The Recovering Choir Director

Peace, AAE.

Regarding “The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace,” it could also mean that the Mass without a congregation is kaput … depending on the context.

Father Pete’s story is also amusing, but not in an expected way. From what I recall of my Latin studies, the sister who taught us insisted we learn all of the English “definitions/approximations” of the Latin word. So when we learned “gens,” for example, we had to know it meant, “Race, tribe, nation, people,” in the way that those four words widened, yet focused the lens of translation. Just putting one English word on the test blank would potentially merit a red check as an incomplete, therefore wrong answer.

In applying Latin to “race riots,” one would have to discern if a race riot was more of separate nationalities in the sense that Latin users would understand “gens,” or if it were a class struggle, or something else indeed.

Getting back to the “Mass without a congregation,” does that mean without a curial department or sans captive audience? Only the context tells us for sure.

Getting back to “visibilium et invisibilium,” your first year Latin student might “know” it should be translated “visible …” but perhaps a Latin scholar and translation expert would realize the English “visible” derives from Latin through the French. If one language removed does not always net the expected result, what about two? And my Latin dictionaries are rather nebulous as to which words are preferred in every instance of Fr. S’s pet phrase here. And finally, eleven bishops’ conferences and the CDWDS all signed off on the translation years ago. Maybe they knew something Fr. Pete didn’t. Or maybe his Latin teacher was a little more loose with discipline … must have been after Vatican II, eh?

Peace, AAE

I would caution against a blanket condemnation of all ICEL work. First, the people who did the translation work for the 1970 Missal were very rushed and sloppy in their work. Even progressives admit as such. On the other hand, I think the pinnacle of good ICEL work was with the Order of Christian Funerals, promulgated in 1989. Most of the people who translated in the late 1960’s were long gone from the scene twenty years later. I suppose scattershot criticism of ICEL makes as much sense as blaming Clinton for errors of the Ford administration, or Reagan for Johnson. Sure it’s the same office (the presidency) but under different leadership.

My beef with the current CDWDS fallback to transliteration is that it fails to recognize the text of the liturgy is more than language passed on from a prized original. It is the living expression of faith for the vernacular receptor language. The dictionary, for example, would give the various definitions for “gay,” but in today’s culture one definition sticks with first hearing. And if we were to note that “gay” was the best target word for a theoretical translation, most English-hearers would have an entirely different impression upon first hearing.

One recalcitrant curia story. A professor told us that a third world language group was having difficulty translating the Sanctus. The problem was that three-fold repetition in the vernacular had a negative connotation of “you must be joking, ha ha” or something like it. Their ICEL-equivalent argued in vain to alter the three-fold Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, (to two or four, or to add a superlative before one of the “holy’s”, but the CDWDS would have none of it. Belloc once said that if he wanted to speak with a foreigner, rather than have his words translated spot for spot, he’d prefer the person get the sense of what he was trying to communicate. Sadly, I think the curia lacks this sense.

Peace, Sam.

You forget to mention that eleven separate bishops’ conferences approved the ordination rites before they went to the curia. And since I’ve not seen these rites, I prefer to withhold judgment on their utility or faithfulness. Funny thing about the OCF: ICEL added many original prayers for particular circumstances (death of a child, cremation, and good pastoral suggestions for all of the funeral rites, not just the Mass. Clearly some things were lacking in the Latin original: even the CDWDS admitted as such when they signed off on it.

There may be some hay in some of the arguments about Credo specifics you mentioned. I don’t see that visibilium necessarily equates with visible. I would suspect “seen” was used because it is within a basic 600-word English vocabulary, and might still be a better translation today because of possible negative cultural overtones of “invisible.” This would be an example of where the CDWDS is perhaps over their head in attempting to legislate translation principles to a micromanaging degree.

ICEL’s work on Roman Missal edition 2 has been completed for over ten years. Aside from politics, there’s no reason a better English translation of the Mass shouldn’t have been in use for a good many years as of today. For me the bottom line is that we can indeed do better. Rome is not a step in that direction, however. And curial politics and obfuscation continue to damage the liturgical life of the Church, and not just among English-speakers.

Todd is so typical of a progressive, everythibg is a shade of grey, and nothing has a set meaning. Here is the truth Todd, many Latin scholars, people who have PHDs in the language, have said many times how horrible the ICEL translations are. The old pre-Vatican II missals and the 65 missal have a far more faithful translation in English.

As for the Bishop conferences, a few things, one, many of the Bishops did not really review what they signed off on. Two, as been too painfully clear, too many bishops had their own agenda, especially the ones picked by Pope Paul VI.

I am framiliar with the rpinet forums, and I know Lee on those forums, while I do not agree with his methods of debate and his lack of charity, had a degree in Latin, and has pointed out the failings of the ICEL translations many times.

Peace, Sam.

Thanks for your post. I also agree that the 1970 Missal has some awful errors and needless problems. But I consider the high quality of the work ICEL did on the funeral rites, the catechumenate rites and the Psalter to overshadow the first generation of translators. And since none of us ever used Roman Missal II, I have nothing really to say on the translation of the Mass.

I think if we’re aiming for artistry in the liturgy, there needs to be room to adjust the Latin original to accommodate poetry in the target language. Otherwise, we have lost any sense of the Latin original as a living language with idioms, plays on words, and other things that brings extra life to the printed word on the paper.

The ICEL agenda, if it can be called that, is to de-clericalize the liturgy, something strongly suggested in paragraphs 14 and 28 of SC, among other documents. Also, I think vernacular worship needs texts composed in the original language, not Latin. In the old days, Rome borrowed heavily from the genius of other cultures, enriching its spirituality for the benefit of the universal Church. The current CDWDS is merely reacting to perceived abuses. The pendulum will eventually swing back, and I can wait for that too.