One of the overarching story lines in the mainstream coverage of the new English translation of the Mass is that the critics of the new translation (who, thus, are the defenders of the old, more casual “dynamic equivalence” translation that it has replaced) are the true defenders of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
Of course, this would mean that Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican powers that be and other defenders of the new English translation are actually working to overturn the spirit (more than the actual actions) of Vatican II.
With that tension in mind, pay special attention to the lede of The New York Times daily story about the Advent I changeover.
Roman Catholics throughout the English-speaking world on Sunday left behind words they have prayed for nearly four decades, flipping through unfamiliar pew cards and pronouncing new phrases as the church urged tens of millions of worshipers to embrace a new translation of the Mass that more faithfully tracks the original Latin.
It’s interesting, of course, that the story concedes that the new translation “more faithfully tracks” the “original Latin.” Then again, “tracks” is a strange word. It is not quite the same thing as “translates.” It sounds rather mechanical and clunky.
What caught my eye was the term “original Latin.”
What percentage of Times readers do you think read that reference and thought, “Oh, the old Latin Mass,” as in the Tridentine Mass that was updated by the Second Vatican Council?
How many, instead, do you think read those two words and thought — accurately — that this was a reference to the modern Mass, the Novus Ordo? The source, reference text for this rite is maintained in Latin, but this modern liturgy is then translated into the various languages of Catholics around the world.
In other words, the new translation is a more literal, grammatically strict, translation of the Mass approved by the Second Vatican Council.
If readers do not know that one piece of information, the background for the entire story changes. The Times team never explains this basic fact.
If you know that one fact, then this story is no longer about defenders of Vatican II and opponents of Vatican II — reformers vs. anti-reformers. Instead, it’s a debate between leaders in two schools of thought about how best to translate and practice the reforms of Vatican II.
If you know that one fact, then it appears that the Vatican wanted a new English translation that includes all of the words and images of the Novus Ordo, a translation that more closely parallels post-Vatican II translations into other languages used by Catholics around the world. Yes, this does mean that English-speaking worshipers will need to learn some new phrases that are, in fact, included in the Vatican II rite. Many of the missing phrases and images that are being restored are references drawn from scripture or allusions to scripture.
The summary paragraph offered by the Times team sums up the debates this way:
… (B)ehind the scenes, the debate over the new translation has been angry and bitter, exposing rifts between a Vatican-led church hierarchy that has promoted the new translation as more reverential and accurate, and critics, among them hundreds of priests, who fear it is a retreat from the commitment of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s to allowing people to pray in a simple, clear vernacular as they participate in the church’s sacred rites.
Note that this debate is between Vatican leaders and a vague camp of critics, including ordinary priests. In reality, this is a debate INSIDE the American Catholic hierarchy and, especially, among conservative and progressive Catholic liturgists and academics. The essential question? Is a translation “simple” and “clear” if it omits many words, phrases and images that are found in the source document?
That’s the debate journalists need to cover. Thus, one would expect that this Times story must accurately and fairly cover this debate, with articulate leaders — local and national — being heard on both sides. That’s the journalistic challenge. Correct?
With that in mind, I went through the story with a highlighter pen and marked the voices on both sides, then I counted the words. I did everything I could to leave many words as neutral, including the following quote that allowed one Catholic to cover both bases at the same time:
Rebecca Brown, a parishioner at St. James Cathedral in Seattle, said she felt well prepared for the new translation. “I’m not fond of the linguistic choices, how it rolls off the tongue,” Ms. Brown said. “But on the other hand, the Catholic Church is always about renewal and reforming itself. This is just one of those changes.”
I am sure that others attempting this task and end up with numbers that are slightly different than mine. I erred on the side of neutrality, as I mentioned.
Nevertheless, I ended up with 128 words of positive commentary about the new translation and 403 words of negative commentary. The story includes one scholar on the left, but none on the right. When it comes to direct quotes, all of the strong voices are among those who oppose the new translation.
It’s not a fair fight. Then again, that does not appear to have been the journalistic goal — simply looking at the raw materials of the report. This is a story about good guys and bad guys, defenders of Vatican II and opponents of Vatican II.
In terms of balance and tone, here is a typical exchange:
“It was interesting,” said Danielle McGinley, 31, a parishioner at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in downtown Los Angeles. “It feels more like a Spanish Mass to me. The Spanish Mass is a more literal translation. I like it.”
