And so it begins… and continues…

We’ve had reports on the beginning of use of the new missal in Australia, accounts of how badly it went – this from people already opposed to the new translation, and of how well it went – this from people already in favor of the new translation. Hmm, is there a pattern here?

Seems that the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity for this coming Sunday was left out of the “interim missal.” A dean in one deanery in Australia sent it out to the pastors in his deanery with this email message:

Dear all,

Please find attached the Preface for this coming Sunday – it is not in the interim missals we are working with.

Not that anyone’s going to understand it, mind you.

Regards,

. . . . .

awr

Posted

in

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Comments

33 responses to “And so it begins… and continues…”

  1. Chris McDonnell Avatar
    Chris McDonnell

    er…yes…. um….well…
    With the Wimbledom Championship almost upon us I am reminded that John McEnroe, many years ago. had the right response to this.
    “You cannot be serious!”

    Reply
  2. Karl Liam Saur Avatar
    Karl Liam Saur

    I would be shocked if we don’t see widespread confirmation bias in anecdotal reportage. It’s as predictable as the day following the night. So its value needs to be heavily discounted accordingly.

    Reply
  3. Fritz Bauerschmidt Avatar
    Fritz Bauerschmidt

    Apart from some of the technical theological vocabulary — Person, substance, Godhead — this one is in pretty comprehensible English. This is one where catechesis (ie. explaining the technical vocabulary) might actually be of some help.

    Reply
  4. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
    G. Michael McGuire

    Vere dignum et iustum est, aequum et salutare,
    nos tibi semper et ubique gratias agere:
    Domine, sancte Pater, omnipotens aeterne Deus:

    Qui cum Unigenito Filio tuo et Spiritu Sancto
    unus es Deus, unus es Dominus:
    non in unius singularitate personae,
    sed in unius Trinitate substantiae.
    Quod enim de tua gloria, revelante te, credimus,
    hoc de Filio tuo,
    hoc de Spiritu Sancto,
    sine discretione sentimus.
    Ut in confessione verae sempiternaeque Deitatis,
    et in personis proprietas,
    et in essentia unitas,
    et in maiestate adoretur aequalitas.
    Quem laudant Angeli atque Archangeli,
    Cherubim quoque ac Seraphim,
    qui non cessant clamare cotidie, una voce dicentes:

    Vox Clara’s Pell-Moroney-Ward

    It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God.

    For with your Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit
    you are one God, one Lord:
    not in the unity of a single person,
    but in a Trinity of one substance.

    For what you have revealed to us of your glory
    we believe equally of your Son and of the Holy Spirit,
    so that, in the confessing of the true and eternal Godhead,
    you might be adored in what is proper to each Person,
    their unity in substance,
    and their equality in majesty.

    For this is praised by Angels and Archangels,
    Cherubim, too, and Seraphim,
    who never cease to cry out each day,
    as with one voice they acclaim:

    Reply
    1. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
      G. Michael McGuire

      2008 ICEL translation approved by the conferences of bishops:

      It is truly right and just,
      our duty and our salvation,
      always and everywhere to give you thanks,
      Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God.

      Who with your Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit
      are one God and one Lord,
      not in the unity of a single person,
      but in a Trinity of one substance.

      For what you have revealed to us of your glory
      we believe equally of your Son
      and of the Holy Spirit,
      so that, in confessing the true and eternal Godhead,
      we adore the uniqueness of each Person,
      their oneness in being,
      and their equality in majesty.

      Which Angels and Archangels praise,
      Cherubim too and Seraphim,
      who never cease to cry out each day,
      and acclaim with one voice:

      2008 was working in accordance with Liturgiam authenticam’s prescription that the Latin be translated “in the most exact manner” (n. 51). It wasn’t until Bishop Serratelli’s “Hermeneutic of Faithfully but not Slavishly” that we found out n. 51 was joshing . . . So the Qui at the beginning of the body of the Preface becomes For; along with the real For (enim) in the next paragraph; and yet another For for Quem in the conclusion.

      So that didn’t have to be followed slavishly.

      But then 2008’s perfectly strong English line, “so that, in confessing the true and eternal Godhead, we adore” DOES revert to a literal translation of the Latin . . .

