In discussion of English texts of the Mass, the concept of "Fidelity to the Latin" (invoked by many, inter alios by Fr Leo Chamberlain twice in his letter of 21 March) has become an absurd shibboleth.
There are several reasons for saying this: Firstly, not everything that can be said in any one language can always be said in a given other language. From the two ancient and six modern tongues that I know reasonably well, I could give dozens of examples. Secondly, albeit decreed by the Vatican, it is not written in heaven that a fully satisfactory English Mass text need be a translation of anything. The Latin texts used until Vatican II were not translations: they were newly composed texts, drawing in part on Greek ones, in part on those in Syriac or Aramaic or other tongues, but they remained substantially Latin creations, some of exquisite latinity, others less so. This could be done for English also.
Thirdly the plurality of liturgies in a given tongue (Tridentine or Novus Ordo Latin; 1974 or 1998 or 2011 or Walsingham Ordinariate English texts, all with some good points and some bad ones) suggests that fidelity to a fixed unchangeable standard is neither necessary nor desirable. Fourthly, languages of major diffusion diverge, to the point where one tongue (e.g. Latin) becomes several (the eight or nine neo-Latin tongues of today), implying that a corresponding plurality of liturgical texts might avoid not only isolated vocabulary problems (e.g. Fr Leo's "dewfall") but also lexical Anglo-American traps such as "homely" or "federal" (which mean quite different things on different sides of the Atlantic) or hoary howlers of the "May I knock you up in the morning?" kind.
Could there not be, perhaps, four English Mass texts, one each for the former British Isles, North America, Southern Africa, and Australasia (and possibly others)? Fifth, Jesus spoke Aramaic; we know that he read Hebrew, and can surmise that he most probably spoke at least some Greek; we have no reason to think that he knew Latin. The Last Supper was without any doubt conducted in Aramaic, but the four accounts we have of it (the Synoptics, St Paul) are all in Greek. Are we to suppose that Jesus' Aramaic Eucharist and discourse were "faithful to a (non-existent) Latin text"? The mind boggles.
Richard Matthews, Bigorio, Switzerland
In reply to Fr Leo Chamberlain’s defence of the language of the present mass (21 March), it must be said that the theory of dynamic equivalence in translation is far from discredited. It is what every professional translator does. Translation is about conveying meaning from one language to another and this requires flexibility and imagination to do it fully, accurately and clearly. So translation has to be done dynamically, which has in fact been the policy for many years of the United Bible Societies under the leadership of Eugene Nida. Transliteration, which is what formal equivalence often amounts to, leads to inelegance and sometimes to the collapse of meaning, as with “consubstantial”, “oblation” and, my own particular bugbear, “chalice” for calix.
Another unsatisfactory Roman practice is to give precedence to Latin. In the world at large and especially the academic world, English is a high-status language because it is spoken by so many people, even if not always spoken well. Yet Rome treats it as a relatively low-status language when it gives higher status to a language that is spoken now by very few people and does not belong to any vibrant, natural language-community. Rome would be well advised to get the English right first with clear, elegant and simple language, and to use Latin only as a historical reference point. But whichever takes precedence, the sign of a good translation is that you can’t identify what language it has come from. That certainly can’t be said of the current English-language Mass.
Geoffrey Turner, Harrogate
Fr Leo Chamberlain (“Words in defence”, 21 March) declares: "it should not be beyond us to use an English which employs subordinate clauses." He seems to forget that there are three parties active in liturgy, namely God, a priest, and a congregation. We know that God always understands what we are trying to say. ("The Spirit comes to help us in our weakness..."). Due to his training, preparation and professionalism, a priest can work out the meaning of a prayer comprised of several subordinate clauses. However, members of a congregation are unlikely to be able to study the prayer texts in advance and so they are very likely to find complex sentences incomprehensible. This is especially so when the English that is used is not fluent.
A liturgical text which creates a barrier between the worshipper and God is failing in its purpose. It contradicts the Church's stated desire that the faithful engage in active and conscious participation in the liturgy. Sadly, the present translation of the Mass is such a barrier. It disregards the prayer needs of the people in the pews.
Fr Bernie Moloney, Cashel, Tipperary
Further to Gerald O’Collins’ plea for the new translation to be thrown out and the 1998 translation, approved by all of the bishops’ conferences of the English-speaking world, to be brought into use, what he asks for is not enough. Bearing in mind the strain placed upon people by their being forced to learn this new translation, it is a bit much to ask them to learn yet another Gloria and so on. So it would be better I think, for the Common of the Mass to simply return to the original ICEL translation, with the sung Commons for the imposed translation to be still allowed for use. That would mean variations from parish to parish, but so what? There must be consideration given to the people who are still coming to Mass. The main problem in the imposed translation is not with the Common – apart from the ridiculous translation of the Nicene Creed, which parishes have circumvented by using the other option, the Apostles’ Creed – but with the Celebrant’s prayers.
