My (seemingly endless) article on the topic of the day is up at InsideCatholic.com: The Mystery of the Leaked Missal.
I should add that my language about the lame-duck Missal vs. the corrected Missal is taken from Fr. Z.. Most of the other detail comes from the online leaks and Fr. Ruff. The spin, the judgment, and any errors (and there are surely some because so many details are foggy at this point) are solely my responsibility.
The linked article is instructive, and Fr. Ruff and the leakers* have done the Church a service in bringing these grave problems to our attention.
Like you, I didn't put much store by Fr. Ruff in this matter for quite some time, because of the liturgical and non-liturgical agendas implicit in his choice of authors and articles on 'Pray Tell', the direction of his own comments, and the partiality and lack of transparency in his editorial practice.
One lesson to be learned from all this is that arbitrary exercise of power and an absence of transparency are as endemic in the contemporary Church as they were in the 19th Century, right accross the liturgical and theological spectrum. Another is that they do no-one any favours.
*Sounds like a band name, doesn't it?
An interesting take, Ian.
Anyone serious about liturgy (or anything else) is going to have a point of view–an agenda, if you will. The only thing I see at variance is that you don't agree with some of what a chant scholar and practitioner writes and advocates.
As for the question of transparency, I'll note that many "vigorous" commenters are pleased to remain anonymous. Some sites don't even insist on pseudonyms. The rest of us are left to guess as to what that fiery and ever-present Ms Onymous is going to write next.
As for the essay, it's not one of your best. It seems the least you could do is spell Fr Ruff's name correctly, at least on behalf of people who took pains as we got to know you not to spell yours Jeffery.
And you've got much of the history wrong.
Todd – the only mistake in the history I see is that the report "Areas of Difficulty" wasn't associated with Xavier Rindfleisch. The retelling of the history with terms like Age of Aquarius is "spin," or legitimate difference of perspective if you will, but I didn't catch historical errors. The spelling error could be from the editor. I don't like labels like "Age of Aquarius," as you already guessed, and I think it is unfair to deeply devout Catholics like Fr. Godfrey Diekman. But I think the main thing here is that nobody likes the upcoming missal, however "progressive" or "traditional" they are.
awr
Fair point on the recent history. But I thought the assessment of this being a 1970/75 vs 2008/10 issue to be all wrong, not to mention a lack of understanding on Comme Le Prevoit. Jeffrey's just out of his depth on the liturgical history.
There's no question that I'm out of my depth. I would go further to say that anyone who attempts a translation of the Roman Missal without consulting every expert in the world is out of his depth. In fact, any individual generation of experts is out of its depth in such a task, which is why the process should be open and be approach with utmost humility and deference to what has come before.
"any individual generation of experts is out of its depth in such a task, which is why the process should be open and be approached with utmost humility and deference to what has come before."
Precisely
Fr. Ruff,
To say that "nobody likes the upcoming missal, however "progressive" or "traditional" they are" is true, as far as it goes. However, it fails to distinguish between differing attitudes to ordinary and dialogues on the one hand and propers on the other. The differences of assumption and thinking are significant.
Ian, you make several good points. Vox Clara and the CDW didn't turn upside down the ordinary to the extent they did the propers. The ordinary is – in my view – sort of OK, not quite great language, but a step in the right direction. The proper prayers, especially collects and prefaces, are a complete disaster (imho).
awr
Ian, I also appreciate the distinctions you've drawn. Like Fr Anthony, I find the Mass ordinary decent. Clergy will have a lot of work to do to make the prayers they lead intelligible–they're working from a visual/technical document, and it's always been assumed the ordinary will be sung. Musicians have a much easier road in this, and it's a good thing, as the reception of the new Missal will rise or fall on how the music goes.
As for the proper antiphons and psalms, I don't think we're going to get the best solution until the Sacramentary is harmonized with the three-year Lectionary, at least for Ordinary Time. My take is that the Roman Missal itself wasn't properly upgraded. We won't get a generally happy solution until MR4.
As for the propers, my sense is that we won't see any sort of movement on this until the Roman Rite includes some helpful variations: metrical psalms, and a number of options depending on the ability and resources of the faith community.
Unlike Jeffrey's contention, there was neither malice nor incompetence behind the pre-conciliar four-hymn sandwich and its successors. The liturgical movement simply hadn't taken full root in enough places and people like Ted Marier were few and far between.
I see where Jeffrey's coming from on his copyright schtick, too, and I'm largely in agreement. Unfortunately, the copyright situation as it is works in favor of Scriptural paraphrases and a free-for-all atmosphere among composers. Sort of a double whammy for the propers-first crowd.
Todd, I have looked through the article again, and am unable to find any contention of malice or incompetence in the 1973 translation (whatever personal opinions others may have).
