sacrifice and yours”, claiming that the latter is more in line with Vatican II theology. I disagree. I think the new translation is so much more inclusive, specifically pointing out that the sacrifice of the Mass is the people’s as well as the priests. “Our sacrifice” is a throwaway line. “My sacrifice and yours” gets my attention.
It’s curious that those who speak against the new translation just assume that it’s part of some larger movement to regress back to pre-conciliar times. I find much of the criticism colored by this assumption. Perhaps it is impossible to comment on the worthiness of the translation alone without bringing along all the other baggage.
I have to say that Bishop Rowthorn appears to me to be late on the scene. While I agree with some of his points, I do not think that a few weeks spent at St John’s Abbey is a substitute for an immersion in what we have been living through in the past 15 years and more.
This is not to say that I agree with Jeffrey Pinyan, who is also comparatively late on the scene and who is, alas, wrong about so many things.
Both of them are coming at our present problems at a somewhat superficial level. What is needed is some depth in our discussions.
Having said all that, I want to applaud Rowthorn for his splendid “Lord, you give the great commission”, which is surely one of the classic hymn texts of our age. If for no other reason, Rowthorn deserves much respect for this contribution to our repertoire.
Please do assist me in engaging in an in-depth discussion about the new translation. I’d also like to know where I’m erring, if you would gracious enough to point that out to me.
I left comments in another location (which J Pinyan has referred to). Here they are:
’m pretty sympathetic to the “this new version is difficult and ponderous” arguments. So assume I pretty much agree with what JR has to say. But, I do have a few disagreements/quibbles:
To say that “visible and invisible” is not essentially different than “seen and unseen” is untrue. Current differentiates based on our ability to see. New does so on an intrinsic quality of those created things. Subtle, but meaningful.
“May I have…” is much more submissive than “Father, give me…”
“My soul shall be healed” IS more specific than “I shall.” Perhaps the line isn’t really about the whole person.
I agree with the gist of his statement on the lines following the Sanctus on EP3, but it would have been good to also point out the much more beautiful “from the rising of the sun to its setting.”
I also think making an argument based on “this prayer is no longer what the Church teaches” is a bit disingenuous: the Church teaches what she prays. If it’s still in the Latin Missal, it’s still the teaching of the Church. (A good Episcopalian especially should know that.)
I was delighted to see Jeffrey Rowthorn’s thoughtful and judicious comments here. I remember him warmly as a teacher and as dean of the chapel at Yale Divinity School (before he left to serve as a bishop). He was always a fine historian of the liturgy, a wise pastoral thinker, and a respectful ecumenical partner. He has studied the liturgy for a lifetime and he knows his stuff.
For those who believe that the Latin text is absolutely the last word on any subject and for whom the defining theological argument is “it says it in the Latin,” his contention that we have to evaluate translations of liturgical texts within their specific contexts (intelligibility, history, euphony) will sail right over their heads.
Nevertheless, Bishop Rowthorn is right to stress the points that he does. In English today, venerable means old and the word soul calls up dualistic thinking, to take only two of his examples. There are not two separate sacrifices in the liturgy (the priest’s and the one belonging to the rest of us). And yes, what is elegant in Latin is generally longer and more cumbersome in a literal English translation.
Some have commented here on the essential (!) distinction between invisible and unseen. I feel this distinction has been overrated. Consult Harry Potter and the cloak of invisibility. I know the readers of PrayTell were rolling their eyes saying, Harry’s not INVISIBLE, he’s UNSEEN. But if so, remember, you’re the only ones.
(ctd.)
Right, Rita, there aren’t two separate sacrifices in the liturgy, there are two joined sacrifices in the liturgy:
[B]y offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 48)
Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It. (Lumen Gentium 11)
For all their works, prayers and apostolic endeavors, their ordinary married and family life, their daily occupations, their physical and mental relaxation, if carried out in the Spirit, and even the hardships of life, if patiently borne – all these become “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Together with the offering of the Lord’s body, they are most fittingly offered in the celebration of the Eucharist. (Lumen Gentium 34)
Through the ministry of the priests, the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect in union with the sacrifice of Christ [Who] is offered sacramentally in the Eucharist… (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2)
[P]riests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to join to it the offering of their own lives. (Presbyterorum Ordinis 5)
Jeffrey Pinyan, again you’ve missed the point. The sacrifice on the altar belongs to everyone, not to the priest alone. If “yours” is the spiritual one, and “mine” is the one on the altar, what’s mine is not thine.
