From the Tablet, a look at the English translations of the liturgical texts
The first draft translation of ICEL’s new Missal is being sent out to bishops’ conferences this month. From a copy obtained by The Tablet , it is clear that the change in approach is startling. The Confiteor , for example, begins: “I confess to Almighty God/and to you, my brothers and sisters/that I have sinned exceedingly.” At the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer, the celebrant says: “The Lord be with you” to which the congregation replies: “And with your spirit.” He says: “Let our hearts be lifted high.” They reply: “We hold them before the Lord.” He says: “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.” They reply: “It is right and just.” Preparing the altar, the priest says: “By the mystery of this water and wine / may we be made partakers in his divinity / who deigned to share in our humanity.” At the consecration he says: “Who on the day before he was to suffer / took bread into his holy and venerable hands.” The Creed, perhaps surprisingly, says “For us and for our salvation”, but in Eucharistic Prayer IV gender-inclusive language is jettisoned: “You formed man in your own image / and entrusted the whole world to his care”.
We asked a senior British liturgy expert who has long argued for greater fidelity to the original to look over the translation. His verdict: it is closer to the Latin of the Roman Rite, and in this respect a marked improvement on the Missal in use. But it is otherwise “less successful than the 1973 versions in finding a consistent modern English register”. Many of the translations are “mannered” and “pointlessly archaic”, he says, while others are “unnecessary and rather aggressive departures from venerable renderings which long predate the 1973 ICEL versions”. He also believes it is “ecumenically retrogressive” to abandon versions of the Gloria and the Creed agreed for common use with other Churches.
This piece is typical Tablet: meaty and interesting, and biased, which is fine, as long as you understand that from the beginning. I can’t argue with his account of the politics involved this, because I know nothing about that, and I am interested in the comments of the expert they cite here – they strike me as valid and important criticisms – but I will say that what I find absent from this piece is the concern of many, not just “wealthy American traditionalists,” that the English translations were faulty because they were wrong – and yes, I understand when we’re talking about translations, “wrong” is a tricky kind of evaluation, because of the many layers of language. But, for example, he cites the use of “and with your spirit” in the English as a congregational responseas a a new and startling innovation. Well, that’s what the Latin says – et cum spiritu tuo. Still. And that’s what it means. And that’s how it’s rendered, for example, in Spanish: “Y con tu espiritu” I don’t know exactly how one could make the case that “and also with you” is a justifiable or “faithful” translation of the Latin here. And those more knowledgable than I can certainly come up with more examples. The most instructive thing is, indeed, to compare the ICEL translations to the Spanish, for example. It’s illuminating.
Read Previous Post