It seems too me that Jeffrey rightly attributes its difficulties to its having been born of an age that was … well, somewhat goofy in both church and society. More precisely, it reflects transient attitudes that were prevalent for a period in the 1960s and 1970s but are now behind us.
Henry, I found the narcissism of the 80's and 90's to be significantly goofier than the 70's. I respect that you and Jeffrey believe what you've written here. But I see it all in a totally different way.
The bottom line is that an otherwise good concept for a good essay is shot in the foot by meaningless swipes at the past. He hates the culture of the 60's and 70's. I hate the 80's and 90's. Maybe my daughter will have less than good things to say about the 2010's. When you wander off the factual and into opinion, maybe you develop more passion, but you also skirt near the dreaded, "Well, that's just your opinion … not unlike anyone else's."
Well, plenty of goofy things were foisted upon us, at Mass, in the 80's and 90's also. And strangely, nobody ever asked me or mine about our opinion beforehand.
I don't think the bad ICEL translation happened out of malice. I think the translators were embarrassed by what the Latin actually said, because it was so square and so emotional and so old-fashioned. So they tidied everything up and swept all the embarrassing bits under the rug of English.
But they were wrong to be embarrassed. What they swept under the rug was gold dust and tiny diamonds and pearls.
So just as we did with Victorian houses (as a trend in the 70's and 80's, ironically), we have to stop covering up treasure with cheap wall-to-wall carpet, and bring it out into the light of day, and take care of it. Most of all, we have to stop being embarrassed by it.
An interesting take. I don't think the translation was bad. It was intended to be transitional. It followed the rules laid down for it. It was approved up and down the line. Everybody knew it was going to be replaced; we liturgists were thinking 15 years, not 35 or more.
As for the MR1 being an embarassment for some, you're going to need a bit more than your opinion to make that stick. Inculturation, transition, and original compositions were all important concerns in 1969. Less so today, perhaps, but that's not necessarily a credit to the Church.
Good comment, S'b'shee. I'd extend it to suggest we shouldn't be ashamed of the anglophone tradition of religious language. This is a shared heritage of great poetic and religious strength & subtlety that we share with our Protestant brothers and sisters. The coincidence of its rejection with the introduction of the vernacular to the liturgy was unfortunate. At its worst it gave us the rhythmic triteness of the ICET Gloria, and the laughable 'wonder-counsellor' at Christmas; though perhaps the pervading flatness of the less risible, endured week in, week out in our parishes, has done the greater damage. The new translation will also be judged by the extent to which it addresses this problem.
Suburbanbanshee,
I'm not sure that a careful analysis of the Latin and the 1973 would bear out your claims entirely. They knew the Latin inside and out, and oftentimes they strived to get at the heart of what is most important in it, and to convey that as clearly as possible, rather than seeking to acount for everything in the Latin. (The official document from Rome countenanced this.) They did slant some things, eg in overplaying human agency, but even this is a question of degree and not out and out error. There is much I don't care for in 1973, but I think you are imputing motives to the translators quite unfairly.
awr
Fr's point about Rome's role in this is extremely important here. The true history of this has not be written.
I'm not sure, Fr. Ruff. "And also with you", for example, would – by omission – appear to express a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between priest and people, and a corresponding weakening of our committment to the charism and sacrament on which it has been based.
The many cases where translation was more loose than strict also spoke of a forgetting of the role of tradition and liturgy in transmitting the faith, even where that translation did not apparently strike at orthodox belief.
This isn't to suggest ill-will on the translators' part, or conscious heteredoxy. It does, perhaps, speak of a careless failure to recognise the influence of the non-Catholic thought of the day on a hurried translation.
In addition, we must also not forget that, even labouring under the same set of translation instructions, there were alternative English translations of the Missal and Breviary that didn't quite go down the way the old ICEL texts did.
And even before ICEL did its work, there were quite a few existing translations of many of the prayers in the Missal. I'm at a loss as to why the old ICEL didn't simply adapt many of the existing translations that worked (e.g. Collect for the 4th Sunday of Advent), especially if the 1973 texts were intended to be transitory. Their subsequent new translations of many traditional prayers don't bear out the idea that their job was that bad simply because they were doing a rushed/temporary job.
The problem, Simon, is that once these hurried translations were in place in our Missals, they and their approach received the authority of position. Most English-speaking Catholics wouldn't have dreamed of questioning them – to do so would be to question the will of the Council. Now, you and I know that's not true, but radical change in a conservative institution is a funny thing. It doesn't take long for the new to take on the hallowed mantle of the old. Otherwise incisive minds are reluctant to countenance problems because they fear this would question the integrity of their institutional fellows. The consequence of this is that the questionable takes on a life of its own and more of the same appears; until, that is, a new generation begins to suggest the Emporer lacks clothes. That's the situation we found ourselves in until quite recently, and we shouldn't let the fears of the courtiers for the good name of the Emporer's clothiers blind us to the fact (tho' we should exercise charity, as the problems with the new translation show how easy it is to rescue disaster from progress).