But George Lind, 73, in New York, had a more visceral reaction. He tried to say the new language at the Church of the Holy Cross in Times Square during the Saturday night Mass, he said, but he became so angry that he had to stop speaking.
“I am so tired of being told exactly what I have to say, exactly what I have to pray,” he said. “I believe in God, and to me that is the important thing. This is some attempt on the part of the church hierarchy to look important.”
Yes, yes, there are conservative Catholics who would respond that they have, for four decades, been told exactly what they have to say, exactly what they have to pray. That’s the other side of the story, the other side of this emotional debate.
Do the journalistic math.
 | Posted at 6:59 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (45) |
November 28, 2011, at 8:04 pm
The press needs to take both liberal and conservative liturgists seriously and try to understand the theological presuppositions they have. Is going to church primarily about worshiping God or is it about social justice and being in a community?
There are other issues related to this, like which songs (or hymns/chants) are appropriate at Mass and which sentiments should be expressed in collects. If I’m not mistaken, the Novus Ordo Missal (in Latin) did not keep “politically incorrect” collects that, for instance, asked God to judge unrepentant enemies of the Catholic Church.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
November 28, 2011, at 8:19 pm
“…the new translation is a more literal, grammatically strict, translation of the Mass approved by the Second Vatican Council.”
I think this isn’t quite right. The Mass of Paul VI came some years after the close of the Second Vatican Council. The Council called for renewal, and, in fact, seemed to envision not such a complete change to the vernacular, but it never approved a particular text of the mass.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got no problem with the Novo Ordo. But I think we should recognize it as post-concillar. And, of course, compared to other howlers in the average coverage of this change, this error is minor indeed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
November 28, 2011, at 10:00 pm
A couple of points I’ve been pondering through these several threads:
The translation is not the work of “Italian and German old men”, as one fellow claimed on another blog. It is the work of an international Anglophone commission headed, if memory serves, by Abp. Kell of Sydney.
I was Catholic nearly 20 years and had always thought we were way too picky about what seemed minutia. Then I realized that Catholics - of all theological stripes - fight over the liturgy because we know it’s the core of everything. Control of the liturgy means control of the Faith - lex orandi, lex credendi indeed. When it’s healthy, soaked in charity, it’s a true struggle to find God. Yes, it degenerates into power struggling at times and I’m pretty sure we could learn something from the Orthodox (not to mention Pentecostals) about how we don’t have to express theological unity in acting alike ALL THE TIMES.
Well, in my mind, these two matters (at least the latter) would make a good framework for telling this story.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
November 28, 2011, at 10:09 pm
This is one of the best and most succinct criticisms I have seen of the way that the introduction to the new translation has been framed. Thank you for reiterating the key point that this is a translation of the Novus Ordo. You are right that this re-frames the entire debate. It is not a question of whether Vatican II but rather what the real ‘spirit of Vatican II’ actually is.
There are two points worth mentioning in this regard. First, you would never know it from this tired ‘defenders vs. opponents of Vatican II template’, but Joseph Ratzinger should be counted among the ‘young turks’ of Vatican II. His bold commentary on Gaudium et Spes, written when he was just 36 or 37, is a stunning work of interpretation that prefigures a number of themes from his subsequent career. If one wants to get a true idea of what the Second Vatican Council was really about, you could do worse than consult his theology.
Second, while I suppose we should be grateful for the Times’ concession that the new translation “more faithfully tracks” the Latin, I have yet to see any mainstream media coverage mention just what sort of emphases were systematically eliminated or minimized by the 1973 English translation. There have been a number of good analyses in this regard over the years in addition to the recent piece by Anthony Esolen in First Things. This might help us understand why a new translation was thought to be necessary in the first place, assuming, of course, that understanding is really the point.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
November 28, 2011, at 10:29 pm
Like Michael (#4) I agree that it is nice that media outlets do seem to get that the new translation is a tighter, more literal, more faithful translation of the Latin text. What appears to be lost on everyone (pew-warmers and journalists alike) is why exactly this is a desirable thing, and why it matters.