I don’t mean to pile on, Jeffrey, but I think it’s incorrect to speak of two joined sacrifices. There is only ONE sacrifice! There are differents manners of participating in the one sacrifice for the priestly people and the ordained priestly minister.
awr
I don’t see how I’ve missed that. I just quoted documents that say that the laity offer the Immaculate Victim with the priest, as well as join themselves to that offering.
As for “mine” and “your” possibly representing a distinction between the Eucharist and the spiritual sacrifice of our selves, could it not be said that insofar as the bread and wine and Eucharist are offered at the hands of the priest, they are “his” (“mine”), whereas the spiritual offerings of each one present (including the priest) is “theirs” (“your”)?
Could you explain why the Latin uses “meum ac vestrum” instead of “nostrum”? Why does the Latin use three words where one would do?
It’s clear from the prayers of the Mass (even in the E.F.) that we offer the Eucharist, not only the priest (cf. Offérimus tibí, Dómine, cálicem salutáris; In spíritu humilitátis; Súscipe, Sancta Trínitas.
This commentary by Rev. Gihr in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass seems reasonable to me:
In addressing the faithful the priest says my “Sacrifice and yours.” The Eucharist is the Sacrifice of the whole Church; it is not exclusively the priest’s Sacrifice but the property of the faithful also. They partake in a variety of ways and in different degrees in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice while the priest in their name and for their benefit alone completes the sacrificial action its self. Thus priest and people are at the altar bound together in a communion of sacrifice; and they offer not only the Host and chalice, but themselves also. (p. 548)
I think I’m saying what he said: that all of us – non-ordained and ordained – offer the Eucharist, but that it is offered in a strict sense at the hands of the priest alone (as we say in the response to the Orate); and to this offering of the Eucharist we are all called to join ourselves as a spiritual sacrifice, which is found pleasing to God because of its union with that sacrifice of His Son.
Besides, by arguing that the word “invisible” is the only apt expression for this business of spiritual realities, you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. While you are worrying over something unseen being seen later on, how about fretting over whether you can hear, taste, touch or smell it? Even the catechism talks about “perceptible” realities, because surely all the senses are at issue. So let’s not claim that the word “invisible” is a term that gets it just exactly right.
I’ll repeat here what I said in the discussion “Disaster or Opportunity”:
[There] is a reasonable critique of the former translation and assessment of the new version [on the grounds that the new work presents] more completely what the Latin says [and more clearly the scriptural allusions]. As a graduate of the Boston Latin School who did very well indeed in his classics study, I see the difference very clearly.
However, [this analysis ignores] what grates the ear. The text is no kind of natural English: not formal, not colloquial, not poetic. It has the sound and feel of words being pumped out of a machine, the sonority of a sight-singing test. It may accurately present Latin words in English equivalents, but it is tone-deaf in the “target language” (as the professional translators say). It makes schoolboy mistakes, such as a literal translation of the ablative absolute in the priest’s conclusion to the penitential rite.
The old “sacral language” in places like the Book of Common Prayer was the actual formal language of the day. It didn’t have to be constructed out of whole cloth, as the new Mass translation appears to be. It is an embarrassingly poor piece of work, and — by freezing artists of English prose and poetry out of its production — a major missed opportunity. Change is not necessarily improvement, as the new translation amply demonstrates.
It is an embarrassingly poor piece of work, and — by freezing artists of English prose and poetry out of its production — a major missed opportunity.
I wonder what we could have ended up with if ICEL had given their literal translation to Seamus Heaney and said, “Here. Make this beautiful.”
FCB, I like the sentiment and agree entirely with your goal, but I don’t think a two-stage process would work. The poet has to be there from the beginning, influencing each decision. Otherwise, the committee would eliminate some choices on doctrinal grounds and chose between more acceptable choices. Then the poet would come back with beautiful words which are doctrinally unacceptable to the committee. We would need (a) poet(s) willing to sit through the whole process from the outset. BTW – an Irish monk told me that it was proposed some 30 or 40 years ago to invite a certain young poet to be involved with translation. The idea was shot down and the poet was never invited. His name is Seamus Heanney.
awr
Actually, John Page tells me some poets and literary figures were approached for the 1998 translation, but those who responded turned down the offer. I don’t know the details.
