We continue our catechesis on the first Eucharistic Prayer, known as the Roman Canon. This week we take up two parts of the prayer, the Hanc igitur and the Quam oblationem tu. We begin with the Hanc igitur. As with most of the prayers in the Missal, it takes its name from the first Latin words, which translates, “Therefore, this.” The prayer itself is one of the more difficult Latin constructions in the Mass. However, it is helpful to begin with a comparison of the current text with the new translation. Currently, the priest reads:
“Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.”
The new translation will instead read:
“Therefore, Lord, we pray: graciously accept this oblation of our service, that of your whole family; order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen.”
As we have seen before, the text is so radically different that a word-for-word comparison is near impossible. However, let’s point out a few important details. First, there is the simplification of the phrase “this oblation of our service” to “this offering” in the current text. The Latin contains the phrase oblatiónem servitútis nostræ, which translates exactly how the new translation has it. The gifts of bread and wine are indeed “offerings,” yet the word “oblation” is more specific and better captures the Latin. In fact, most English dictionaries will define “oblation” as “a thing presented or offered to God.” The dictionary I used even said, “[In the Christian Church] the presentation of bread and wine to God in the Eucharist.” The term “offering” is more generic and open to misinterpretation. These gifts are not just any offering, but one specifically given for the Eucharist. Indeed, they are also a result of “our service” to God, once again emphasizing that it is our obligation to worship God as a matter of justice towards our Creator, a recurring theme in the Mass texts, and one that we have seen before.
Second, there are two place in the new translation where the original humility present in the Latin text comes out. One of the problems with the current translation is its perpetual and arrogant insistence that God act according to our insistence by using unqualified imperatives (“Accept this offering ...”). The Latin text in virtually every case is much humbler, using words like quǽsumus, meaning “we beseech thee.” This is precisely the word that occurs in the Latin Hanc igitur, which is properly restored in the new translation as “we pray.” As a side note, in the Latin quǽsumus is paired with Domine, meaning “Lord.” Why the current translation opted for “Father” instead of “Lord” is unknown.
The other place is where the phrase “grant us your peace” is corrected to “order our days in your peace.” The Latin is diésque nostros in tua pace dispónas. Disponas is the word that gives us the sense of “ordering.” It can mean several things, but the most appropriate meaning in this case is “arrange” or (as the new translation has it) “order.” There is a much different sense in commanding God to “grant us peace” than there is in pleading with him to “order our days in your peace.” The current translation of this phrase seems to have a certain presumption that our lives are already in order, and that we simply need God’s blessing over them in order to have peace about the matter. The new translation recognizes the priority that God enjoys as master over our lives. It is not simply that God grants peace to those who want it, but rather that true and lasting peace will come from conforming ourselves and ordering our hearts to God. Even in this, however, we needs God’s grace. The new translation accurately reflects God as the ultimate reality and measure of our lives and indicates that until we recognize this, peace is not to be found. This is the positive way of stating the case; the negative way is quite a bit simpler: sin causes disorder in our lives and therefore can never lead to genuine peace. There is also a subtle point in the very use of the word “order.” The Christian God is a God of the Word (Logos), and hence a God of rationality. Our faith is not unreasonable, but quite the opposite: it is grounded in the divine order.
Finally, in the last phrase we see the restoration of the words “command” and “flock.” The corresponding Latin words are iubeas and grege, which are properly translated in the new text. The use of the word “command” indicates that God’s Word is efficacious. The universe came into being because God “spoke” it into being. Language is critical in a religion that describes God as Logos. The only thing needed for our deliverance, so long as we are willing to accept it, is for God to “command” it. The current translation, in its use of the word “save us” is not terribly inaccurate (though the Latin phrase is nos eripi, meaning “rescue us,” or even “snatch us away”), yet “deliver” is more accurate.