Whatever one may think of this opinion (and it probably isn’t difficult to figure out what I think of it), this guy gave the Lady exactly the sort of quote that fits into the narrative they want to portray: the Big Bad, Mean-Old Catholic Church imposing its iron will on simple, hapless pewfolk.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
November 28, 2011, at 10:33 pm
But at least the post-modern Gray Lady here is not going post-facts, as they did in one of my favorite GR posts in memory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28, 2011, at 11:48 pm
The “journalistic math” is particularly interesting given the subject matter at issue. It is almost certainly the case that very few — maybe none? — of the journalists covering the story for major outlets are practicing Catholics who have independent opinions about the wording of the Mass. Why then the bias against the translation? Perhaps because the journalists have closer relationships with Church critics than they do with enthusiastic Catholics who joyfully love the Church? (The latter group tends to be quite supportive of the new translation.) Or is it because liberals tend to understand and have sympathy toward the liberal side of things even when concerns an issue, like the wording of the Catholic Mass, that they don’t really care about and probably were not even aware of before last week? Or is it due to a hostility on the part of the press to the so-called “Church hierarchy” every time there is a perceived split between the “hierarchy” and its critics? (Tmatt is right that the split concerning the translation existed within the “hierarchy” (i.e., among the bishops) and cannot fairly have been said to have been between the “hierarchy” and the laity. However, it is the case that in the late 1990s Rome rejected (thanks be to God) a much-loved-by -liberals translation that had been approved by the English speaking conferences of bishops. That translation kept the people’s responses the same, included “inclusive language” (Glory to God in the highest, and peace to His people on earth”), and was said to be “more ecumenical.”)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
November 28, 2011, at 11:49 pm
This is a translation issue to me and, given that the new Mass is a new translation, perhaps appropriate. Certainly if any news story uses “Novus Ordo”, it needs to be carefully defined and distinguished from the famous use of “novus ordo” in “novus ordo seclorum”.
I say this because I was surprised, possibly due to my lack of Latin, when the new mass was referred to as Novus Ordo since my only experience has been with Novus ordo seclorum which has been translated as:
Now, wikipedia has a translation which I think tracks the use here: “the new Ordinary of the Mass”.
Thus I have to ask which translation of “ordo” is correct, “order” or “ordinary”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 28, 2011, at 11:52 pm
(Correction, the “inclusive” version of the Glory to God is “peace to God’s (instead of “His”) people on earth.”)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 29, 2011, at 2:14 am
Actually not, since this usually depicted as evil anti-reformers combatting the “spirit of Vatican II” - which is as far removed from what the actual Council said and did as possible.
Since the NYT does not support the Council but merely the so-called “spirit”, I don’t think the ambiguous wording was intentional, just a lazy repitition of “original Latin” (Latin orginal would always have been better) into a context where it enables a reading even worse.
And of course, the note that the Novus Ordo was not introduced by the Council is correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29, 2011, at 2:25 am
Jerry,
the correct defeault translation of “ordo” is of course “order”, order in the sense of regulation/rule or a system or group governed by it.
The “Order of the Mass” is the rule of the Mass.
The “Ordo Fratris Minores” is the religious group governed by the rule laid down by Saint Francis.
I am a bit bugged by making a problem out of this. “Novus Ordo S(a)ec(u)lorum” simply means “new world order” - but even if one makes it out to be something sinister (and if it is, it was 200+ years ago), there is nothing sinister about the word “order”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
November 29, 2011, at 7:07 am
I must say I am very pleased about the beautiful words and prayers that are now part of our Mass. I did not find them jarring at all. Our excellent Bishop Lennon asked the pastors of our Diocese to practice the new prayers and music for the last few months, so it isn’t so difficult at this point. It forces me to really think about what the Mass is saying to me, and it is something I need to do.
This past weekend, I had the good fortune of sitting in the balcony of my parish church next to nine year-old identical twin boys who eagerly clutched the pew cards our parish supplied. They carefully followed the Mass, noting all the changed words Father used, and when it was time for our responses, they loudly replied in unison (I expect it was to help the rest of us to remember the words had changed, and I appreciated it!)
I am no end grateful for the improved language we now use at Mass, and I appreciate the fact our bishops trust our intelligence enough not to “dumb down” the wording of our beautiful Mass.
