Men is perhaps somewhat more ambiguous than Man in being gender inclusive,
but this is due to conditioning. The context makes it clear that it is
inclusive. There seems
to be no better alternative.
To a question I had raised in an email to
Fr, David Petras he responded (the above was part of an email I sent him; I use
this with his permission):
He notes "though in the present linguistic cultural situation in which we
live and over which we do not exercise ultimate control - or ANY control, for
that matter) finds this ambiguous." I share his frustration. But the
solution is not to have the tail wag the dog. It's OUR liturgy, not the
radical feminists.
However, consider in Scripture, e.g.
Restricted to adult males man, husband Mt 19:5, 10; 1 Cor 7:1; meaning Son,
see Mt 10:35, also Ephesians 5:31 quoting Genesis 2:24
n. pl. men (m
n)
1. An adult male human.
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
3. A human or an adult male human belonging to a specific
occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in
combination: a milkman; a congressman; a
freeman.
4. The human race; mankind: man's
quest for peace.
5. Zoology A member of the genus Homo, family
Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, characterized by erect
posture and an opposable thumb, especially a member of the only
extant species, Homo sapiens, distinguished by a highly
developed brain, the capacity for abstract reasoning, and the
ability to communicate by means of organized speech and record
information in a variety of symbolic systems.
6. A male human endowed with qualities, such as strength,
considered characteristic of manhood.
7. Informal
a. A husband.
b. A male lover or sweetheart.
8. men
a. Workers.
b. Enlisted personnel of the armed forces:
officers and men.
9. A male representative, as of a country or company:
our man in Tokyo.
10. A male servant or subordinate.
11. Informal Used as a familiar form of address for a
man: See here, my good man!
12. One who swore allegiance to a lord in the Middle Ages; a
vassal.
13. Games Any of the pieces used in a board game, such
as chess or checkers.
14. Nautical A ship. Often used in combination:
a merchantman; a man-of-war.
15. often
Man Slang A person or group felt to
be in a position of power or authority. Used with
the:
"Their writing mainly concerns the street
life
the
pimp, the junky, the forces of drug addiction, exploitation at the
hands of 'the man'" (Black
World).
tr.v. manned,
man·ning,
mans
1. To supply with men, as for defense or service:
man a ship.
2. To take stations at, as to defend or operate:
manned the guns.
3. To fortify or brace: manned
himself for the battle ahead.
interj.
Used as an expletive to indicate intense feeling:
Man! That was close.
Idioms:
as one man
1. In complete agreement; unanimously.
2. With no exception: They objected
as one man.
one's own man
Independent in judgment and action.
to a man
Without exception: All were lost, to a man.
[Middle English, from Old English
mann; see
man-1
in Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: Traditionally, many writers have used
man
and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race
regardless of sex. In fact, this is the oldest use of the word. In Old
English the principal sense of
man was "a human," and the words
wer and
wyf (or
wæpman and
wifman) were used
to refer to "a male human" and "a female human" respectively. But in
Middle English
man displaced
wer as the term for "a male
human," while
wyfman (which evolved into present-day
woman)
was retained for "a female human." Despite this change,
man
continued to carry its original sense of "a human" as well, resulting in
an asymmetrical arrangement that many criticize as
sexist. · Nonetheless, a majority of the Usage Panel still accepts the
generic use of
man, although the women members have significantly
less enthusiasm for this usage than the men do. For example, the
sentence
If early man suffered from a lack of information, modern man
is tyrannized by an excess of it is acceptable to 81 percent of the
Panel
but
a breakdown by sex shows that only 58 percent of the women Panelists
accept it, while 92 percent of the men do. A majority of the Panel also
accepts compound words derived from generic
man. The sentence
The Great Wall is the only man-made structure visible from space is
acceptable to 86 percent (76 percent of the women and 91 percent of the
men). The sentence
"The history of language is the history of
mankind" (James Bradstreet Greenough and George Lyman Kittredge) is
acceptable to 76 percent (63 percent of the women and 82 percent of the
men). The Panel finds such compounds less acceptable when applied to
women, however; only 66 percent of the Panel members (57 percent of the
women and 71 percent of the men) accept the use of the word
manpower
in the sentence
Countries that do not permit women to participate in
the work force are at a disadvantage in competing with those that do
avail themselves of that extra source of manpower. · Similar
controversy surrounds the generic use of
-man compounds to
indicate occupational and social roles. Thus the use of
chairman
in the sentence
The chairman will be appointed by the Faculty Senate
is acceptable to 67 percent of the Panel (52 percent of the women and 76
percent of the men). Approval rates fall much further, however, for
-man compounds applied to women. Only 48 percent (43 percent of the
women and 50 percent of the men) accept the use of the word in
Emily
Owen, chairman of the Mayor's Task Force, issued a statement assuring
residents that their views would be solicited. A majority of the
Panelists also rejects the verb
man when used to refer to an
activity performed by women. Fifty-six percent of the Panel (61 percent
of the women and 54 percent of the men) disapprove of the sentence
Members of the League of Women Voters will be manning the registration
desk. See Usage Notes at
-ess,
men,
people,
person.