Finally “flock” emphasizes Jesus as the shepherd, a common biblical image, and something that is left off of the current translation. Recall that one of the goals of the new translation was to make the scriptural references in the Mass more obvious. This passage is a clear reference to Matthew 25:31-33:
“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left” (NASB).
We now turn to the pray known as Quam oblationem tu. As with the Hanc igitur, let’s look at the current translation:
“Bless and approve our offering: make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son our Lord.”
Now the new and improved translation:
“Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This prayer is interesting, because it marks the moment when the bells are rung, the same bells that will ring at the elevation of the consecrated Body and Blood. In the other Eucharistic Prayers, this moment is an epiclesis, or invocation of the Holy Spirit to bless the elements that they may become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. However, according the liturgical scholar Adrain Fortesque, the Roman Canon is unique in that it doesn’t contain an epiclesis properly speaking. The Quam oblationem tu is “certainly an invocation, though not of the Holy Ghost.”*
In terms of the new translation of this prayer, I do have one slight objection: the use of the word “offering.” The Latin word is the very same oblationem from the Hanc igitur, and in that case we saw it changed to “oblation.” Why the new translators opted for “offering” here and not earlier is a mystery. Nevertheless, the new translation of this passage is far better than the old in every other respect.
The first things to notice is once more the use of a bold imperative in the current text that simply does not exist in the Latin. It is as if we are telling God what to do. The Latin contains substantially more humility. The same word quǽsumus, meaning “we beseech,” that occurs in the Hanc igitur reoccurs here. The sense of humble pleading is picked up again in the use of the word digneris, meaning “that you might see fit.” It is actually worth noting that the unqualified command we give God in the current translation, “Accept this offering ... Count us among those you have chosen ... Bless and approve ... Make it acceptable,” are even a bit disrespectful for use in conversation with one another. A parent responding to a child who issued an unqualified command uscg as this would be quick to remind him to, “Say, ‘please.’” Surely we can expect ourselves to obey at least that standard of politeness when speaking to God.
The Latin for the first part of the prayer is not quite given a literal rendering in the new translation, though doing so could get a bit convoluted. A literal rendering would be more like, “We pray, O God, that you might see fit to make this oblation blessed (benedictam), approved (adscriptam), ratified (ratam), spiritual (rationabilem), and acceptable (acceptabilemque) in all things [in every way] (omnibus).” The translating of three of the five adjectives as verbs is an interesting choice, presumedly done so to make the English smoother. You will also notice in this phrase that the word “God” is returned to the new translation, a reference inconspicuously left out of the current text. (To be sure, the word Deus is in the Latin.) Recall the Fortesque’s point that the Roman Canon is unique in that it doesn’t contain a proper epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit). In fact, there are those who are critical of this Canon for that very reason. It seems to me that the current translation makes the matter even worse by eliminating all reference to God in the Quam oblationem tu, the closest thing to an epiclesis in this Eucharistic Prayer. The current translation, in eliminating the reference to God, forces us to fall back on the last reference, which in this case is back in the Hanc igitur, and was incorrectly rendered as “Father.” At least with the restoration of the word “God” in the Quam oblationem tu we can begin to make the argument that the Holy Spirit is being called upon. While not as clear as other Eucharistic Canons, it is certainly true that the three Persons in God are one, so an invocation of God implicitly includes an invocation of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, in addition to reordering the title of Christ, we also see the use of the adjective “most beloved” rather than “only” to modify “Son.” Both, of course, are true, but the Latin contains the word dilectíssimi, which indeed translates as “most beloved.”
Again, the nuances of the Latin text for these two prayers make translation fairly difficult, but it is certain that the new texts are far more accurate in both meaning and rhythm than what we have now.
Next week we will be ready to discuss the all-important words on institution, focussing on the much-discussed pro multis controversy.
* The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy
Jake,
ReplyDeleteVery nice work on the presentation of the new texts. One point of clarification. If I remember correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), Fortesque writes the bid about the "lack" of epiclesis in the Roman Canon in reference to the Hanc Igitur, and not to the Quam oblationem. In fact, in the extraordinary form of the Mass, the priest makes the gesture with his hads at the Hanc Igitur and not at the Quam oblationem, as in the ordinary form.