Since the writers of the newspaper story you quoted cited the demographic of the people they quoted, I am a 50 year-old married woman who is an active, joyful member of my Catholic parish in downtown Akron, Ohio.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 29, 2011, at 8:44 am
I’ve been chided from time to time for using the term “Novus Ordo”, and reminded that it’s the “Mass of Paul VI” (the “Tridentine” or “Traditional Latin Mass” being “The Mass of Pius V”). NO is considered, in some circles not mine), to be pejorative.
It is fair to note that the liturgy is new, but it’s the same Mass.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
November 29, 2011, at 9:50 am
News out of Chicago.
The Chicago Tribune reporter focusses on flubs and hesitancies of people determined to master the revised wording rather than on the wisdom or folly of the translation. Even Cardinal George is quoted as saying he stumbled a bit. It was newsy for a readership that is heavily Catholic and had good explanations, avoiding all mention of controversy.
The only quibble is this mistaken date for the first English translation in the US.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/11/28/1959484/new-catholic-mass-throws-some.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
November 29, 2011, at 10:09 am
We would do well to remember this, PB. Of course, if we want to get really specific about it, the so-called Tridentine Mass is actually Pius V missal as revised by John XXIII in 1962; it is that 1962 missal which was authorized for use in Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, to the exclusion of others published even a couple years before (the 1955 missal, for example, is right out).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
November 29, 2011, at 10:27 am
As to “order” and “ordinary” - they have a variety of meanings in the Catholic world. Here are some off the top of my head:
Benedict has taken to calling the Mass as it was in 1962 the Extraordinary form of the Mass. That would make the Mass of Paul VI the ordinary(usual)form of the Mass
, although I don’t think it is officially called that.
However, the parts of any Mass that do not change from day to day in the liturgical year are collectively known as the Ordinary of the Mass, whether the older or newer Mass. This would be the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Creed, the Sanctus, the Lord’s Prayer, the Commemoration of the Dead, the Agnus Dei, and various other prayers by the priest and deacan and responses of the people.
The parts of the Mass that do change for daily feast days, for different seasons of the year, for funeral Masses, for special holy days, for Lent, etc. are known as the Propers of the Mass. These would include the particular gospel, epistle, old Testament, and psalm of the day. There are also various prayers that have similar structure and placement every day but are taken from changing Scripture during the liturgical year, such as the offertory and communion prayers. Then there is something called a “sequence” that is only said or chanted on a few special occasions - the famous Dies Irae in the old style funeral Mass is an example of that.
The Ordinary of a diocese is its head, who may be a bishop, an archbishop or a Cardinal; in the case of the new Ordinariate for Anglican/Episcopalian converts the Ordinary may be a former Anglican/Episcopalian bishop who is now a Catholic priest.
An Order may refer to a particular religious group of priests, brothers, nuns or sisters, like the Franciscans or Jesuits who mostly answer to the head of their organization, as well as the local diocesan Ordinary.
So - be aware that ordinary and order often have special, technical meanings in the Catholic Church. None of this has anything to do with a New World Order.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
November 29, 2011, at 10:30 am
Re: the Chicago Tribune story noted in #14: A story that avoids all reference to any controversy surrounding this change is as dishonest as one that overdoes it, as I agree the NYT story does.
BTW, tmatt, just for fun, I did my own word count on the NYT story. I counted nearly twice as much positive content as you did — and slightly more negative content. YMMV, I suppose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29, 2011, at 11:28 am
I’ve written about this, and tried to offer some balance. But the truth is that those who are critical of the new translation have a lot more to say than those who welcome it, because their comments apply to a long list of very specific concerns with prayers and responses. The defenders tend to have generic arguments having to do with the transcendence of the language and the the opportunity that difficult words offer for more in depth-teaching. You can only repeat that so many times.
Those who are critical of the new translation aren’t defending the 1973 translation. There was widespread agreement that that translation was done in haste and was deficient. In the 1990s the U.S. bishops spent years studying and approving a new translation that was considered more poetic, and that also used some “horizontal” inclusive language in places where the text clearly referenced both men and women. This led to protests that it was a feminist infiltration, intended to undermine the Catholic faith. The Vatican never approved it.