      It’s a mystery! 🙂

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan Avatar
        Jeffrey Pinyan

        But then 2008’s perfectly strong English line, “so that, in confessing the true and eternal Godhead, we adore” DOES revert to a literal translation of the Latin

        I prefer 2008’s rendering to 2011’s, certainly: “in the confessing of” sounds stilted, whereas “in confessing” sounds normal.

        However, in confessione … adoretur doesn’t have a “we” in it (per 2008) nor a “you” (per 2011). Unless I’m mistaken, it seems to say “in confessing [each Person] it may be adored”, because adoretur is third person singular present passive subjunctive (phew). But that translation (and the 2011) sounds impersonal, because the ones doing the adoring (presumably us!) are omitted. I think that’s why 2008 introduced “we adore”. 2011 backtracked to an impersonal (I’m just now realizing that could be a bit of pun…) translation, but introduced “you might be adored” to avoid the perceived coldness of the Latin.

    2. Henry Edwards Avatar
      Henry Edwards

      I’d personally judge both the Church’s official new translation of this preface and the 2008 ICEL draft translation to be wonderful improvements over the lame-duck translation that most English-speaking Roman Catholics will hear this coming Trinity Sunday.

      Of course, each separate proposition inherent in this statement could be debated among academics and liturgists.

      But what I think not debatable is that precious few ordinary pew Catholics would ever perceive any difference between the two newer versions. As I’ve suggested in another thread, anyone who thinks differently ought to come out of the cave and sit at a Mass or two in a pew with ordinary Catholics in an ordinary parish.

      Reply
      1. Graham Wilson Avatar
        Graham Wilson

        Henry

        I wish you and others wouldn’t trivialise the current translation by labelling it a “lame duck”. It doesn’t help, in much the same way for me to call the new translation an “over-stuffed turkey”.

        We oh so need to move beyond slogans because they completely undermine any good arguments you make and cause me to dismiss your comments as emotional and shallow and skip over them without reading them.

      2. Claire Mathieu Avatar
        Claire Mathieu

        Thank you Graham. I resent the “lame-duck” label for what has been the prayer of the Catholic church ever since I was born. How come ridiculing the prayer that is the summit of our faith in considered acceptable and is not perceived as anti-Catholicism?

      3. Rita Ferrone Avatar
        Rita Ferrone

        I find the term offensive for all the reasons given, plus another: the origin of the term in the jargon of politics. These are the words of the Mass that we’ve been praying all our lives, and they deserve more respect. Is the Mass translation nothing more than a political football? The term savors of such an attitude.

      4. Henry Edwards Avatar
        Henry Edwards

        Graham, Claire, and Rita,

        I certainly have for many years regarded the 1973 English translation as unworthy of the glory and majesty of our Roman rite. And I might suggest that one’s sensitivity to such perceived unworthiness might be proportional to his or her love of our liturgy and of our Eucharistic Lord whose action it is. (Of course, I could hardly expect everyone to share this particular sensitivity, to this particular translation, if it is the one he or she grew up with.)

        Nevertheless, I did not intend the term “lame-duck” as an expression of my personal attitude (pro or con) but rather as merely a brief way of referring to the now transitory character of the usage of this particular English translation.

        Finally, I would welcome any suggestion of a similarly brief reference and, in any event, in deference to your expressed sensitivity in this regard, will not use this particular abbreviation again here at PrayTell (though perhaps at WDTPRS–probably the origin of the term–no one might otherwise recognize what was meant).

      5. Lynn Thomas Avatar
        Lynn Thomas

        Mr. Edwards,

        Perhaps ‘outgoing translation’ might work as a stand-in for ‘lame-duck translation’? It’s nearly as brief, factually correct, and, I think, devoid of any negative connotations. Well, connotations apart from the facts, which are personal reactions about which you can’t do anything.

      6. Henry Edwards Avatar
        Henry Edwards

        Thanks, Lynn.

    3. Graham Wilson Avatar
      Graham Wilson

      And not forgetting the 1998 version, which scans the best of the lot…

      1998 ICEL:
      It is truly right and just,
      our duty and our salvation,
      always and everywhere to give you thanks,
      holy Father, almighty and eternal God.