This is very much related to the point you made about the epiclesis. From the way you have written above, it sounds as if the Roman Canon should be open to criticism because it "lacks" an epiclesis. I would invite you to turn the question around and think about it another way: Who says the Roman Canon needs an epiclesis in the first place? The bare fact that the Anaphoras of the East have it is no argument for a deficiency in the Roman Canon. Truth be told, it is almost certain that the Roman Canon is the oldest extant "Eucharistic Prayer" in the entire Church. As in other respects, it represents the authentic and continuous tradition at Rome, which on several points differs from that in the East. Thus, just as we do not criticise the Gospel of John for not being just like the Synoptics in presentation, so we ought not to criticise the Roman Canon for representing faithfully its own tradition (i.e., "lack" of an explicit epiclesis). In fact, the Roman Canon in the Novus Ordo was changed so that the gesture the priest makes with the hands (and consequently the bell ringing) was moved to the Quam oblationem out of some felt inadequacy of the Roman Canon. However, most probably the gesture that the priest makes at this point in the West is NOT an invocation of the Holy Spirit, per se, but rather an imitation of the action of the Jewish High Priest who placed the sins of the community upon the victim about to be immolated.
Finally, all of this is very much connected to the question of a theology of the Mass. While the West never has, nor ever will, deny the action of the Holy Spirit in the consecration of the elements (the extraordinary form even has a prayer in the Offertory that emphasizes His role, the "Veni Sanctificator"), the West takes a different view with regard to consecration than the East. Namely, in the West, the very words of consecration make to be in reality what they say. For this reason, the priest can kneel in adoration after the consecration of each element, because Christ Our Lord is really, truly, and substantially present ex vi verborum. On the other hand, the East is less precise about the "moment" and looks to the whole anaphora as consecratory, placing greater emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit (interestingly, almost all the rites use some sort of "fan" that they wave during the consecration to emphasize the action of the Holy Spirit).
Sorry for the long comment. My thanks again for your fine work.
In Christ,
B.
B.,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, thank you for your helpful comments. Fortesque speaks of the lack of epiclesis in general. I cannot recall right now if he connects it (or its lack) directly to the Hanc igitur). However, he does make at least two specific references to the Quam oblationem. I should clarify, however, that Fortesque does not see in the Quam an epiclesis, which I tried to indicate in the article. Rather, he notes that others do. For instance, on page 334:
"Quam oblationem is certainly an invocation, though not of the Holy Ghost. Mr. W.C. Bishop and Mr. Edmond Bishop think that this is the Epiklesis of the Roman rite. There are strong reasons against this."
Then in his Appendix (II) he reiterates this point. It seems to me, without going back through the entire texts, that Fortesque's position is that neither the Quam nor the Hanc are an Epiklesis, but that the Roman Canon simply does not have one properly speaking. I am happy to be corrected on this, though. As I said, I didn't have time to go back through the entire text.
Finally, I really enjoyed to commentary that followed in your comment. You are correct, in my humble assessment, that it is not necessary for the Roman Canon to have an epiclesis, and I thought your comparison of John with the synoptics was quite insightful and helpful. Of course, I didn't not mean to indicate that the lack of epiclesis is a problem (for I do not think it is if only for the reason you pointed to ... the older age of the Roman Canon itself), but rather that the lack of reference to God in the current translation simply exacerbates the whole issue.
Thank you as always,
Jake
Jake,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, you are correct; I was perhaps too hasty in suggesting that you were offering a veiled criticism of the lack of epiclesis in the RC. I think that you are also correct on the point about Fortesque: namely, he does not think the RC contains an epiclesis in the sense understood by the East and by the 'ordinary form of the Roman Canon' (can we speak of such a thing?).
Very stimulating discussion!
B.