That in turn led to the Vatican issuing “Liturgiam Authenticam” in 2001. It forbade the use of inclusive language, and of dynamic equivalence translation (which Protestants associate with the NIV Bible translation.) It required very strict adherence to the Latin. It also effectively replaced a document that had emerged from Vatican II, which had given the authority for translation to the bishops, and which had said they should produce a Mass that made sense in their language, and which had a certain “simplicity” to its style.
Liturgian Authenticam’s principles were applied to a revision of the Paul VI Mass that Pope John Paul II promulgated in 2002.
As someone who writes for a living I have to agree that the resulting translation isn’t good English. Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, who led the WIDESPREAD opposition by the U.S. bishops to this translation, is anything but a “progressive” in his theology. He’s a very conservative, deeply Marian bishop who believes that it’s important for people to understand what they are praying, and for the language of the Mass to be biblically sound. I think he’s got a valid point that people can’t follow a priest’s prayer when it’s 90 words long, and that Jesus didn’t use a “precious chalice” at the Last Supper. This isn’t a simple liberal, conservative split. I dare any journalist to read the disputed prayers in the new translation (particularly those of the priest) and say that the composition would pass muster in any English class.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
7
November 29, 2011, at 11:56 am
It would be interesting to see a copy of the rejected translation since it appears there are two contradictory claims about it in this comment thread. It’s hard to see how “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to God’s people on earth” is not vertical inclusive language since it refuses to use the traditional masculine pronoun to refer to God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29, 2011, at 12:21 pm
On the contrary, there are many sources who could give you chapter and verse, as it were, on the demerits of the previous translation, an essential part of this story. Indeed one that comes to mind wrote a newspaper column entitled “What Does the Prayer Really Say?” detailing every jot and tittle of omission and watering down in the previous translation. Also, I entirely disagree with your perspective that journalists (and I am one) are the correct parties to judge the quality of the English of the Mass. Precisely at issue is whether the standard of language in the Mass ought to be that of the street — or the daily newspaper. I say it shouldn’t be. Your example of the “precious chalice” also is noteworthy. Whether or not one buys into the “I get my theology from Indiana Jones movies” view of insisting Jesus used the shabbiest available beverage container at the Last Supper, the fact remains that the chalice is precious not because of what it was made of but because of What was in it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
November 29, 2011, at 12:29 pm
Correct. That is vertical inclusive language. Not only that, it’s also a pristine example of the kinds of liturgical texts produced by the people who now are fretting that more dependent clauses make the texts of the new translation unproclaimable. Anyone who has endured a bowdlerized, politically correct hymn or liturgical text that studiously avoids the pronoun “He” by using the word “God” (and even “Godself”) again and again can now have a hearty laugh at the irony.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
November 29, 2011, at 12:47 pm
One more thing, Ann. You say opposition to the new translation among the bishops was “WIDESPREAD” (your emphasis). In looking at your own story from the last major debate about this you described his effort as “crushed” and detailed votes against his last-ditch effort as being 166-46 and 194-20. The last batch of prayers approved you describe as being approved “overwhelmingly” by “at least 88 percent of the Latin diocesan bishops.” Just for context.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 29, 2011, at 12:53 pm
Passing By said
I think the fellow on the other blog was meaning the committee who put together the Mass of Paul VI.
I just discovered that since 1969, in English-speaking countries the term for Ordinary of the Mass (explained in my previous comment) is now the Order of the Mass.
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/order-of-mass.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29, 2011, at 1:02 pm
By that standard Shakespeare and T.S. Elliott would flunk.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
November 29, 2011, at 1:03 pm
““I am so tired of being told exactly what I have to say, exactly what I have to pray,” ” Could they not have brought in the Times’ science writer to do the math and explain that George still has 167 other hours during the week in which the Mean Ol’ Vatican lets him do his own devotional thing?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
November 29, 2011, at 1:16 pm
Thanks for the clarification of “ordo”. “Order of the Mass” makes so much sense to me as a translation. But I also see that “ordinary” also has specific meaning. But I do think that the confusion about meaning could have been avoided with careful explanation of how the Latin word was being used.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
November 29, 2011, at 1:39 pm
Happily, what would pass muster in ‘any English class’ is not the standard that the Church uses to decide what words we should use to express the particulars of our faith.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
November 29, 2011, at 1:46 pm
Terry, Terry. You protest too much, and, assuming you know the answer, you make the same mistake you criticize others for making.
