Letters Extra

In addition to the letters published in this week’s issue of the The Tablet you can find more correspondence here, available free.

‘For many' or ‘for all': why not proclaim what we believe?

If we change the words of Jesus that he will shed his blood "for all" which we have been used to saying to "for many", the natural reading would be that we no longer believe it is "for all". Complicated explanations of why this change is necessary are most unconvincing, not to say disingenuous. They almost suggest that when worshipping God we need to practise Orwellian doublethink, understanding that when we say "many" we really mean "all". If we believe it is "for all", why can we not say so?

In his letter to the German archbishop on this subject, the Pope claims that the consensus of opinion that the Semitic formula lying behind hyper pollōn in the Gospels means "for all" no longer exists, but his letter gives no references for this assertion. Have biblical scholars come forward to endorse his view?

According to the Code of Canon Law, Canon 838 §3, "It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves." One could no doubt argue what "review" (recognitio) precisely means, but it surely does not give the Vatican, not even the Pope, the right to impose translations on bishops that they do not want. I believe the German bishops rejected a Latinate translation of the mass that the Congregation for Divine Worship wanted them to accept - as they had every right in law to do. What a pity the English-speaking bishops did not show similar resolution in resisting the CDW's rejection of the very fine 1998 English version of the mass that they had approved! We might then have been spared the pseudo-English Latinate travesty that we are now made to endure.

The Pope's letter recognises that translation cannot avoid interpretation, but still thinks that literal word-for-word paraphrase is desirable in translating liturgical texts. There too, however, interpretation is at work. To translate the Latin cum spiritu tuo as "and with your spirit'' is an interpretation - and a misleading one at that, seeing that it ignores the incongruence between the words: English "spirit" is not simply equivalent to Latin spiritus.

Given their varied origins it would be surprising if liturgical texts have always consistently reproduced exactly their scriptural bases. Why do we need to start doing that now? Should not liturgical texts express what we actually believe, whatever their verbal origins may be?

Heavy duty

I have now replaced my obsolete Missal with the People's Edition of the CTS New Daily Missal. It weighs 1,273g and its dimensions require, for me at least, the use of two hands to pick it up. I walk two miles to and two miles back from Mass on weekdays and would have to use a rucksack in order to transport it. The pages are filled with Latin which I will never read, the translations of the prayers so obscure I cannot pray them. In my prayer time at home I look at my icon and say to the Lord, "What on earth are we doing, Lord? What is happening?"

To write in to The Tablet, email thetablet@thetablet.co.uk, fax your comments to 020 8748 1550 or post your comments to The Editor, 1 King Street Cloisters, Clifton Walk, London W6 0GY.  Include your full postal address and contact telephone number.  The Editor reserves the right to shorten letters.

For other recent letters, select from the list here:

       

He has only worn the mitre for 18 months but Bishop Mark Davies has already made a big impression ...

There comes a time when you have to stop pulling bodies out of the water and go upriver ...

Precisely why has the British branch of the Knights of Malta had a huge falling out over ...