There has been some controversy over the new Missal (don't be confused by the names, the Sacramentary and the Roman Missal are essentially the same thing). It uses a formal equivalence style of translation as opposed to the Sacramentary that used what is known as a dynamic equivalence approach to rendering the prayers from Latin into English. What this means is that the Missal tries to get the most accurate word for word translation possible while the Sacramentary tried to get to what the prayers meant. Bible translators use the same principles in preparing translations of Sacred Scripture. The New American Bible leans toward dynamic equivalence while the New Jerusalem or Revised Standard Version are more literal. The complaint for years about the 1970 -75 text was that ICEL (The International Committee for English in the Liturgy), who has overseen liturgical translations for over forty years, was a little too dynamic in how it rendered its first translations. The argument is that they were not simply translating but imposing an interpretation upon the text. They're were also complaints that the language lacked the poetry and majestic style of the Latin. The opponents of the revised Missal argue that the language is stilted, using words that are unfamiliar or difficult. They feel that the formality of the text is off putting and represents a step backward in the liturgical reforms called for in Vatican II.
As for me, I am nothing if not pragmatic about these things, and am simply trying to prepare myself and congregation for November 27. This doesn't mean I don't have a point of view, though. Many of the people who I've heard complain, especially brother priests, are people who don't even follow the text as it's written now. They freely change phrases that are not inclusive (I admit that I've done it myself), or even ad lib portions of the Eucharistic Prayer for reasons that I can't begin to imagine (that I don't do). Why are they so opposed to the changes if they're not even following the text they claim to love so much now? My favorite reason for why the new translation is a mistake is that this will be too much of a burden on the people who have been using the same responses for forty years (this little excuse was made by Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ, the former editor of America, on TV a few years ago and again in print more recently). Are the half dozen or so changes that effect the people's parts greater than the change of language and posture made in the 1960's? Many of the opponents of the changes were all for the liturgical reforms of the Council, and have been advocating an openness to new innovations in worship. Why this fear of change now? Or is there some other agenda at work behind the outrage?
Are the changes small? No. The differences between the '70 and '75 texts were minuscule. It was really just a matter of cleaning some things up. This 2011 edition is a complete rewrite, and it will take time for the people, and especially the priests, to get use to. I just can't turn to Eucharistic Prayer II and go on autopilot anymore. I'm going to have to read and reflect on what it is I'm doing with greater care. It will mean learning some new words yes, but using that as an opportunity to find out what those words mean in the context of our faith so my understanding of the sacrament grows, not just my vocabulary. Is that such a harmful thing?
I'll have more on this as we get closer to November 27.
2 comments:
Quite a few proponents of the new missal (or the people who simply say that the change is inevitable, so why try fighting it), all use the phrase that the people of the church will "get used to" the change.
That implies having something imposed, which is a shame. If there were a huge calling for a missal revision by the congregants, then they would already be used to it. But, telling people that they will get used to it, is admission that the people won't like it, before it has even started.
I can only pray that the transition fails, and the church realizes that they have to start over.
1. I don't believe that the Liturgical Movement of the twentieth century, that saw it's culmination in the reform of the liturgy after the Council, was a grass roots phenomenon. It was more a product of the university and the monastery. People had to "get used" to changes, mandated from above, far more radical than what we're dealing with now, and in fact some did abandon the Church over the changes because they simply happened to them (shall we say imposed upon them?) often without much preparation.
2. This revision of the Missal has already happened in other language groups, in some cases over a decade ago, and the Church still seems to be standing in places like Latin America (in fact Mexico just went through a second revision to put the grammar into Latin American Spanish). Just because of the nature of language and how usage and vocabulary changes, I would guess that further revisions are inevitable, and shouldn't be taken as a failure of the current text.
3. I don't speak Latin, so can not compare the outgoing Sacramentary to the original. But since I celebrate Mass in both English and Spanish every weekend, I can tell you quite often the prayers are not the same. Sometimes the differences are slight, sometimes more pronounced. Translators make choices, and two people are going to make different choices at times. But too often the meaning of the prayers are different, not just the phrasing. Sitting down with both texts I can see that the meanings of the prayers in both editions are closer now. All that tells me is that if a goal of the liturgy is to pray as a universal community, we need to be praying the same thing. In that case this revision was necessary.
I do plan on writing a follow-up to the article, and will make further comments then.
Post a Comment