If you had taken the time to check even Wikipedia, as the NYTimes and other media journalists should have, too, you would have learned
The point of the new English translation was to have the English text conform to the Latin text of 2002.
But saying that leaves out all the political Sturm und Drang that you and other journalists see as important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
November 29, 2011, at 1:47 pm
Jerry said:
Who do you mean should have explained it?
Dispatches from Rome assume the reader knows the terms being used. I agree that if the Roman Curia is wanting the regular folks to now understand what they are talking about the spokesman should define terms. But it has only been recently that regular folks are paying attention or have access to official statements from the Holy See via internet and other modern communication media.
Most folks in the US rely on the media to explain arcane language in Washington legislation. I imagine the Roman Curia assumes the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 29, 2011, at 2:29 pm
Vexed as I am by mention of the “soaring dark stone ceilings” of Westminster Cathedral (it’s half right: the brick vault does soar and it was surely dark at evening Mass), I am more interested in the story that isn’t - the expected “revolt” by the people in the pew which has not happened.
When it came down to actual bird-in-the-hand complaints, vox pop was curiously muted - parishioner Brown was “not fond of the linguistic choices, how it rolls off the tongue” (a hint she might get used to it?), and parishioner George was fed up being told “exactly what I have to pray”(which makes one wonder what Church he thought he was in).
“many Catholics reacted mildly” That seems to be the actual story.
My own impression is that the most vociferous objections are not to the translation as such, but to the authoritative Latin text of the Novus Ordo. That accounts for three of the four examples in the NYT piece which are not “translation” issues at all but express a perfectly understandable resistance to change.
***
Fr. Ruff, by the way, did not (contrary to what the article states) work with ICEL on the translation, or even on parts of it. He was chairman of the ICEL music committee charged with devising the chant notation for some of the text, and was fully supportive of the process right up to the last moment in early 2011.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
November 29, 2011, at 2:36 pm
Perhaps Bishop Troutman is right that a “precious chalice” was not used at the Last Supper, although I don’t know how we would possibly know one way or another. But it’s not just a question of what happened at the Last Supper, it’s a question of what range of English expressions are plausible translations (there’s surely more than one) of “praeclarus calix.” Perhaps Bishop Troutman’s real contention is that the calix (which can certainly be fairly translated “cup” as well as “chalice”) used by Christ wasn’t actually praeclarus (which can be fairly translated various ways other than “precious” but shouldn’t be ignored as if it weren’t there at all, and no doubt Bishop Troutman could complain that the shabby-looking cup he may imagine Jesus used was likewise not “excellent” or “famous” or “beautiful” or “striking,” to pick the first four alternative English words for praeclarus I just googled up). But then his quarrel should be with the people responsible for the current Latin editio typica.
A perhaps missed opportunity in the coverage was exploration of the question of why all factions assume there inevitably will and must be a single English version of the Mass text in use, such that there are predictably high-stakes battles about every jot and tittle contained in the winning version. A journalist could ask partisans of both sides in this translation war to comment on the fact the Episcopalians, Lutherans, English-speaking Orthodox, etc. now have multiple variant texts of their liturgies floating around, with different congregations in the U.S. using different variants and people away from their home parish sometimes needing to get their bearings as they go along, yet somehow manage to survive the resulting diversity/cacophony. Perhaps the answer is that the RC church just cares more than others do about uniformity qua uniformity for historical/theological reasons of its own, but that’s something that good questioning could explore rather than just assume.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
November 29, 2011, at 5:29 pm
Kyle,
The debate isn’t between the 1973 translation and the new one, but over whether this new one is the best translation that could have been done.
The reason that I put the challenge to journalists is that this is a Web site run by journalists that critiques journalism.
Bishop Trautman’s point is that while the Latin word may be “calix” the Greek word in the gospels is a word for a simple drinking cup. He would argue that the text of the Bible is the sacred text, not the Latin text.
I used to have copies of the proposed 1990s translation, but have long since pitched them. Personally it bothers me when people refuse to use male pronouns for God, so I think I would have noticed if the translation was riddled with such instances. It wasn’t. And, under the translation process that the bishops were then using, they could have asked the translation committee to go back and rework that passage. One of the disputes I remember most involved Psalm 1, which ICEL had proposed translating “Happy are those who do not walk in the counsel of the wicked… ” The Vatican insisted that they render it “Happy is the man who … ” because some traditions hold this to be prophetic of Jesus.