On the Roman side
Source:
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html
Home |
Join/Donate |
Adoremus Bulletin
|Archive |
Index |
Church Documents |
Architecture |
Posture |
Music |
Translation |
What's NEW? |
FAQ |
Search Site
Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal
Rome, 16 March 2002
His Excellency,
President of the Conference of Bishops of ______
Your Excellency,
After some time to
reflect upon contacts in recent months with the Presidents of a certain
number of Conferences of Bishops in whose territory the Liturgy of the Roman
Rite is habitually celebrated in English, this congregation for Divine
Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments addresses the present letter to
you and to your brother Bishops regarding the translation of the Missale
Romanum, editio typica altera.
Obviously the
promulgation of the editio typica tertia would have necessitated a
number of adaptations to the translation in any event. Even so, as many have
already correctly surmised, there are additional substantial reasons for
which this Congregation is regrettably unable to accord the recognitio
to this text in the form in which it was submitted. A summary of the
principal reasons may be found in the Observations enclosed with the present
letter. Though these are extensive, they are not intended to be exhaustive,
even in a generic sense. It has become apparent in the course of this
Dicastery's examination that a truly exhaustive presentation of the
inadequacies of the translation would best be made in the form of an
integral annotated or reworked text, and in the continued anticipation of a
Mixed Commission operating under statutes approved by this Dicastery in
accordance with the Instruction
Liturgiam
authenticam, such an instrument would not yet be feasible.
This Congregation has
been prepared from the beginning to spare no efforts in arriving at a
solution to this difficulty that would have avoided the present impasse. A
decision was made to maintain an optimistic assessment of such a prospect,
even though the unfeasibility of the present Mixed Commission's
collaborating with this Dicastery in an effective and timely resolution of
such fundamental problems had long been clear. In practical terms, the
Congregation nourished the hope that a truly renewed structure for English
language liturgical translation would be in a position to collaborate with
this Dicastery in a way that the present Commission evidently could not -
even if perhaps not because of any lack of good will on the part of certain
key collaborators, but rather because of an evidently insurmountable
divergence as regards fundamental principles of liturgical translation. This
consideration was one of the primary reasons for which this Congregation
asked the Conferences for such a renewal of that structure.
As of the present
date, the member Conferences of the Mixed Commission known as the
International Commission on English in the Liturgy have taken a number of
steps in response to the Congregation's request for such a restructuring of
the Commission. Certain procedures have been set in place which - while
falling short of those for which the Congregation continues to ask - would
not be without positive effect in terms of the formulation of new
translations. Unfortunately, however, such measures have not yet resulted,
as the Congregation had hoped, in a fresh group of experts and
administrators appropriately positioned to collaborate with the Holy See in
the implementation of new norms represented by the Instruction
Liturgiam
authenticam, as approved by the Holy Father on March 20, 2001, for
the appropriate emendation of texts already in progress.
