About the ICEL translation of the Roman Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
I’ve heard, from time to time, questions about why, during the liturgical reform of the 1960’s, the translation of the Roman Canon as found in personal missals was not used for the English translation of the Canon.

Here is an excerpt from DOL 41, n. 486 (CONSILIUM, Letter Dans sa récente allocution of Cardinal G. Lercaro to presidents of the conferences of bishops and, for their information, to presidents of the national liturgical commissions, on issues regarding reform of theliturgy, 21 June 1967: Not 3 (1967) 289-296); bolding is mine:
It should be borne in mind that for the canon the Holy See is not approving translations which are already found in the missals of the faithful and which have been allowed ad interim in past years. It will be necessary to prepare a new translation, and one that is made with care. Moreover, this translation should be accurate and integral. The texts should be taken as they are, without mutilations or simplifications of any kind. Adaptations to the character of the spoken tongue should be sober and prudent. The periti should accept this norm in good spirit, since its application is necessary at the present time. It is not opportune to “jump the gun”. When the time has come to create, then it will no longer be necessary to be tied down to the restrictions of literal translation. But, for the present time, we are still at the point in which we must more fully uncover and live by all the riches of our liturgical heritage.
This raises more questions than it answers.

First, it does not explain why a new translation is needed, especially since the translation found in, for example, my 1961 Daily Missal is quite accurate and integral, without mutilation or simplification. It also does not quite account for the poor quality of the ICEL translation we currently have!

Second, I find the note to the periti to “accept this norm in good spirit” a bit… haunting… as if the periti were hoping not to have to translate the Canon literally; indeed, this paragraph casts an unfriendly light on literal translations in general (“tied down to the restrictions”).

Third, I am curious about the mention of “the time … to create” juxtaposed with “the present time” of “more fully uncover[ing] and liv[ing] by all the riches of our liturgical heritage”. It makes it sound like after the stage of translating the Latin into vernacular, the door was to be opened to free vernacular compositions (no longer based on a Latin original). Would this new era also be accompanied by a shift away from “all the riches of our liturgical heritage”?
 
japhy said:
I’ve heard, from time to time, questions about why, during the liturgical reform of the 1960’s, the translation of the Roman Canon as found in personal missals was not used for the English translation of the Canon.

Here is an excerpt from DOL 41, n. 486 (CONSILIUM, Letter Dans sa récente allocution of Cardinal G. Lercaro to presidents of the conferences of bishops and, for their information, to presidents of the national liturgical commissions, on issues regarding reform of theliturgy, 21 June 1967: Not 3 (1967) 289-296); bolding is mine:
It should be borne in mind that for the canon the Holy See is not approving translations which are already found in the missals of the faithful and which have been allowed ad interim in past years. It will be necessary to prepare a new translation, and one that is made with care. Moreover, this translation should be accurate and integral. The texts should be taken as they are, without mutilations or simplifications of any kind. Adaptations to the character of the spoken tongue should be sober and prudent. The periti should accept this norm in good spirit, since its application is necessary at the present time. It is not opportune to “jump the gun”. When the time has come to create, then it will no longer be necessary to be tied down to the restrictions of literal translation. But, for the present time, we are still at the point in which we must more fully uncover and live by all the riches of our liturgical heritage.
This raises more questions than it answers.

First, it does not explain why a new translation is needed, especially since the translation found in, for example, my 1961 Daily Missal is quite accurate and integral, without mutilation or simplification. It also does not quite account for the poor quality of the ICEL translation we currently have!

Second, I find the note to the periti to “accept this norm in good spirit” a bit… haunting… as if the periti were hoping not to have to translate the Canon literally; indeed, this paragraph casts an unfriendly light on literal translations in general (“tied down to the restrictions”).

Third, I am curious about the mention of “the time … to create” juxtaposed with “the present time” of “more fully uncover[ing] and liv[ing] by all the riches of our liturgical heritage”. It makes it sound like after the stage of translating the Latin into vernacular, the door was to be opened to free vernacular compositions (no longer based on a Latin original). Would this new era also be accompanied by a shift away from “all the riches of our liturgical heritage”?
Click to expand...
Japhy,
I hear what you’re saying. Take some comfort here. There is a new translation of the Roman Canon which has been approved by Rome but not yet published for the U.S.

The current translation of the Novus Ordo EP I is about to become obsolete for anyone but a priest who is blind.

Take a moment and go to the US Conference of bishops website www.usccb.org and see the new translation which was very recently made public (for study-only until the books are printed).

You have legitimate concerns. Rome has been listening.

PS the new translation of the Ordinary of the Mass (including the Creed) is also there. Again, Rome has heard and taken action.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I hear what you’re saying. Take some comfort here. There is a new translation of the Roman Canon which has been approved by Rome but not yet published for the U.S.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of the new English translation. 🙂 I plan on going through the Ordinary (looking at the changes between the new translation and the current one) on my blog. And more than the Ordinary has been completed now:The eleven bishops of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) have completed their translation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal. Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, September 8-12, the bishops considered texts from the Proper and Common of Saints, Votive Masses, Masses for the Dead, Antiphons, Introductory Documents and Appendixes, and revised these texts in light of comments received from bishops from English-speaking conferences. The completed texts will now be forwarded to the countries where English is used in the Mass, so that the bishops’ conferences can proceed with their procedures for discussion and approval. The end of this procedure is to send the approved (possibly amended) texts to the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) for recognitio (official approval).
 
FrDavid96 said:
Japhy,
I hear what you’re saying. Take some comfort here. There is a new translation of the Roman Canon which has been approved by Rome but not yet published for the U.S.