Yes, the new translation was overwhelmingly approved at the end, but only because the vast majority of bishops were tired of fighting a battle that they finally realized they couldn’t win. They had spent the previous decade begging Rome to rework some of the most problematic passages. They TWICE elected Bishop Trautman to lead them in this effort, once doing so with a nomination from the floor when he wasn’t even on the ballot. In the end they believed it was the right thing to do what Rome wanted, even though they had fought it as hard as they could for years.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
November 29, 2011, at 5:34 pm
Re: “precious chalice”.
This is all a storm in a glass of water.
I take it, the expression appears in the translation of the 1st Eucharist prayer (one of four) which uses very elaborate language in the latin.
If U.S. usage is pretty much the same as that in other countries and languages, the Eucharist prayer of choice is the 2nd one, which does not have that kind of language.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
November 29, 2011, at 5:40 pm
That’s missing the point alltogether, as the Latin Rite missal is unsurprisingly in Latin. It is the missal that counts (at this stage), not any odd word in the gospels.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
November 29, 2011, at 6:51 pm
Ann, with due respect, says who? That is not what the debate is — or rather that’s the way one side frames the debate. And frankly it’s not a very interesting frame. It’s hard to have a debate when both sides agree. From the most ardent supporter of the new translation to the most ardent despiser of it, the answer to that question is universally the same: “No, it isn’t the best translation that could have be done. Next question?”
The story is one translation replacing another. There is backstory, about previous translation attempts, about debates among bishops and liturgists and laity and traditionalists and progressives and so on. But that’s only historical context at this point; the story is one translation replacing another, and reaction to that step. Reaction is basically falling into three camps: 1) “Boo! This translation is not nearly as good as it should have been because of X, Y, Z!” 2) “Yeah! This translation is a vast improvement because of X, Y, Z!” 3) “Meh.”
The way you have framed the story essentially takes the position of the first group of people, or at least only treats that one group of people as contributing to what you think is the debate.
I do appreciate your expanding on Bishop Trautman’s point. That makes more sense, although I still disagree with it. And I didn’t want to add still another comment above to add another point but I will take the opportunity to do so here: I agree with you that this should not be about demonizing Bishop Trautman, and that some of the characterizations of him from those who disagree with his views on the translation seem not to be entirely accurate. (I’m sure you know more about it, but what you said about him matches what I have read elsewhere.) So thanks for defending his good name. That’s always worthwhile.
I should also note for the record that I was assuming the rendering of the passage from the Gloria given by another commenter was indeed from a previous translation attempt. If not, obviously the criticism doesn’t apply.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 29, 2011, at 8:50 pm
I strongly prefer traditional liturgy with “intense” language (The confession of sin should include something like “Justly provoking Thy wrath and indignation against us”). However, there can’t be any rational discussion of this if people view those who disagree with them with suspicion. It’s unfair to assume that Trautman is some sort of heretic even if his views are distasteful.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
November 29, 2011, at 9:05 pm
In the 1990s, I believe that ICEL (or some people on ICEL) recommended that the liturgy be revised to reflect feminist hermeneutics, so the Trinity, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit would be referred to in gender-neutral terms. Naturally, Rome felt like it needed finer control over the translation process.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 30, 2011, at 12:00 am
The Catholic church hierarchy should explain anything that needs explaining to Catholics, of course. And quite naturally the media should explain it clearly and accurately to the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
November 30, 2011, at 3:26 am
I remember very well that when the N O. English Mass was introduced,one day it was th Tridentine Mass,and the next the Norvo Ordo.There was no talk of confusion,as folks in the pews just got on with it,the majority unwillingly,but the word was form the clergy “obedience to the Pope” and this was obeyed,so why all this press about “difficulties”
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
November 30, 2011, at 3:39 am
Did the Second Vactican Council pronouce that Mortal Sin is forgiven during the Penetential Right of the Mass?,as it seems that most Catholics erroroneously think so ! The sacrament of Penance [going to confession] is today almost null and void by most ! are but this is the “Spirit” of Vactican Two in action.The Faith has been twisted and altered to accomodate the wishes of the laity,and not of God.The U.S,A. for the most part indulging in Clown,Puppet,Folk Masses.Modernism,Seeking excuses on sin, Abortion allowed in certain cases,Lack of Respect for the Blessed Sacrament of the Alter,The Mass seen as a family meal,rather than a sacrifice…the list goes on..and the Holy Father seek to address these abominations to our precioys holy faith
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
7
November 30, 2011, at 3:43 pm
I think that the comment in the NYT article from George is enormously revealing but the reporter would have needed to be extremely well-tuned-in to Catholic liturgical issues to really drill into it.