The feasibility of
resolving the problems in a manner that would involve the participation of
the present Mixed Commission has been impeded by the fact that as of the
present date the Conferences have not succeeded in making the necessary
adjustments to the Commission's personnel, nor have all of the provisions
requested by this Congregation and now required by the Instruction
Liturgiam
authenticam been included within its statutes. Certain Bishops have
indicated further that the conferences are inhibited from making such
changes as a result of contractual arrangements binding in civil law. While
the problems in the proposed translation of the Missale Romanum have
been evident to the Congregation for some time, the inflexibility of the
structural problems hindering their effective resolution has admittedly come
as somewhat of a surprise to it. The Congregation's delay in giving a
response regarding the translation of the Missale Romanum has been
interpreted by some as a stalling strategy aimed at thwarting the eventual
publication of a new English-language translation of that liturgical book.
In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. Even so, it has
become increasingly apparent that the negative consequences of further delay
by the Congregation in providing a definite response regarding the
liturgical translation in question have clearly overtaken the hopes for a
solution that justified such a delay, and therefore the moment has come for
the present communication.
This Dicastery had
hoped to communicate its findings regarding the translation in question
together with a concrete and realistic proposal for a future collaboration
with the Conferences aimed at the resolution of the problems through the
instrumentality of a renewed Mixed Commission. To this end, it has
considered various options and continues to do so. In any event, it would
clearly be preferable to incorporate within an eventual solution the best
elements of the work that has already been done. Nonetheless the
Congregation has determined that it is no longer feasible to delay the
present communication, even in the continued absence of such a proposal.
This Dicastery wishes to state also that it would also have no objection if
the content of the attached Observations were to be made public, with or
without the contents of the present letter.
The Congregation
considers it a duty to express its thanks to those Bishops whose efforts
have been dedicated in a particular way to a resolution of these issues of
English-language translation of liturgical texts of the Roman Rite. It also
wishes to assure the Conference of Bishops of __________ that it will give
all due consideration to any proposals that the Conference may wish to offer
for the resolution of the present difficult situation, so that the
translation of the Missale Romanum to be published may conform to the
present norms for liturgical translation and the heritage of the Roman Rite
be more effectively preserved and transmitted to the faithful of your
country in the English language.
With every prayer and
good wish, I remain,
Sincerely yours in
Christ
Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez
Prefect
[Archbishop]
Francisco Pio Tamburrino, Secretary
Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal
I. General
observations regarding the layout of the book, the disposition of its texts,
and the inclusion of newly composed texts
A. The word
"Sacramentary", evidently chosen to distinguish this book containing the
prayers of the Mass, on the one hand, from the Lectionary, on the other,
seems nevertheless to have had the adverse effect of furthering a mistaken
conception of this "Sacramentary" as a new and somewhat autonomous
liturgical book for the English-speaking world. The term "Sacramentary" is
not characterized by a linear historical development, and the present book
also contains antiphons and other elements that were not in the ancient or
medieval books commonly designated sacramentaries, at least in
academic usage. Accordingly, the Congregation asks that from now on the book
be referred to in English as The Roman Missal, and that the official
use of the word Sacramentary be discontinued in reference to it.
B. The ordering of
the texts has departed almost entirely from that of the Missale Romanum,
where such ordering often has significant theological and catechetical
implications. In some instances, the Commission's stated goal of avoiding
repetition of prayers by means of such restructuring seems to have been
formulated without sufficient attention to the positive effects of such
repetition in terms of the congregation's progressive comprehension and
assimilation of their conceptual and spiritual content.
C. The proposed text
would change significantly the structure of the Ritus initiales for
Masses celebrated on Sundays, Feasts, and Solemnities. It would thus appear
to exclude that the Actus paenitentialis be used together with the
Gloria, as prescribed by the Missale Romanum for the majority of
the Sundays of the liturgical year. In any event, the disposition of prayers
in the Missal is not at the discretion of the translators, and the ordering
of the texts, including the integral structure and sequence of the Ritus
initiales, should be restored to that of the editio typica [tertia].
In addition, the Missal should be published as a single book for use on all
days of the year, without fragmentation into parts.