"Most English-speaking Catholics wouldn't have dreamed of questioning them …"
This view also does not jive with history. The biggest gaffe in EP IV was immediately noted and corrected, though not in much haste I'll admit.
The eagerness to both revise history and posit bad motives to the Church's liturgical hierarchy in the 1970's overlooks actual fact: that all of these early translations were never intended to be more than temporary. The original plan was that they would be replaced as the second editions of Roman documents were produced. In the case of the Roman Missal, that was 1981. And by the mid 80's early drafts of the new work, including a harmony with the Lectionary cycle were well underway.
If ill motives are to be pondered at all, why not criticize the 1998 CDWDS? They deep-sixed the English version of MR2, already completed and approved by the world's English-speaking bishops.
The lack of depth of understanding of the translations and their histories in many commentators strikes me as more psychological projection bias than anything else.
There's nothing wrong with being broadly critical of Roman liturgy and its bureaucracy across the board. I have no problem, for example, lamenting the faults of MR1 for the past twenty-five years as I cheerfully used the old Missal. And likewise, I'll continue to harp on the problems of MR3 as I use the new Missal and await the 4th.
Couple random points as I read through all he comments:
To call "wonder-counselor" silly is, really, a matter of taste and opinion. I find it, combined with "God-hero," to be much more interesting and evocative than, "wonderful counselor, mighty God."
Perhaps one is more accurate than another is a whole different (and more important, really) issue.
I wonder about the theological importance of "With your spirit" vs. "Also with you."
I've read a lot of commentary on this issue, but it seems a bit after the fact. Was the now-common explanation of its meaning an accepted understanding 40 years ago?
Which brings me to…
It shouldn't matter whether anyone (from the people to the Pope) know the exact reason we say one word or phrase instead of another word or phrase.
Theologizing and explicating each word use ("it really means THIS!") is only an issue when attempting a non-literal translation. A non-literal translation, by nature, is an explanation of what the original says.
To the extent that they did so, progressives did themselves a disservice by writing their theology into the translation- because that automatically forces (even if 30-40 years later) the official Church to come back and say, "No, it doesn't really mean that. It means this other thing, and that's why it's so important to say, 'your spirit' and 'my roof.'"
A literal translation (or, better yet, the original) can be open to many interpretations, explanations, and theologies in a way that an inflected gloss translation never can be.
It is, so to speak, a much more liberal translation.
Adam,
Perhaps it's a tomahto / tomato thing; I can only say that, to this British-English ear, "wonder-counselor" sounds like a sales pitch for a cheap pyschotherapist.
As for "et cum spiritu tuo": its signifance in describing an asymetrical relationship has been recognised since at least the 4th century, when St. John Chrysostom explained that the response acknowledges the particular charism of the priest. This is an example of the transmission of tradition through the words of the liturgy; and it may be not entirely coincidental that the tradition is obscured in a hurried translation made at a time when the nature of the priestly charism was being questioned.
Gotta say it: there is no such thing as a literal translation. ALL translation is a gloss of some kind, an attempt to "explain the meaning of the original"…
I know this idea will be scary for many (for all? pro multis?)
Some translations are more equal than others, though, Denys. The French Bishops would seem to agree (Et avec votre esprit), as would the Germans (Und mit deinem Geiste), the Italians (E con il tuo spirito) and the Spanish (Y con tu espiritu).
Ian, ironic use of an Orwellian formula that illustrates the way language can be abused–LOL!
Your point was–and I agree with you–that while all translations are a kind of explanation of the meaning of the original, different translations convey more or less of the meaning, color, tone, or structure of the original.
Every translator has to make choices that sacrifice one or more of these elements for the sake of others, and has to make those sacrifices often.
(That having been said–it is clear that the English translators of 1974 made some choices that the German, French, and Spanish translators didn't make…)
My point was that it is never so simple as "just translate what the words say".
But that doesn't excuse free invention or "translator's license"…the translator serves, but without the vices of excessive servility OR excessive liberty.
Your point is well taken, Denys, and it gives us insight into to the problems of the 1973 translation and what we know of its successor. I would suggest that the earlier version falls between two stools. On the one hand tt often fails to adequately convey the sense of the original where it is possible to frame it in English, and in doing so risks the faithful transmission of tradition. On the other, it consistently lacks sensitivity to the poetry of the Latin and the poetic potential of the vernacular. It's the kind of thing that happens when significant change is hurried, and the current process of proper translation looks like it might suffer to some degree from the same difficulty.
Revised Grail Psalms Pre-Order!?
http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2010/12/revised-grail-psalms-pre-order.html