Assuming that George is a cradle Catholic, at 73 years old he actually has a substantial memory of a Church in which the “Tridentine” mass was the only liturgy around — roughly the first 25 years of his life.
We are often told that the standard parish experience of the older mass in the decades leading up to the Council was the non-dialogue “low mass” — i.e., one in which only the priest and server(s) did any speaking and most of what they said was inaudible from more than a few feet away.
… in which case George’s formative experience of the mass would have been one in which he had a fair amount of interior freedom to participate in the mass according to his own preference (e.g., following along in a hand missal, meditating on the life of a saint depicted in the church, even [gasp] praying the rosary). The same is true for anyone in their mid-60s or older.
Without trying to open a tangential debate on the nature of liturgical participation, I just mention these things to point out that it’s somewhat understandable for George and people of his generation to be frustrated with it all at this point.
For these people, the Mass has changed dramatically at least 4 times in the last fifty years, and every change has made fairly strenuous psychological demands on the faithful (and I imagine those demands are more strenuous the older you are) — because in the postconciliar era the faithful are very much expected to participate in one particular way.
Perhaps our NYT reporter included George’s quote as representative of the left-progressive viewpoint on this latest change, but I wonder if his frustration is really a lot more basic than that. Could make for an interesting story. Would require a very well-informed reporter, though.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
December 1, 2011, at 11:52 am
I don’t believe that ICEL ever proposed gender-neutral terms for God. What I do know, because I was in the room at the time, is that the U.S. bishops in 1990 voted to use horizontally inclusive language in passages that clearly referenced both male and female human beings. But at the same time, they explicitly and emphatically excluded any rendering of male terms for God or any person of the Trinity into gender neutral terms. I sat through every one of these debates and never heard any bishop advocate gender-neutral terms for any person of the Trinity, nor do I ever recall hearing any bishop complain that such a translation had been put forth by ICEL. And believe me, they would have complained. Loudly.
Here, courtesy of Adoremus, is a full transcript of the November 1993 debates that the bishops had about the first parts they received of the proposed new translation. Although much is said about dynamic equivalence versus literal translation, nothing involves gender-inclusive terms for God. Of 440 proposed modifications that the bishops put forth, none involved inclusive language. Bishop Bruskewitz, who had the strongest and most specific objections to the proposed psalter, cited only complaints about language for human beings (“princes” becoming “leaders” for instance). None of his objections concerned language for the Trinity.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
December 1, 2011, at 12:55 pm
Ann, what I recall from bits and pieces of the 1990s translation I’ve seen — I’m thinking of the priest’s propers here like the Collect — is that it did not seem to address the tendency of the ’70s translation to strip away the standard tone of supplication that is found in almost every traditional Roman proper prayer. Words like “quaesumus” etc. still just not rendered. Did I perhaps see a poor sample or does that sound right to you as well?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 6, 2011, at 4:15 pm
Hi Ben,
It’s been more than a decade since I laid eyes on any of the quashed translation, so I can’t speak to that specific issue. And, since I don ‘t read Latin, I can’t render a verdict on the accuracy of the translation. The major theme of the bishops who objected to the quashed 1990s translation was that the language wasn’t literal enough or transcendent enough. The major objections of many bishops to the current translation is that SOME passages (not all) are too convoluted for listeners to follow, don’t reflect the biblical text or use obscure words. Beyond that there was an overarching concern that the process took the major work of translation away from bishops who are native speakers of the language and placed it in the hands of Vatican officials who might not know the language at all. The bishops tried hard to work out compromises on the passages they were most concerned about, but their concerns were rejected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 7, 2011, at 8:23 am
I memory serves, the current translation is based on work of Vox Clara, an international Anglophone group headed by the Cardinal Archbishop Pell of Sydney.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0