D. Certain texts
included in the project, such as the seasonal introductions and the
hagiographical notes in the Proper of Saints, by virtue of their genre as
well as their bulk, should not be published within a liturgical book. At
times, their very content militates against such an intention. For example,
the statement that [St.] Jerome "began work on a new Latin translation of
the Bible, known as the Vulgate", is historically inexact, since he selected
and compiled existing texts of the Vetus Latina for many parts of the
Bible, while his characterization as "irascible and intolerant" is hardly an
appropriate appendage to the prayers prescribed for his liturgical Memorial.
In the same vein, one might cite the inappropriateness of the reference to
Santa Claus in commemorating St. Nicholas, or the unexplained statement that
St. Callistus I "served a sentence as a convict", or the assertion that St.
Pius V's "excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I of England hardened the split
between Catholics and Protestants." While there is an admitted distinction
between a liturgical and a hagiographical text, these are neither. The
present Observations are not the context in which to address question of the
veracity of these statements; it is sufficient to point out that that they
are out of place in the Missal.
E. The use of
explanatory rubrics that import material from other liturgical books and
documents, such as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, would have the
effect of reducing or eliminating recourse to these documents themselves,
and would also inhibit the freedom of the Holy See to act in matters where
the normal avenue of implementation of a given initiative would be precisely
those documents. Such a procedure of compilation is not within the scope of
the translator's task.
F. Consistent with
the principles enumerated above regarding the book's structure, and also
with the communications sent by this Congregation well over a decade ago to
the various Conferences (e.g., Prot. n. 866/88, 24 June 1988, as well as to
the Executive Secretary of the Mixed Commission, Prot. n. 410/88, 18 June
1988, acknowledged by him 10 days later), in addition to other instances in
the meantime in which this Dicastery has publicly taken the same position,
the Congregation must insist that the texts newly composed by the Mixed
Commission be excluded from the Missal. Supporting this decision are several
serious concerns, namely:
- that the procedures set forth in the 1994 Instruction
Varietates
legitimae be upheld as regards adaptations to liturgical books
for the sake of inculturation;
- that the proliferation of original texts not hinder the meditation
of the faithful and of their pastors on the riches already found in the
prayers of the Roman Liturgy;
- that the desire for constant variety, typical of many consumerist
societies, not come to be regarded in itself as constituting a cultural
value capable of serving as a vehicle for authentic inculturation;
- finally, that the characteristic structure and function of the
traditional Roman Collects, their sobriety, and their reflection of the
tension between the transcendent and the immanent, not be jeopardized by
compositions that may be superficially attractive by virtue of their
emotional impact, but lack the spiritual depth and the rhetorical
excellence of the body of ancient prayers, which were not mass-produced
at a given moment but grew over the course of many centuries.
II. Examples of
problems in grammar, syntax, and sentence structure
A. The Structure of
the Collects: Relative clauses often disappear in the proposed text
(especially the initial Deus, qui . . ., so important in the Latin
Collects), so that a single oration is divided into two or more sentences.
This loss is detrimental not only to the unity of the structure, but to the
manner of conveying the proper sense of the posture before God of the
Christian people, or of the individual Christian. The relative clause
acknowledges God's greatness, while the independent clause strongly
conveys the impression that one is explaining something about God to
God. Yet it is precisely the acknowledgement of the mirabilia Dei
that lies at the heart of all Judaeo-Christian euchology. The quality of
supplication is also adversely affected so that many of the texts now appear
to say to God rather abruptly: "You did a; now do b." The manner in which
language expresses relationship to God cannot be regarded merely as a matter
of style.
B. The unfortunately
monotonous effect of placing the vocative "Lord" always at the beginning of
the prayers has already been cited by the Congregation in connection with
previous texts submitted for its approval. However, this tendency can also
be observed in the present text.
C. For those Latin
texts characterized by the extensive use of relative clauses, ablative
absolutes, participial phrases, etc., the English text often fails to convey
the precise nature of the relationship between clauses, so that the sense of
the whole is lost (e.g., in particular the Prefaces: e.g., De SS.ma
Eucharistia I: "Qui verus aeternusque Sacerdos, formam sacrificii perennis
instituens, hostiam tibi se primus obtulit salutarem", where the failure
to convey the relationship between clauses of the Latin obscures the unity
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with that of Calvary. Likewise many of the
Collects: e.g., Collect, Wednesday of the 7th Week of Easter, where the
relationship between "Sancto Spiritu congregata" and "toto sit
corde tibi devota, et pura voluntate concordet" is obscured in the
English. The Latin text, taken globally, has conveyed with precision certain
theological realities and tensions involving salvation history and the
inherent dynamism of the ecclesial life of grace, which should not be lost
in the vernacular text, however challenging and difficult it may be to
convey them.