The current translation of the Novus Ordo EP I is about to become obsolete for anyone but a priest who is blind.

Take a moment and go to the US Conference of bishops website www.usccb.org and see the new translation which was very recently made public (for study-only until the books are printed).

You have legitimate concerns. Rome has been listening.

PS the new translation of the Ordinary of the Mass (including the Creed) is also there. Again, Rome has heard and taken action.
Click to expand...
So what Bible translation will be used. I hope the RSV Catholic Second Edition. The NAB is bad, and is inclusive!. The NAB translation now used in the Lectionary (non-inclusive) is not the same as the NAB Bible translation you get in the stores (inclusive). Would be nice to keep it consistent, rather than confusing. It’s not that difficult!!.
 
I have developed an intense interest and love for the EF (Extraordinary Form) of the Mass and I have noticed how very different the language is compared to the post-VII Ordinary Form. I am very curious, how exactly did we get the wording for the OF? It seems to me a very spotty and loose take of the old Latin rite.

Thanks!
 
I know it’s bad form to respond to one’s own posts, especially since I started the thread but it looks like my answer was in another recent thread found here. Sorry, I didn’t know how to rescind the creation of the thread :o
 
I know that this is an old thread, but, I was doing some reluctant house cleaning in my room when I came across some old documents from the FLDC and SWLC (Southwest Liturgical Conference) that dated back to 2004.

For some reason, I didn’t feel inclined to put them in File 13. Now, I know why. Looking through the FDLC notes, I found something rather interesting. There was talk of the people “taking ownership of the Mass” and making it there own. It sounded nebulous enough. One of the recommendations made me shudder, though. According to the FDLC, there was a concern that Liturgiam Authenticam wasn’t suitable for US translations. The language the document mandates wouldn’t be understood by the average person in the pew. It brought back memories from the 2003 conference when I was debating with someone from another diocese about how much we needed that document.

I suspect that the translation argument has been festering awhile since 2003. The commentary from the documents that I found certainly validates it.

I bring this up because there continues to be a movement afoot, at least from what I can tell (and remember) with the FDLC, to water down the language once more. At least, the Roman Canon’s lyrical beauty was somewhat restored in the new translation. Even EP II sounds beautiful and not as cut and dry.

The language we use to express ourselves in prayer needs to be of the highest quality. I agree with jahpy’s observation regarding the Roman Canon found in the EF. The language was beautiful, descriptive and most prayerful. The new version of the Roman Canon for the OF, I believe, brings some of it back. However, I wished that the old Confiteor would have been restored. The invocations of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, Bleseed Michael the Archangel and Blessed John the Baptist could have made a return. As it is, the only time I get to hear it is when I watch Gone With the Wind and listen to the O’Hara family recite their night prayers.
 
Actually, there is more to it than the thread you found. The Missal of Paul VI, from whence we get the OF, was a complete re-write of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If you do a side-by-side comparison. a lot of the texts of the prayers changed. The Confiteor, which once had the invocations for the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, Blessed Michael the Archangel and Blessed John the Baptist, no longer has it. The Collects (opening prayer) do not have the same poetic beauty as their predecessors.

The big chunk of the problem lay in the way that the International Commission on the English Language (ICEL) handled the translation. Rather than translate the Latin original of the OF Roman Missal, ICEl paraphrased some of it and came up with new things, such as the default Memorial Acclamation “Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again”, which is not found in the Latin original. The centurion’s prayer, recited after the Agnus Dei (Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed) was gutted (Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed).

Thank God that in 2000, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez, wrote a letter to the ICEL chairman concerning ICEL’s work on translating the ordination texts. If I recall, this led to a snowball effect that resulted in the adoption of Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document of the Holy See that oversees the translation of all books for liturtical use.

This is why the USCCB and the other English-language national episcopal conferences are having to vote on the new translations set forth by ICEL.
 
Some addenda to benedictgal’s post. The Missal of Paul VI, like all liturgy and literature promulgated by the Vatican was published first in Latin.

The text that one hears/speaks at an English OF is a (very bad) translation of that Latin text, as benedictgal has said.

Although it may not seem so to one who attends the English OF, many of the prayers in the OF are not so different at all from the prayers of the EF (the Collects are a big exception; many of them are different) and some are identical. In general the language of the prayers has been simplified; repetitions and superlatives (the ubiquitous (flowery IMO) -issimi) removed; and the listing of individual saints within the prayers lessened.

Thus, the ICEL translation (particularly of the Memorial Acclamation & Domine, non sum dignus) trouble me not at all when I attend the Latin OF- they just the same as in the EF…
 
The OF comes from the Devil of course (just joking, playing the sedeventist advocate), I don’t know where much of the liturgy, though I suspect a lot of it was written as a way to Protestantize the Mass, hence reduce prayers and references to angels and saints, and I guess make it more hip as the eucharistic prayers are a lot different. Like anything new, it probably going to take more time before it undergoes the correct changes to make it truly a Mass of the Church, I still don’t understand why Paul VI thought he needed to reinvent the wheel, but it is still a valid form of the Mass, and as I mentioned there is probably going to be several more editions of it coming out in the next decade or two as the old progressives die off.
 
Don’t fret japhy: the Church is in God’s hands. While the letter you quoted represented a disastrous decision for the unity of the Roman Rite (Rome doesn’t always make the right decisions in such matters), that has since been rescinded thankfully in the latest instruction Liturgiam Authenticam.

I find the new translation of the Ordinary so pray-able and accessible. We should simply call those prophets of gloom and doom bluffs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top