I’m told that when the French tried to involve Catholic poets in the translation process post-Vatican II, it was disastrous. Not only was a lot of time wasted on explaining basic theology, but the poets would come up with texts in which the images were so striking that they got in the way of the proclamation and in some instances the meaning.
In the end, the French had to do that part of the work all over again. Their solution was to use text writers who were already liturgists/musicians/whatever and who had some theological and pastoral savvy.
I think this experience helps us to understand that there is a difference between the requirements for writing good poetry and those for writing a good liturgical text. If, as the French were able to do the second time round, you can combine the poetic and liturgical gifts in the same person(s), then you’re on a winner. But a good poet will not per se necessarily be able to provide something that will be usable in good liturgy.
That’s why good liturgical textualists (let’s not call them poets) are such pearls of great price. We need to search them out and use their talents.
RP, thank you for these trenchant comments.
Jeffry Pinyan, Father Gihr’s book was written in 1914. You have to realize what he was doing. He was writing an apologia for the fixed Latin text he inherited. This is what people do when they have a text frozen for 400 years during the Tridentine era. He is explaining that yours + mine = ours, so that people will understand that it’s not two sacrifices, it’s one sacrifice. Up until now, you seem to have been resisting that inference, so I am glad to see that you accept it.
Your question however: “Why does the Latin use three words when one would suffice?” shows circular thinking. To wit, every Latin word must be accounted for because a Latin liturgical text would never say something if it were not necessary, true, appropriate, theologically essential, or whatever. So if the Latin is redundant, the English should also be redundant. If the Latin is—fill in the blank—this is what the English also should be. This is nonsense, and could only be upheld by somebody doesn’t know the Latin liturgical tradition very well or who hasn’t studied real historical texts in any depth. The value of these texts is very great. But they are not eternal or inerrant. Prudent judgments are called for.
I am concerned that a kind of fundamentalism regarding liturgical texts is creeping into our Church during a time of anxiety over church authority. Somehow people are thinking that if even a single word from the Latin is changed, the whole thing is up for grabs.
I never said that we don’t all offer the Eucharist, I simply said that “mine and yours” is distinct from simply “ours”. Maybe that language is used to refer simply to the spiritual sacrifices, since the Eucharist truly is “our” sacrifice.
I stand behind the idea that there is the Eucharist and there is the spiritual offering of our selves. One is offered at the hands of the priest, the other is offered on the “altar of our hearts” but joined to the Eucharist… but my offering of self is not the Eucharist, simply my participation in the act of self-offering of Jesus (which is the Eucharist). See, that makes sense to me: the Eucharist is Jesus’ self-offering, and so we are called to participate in the Eucharist, not only by offering It with and through the priest, but by joining our own self-offering to it.
But I’m still curious why these Latin texts weren’t adjusted (in addition to those other parts of the liturgy that were adjusted) to reflect these theological tweaks?
Rita, I’m not entirely sure that the text is redundant here. The Eucharistic Prayer I, in the commemoration of the living, no. 85, similarly seems to make a distinction. The priest states that “we offer” (offerimus), as well as “they offer” (offerunt). When both the commemoration of the living and the orate fratres are taken together, it seems to point both to the distinction of ordained priesthood and common priesthood of all believers, as well as to indicate that they participate in one and the same sacrifice, though in different ways. The “offerimus” especially seems to indicate the unity of the sacrifice.
If not for this other text in the Missal, I would be more inclined to see this text as redundant. However, I think that it rather has a catechetical quality.
Rita,
Thank you for (indirectly) pointing out my lack of charity. I do welcome Bishop Rowthorn’s contribution to the debate. I just didn’t find it very heavyweight.
But I do agree with him that “euphony” is a paradigm of which which the proposed new translation has absolutely no knowledge, and so perhaps we can begin to apply this in our ongoing debates. RP Burke’s post in this thread is extremely apposite, so thanks to him too.