III. Examples of
problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of
masculine and feminine terms
A. In an effort to
avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin
homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that
Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually
present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the
unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind",
coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and
ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too
abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as
the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are
able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the
notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him
the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an
abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.
B. In the Creed,
which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe"
instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman
liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men"
has effects that are theologically grave. This text "For us and for our
salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently
only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially
exclusive rather than inclusive.
C. After the
Orate, fratres, the people's response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium
de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of
"inclusive language": "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands
for the praise and glory of God's name, for our good, and the good of
all the Church." The insertion of the possessive God's
gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different
from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer
his Church, and is no longer called holy a flaw in the previous
translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.
D. For the Church,
the neuter pronoun "it" is always used, instead of "she". So designated, the
Church can appear to be a mere social aggregate, deprived of much of the
mystery that has been emphasized especially in relatively recent teaching by
the Magisterium. The pronoun "it" does not seem to refer properly to the
reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and
Christ's Bride.
IV. Examples of
problems in vocabulary, wording and other aspects of content
A. Instead of
"Collect", a traditional Roman term that is both venerable and expressive,
the translators continue to use the term "Opening Prayer", which does not
express the same reality and, in fact, is simply incorrect. Likewise,
"Prayer over the Gifts" does not seem to specify sufficiently the sense
conveyed by the term "Oblata" in this context in reference to
oblata that are themselves taken "de tuis donis ac datis." A
designation such as "Prayer over the Offerings" would be preferable.
B. "Opening Song"
does not translate "Cantus ad introitum" or "Antiphona ad
introitum" as intended by the rites. The Latin is able to express the
musical processional beginning of the Liturgy that accompanies the entrance
of the priest and ministers, while "Opening Song" could just as well
designate the beginning number of a secular musical performance.
C. The Congregation
in the course of its various contacts and consultations has encountered
widespread indeed, virtually unanimous-opposition to the institution of any
change in the wording of the Lord's Prayer. More than one reader cited
poignantly the experience of having seen this prayer coming to the lips of
Christians who had otherwise appeared unconscious, its familiar wording
having been learned by them from infancy. By contrast, the Mixed
Commission's justification for its changes, in its Third Progress Report
on the Revision of the Roman Missal, seem inadequate and somewhat
cerebral.
D. The word
"presbyter" often continues to be used instead of "priest", for example in
the Proper of Saints. The Holy See's position on this matter was made clear
in a letter of the
Congregation for Divine Worship to the Conferences of 20 September 1997.
At the same time, many titles are used there which do not appear at all in
the Missale Romanum. In the titles of the celebrations the
designation "Saint" is consistently omitted, contrary to the established
tradition of the Church. One example of these tendencies: "6 October: Bruno,
presbyter, hermit, religious founder."
E. The rich language
of supplication found in the Latin texts is radically reduced in the
translation. Words and expressions such as quaesumus, exoramus,
imploramus, praesta . . . ut, dona, concede, etc., have been collapsed
more or less into the terms "ask" and "grant," transferred almost always to
the last line of the prayer, resulting in a corpus of prayers that is
relatively monotonous and impoverished with respect to the Latin. In
addition, these factors render the imperative verbs in the body of the
orations somewhat abrupt and presumptuous in tone, so that the oration seems
to be a command rather than a prayer addressed to God. Again, there is more
than style at stake here.
F. The language often lapses into sentimentality and emotionality in place
of the noble simplicity of the Latin. A focus on transcendent realities in
the Latin prayers too often shifts in the English prayers to a focus on the
interior dispositions and desires of those who pray. The overuse of the word
"hearts" when the word is not present in the Latin text weakens the use of
the term on those occasions where it actually occurs. Likewise, the overuse
of the term "sharing" flattens and trivializes the content conveyed by the
Latin words participes and consortes.
