CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS
Prot. n. 429/02/L
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 Commissions 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 congregations 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 poenitentialis 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 text, 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and the hagiographical notes by the Proper of Saints, by virtue of their genre as well as their bulk, should not be published within a liturgical book.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 examples, 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 One might cite the inappropriateness of the reference to Santa Claus in commemorating St. Nicholas, to the unexplained statement that St. Callistus I served a sentence as a convict, or the assertion that St. Pius Vs 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 those statements, it is sufficient to point out 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 affect 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 translators task.
F. Consistent with the principles enumerated above regarding the books 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. 410/66, 16 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:
II. Examples of problems in grammar, syntax, and sentence sructure
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 Gods goodness, 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 as 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, formani sacrificii perennis instituens, hostiam tibi se primus abtulit 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 100 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 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 affect.
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 peoples response Suspiciat 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 Gods name, for our good, and the good of all the Church. The insertion of the possessive Gods 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 Christs 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 oblate 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 Lords Prayer. More than one reader cited poignantly the experience of having seen this prayer coming to the lips of Christians who had otherwise apparent unconscious, its familiar wording having been learned by them from infancy. By contrast, the Mixed Commissions 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 Sees 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 quaesamus, exoramus, imploramus, praesia ut, dono, concede, etc., have been collapsed more or less into the terms ask and grant, transferred almost always in 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 in 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 paton 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, ineffabilis (-iter), maiestas, mens, mereor, novitas, verustas, offera, pietas, piacanis, propitius, supplices, and many others, besides those mentioned elsewhere in those Observations. The challenge posted 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 catechisis.
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 at 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 Saints 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 amiphons, 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 priests 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:
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 vostrum 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 formulas, 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 spiritus tuo as And also with you has become familiar in the English-speaking world and a change in the peoples 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 Congregations recent Instruction Liturgiam authenticam.
National Catholic Reporter, Posted May 16, 2002