In the Orate fratres, the Latin makes clear reference to one sacrifice being offered, by the use of “fiat.” In the original draft prepared by ICEL this was clarified by it translating it, “Pray, brothers and sisters, that the sacrifice which is mine and yours…” In giving the recognitio, Rome gave us the current text, which is more literal but “may be” doesn’t convey the singular sense it does in the Latin.
Exactly. The Latin, to be absurdly literal, is: “…that my and your sacrifice,” which doesn’t work in English but makes clear that it is one sacrifice; “…that my sacrifice and yours” is better English but inaccurate (or misleading at the least) to the Latin meaning.. This is a classic case of the complexities of accuracy and literalism.
awr
However it’s worded, what is more clear by the new translation is that we each make a sacrifice. It might be the same, but it belongs to each individual first, before belonging to the collective. This idea of a group sacrifice is so impersonal, as if the Lord is present to us only as members of a congregation and not as individual believers. The fact is as much as Borg-like 1960’s group think has been pushed on us, at Mass we are making the same individual sacrifice. It is the individual decision that unifies.
I would disagree with Mr. Rice here: it is Christ’s sacrifice first of all and above all — and Christ’s as head and members. Thus, it belongs first to the collective by, with and in Christ. The self-oblation of each and all is secondary to the re-presentation of Christ’s one offering of himself once offered.
Although I’m trying to hold together Roman and Anglican terminology here, I don’t think I’m misrepresenting the Roman teaching on Eucharistic sacrifice.
Thank you for pointing that out; I had completely missed that.
For the last couple of months I have been praying at the penitential rite, “May Almighty God have mercy on us and lead us with our sins forgiven to everlasting life.” And at the “Orate Fratres” Pray my sisters and brothers that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.” As well for for more than two years, I’ve declared, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who takes away the sins of the word, blessed are those who are called to the Supper of the Lamb.” I don’t think anyone has noticed these subtle changes for no one has asked me about them. I suspect Catholics are so use to having priests improvise that they don’t question these sorts of things anymore. At any rate, I do believe that these subtle changes in wording make clearer what God is actually doing in the One, Holy Sacrifice and how each of us individually and corporately participate in the One Sacrifice and are led with our sins forgiven to the Supper of the Lamb–there’s only One Sacrifice and One Supper no matter how you divide it in the course of wording, geography and time. Over 2000 years now, we’ve all been made part of the One Sacrifice and the One Bread and One Cup, (Chalice I mean) no matter how many attend Mass and how many Masses there are and have been each day since the First”Unbloody” Sacrifice took place until the Lord returns. This includes the multiplicity of the valid forms of the Mass or Divine Liturgy that exist in the one Roman Rite and the various Eastern Rites, all of which are legitimate and none of which should be denigrated on this or any blog because, after all is said and done–it’s the One Sacrifice of Christ we are discussing. Pray tell is nothing sacred?
BTW, since when is “hymntext” a word in English?
You Americans make me laugh when you start analysing English.
Well we’re happy to amuse you! I had thought that the Hymn Society editorial guidelines treat it as one word, and I was working from my mistaken memory. I’ve corrected it above.
I hope you don’t dismiss everything said by an American about English because of this! We’ll start teasing you about not using perfectly good words like ‘platter’ and ‘gotten’ which we’ve retained but others haven’t.
awr
Which is why we are blessed not to have a prescriptive English Academy. Pity poor Frenchmen and Spaniards….
Or to put it in more idiomatic English: Hmm.
Paul,
Absolutely no critique intended. I agree that this essay is only a modest addition to the discussion (though I too value the introduction of the word “euphony”).
Just a brief addendum about Jeffrey Rowthorn that I’d like to put here, not related to the textual discussion. His work at Yale Divinity School was significant, but is the sort of thing that is not much recognized today, so I want to say it here.
He taught a liturgy survey course there (Roots of Liturgy) that was the first systematic introduction to pre-reformation liturgy that many students coming from non-liturgical traditions had. As such, it was extremely important. Catholic and Episcopalian and Lutheran students learned a lot, true. But this was not the most significant thing. It was the others and what they got out of it.
