From St. Mary Catholic Church, Chillicothe, Ohio:
Fr. Lawrence L. Hummer, PastorHowever, the guidelines for translation have been radically changed because of the institution of a group known as Vox Clara (literally, "clear voice"), which was established by Rome to oversee all English translations of the Mass worldwide in 2002. Before this the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) had been responsible, with considerable input from local or regional bishops of a given language group. In the case of the U.S. the earlier translation adopted what was called "dynamic equivalency" in translating these Latin texts. The intention was that they not be slavishly literal, but would capture the meaning of the Latin in suitable English expression. Anyone who has ever translated anything from one language to another knows how difficult it can be to find suitable English for foreign expressions. Imagine then the difficulty of translating Latin, which very few speak people speak within the Church (let alone without) into modern English.
"Liturgiam Authenticam" insists upon fidelity to the Latin text: "Every word and concept presented in an original text must be fully accounted for within a translation, even when the language into which the text is being translated must be pushed beyond its normal limits of expression to do so."
"Liturgiam Authenticam" says further: "It is unnecessary and inappropriate to alter biblical or liturgical texts simply because some might take offense at their wording, as for example in some biblical passages that have sometimes incorrectly been criticized as depicting the Jewish people in an unfavorable light. Such misunderstandings are rightly dispelled by proper catechesis rather than by unwarranted interventions upon the text itself. If a given liturgical text is seen to require change in order to avoid misunderstandings of this nature, such a change lies within the competence of the supreme authority of the church and not of the translator." (p. 60) That would be true if everyone praying these texts were in possession of theological degrees. But the plain and simple fact is that most people are not that well versed in what we believe and what we don't. The thrust of this instruction is to say the hell with anybody who wants to prevent needless sexism or chauvinism in the texts we use at Mass. God is a male and that's the end of that! Rome has spoken; case is closed ("Roma locutus est; causa finita est").
The thrust of that statement sets back ecumenism at least 50 years, so no non-Catholic language may be used. Never mind that they may be more accurate. The New Testament itself uses the word "poterion" ("drinking cup") at the Last Supper, NOT chalice. But the revised translation insist on using the "Catholic" word "chalice," which is really a clouding of the Scriptures, not a clarification.
The sentence in question reads: "It (my blood) will be shed you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." In all of the other European languages including Italian (tutti) and German (fur Alle) the expression is "for all." We have been praying "for all" since the papacy of Paul VI. With the approved text as approved by the bishops, we are going to have to pray that Jesus shed his blood for "many" implying NOT FOR ALL, in conflict with most modern European languages, which translate the expression as "for all." It seems clear that the only ox being gored is the English speaking one. For all its outward appearances it is a double standard at best, and at worst, a slap in the face at English language scholarship.
It is precisely this issue of "passionate discussion" of the approved translations which troubles me so much because I believe the bishops have ignored important voices of dissent within their ranks, especially the recommendations of the Catholic Biblical Association, an institution the bishops use to produce the New AMERICAN Bible translation of the Scriptures, the basis for all our Lectionary readings up to now. Elsewhere in the English speaking world they use the New ENGLISH Bible translation. If therefore the Church wants to insist on the uniformity one English translation for all of the English speaking world, the bishops ought to explain why they allow different Lectionary readings, which, of course, are an intimate and central part of every Mass, called the Liturgy of the Word!
I must say the proposed translation revisions (many of them) are very troubling to me. Many of the issues are clear attempts to arrest the advanced efforts in this country to eliminate needless sexist language from the liturgy. The inconsistencies are sometimes glaring. In the Gloria, we will pray: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people ("hominibus" in Latin) of good will. But in the Creed, we will be required to pray "For us MEN ("hominibus") and for our salvation...and became MAN ("homo"). Where is the consistency? "For US" and "became HUMAN" would be perfectly acceptable and would eliminate a needless sexist barrier. And the precedent for it is set by translating "hominibus" as PEOPLE in the Gloria. Such inconsistency on the part of the bishops at such a critical moment in the life of the praying community is painful to watch.
In the end, I'm not sure what's in the poke. But if I'm intending to buy a pig, I usually try to make sure it's a pig and not a skunk. The poke needs to be opened before we buy. The laity need to be asked their opinion. The clergy need to be consulted too. And maybe we'll eventually find a pig in the poke. Right now we're all at the mercy of the bishops. We can only hope they remember what that word (mercy) means and grant us a reprieve until they get it right.
I actually asked some of my friends and respected colleagues what they thought and whether it should be shared with the parish. Below are some of their responses.
David Timbs teaches in Catholic schools in Australia and also studied with Fr. Hummer in Jerusalem. He is also a former Redemptorist priest. He had the following comments:
I share your alarm that the ICEL has been hijacked by "Vox Clara". One of the principals of this group from the beginning is George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney. George has a DPhil in Church History but is theologically illiterate. He has little sense of consultation within the Catholic community. His former Auxiliary, Mark Coleridge, is now Archbishop of Canberra, the Federal Capital (like Washington DC). Mark holds a DSS from the PBC and for a number of years was the principal English speech writer in Rome for JPII. He is clever and well connected and I am convinced he is looking forward to seeing George off to the Curia soon and his accession to Sydney and the Red Hat that comes with it. These are two fellows to keep an eye on.
The Hierarchy to a large extent has lost consciousness of the magisterial importance of the "Sensus Fidelium". Because they have and are failing to listen to the internal challenges of faithful, concerned and educated Catholics I fear the drop off rate will escalate. We're down to attendance fractions in this country (Australia)."
####
####
Tags: good person bad person drawing martin e. marty sighting yule+meaning konstantinos nocturnal altars by richard dawkins atheist ten commandment waxing half moon moves
