Robert Mickens sent us this tip about a new report that he says has "produced extensive evidence that last-minute changes were made to the English translation of the Roman Missal without the knowledge or approval of the competent bishops’ conferences and in violation of the Vatican’s own translation rules. The anonymous report, circulated to all the English speaking Bishops’ Conferences, highlights that changes were made to the new English translation of the Missal, just before it was approved and presented to Pope Benedict XVI." Mickens, the Tablet's Rome correspondent, was referring to a link on the liturgical website "PrayTell," posted by Anthony Ruff, OSB. (Btw, it is rather shocking to see a Vatican document ending up on Wikileaks, better known for sharing leaked documents about the Iraq War). Ruff writes:
The bombshell fell October 31, 2010, 8:31 am (Collegeville time). I suppose some might make the connection to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses on October 31, but in all honesty I didn’t have that in mind. I said a brief prayer, made the Sign of the Cross, and hit PUBLISH. Then my heart started pounding, and I closed my eyes and said a Hail Mary. I had in mind serving the Church by bringing the truth to light. More truth and light were to follow – NCR published reports here and here on the “missal mess” and the internal report “Areas of Difficulty in the Received Text of the Missal.”
Ruff moves beyond the question of "Who leaked it?" to what he sees as the more important issue: "The Roman Missal, English edition, got hijacked in a case of bad judgment, abuse of power, and incompetence."
Here is the main part of the document, entitled "Areas of Difficulty in the Received Text of the Missal," which appears to be a presentation of ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy) to the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship.
There are thirteen areas of difficulty which have been identified in the light of Liturgiam authenticam [LA] or the Ratio translationis [RT]. Examples have been taken from the Order of Mass and the Proper of Time, but the observations also apply to other texts.
It is presumed that technical difficulties (consistency in textual repetitions, capitalization, punctuation, grammar) can be resolved without explicit permission from the Congregation for Divine Worship. In addition to consistency in textual repetitions, capitalization, and punctuation, this would include Areas of Difficulty nos. 9, 11, and possibly no. 2 in cases in which the revision is obviously a mistake rather than a deliberate change. The communication of other problems is left to the discretion of the member Conferences. An exhaustive analysis of the entire received text can be completed should this be useful to ICEL’s member Conferences.
- change of meaning from the Latin original (RT 41)
- mistranslation of the Latin (RT 20)
- limiting of the vocabulary (LA 49/51; RT 20, 46-50)
- additions of an element not found in the Latin (LA 20)
- omission of an element found in the Latin (RT 44)
- weakening of Scriptural allusion (RT 6, 36)
- loss of intensity of original (RT 50/62)
- introduction of a theological problem (RT 102)
- difficulty with English grammar or usage (LA 44/74)
- adoption of Neo-Vulgate when an antiphon uses the Vulgate (LA 37/38; RT 37/107)
- capitalization of LORD when it renders YHWH. (LA 41c; RT 81/116)
- suppression of a rhetorical device (LA 57a/58/59)
- translations of ‘unigenitum’ (RT 81)
James Martin, SJ
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/11/12/gesundheit/
Near as I can tell, fixing the 2010 text of the Missal isn't an issue that's dividing along liberal/conservative lines. Traditionalists, liberals, and liturgists and scholars who defy such classifications all contribute to Pray Tell; except for one tendentious critic (I guess every blog needs one ;-)) everyone seems genuinely concerned to get the best possible text. The fallback is the 2008 text, which was translated by people appointed by conservatives and approved by the bishops before some last minute, murky tinkering led to the current mess. For those with a propensity towards knee-jerk reactions, watch for any move to use the 1998 text, completed before the previous ICEL staff was fired. Consideration of that version would make it a liberal/conservative issue.
A significantly broader question is raised by this event. The Vatican publishes online numerous translations of official Church documents. How valid are they? For example, do the six translations of Humanae Vitae all say accurately what the Latin says?
http://wwwvatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/index.htm
LATIN TEXT: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 60 (1968), 481-503.
Permit a view from the pew. Despite my four years' study of Latin language, and having been raised in the 'old church' I am completely happy in the vernacular and see no reason to try to return to any one era of church liturgy - other than that of the first Christians. I would be very, very interested to read more scholarly articles on what "Mass" was like in the early church.
A Catholic liberal is someone who subscribes to Commonweal and loves MSNBC and a Catholic Conservative is someone who subscribes to First Things and loves EWTN ;)
I think this article would sum it up for my though - liberals want to be accepted/incorporated by popular culture as much possible while trads think the opposite, they want to stand in opposition to popular notions of morality/culture:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=731
If this new missal/translation is so controversial we have indeed missed the mark and the goal of promoting true prayer. From this perspective, we might do best to begin afresh.
We devolved onto a nostalgic view of Latin due to historical events from which it appears we refuse to extricate ourselves notwithstanding the action of the Holy Spirit through the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council .
I am an admirer of Joseph Campbell . However it seems to me that a gentleman who didn't , for whatever reason , regularly join in the celebration of the Eucharist might not be the person to whom one would look for the best example of adequate liturgical matters .
Campbell , as an observer of things human may have some insights . And it behooves us to go deeply into these . The mystery we seek to feel and enter into has nothing to do with Latin , or any human language for that matter .
God's first language may be Silence but God has no problem with English . Nor should the Vatican .
On the subject of translation (which is where this thread started) I would only add, based on personal experience (I translated a Spanish textbook into English) that trying to be word for word faithful to the underlying text often results in a translation that sounds bad in English and is, surprisingly, further from the meaning of the original than a "looser" translation would have been. There are lots of other issues going on in translating liturgical texts, and I am glad that I am not on the ICEL.
but this latest chapter in the Latin church's continuing liturgical fiasco is just one more indicator of the wrongness of the PROCESS by which this liturgical claptrap is being foisted upon the English-speaking Catholic world.
Where, oh where, is the 1998 ICEL Roman Missal translation when we need it?
While we're on the subject, why in the world translate the traditional greeting and reply (Dominus Vobiscum) rather than leaving it in the Latin? Similarly, I've always thought we should retain the Greek cry of the Kryrie and the beginning phrase of the Gloria. HINTS of the great antiquity of the Latin heritage that we western Catholics share would be very helpful in passing the faith on to our children. (I'm aware that the Popes have urged us to be able to pray the Credo, Our Father, and Agnus Dei in latin together but I think it hardly worth the trouble when it's just as beautiful to pray it together in the myriad of languages that spring from our hearts.)
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12097
It is well documented that anything to do with a more faithful use of Latin in the Mass whips liberal Catholics into a critical frenzy.