Beyond that, Liturgiam authenticam, the directive for translation, needs to be buried or burned, and the original directive Comme le prevoit restored.
Otherwise you are going to have a cleaned up Missal but horror translations for the Rite of Baptism and other rites which have yet to be re-translated according to the dictates of Liturgiam authenticam. Included among these is the Divine Office, the re-translating of which has already commenced.
Obviously Vox Clara needs to be pensioned off, but with grace and dignity, not with the shabby bullying meted out to the original ICEL board. And the lies told about the original ICEL translation need to be pardoned.
Patrick J Flanagan, Victoria, Australia
I have followed the correspondence in regard to the current translation of the Mass into English with great sadness.
It appears to name that correspondents somehow think that the Holy Father is bound by consultations on the translation of the Mass and not that the consultation and suggestions where advisory to him. The Holy Father has supreme and immediate pastoral jurisdiction throughout the Church, yes or no?
So I wonder what consultation was had when the previous poor translation of the Mass was imposed on people in the 1970s? As I understand it, that translation was always a temporary provision.
I prefer the current translation; I expect my clergy to say the words of the Mass as promulgated by the Holy Father for the salvation of my soul and not the particular hobby horse of the celebrating cleric.
Finally why are Tablet readers so afraid of the Latin Mass? Why is that I can have Mass in Polish, French, Urdu but not Latin? It is a strange state of affairs that the only language Masses appears prohibited in the Latin Rite Church is Latin. Are seminaries no longer taught Latin?
Christopher Keeffe, West Harrow, Middlesex
Thank you for your second Leader “Recover what was lost in translation”. How insightful the words of Gerald O’Collins. Give us back what we loved and enjoyed, English that is “poetic, dignified and expressive”. Perhaps, along with its return, we could then eliminate the encroachment of private interpretation, which has invaded our public reading of the Scriptures. The Lord told us it is the role of the Holy Spirit – “to make clear everything I have said to you”. A return to what was familiar, in the proper sense of that word, would help us in our service of God’s people, provide easy access to what Scripture says – we not only need God’s Word, we equally need God’s interpretation of God’s Word [not ours]; we need to employ and enjoy a more conversational reading so as to let God’s Spirit through – to all severally and to each uniquely in order to relish inspiration.
Austin McCormack OFM, Canterbury
As a native English-speaker, albeit originally from the north of England, I must say that in a homogenous English-speaking world, I would have to agree with each and every point made in defence of the new translation of the Missal that Fr Leo Chamberlain makes. However, my pastoral situation is this: the cathedral parish of Kroonstad in South Africa, in which all parish liturgies are celebrated in English, it being the common language, has but one English speaking household, which is also bi-lingual, the members of which are educated from primary school through to university in Afrikaans and English, or who are currently working in Afrikaans; and by the way, the Granny has a PhD in English and she is Dutch! The remaining parish members have English as a second, third, fourth language. I also have charge of an Afrikaans-speaking parish in which Mass is also celebrated in English monthly, many members of which have English as a third language.
With due respect to the grasp of English and correct use of spoken English by some parishioners in both parishes, the new translation with its pseudo-Cranmerian phrasing and cadences is absolutely lost on them. Apart from the one family where the Queen's English is common currency, the remainder of my two flocks, of which I have the smell, commonly use the provincial Vrystaat engels (Free State English) or an English influenced by Afrikaans from the Cape, North Cape or by Northern or Southern Sesotho, or another of the official 11 languages in South Africa.
In short, in the cathedral and in my Afrikaans-speaking parish, the new translation can be considered as an unmitigated pastoral disaster, it raising their hearts and minds to incomprehension rather than to prayer. Perhaps the Bishops of the English-speaking (however defined) Churches could begin with this pastoral issue when reviewing the impact of the new Missal rather than attempt to educate their flocks in a version of English that bears a feeble likeness to the magnificent prayerful English that Fr Chamberlain may hear and no doubt does hear at Evensong in York Minster.
Fr Stephen Giles MHM, Kroonstad, South Africa
The previous had a simple dignity that was prayerful and meaningful to all including families, those with special needs and people in prison whom prison chaplains will verify very often have problems with literacy. Our parishes are now home to many of different nationalities who are trying to learn English. Why should they be expected to cope with a "heightened" language in order to worship? I cannot imagine that Christ expected this at the Last Supper.
Stella Cordingley, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
How sad that there has been no response from our present bishops to Fr O’Collins’ gentle invitation, supported by your leader of 14 March, that they reclaim the ICEL translation that they had already approved, and so put us out of our misery. Is the “smell of their sheep” not to their liking?
John Feeny, Ripon, North Yorkshire
Online editor's note: owing to the high volume of correspondence regarding this one topic we decided to devote a whole week's Letters Extra to the subject.
Loading ...
