I feel like each Sunday this year presents a funeral of sorts ... a passing of Mass texts that will never be heard again. Rather than mourning this passing, my heart finds solace in the assurance that these texts will rise again in a more perfect form with the “advent” of the new translation. While we have a full year to pay our respects to the passing Ordinary, there is a rejoicing of sorts that the current Propers have reached the end of the proverbial line: their days are numbered, their time has passed, and blessed be God for that.
Today, the First Sunday of Advent, provides the first example of such a passing. The Collect, in Latin, reads:
Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus,hanc tuis fidelibus voluntatem,ut, Christo tuo venienti iustis operibus occurrentes,eius dextrae sociati, regnum mereantur possidere caeleste.
The current, Lame Duck Translation (to borrow the phrase from Fr. Zuhlsdorf) ... what we all heard at Mass this morning ... reads:
All-powerful God,increase our strength of will for doing goodthat Christ may find an eager welcome at his comingand call us to his side in the kingdom of heaven.
We think that the new translation will read,
Grant your faithful, we pray, almighty God,the resolve to run forth to meet your Christwith righteous deeds at his coming,so that, gathered at his right hand,they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.
(I say, “we think”, because, while recently “leaked”, the official version has yet to be released, and there are some that think the Vatican is still tweaking it.)
The Mickey Mouse rendering of 1973 lacks a certain dignity when compared with the more new and improved translation. The later is more faithful to the Latin, but more importantly, it has an aesthetic quality that leaves the Lame Duck version grounded, or perhaps six feet less than grounded.
Let us not prematurely break into the Dies Irae for the passing of the old, decrepit, 1973 translation, for while it seems to have met its certain death with the passing of today’s Sunday liturgy, it pains me to say that its ghost will live on.
Those who regularly pray the Liturgy of the Hours know that the Collect from Mass is often used in the Proper of Seasons and Proper of Saints for the Divine Office. This is done deliberately, of course, and provides the faithful a perfect opportunity to unite the sanctification of the day found by saying the Liturgy of the Hours with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the source an summit of the liturgy. If one is faithful to all the hours, the Collect for the First Sunday of Advent is recited four times today (Office of Readings, Lauds, Daytime Prayer, and Vespers), as well as once yesterday (Vespers for the Vigil).
Once the new translation takes effect, there will be a disconnect between the Collect from the Sunday Mass and the Collect found in the breviary. I sincerely hope that the Bishops allow the new translations to be used during public recitations of the Liturgy of the Hours in order to remedy this disconnect. Is it possible that new breviaries are printed? Possible, yes. Plausible, no. In the absence of a new printing, a supplement of Collects could be printed to be used alongside the Psalms and Readings from the breviary until such a time that ICEL decides to retranslate the Liturgy of the Hours. (Don’t hold your breath, by the way.)
All things considered, however, this should not distract us from the burial of these texts that we experience this year. At least in terms of the Holy Mass, the 1973 “Opening Prayer” for the First Sunday of Advent has met its maker, kicked the bucket, bit the dust, bought the farm, breathed its last, and indeed ... croaked. This is not a cause for mourning, but rather a looking forward to the day of resurrection; for the Latin soul of this prayer is indeed filled with grace, so when it rises again as the 2010 Collect, it will be gloriously triumphant. We could, in fact, say that that new translation renders the prayer “worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.”
One Sunday down, 51 more to go.
I'm happy for the new translations and I am happy that the old translation served the faithful well, even if not perfectly. After all, none of us are perfect yet we serve one another by God's grace.
ReplyDeleteMy pastor, an otherwise wonderful man, is worried about the new translation, and has been cautioning us that we will probably need workshops and patience to cope with the change.
ReplyDeleteSurely not?
I'd say we already have an excellent translation, despite the many comma errors, and that's the Missal of 1962.
-- Mack
Nick, of course I agree. The former translations served the Church for a considerable time despite their many imperfections. This, however, speaks more to the glory of God and how He still manages to give the gift of Christ's Sacrifice even in the midst of fallen humanity than it does to the merits of the old translation.
ReplyDeleteMack, to respond for your first comment, I do not think it requires a series of intensive workshops. It does, however, require that people be made aware that the change is coming before it is implemented. The last thing we want is a repeat of what happened in many parishes when the Novus Ordo was first introduced ... no preparation, no warning ... people simply showed up to Mass one Sunday and it was announced that "this is how we are doing it from now on".