G. For patena,
calix, etc., the translators avoid the use of specifically sacral
terminology, and use words commonly employed in the vernacular for
kitchenware. In an already secularized culture, it is difficult to see what
legitimate purpose could be served by a deliberate desacralization of
religious terminology. There do exist in English words for these items
having sacral connotations, such as "paten" and "chalice", but these are
assiduously avoided in the translation. The Congregation views this tendency
with regret, especially in conjunction with certain other tendencies
enumerated in these Observations, by which the sense of the transcendent is
not only inadequately conveyed, but actively obscured.
H. The word
unigenitus is often translated simply as "only", so that Jesus is called
the "only Son" of God. The distinction between the terms "only" and
"only-begotten" is often crucial in the liturgical prayers, which unfold
within a Trinitarian dynamism precisely by virtue of our own adoptive
sonship.
I. Frequently there
are important words translated either in an inadequate manner, or not at
all. Among them are: devotus (-e, -io), dignor, (in-)dignus, famulus,
ineffabilis (-iter), maiestas, mens, mereor, novitas vetustas, offero,
pietas, placatus, propitius, supplices, and many others, besides those
mentioned elsewhere in these Observations. The challenge posed by the
translation of certain of these concepts into contemporary English
underscores a cultural fact that is at the same time perhaps the strongest
indication of the necessity of doing so, even when the result must be a text
that will have to be clarified by good catechesis.
J. The text exhibits
some confusion on the part of the translators regarding the intended sense
of the words caelestis and caelorum which, in the original
text, refer at some times to heaven as such, but at other times to heavenly
realities experienced now. Confusion on this point hinders the text in its
capacity to convey the eschatological tension at issue in the Latin text.
K. In the conclusions
of the Prefaces, the enumeration of the heavenly choirs (cum Thronis et
Dominationibus, etc.) is often omitted in favor of the singular term
"angels". The reason for this tendency of the text in many places to make
gratuitous alterations is not clear.
L. In the text, in
particular the Eucharistic Prayers, many significant biblical expressions
and allusions continue to be obscured, as do significant allusions to events
or notable features of a given Saint's life or works.
M. In order to assist
the faithful to commit various parts of the sacred text to memory and to
appropriate the text more deeply without the jarring inevitably created by
the dissonance of diverse translations of the same passage, those texts
taken directly from Sacred Scripture, such as the antiphons, should reflect
the wording of the same approved version used in the Lectionary for which
the Conference has received the recognitio of the Holy See. Only
those textual adjustments should be made which are necessitated by the
manner in which the editio typica has employed the official Latin
text (e.g., sometimes adding a vocative such as "Domine" or condensing two
verses). For the sake of such unity as regards the biblical text, it is
appropriate and preferable that this element of diversity be maintained
among the versions of the Roman Missal eventually to be published by
the various Conferences.
N. Since it is
already permissible, as specified by the Institutio Generalis, to use
other sung texts in place of the antiphons given in the Missal, the
Conference may wish to publish separately a set of such texts, and perhaps
some of the antiphons prepared for the present project may eventually
qualify for inclusion in such a publication. The Congregation would not be
opposed to such a measure provided that the texts chosen be doctrinally
sound. However, in the case of texts from Sacred Scripture, it is the sacred
text itself that should determine the qualities of the music to which it is
to be set, rather than vice-versa. This principle does not seem to have been
followed consistently in the antiphons given in the part of the project that
the translators have labeled the "Antiphonal". The antiphons to be printed
in the Missal should appear within the Mass formularies, as in the current
editio typica.
V. The distinction
of liturgical roles
A. In the vast
majority of the cases in which the priest prays in the third person for the
people (and again, the Eucharistic Prayers are notable in this regard) the
translators have opted instead for the first person plural. Such a choice
obscures the distinction of roles that is evident in the Latin text, and in
particular the priest's role as intercessor and mediator vis-à-vis
the people for whom he prays in an unselfish manner. The priest is thus
submerged within an amorphous congregation that prays for itself. Obscured
at the same time is the important notion of offering the Mass on behalf of
others or for their benefit. These are crucial issues. Even at a purely
literary level as well, this procedure augments the monotony of the
translation.