      With your only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit
      you are one God, one Lord,
      not in the unity of a single person
      but in a Trinity of one nature.

      All that you reveal of your glory
      we believe also of your Son and of the Holy Spirit.

      In confessing the true and eternal Godhead
      we adore three distinct Persons,
      one in being and equal in majesty.

      And so, with angels and archangels,
      with cherubim and seraphim,
      we sing the unending hymn of your glory:

      Reply
  5. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
    G. Michael McGuire

    Except for getting used to “and with your spirit” and a few other elements, the Ordinary of the Mass shouldn’t cause too many difficulties.

    It’s when the priests see what has happened to the Propers that the full impact of the new translation will begin to hit home.

    Nativity of Our Lord (Christmas): Mass During the Day

    Prayer Over the Offerings
    Oblátio tibi sit, Dómine, hodiérnae sollemnitátis accépta,
    qua et nostrae reconciliatiónis procéssit perfécta placátio,
    et divíni cultus nobis est índita plenitúdo.
    Per Christum.

    2008 ICEL:
    Accept, O Lord, the sacrifice of this day‘s solemn feast,
    from which our reconciliation has come forth
    to make us wholly pleasing in your sight
    and which has established for us the fullness of divine worship.
    Through Christ our Lord.

    Vox Clara’s Pell-Moroney-Ward Missal:
    Make acceptable, O Lord, our oblation on this solemn day,
    when you manifested the reconciliation
    that makes us wholly pleasing in your sight
    and inaugurated for us the fullness of divine worship.
    Through Christ our Lord.

    Prayer After Communion
    Praesta, miséricors Deus,
    ut natus hódie Salvátor mundi,
    sicut divínae nobis generatiónis est auctor,
    ita et immortalitátis sit ipse largítor.
    Qui vivit et regnat in saecula saeculórum.

    2008 ICEL:
    Grant, O merciful God,
    that the Savior of the world, born this day,
    who is the author of our divine birth,
    may also be the giver of immortality.
    Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

    Vox Clara’s Pell-Moroney-Ward Missal:
    Grant, O merciful God,
    that, just as the Savior of the world, born this day,
    is the author of divine generation for us,
    so he may be the giver even of immortality.
    Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

    EVEN: just as “Sed et” in the Paschal Preface conclusion is not EVEN, neither is ITA in this prayer. Did they (or really HE) think it sounded more archaic: as in “we have but one Mediator with the Father, EVEN our Lord Jesu Christ” ?

    Reply
  6. Philip Endean SJ Avatar
    Philip Endean SJ

    I’m obsessive enough to be keeping an eye on internet reactions to the imposition in Australia. There’s remarkably little, and Clare Johnson’s piece is the only reflection of any value. It’s worth noting how Tess Livingstone’s piece of party-line propaganda is being taken up by other outlets.

    Reply
    1. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
      G. Michael McGuire

      I only know a couple of Australian priests, but I still say: Wait until they see the Propers! 🙂

      Reply
  7. Ron Jones Avatar
    Ron Jones

    After reading the two examples of reaction to the new translation, it struck me that the “how badly it went” example speaks more to the way the mass was conducted by presider and assembly than to the actual translation itself. All of the stumbling and bumbling through the liturgy, starting one version of the creed and moving into another, omitting proper phrases from the worship aid all sounds like a lack of strong (and committed) leadership rather than a lack of comprehension. The last paragraph really got to me, “I don’t know how it ended, I left early – didn’t feel like I was really at Mass, there was no sense of belonging but perhaps that was just me.” That’s just depressing to me as a liturgist and a pastoral musician.
    At this point, it doesn’t matter whether I like the new missal or not… it is what it is. My goal is to help others (inspire/animate the faithful) worship whole heartedly. I don’t want anyone to leave feeling disconnected.
    I am an elementary school teacher as well as a liturgist and that has helped me explain the new missal to others. I find the greatest shift for the assembly will not be the wording itself but the intended direction of the prayers. When I explain to people that we are always directing our attention (through spoken prayer and sung prayer) to God rather than the community (those of us gathered together), the reaction is always one of surprise and new understanding.
    I’m excited about the possibilities for spiritual renewal not only in the people I serve but in me as well. This is my chance to grow in humility and selfless love, to be an obedient servant of the Lord and to the people of the Lord. I hope to correct all those times I have been so opinionated, I lacked charity in my ministry and relationship with others.
    In all of this, I reflect on a quote from St. Francis De Sales (my confirmation name), “We should labor without any uneasiness as to results.  God requires efforts on our part, but not success.”