A whole generation of ministry students, UCC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., now pastors, chaplains, and leaders in education and social ministry and the like, passed through Jeffrey’s thoughtful, sturdy, non-polemical course, with its practicums and primary sources and all the rest. Students who previously knew of liturgy mainly through the lens of reformation polemics came away with new respect for and understanding of the value of such things as weekly Eucharist, the common cup, the penitential disciplines, the baptismal catechumenate, and more.
This was more than 25 years ago, but people still reference that course as the framework for their…
ctd.
broadened understanding of the worship of the church in the West. It leads me to reflect on the importance of non-polemical education as part of the liturgical movement. Divisions, arguments, lend creative tension to discussions that might otherwise seem dull. But there comes a point when there can be too much emphasis on controversy. Knowing when that point has been reached is an important discernment.
A hearty second to Rita’s accolade! I have found–now 30 years later–Rowthorn’s teaching is at the front of my mind always when thinking about matters liturgical. As I read his essay here, and remember another paper by Episcopalian Carl Daw on the subject, I’m wondering if this concern with what might be called the aesthetics of the new translation is peculiar to Anglicans. I know we have long been accused of “Worshiping the Lord in the holiness of beauty . . . “
I have appreciated the discussion. What I am confused about has been that the Bishops Conference has been given the task as the teaching authority to put together a text in the common language of the conference. Someone else has changed their text and their teaching that is not of the conference. Unfortunately, some of the Bishops that I have talked to, gave up and didn’t want to fight over quibbles even though they thought that the changes were horrendous.
Shawn, you asked:
” What I am confused about has been that the Bishops Conference has been given the task as the teaching authority to put together a text in the common language of the conference”
Per the Sourcebook 2010(LTC), CDWDS issued the document Ratio Translationis in English in 2005 which set forth the priciples of the translation of liturgical texts. When the document was approved by the Holy Father in 2006, Rome had addressed a great number of issues regarding the venacular translation of the Latin liturgy . Because of LA and RT, There is a long drawn out prucess this takes before it is reviewed by the USCCB and ultimately is approved.
SC p.36.1″Particular law remaining in force, the USE of Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. ” Therefore, all translations for the liturgical texts, MUST derive from the Latin translation. On one of my Yahoo Catholic list serves I subscribe to, someone posted the 1962 Roman Missal, with the pre-Vatican II Mass in there(Mass of John XXIII) and even if the Mass was in Latin, there was an English translation of the Latin next to the Latin which was used liturgically at that time and the English page almost exactly mirrors the changes that are forthcoming. So really what this is about is the Church is going back to the original English wording that was in the 1962 Roman Missal. Let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill.
If you cross-reference LA P.#22 with SC, go to SC letter B(“Norms drawn from hierarchic and communal nature of the Liturgy”(paragraphs 26-32) SC letter C “Norms based on the didactic and pastoral nature of the Liturgy “(paragraphs 33-36) and SC letter D “Norms for Adapting the Liturgy to the culture and tradtions of peoples.” (paragraphs 37-40)
There’s some basic misinformation here.
“…all translations MUST derive from the Latin translation.” – I think there’s some truth in this, but it is too absolutist. Just read what Rome said in the 1969 instruction on translation, or what that and the new translation instruction say positively about original texts not based on Latin.
There is no “original” English wording for the 1962 missal! It’s in Latin. Many, many different English translations were offered in various private (but approved) hand missals. None of them is identical to our coming translation, so we’re not “going back” to anything.
awr
Fr. Anthony,
Thank you for clarifying this. But, isn’t the 1969 instruction on translation exactly why we are where we are today? Isn’t that really the point of Liturgiam Authenticam? Shouldn’t SA have been the guiding force behind the 1969 instruction on translation, particularly P. 36.1? Sourcebook 2010 For Sunday’s Seasons and Weekdays(LTP), in their discussion of the changes in the Roman Missal argues that the 1969 instruction on translation was imprecise and subject to interpretation to what was allowed. The discussion also points out that when the first edition of the Roman Missal was first being translated into English, ICEL only gave general guidlines found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and post conciular instructions such as the September 25, 1964 Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Putting into Effect the Constititution on the Sacred Liturgy(Inter Oecumenici) cf.Article XI : Translation liturgical texts into the language of the people. It was after this that the 1969 instruction on translation was issued, and obviously the Vatican and the U.S. bishops didn’t catechize the priests or the people properly, besides the translation issues.
Leave a Reply