Regarding your second comment, I am a bit confused. The conversation is about the various translations of the Novus Ordo, not of the extraordinary form. Of course, the extraordinary form is a magnificent gift given to the Church, but it is not the topic at hand. Perhaps a better closing comment would be more along the lines of, "I'd say we already have an excellent translation, the Latin (Novus Ordo)." Of course, the Latin is not a translation, which is probably your point, and to that I can only agree heartily. I always like to remind people that if they are not satisfied with the new translations come Advent 2011, they are always free to say the Mass in Latin. Then we can be sure that nothing is lost in translation.
Thank you both for your comments.
All I can say is I am so glad that you commentators are all on my side.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait, and like Jake said, we always have the Latin Mass. Not easy to find one, requires quite a bit of travel, but so worth it.
Pax vobiscum
I have difficulty understanding why the new translation is better. In the new one the 'we pray' seems to break up what is being asked for. It breaks up the thought. It would seem much better at the beginning of the sentence.
ReplyDeleteI had a difficult time realizing what the 'they', in 'that they may be worthy', is referring to; the righteous deeds ? It must be referring to people, but what people. With a little thought it must those gathered at His right hand. But it is not plainly obvious and again it seems the the thought is not being communicated well.
The old translation seems to communicate much better.
Also, if you don't like the song 'Let us build the city of God', then comparing the new translation with the old it seems the new translation speaking of us as running forth with righteous deeds puts much more emphasis on our deeds than God's. Compare it to the older translation which asks God to increase our strength so that we can do good.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteThere are two ways to respond to "why the new translation is better". The first is to discuss the general principles involved in the new translation. This does not address the specific Collect above, but it does go a long way in showing people why the Church is doing what she is doing. Bishop Campbell of the Diocese of Columbus recently pointed out the three advantages that the new translation enjoys over the old. First, it is more faithful to the Latin. (He was more tactful than myself - I tend to say simply that the new version is actually a translation, whereas the old is a loose interpretation.) Actually, I think this is the most important of the three reasons. We cannot arbitrarily decide what the Mass should say - the Latin is given, the task of the vernacular is to model the Latin as closely as possible. The second reason is a heightened fidelity to the Scriptural and theological roots of the text. The third is the introduction of a more formal liturgical language. The idea of a more formal language has been a part of liturgical worship from times dating even before Christianity - to the Jewish faith for instance. In fact, the introduction of Latin into the liturgy was not at all an introduction of the vernacular, as many will want to claim. Rather, the form of Latin used would have been completely understood by only a small minority of highly educated individuals. The liturgy is a step out of time and out of this world, and the introduction of a formal language can go a long way in highlighting this aspect of our prayer - lex orandi, lex credendi.
As for the specific Collect above, I think the first and third reasons I cited apply directly. We can nitpick all day about the placement of this word or that word - for instance, unless one sits down with the text and tries to analyze pronoun placement, I truly do not think that most people will have a problem with the "they" that you questioned. Of course, neither you nor I can actually answer that question. I didn't have an issue with it - you did. Beyond that, neither one of us can say for sure. Nonetheless, it is not relevant, because (1) it is what the Latin says, and (2) the language is much more formal. Those two reasons alone make the new translation substantially better.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the comparison with the song mentioned, this is simply out of place. First, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the new translation is what that Latin actually says. Second, the content of the Collect is a perfect rendition of Catholic theology wherein there is a grace-perfects-nature relationship between God's free gift of grace and our righteous works. How "Let us Build the City of God" causes confusion in this area is another topic for another time. The two are simply not related.
Thank you for your comments. I welcome discussion - and I pray that I, you, and all involved are, above all, open to the Holy Spirit and what he has to teach us. May God bless you.
I look forward to the new translation of the Latin and am sorry it was not used at the start. People will need new booklets since it will be important to follow with booklet in hand. It may take time to get accustomed to the changes, but it is a welcome challenge. Maybe our priests could instruct about Holy Communion, Penance and the fast before receiving. That too needs re-learning.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree. I am hopeful that the new translation serves as an impetus for re-catechizing the faithful on many things in the liturgy, including those that you mentioned.
To be totally accurate, those faithful to ALL the hours--including Terce, Sext, and None--prayed the collect SIX additional times.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought of including these hours. As you know the presence of the Daytime Hours has been unfortunately downplayed in the Novus Ordo Breviary. To pray Daytime prayer more than once, one must use a generic Complimentary Pslalter. The whole structure was much better in the old breviary. In fact, with all the discussion about the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Mass, sometimes it feels like discussion regarding the breviary has been absent. On one hand, the Mass is the highest concern in the refrom of the reform, yet on another, the changes made to the breviary were just as drastic. Umfrotunately, we have a long way to go before this will be remedied, yet we hope and pray.
Thaks for your comment.