    Reply
  8. Mgr Bruce Harbert Avatar
    Mgr Bruce Harbert

    2008 translates adoretur as the verb of a clause of result, and 2010 translates it as the verb of a clause of purpose. I wonder if anyone has any views on this.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Hugh Jarse Avatar
      Fr. Hugh Jarse

      I wonder if you do, Bruce.

      Reply
    2. Philip Endean SJ Avatar
      Philip Endean SJ

      It looks to me linguistically unsettleable. Is it theologically significant? Might there be a way in English of preserving the ambiguity (which 1998 does by abolishing the ‘ut’ altogether)?

      Reply
      1. Mgr Bruce Harbert Avatar
        Mgr Bruce Harbert

        If the clause is one of result, the Preface is saying that (1) we believe and (2) as a result we adore. If it is one of purpose, it is saying that we believe in order that we may adore. The former seems preferable to me – we believe the doctrine of the Trinity because we consider it to be true, and our adoration is the result of our faith. We don’t believe in order to adore.

  9. Mary Coogan Avatar
    Mary Coogan

    Is no one troubled by the dangler: “so that, in the confessing of the true and eternal Godhead, you might be adored in what is proper to each Person”? Literally, the divine “you” is “confessing [ . . . ] the true and eternal Godhead.” In English, if you follow a modifier phrase such as “confessing the true and eternal Godhead” with a passive voice verb (“might be adored”), you usually produce nonsense because the word modified by the modifier phrase must closely follow (or precede) it. Sense: so that, in confessing the true and eternal Godhead, we might adore what is proper to each Person. Reading through the text, a dangling present participial modifier phrase was seen (huh?). I notice that the 2008 ICEL, quoted by G. Michael McGuire above, does not have this error.

    Also, it seems that the translation has more than a few extra words and “empty clauses.” “[W]hat is proper to each Person” is an empty clause. What IS proper to each Person, and if we do not wish to say what is proper to each Person, why does “what is proper to each Person” have the status of a clause? “so that, in confessing the true and eternal Godhead, we might properly adore each Person.”

    Also, the appositive phrases “their unity in substance, / and their equality in majesty” do not seem relevant to “what is proper to each Person” if “proper” has the sense of “particular” or “unique.” Yet these two phrases follow the empty clause as though they supply the meaning of “what is proper to each Person.” Again, the 2008 translation avoided this illogical structure by using three parallel phrases. I lament the mangled theology in the nearly preliterate grammar of the new translation. C- -, groan….

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Herbert Avatar
      Jeffrey Herbert

      Mary;

      You would be right except that the modifier phrase is “in the confessing of the true and eternal Godhead”. If it read as follows..

      “so that, confessing the true and eternal Godhead, you might be adored in what is proper to each Person”

      I would agree with you, but the use of the active voice in the modifier makes it clear that the person proclaiming the prayer is doing the “confessing”. It could be clearer, I agree, perhaps…

      “so that, in our confessing of the true and eternal Godhead, you might be adored in what is proper to each Person”.

      This is a place where the implied pronouns of Latin compositional structure can cause problems for listeners accustomed to the repeated pronouns of conversational English.

      Reply
      1. Mary Coogan Avatar
        Mary Coogan

        OK, Jeffrey, let’s say that the structure is a set of prepositional phrases, not a true modifier phrase. “In the” and “of” save it from dangling. And let’s say also that the verbal “confessing” is in the active voice. Then the sentence shifts confusingly from active to passive voice, or so it seems to me. In fact, “be adored” and “is praised” is rather much passive voice for a prayer. I think you and I agree that the translators could have done better.

  10. Sean Whelan Avatar
    Sean Whelan

    I just read through the Preface of the Trinity in the current Missal. Again, is the 2010 truly an improvement? No. The ’74 is quite beautiful.