B. The rubrics and
notes have been completely re-worked in ways that obscure the distinction of
hierarchical and liturgical roles. A few examples:
- · In the Prayer over the People for the Ritual Mass of Confirmation,
the translators seem to have wished to alter the universal and constant
discipline of the Latin Church according to which the Bishop is the
ordinary minister of the Sacrament. In place of the Latin, Deinde
Episcopus, manibus super populum estensis, dicit:, one finds
instead, "The priest sings or says the following prayer with hands
outstretched over the people."
- For the Chrism Mass of Holy Thursday, it is suggested that those
laypersons who exercise a ministry to the sick, to the catechumens, and
to families of children being baptized and confirmed, take their places
with the Bishop during the Mass. On the other hand, the intentional
focus of this celebration on the sacramental priesthood is obscured
somewhat.
- In the Order of Mass, where the Latin rubric reads, "Tunc
sacerdos incipit Precem eucharisticum," the translators have altered
it to read instead, "The priest leads the assembly in the eucharistic
prayer." Such an alteration for it cannot be termed a
translation-obscures the true nature of the Eucharistic Prayer as a
presidential prayer, in which the people participate by listening
silently and reverently and by making the acclamations prescribed by the
rite.
C. Another example of
the translators' having altered texts (or, in this case, maintained a
deficient wording) to the detriment of the distinction of roles between
priest and people is the prayer Orate fratres, ut meum ac vestrum
sacrificium . . ., which becomes "Pray, brothers and sisters, that
our sacrifice . . . . as if the congregation and priest
both offered the sacrifice in an indistinct manner.
D. Given the Latin
tradition that very closely links the words "Mysterium fidei" to the
words of institution, it is inappropriate for the deacon to give the
invitation to the Memorial Acclamation. The translators, with no
authorization, have introduced this change. The same importance
traditionally attached to the words "Mysterium fidei precludes its
replacement by other formulae, even though the Congregation appreciates the
practical considerations motivating the translators to offer alternative
introductions to the Memorial Acclamation. It is perhaps useful to observe
here that the Congregation considers the translation "Great is the mystery
of faith" a good one for rendering in English the precise meaning and
purpose of the Latin phrase in its liturgical context.
E. The translation of
"Et cum spiritu tuo" as "And also with you" has become
familiar in the English-speaking world, and a change in the people's
response would no doubt occasion some temporary discomfort. Nevertheless,
the continuous literal translation of this response in all major liturgical
traditions, whether Semitic, Greek, or Latin as well as in virtually every
other modern language, constitutes a historical consensus and an imperative
that can no longer be set aside. The present translation inappropriately
situates the exchange on a purely horizontal level, without any apparent
distinction in the roles of those who speak; the literal translation in its
historical context has always been understood in relation to the crucial
distinction of liturgical roles between the priest and the people. Weighty
considerations such as these necessitate that the English translation at
last be brought into conformity with the usage of the other language groups,
and with the tradition, as is also prescribed now in the Congregation's
recent Instruction
Liturgiam
authenticam.
BACK
TO TOP
**Adoremus operates solely on your generous
donations. See the bottom of the
Join Page
for instructions to give by credit card using Network
for Good.**
Site Copyright © 1999 - 2007 by Adoremus
All rights reserved.
PERMISSION GUIDELINES
All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Adoremus, except as specified below:Personal use
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.
Quotations
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and Adoremus + URL (i.e., Adoremus or Adoremus Bulletin – www.adoremus.org.)
Attribution
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Adoremus should be listed as the author. For example: Adoremus (St Louis: Adoremus, 2005 + URL)
Link to Adoremus web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.adoremus.org or to individual pages within our site.
Home |
Join/Donate |
Adoremus Bulletin |Archive
| Index |
Church Documents |
Architecture |
Posture |
Music |
Translation |
What's NEW? |
FAQ |
Search Site
