|
The ‘why’
behind Mass prayer changes
PRAISED BE JESUS
CHRIST!
(Now and Forever)
In June, I was able to join my classmates from Mount St. Mary’s Seminary
of the West (Cincinnati) for what we termed our annual class reunion.
Thirty of us were ordained back in 1959. Six are deceased. Thirteen were
able to make it to the reunion which was held in Toledo. Most of those
not present face medical challenges in one form or another. All but two
of the men at the reunion have been granted retirement status, although
they are kept busy providing supply for brother priests. The most common
phrase was: “I don’t remember.” We are aging.
Knowing that I had attended the meeting of the nation’s bishops in Los
Angeles, my classmates of 47 years ago questioned why the
translation of the Mass prayers is being changed. Consensus was that
there are more important things for bishops to address.
I suspect people who have tracked the proposed Mass changes question the
need for different wording as well. For example, instead of responding
to the greeting “The Lord be with you” with the familiar “And also with
you,” the new reading will be: “And with your spirit.”
In the first form of the Penitential Rite, the words “I have sinned
through my own fault” will be rendered “I have sinned greatly in my
thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed
to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous
fault.”
The “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might” will be changed to:
“Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hosts.”
At the introduction to the Prefaces, “It is right and just” will
replace the current “It is right to give him thanks and praise.”
It does seem a bit unnecessary.
However, as to whether there are more important issues for bishops, the
liturgy is a matter of extreme importance. That does not negate other
problems. It does not mean those problems can be ignored. At the same
time, it does not dispense from the responsibility given to bishops of
approving translations of the liturgical books of our Church. It is a
burden that must be taken seriously. There is a crucial relationship
between worship and our core beliefs as Catholics. The words we pray
express what we believe. Once that is accepted, one can no longer push
the translation of liturgical books off the table as unimportant.
In Los Angeles, the Latin bishops of the United States, with relatively
minor adjustments, ap-proved the ICEL (International Committee for
English in the Liturgy) translation of the Order of the Mass from
the third edition of the Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI. The Order of
Mass is but one part of the Roman Missal. It contains the exchanges
between priests and people and prayers, such as the Penitential Rite,
Gloria, Creed, Eucharistic Prayers, that are used regularly for daily
and Sunday Masses.
The proposed new translation may not be used until approved by the Holy
See. The chair of the bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, Bishop Donald
W. Trautman, opined that it could take years before that happens. In the
meantime, preparations must be made for a thorough and wide-ranging
catechesis of priests, liturgical ministers and laity.
Why change Mass prayers we all know by heart? The translation currently
used here in the United States is based on the first edition of the
Missal of Paul VI that dates back to the 1970s. Liturgists generally
concede that as a translation of the Latin Missal it is flawed, the
result of a rush to make the liturgy available to the people in their
own languages as soon as possible after the Second Vatican Council. It
was, in fact, recognized from the beginning that a revision of the
English language texts would be necessary. The goal is not to produce a
word-for-word translation, but a faithful translation. It’s called
formal equivalence.
The texts of Mass have been culled from sacred Scripture and the fathers
of the Church (Church teachers and writers of the early centuries). The
translation proposed utilizes scriptural language more faithfully than
the current one. An example of this is found in the “Lord, I am not
worthy that you should enter under my roof” which will replace the
current translation which reads: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you,
but only say the word and I shall be healed.” The Roman Missal draws
from the biblical account of the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his
servant (Mt. 8:8; Lk. 7:6). The current translation obscures that
reference.
“And with your spirit” is another example. This is rooted in St.
Paul who, when addressing a person — Timothy, for example — refers to
“your spirit” rather than simply to “you.”
Paul is addressing someone close to God who has God’s spirit. So, when
we reply “And with your spirit” we are indicating that we are
part of a spiritual community. It is God’s spirit that has gathered us
together.
This may seem superficial. I propose to you that if we are to be
scriptural people, it is not.
Initially I was opposed to changing the people’s parts of the Mass. It
will be a challenge. Challenges become points of tension, sometimes even
dissension. The Communion Rite directed by the General Instruction of
the Roman Missal issued back in 2002 is an example. Even to this day
there are those who publicly dissent from what is directed. However, as
I was thrust into a study of the issues involved, I found myself
gravitating to a conviction which has long haunted me, that is, the Mass
has become pedestrian. That is reflected in a variety of ways, not the
least of which is the way people dress for worship.
The worship of God is not intended to be entertainment. People should
not approach it as they do a picnic or a trip to McDonald’s. It is a
solemn moment, a special moment, a moment set apart above all other
activity. And, it should have language that sets it apart. The prayers
of the Mass are inspired and formed by sacred Scripture.
Sixty-two amendments to the texts proposed by the International
Committee for English in the Liturgy were accepted in Los Angeles.
Basically, these were the recommendations of the U.S. bishops’ Committee
on the Liturgy. Particular attention, it was said, was paid to the
precision, proclaimability and memorability of the translations. Given
the less than desirable translation of the latest translation of the
Lectionary in 2002, I have no argument with that goal. Moreover, many of
the amendments are minor. For example, where ICEL used the word “chant,”
the American adaptations will add “song,” such as entrance chant (or
song), bracketed; Offertory chant (or song). And when the deacon asks
the blessing of the celebrant before proclaiming the Gospel, instead of
saying “Pray, Father, your blessing,” he will now say “May I have
your blessing, Father.”
It is a complex issue. The point is the need for a faithful translation,
one that enhances appreciation of Eucharistic theology. The new
translation will be less pedestrian and more scriptural.
I voted to approve the ICEL translation as amended. |