    Reply
  11. Joe O'Leary Avatar
    Joe O’Leary

    The 2010 text borders on Trinitarian heresy by its apparent apposition of what is proper to each person and their unity in essence (which is common, not proper); the Latin clearly marks the difference.

    Reply
  12. Joe O'Leary Avatar
    Joe O’Leary

    Apart from theological insensitivity, this translation is at the very least bad catechesis: “so that, in the confessing of the true and eternal Godhead,
    you might be adored in what is proper to each Person,
    their unity in substance,
    and their equality in majesty.”
    Most listeners will now be told that what is proper to each Person is their Godhead, unity, and equality, rather than their fatherhood, sonship and spiration (or their personhood as Father, Son, Spirit). We will have to explain as in the case of “for many” that the text did not mean what it seems to mean.

    Reply
  13. Mary Coogan Avatar
    Mary Coogan

    so that, in the confessing of the true and eternal Godhead,
    you might be adored in what is proper to each Person,
    their unity in substance,
    and their equality in majesty.

    For this is praised by Angels and Archangels

    Now I’m just being a nit-picky dusty old grammarian, I suppose, but I’ll point out also that “this” is a singular demonstrative pronoun. This use of a singular demonstrative strengthens my inclination to read “unity” and “equality” as together supplying the meaning of the clause “what is proper to each Person” so that the singular pronoun “this” can refer to a singular antecedent: the “what. . . .” clause. (“Trinitarian heresy”!) I wonder which of the three possible antecedents the translators meant it to refer to—“what is proper to each Person,” “their unity in substance,” or “their equality in majesty”? Because the 2008 translation uses the relative pronoun “which,” it does not stumble in this way.

    Finally, does the grammatical person really need to shift from second-person “you” to third-person “their” in the final two lines of the verse? Wouldn’t it be OK simply to eliminate the “their” pronouns from the phrases or to replace “their” with “your”? With this shift from addressing the “you” to commenting on the “their,” the lines seem to cease being a prayer.

    Reply
  14. Pádraig McCarthy Avatar
    Pádraig McCarthy

    A suggestion for those who do not feel bound to using the Preface of the Trinity.
    Fr Tom O’Loughlin (University of Wales, Lampeter) writes in Liturgical Resources for the Year of Matthew (Columba, Dublin, 2007):
    “While P43 (Preface of the Holy Trinity) is directed to be used today, many people find it a cold statement of doctrine. If you want a preface that is equally explicit in its statement of Trinitarian faith, but which expresses the mystery in terms of the history of salvation – what is sometimes referred to as ‘the economic trinity’ – then look at the Preface of Sunday in Ordinary Time VIII [P36].”
    I like his suggestion. P36 conveys a much more dynamic content of the power of the Trinity in the life of the Christian, in three “narratives”.

    Reply
  15. Shannon O'Donnell Avatar
    Shannon O’Donnell

    My biggest complaint? The latest version has us talking AT God rather than TO God.

    Or, talking about someone who is in the room, but not being addressed. Rude all the way around.

    Reply
  16. Sean Whelan Avatar
    Sean Whelan

    Says Henry Edwards: I certainly have for many years regarded the 1973 English translation as unworthy of the glory and majesty of our Roman rite. And I might suggest that one’s sensitivity to such perceived unworthiness might be proportional to his or her love of our liturgy and of our Eucharistic Lord whose action it is. (Of course, I could hardly expect everyone to share this particular sensitivity, to this particular translation, if it is the one he or she grew up with.)

    – I find this to be a disgusting train of thought. Sensitivity towards this translation equates to how much one loves the liturgy? In other words, you “suggest” that if one finds this translation to be a good and nurturing text, (s)he must not love the liturgy and/or our Lord as much as someone who thinks it’s awful? Utterly amazing.

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady Avatar
      Chris Grady

      Sean, it’s Pope Benedict’s “leaner, meaner” Church, created by means of Summorum Pontificum (and, to an extent, Anglicanorum Coetibus and whatever he calls the next one which’ll the Lefebvrists a personal ordinariate): they’re the Pope’s nasties, and they’re perfecting the “meaner” bit first.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d