Latin-Rite USCCB Members finally approve ICEL Gray Book

[benedictgal]

Oh happy day! I think that we are now closer to the promised land. Yesterday, by a vote of 189 to 30, the Latin Rite members of the USCCB approved the ICEL Gray Book (the new translations of the propers and seasons of the Roman Missal).

Let me tell you, this had all the drama of one of the more contentious floor fights I had ever seen in my days in the Texas House. My bishop caught a lot of face time in front of the camera (although he said nothing, the camera was right on him). I felt like sending telegraphic signals to him to stay with the USCCB chairman on Divine Worship and not amend anything significant. In fact, I gently told him as much when I ran into him at Popeye’s a couple of weeks ago. I even lobbied by buying him his lunch. Well, if the lobbyists can do that, why can’t I?

The whole drama seemed focus on the word “ineffable”. The Ordinary of Erie wanted to strike the word from the translations. However, the Chairman of the CDW held firm and noted that this is the exact translation of the Latin, something required by Liturgiam Authenticam. Then, the Cardinal Metropolitan from Galveston-Houston (my new hero) stepped in and pretty much told the group not to change a thing. The Ordinary from Lincoln also joined my fellow Texan. Another Ordinary added that we needed to restore the sacral language of the liturgy and noted that it was up to the bishops to catechize the faithful.

At some point, I wanted to throw something into my Dad’s HDTV because the other side was still trying to change things. But, luckily, that didn’t happen.

In the end, the Cardinal Metropolitan of Chicago called for the vote and, from what the tallies indicated, we now have progress!

Deo gratia!

 

[PacoG]

Some of us were lucky to end up in the Houston-Galveston province after Texas was split. And some of you in Laredo stayed in Los Angeles…oops, I mean San Antonio.

 

[Digitonomy]

But apparently no gibbet.

The text before them this week is the result of that revision – and although the new draft may not satisfy its most severe critics, the symbolically laden word “gibbet” is conspicuously absent.

On the Wednesday of Holy Week, for example, the Orlando version read: “Oh God, who for our sake willed that your Son should suffer on the gibbet of the Cross.” That has been retouched to: “Oh God, for our sake you willed that your Son should suffer the ignominy of the Cross.” A similar phrase is used in place of “gibbet” on Good Friday. Elsewhere, “gibbet” is simply replaced with “cross.”…

In fact, regardless of what the bishops decide to do today, they may not have seen the last of “gibbet.” The text will have to go to Rome for approval, which means it’s possible that “gibbet,” as well as other revised points of word choice and sentence structure, could still stage a comeback.
Source

So do I understand this is an updated ICEL translation that was voted on this week? Have the other ICEL countries also approved this latest translation? And is there any reason to think the Vatican won’t accept this translation, or is John Allen just throwing up the true but unlikely possibility “anything could happen”?

 

[Phemie]

But apparently no gibbet.So do I understand this is an updated ICEL translation that was voted on this week? Have the other ICEL countries also approved this latest translation? And is there any reason to think the Vatican won’t accept this translation, or is John Allen just throwing up the true but unlikely possibility “anything could happen”?

Unfortunately, the removal of the word ‘gibbet’ removes the sense of unfairness from the sentence. Why was the Cross an ignominy? Because the cross was an instrument of execution for criminals. Remove the word, remove the sense. Perish the thought that one might have to look up a word in the dictionary – or that one might have to explain the word in the homily.

 

[benedictgal]

Unfortunately, the removal of the word ‘gibbet’ removes the sense of unfairness from the sentence. Why was the Cross an ignominy? Because the cross was an instrument of execution for criminals. Remove the word, remove the sense. Perish the thought that one might have to look up a word in the dictionary – or that one might have to explain the word in the homily.

I do suspect that “gibbet” may make a comeback. ICEL was not too happy with one of the bishops when he proposed changes that would render the Holy Week propers theologically unsound. In fact, they sent a letter, that was published in the Adoremus Bulletin, which says in part (although not referencing “gibbet” at all, but, one would get the drift where these comments were heading):

However, ICEL’s translators have been impressed by the fact that Latin orations, especially Post-Communions, tend to conclude strongly with a teleological or eschatological point. Because of this, they have often followed the Latin in placing the modifiers before the verb so that the English prayer also ends on a strong note. In doing so, they have hoped to avoid a defect that many have noticed in the current translations of these prayers, namely that they often end weakly. It has not been possible to follow this procedure in every case, because sometimes too contorted a syntax results, but it has been followed frequently throughout the Missal. The Commission hopes that this pattern, though unfamiliar at first, will soon become familiar, and allow the teleological thrust that marks so many of the Post-Communions to become more apparent to the people.

Bishop XXXXX also recommended the addition of ‘this’ to the third line, so that it would read: to which these awesome mysteries bear witness.

The recommendation to insert ‘this’ or ‘these’ where there is no Latin equivalent is made frequently, but the translators have often found themselves disinclined to adopt it, because it narrows the focus of the text. A familiar example is found in the words before Communion currently translated: This is the Lamb of God…

These words draw the people’s attention to the Host that the priest holds in his hand, and invite them to recognize Christ present in the Sacrament. But the words were originally those of John the Baptist, spoken when he was at some distance from Jesus. The Commission’s more recent translation, “Behold the Lamb of God…” gives the text a greater polyvalence, inviting the people to remember also the Baptist’s words and the context in which they were first uttered, as well as the eschatological appearance of the Lamb in heaven, which the priest’s subsequent quotation of Apoc. [Rev.] 19:9 recalls.

Returning to the Post-Communion for Wednesday in Holy Week, we can see that Bishop XXXXXs proposal would make the prayer refer clearly to the Eucharist whose celebration is drawing to a close. But it should be noticed that since its earliest appearance (in the Hadrianum manuscript of the Gregorian Sacramentary, dated 811-812), this prayer has been assigned to the day before the beginning of the Easter Triduum. It retained that position in subsequent Sacramentaries, and in the 1570 Missal. This being so, we can see a richer significance in the words mysteria veneranda: they refer not only to the Mass just celebrated, but also to the mysteries of the Triduum that will be beginning next time the people gather. It would seem a pity to remove such a resonance from this ancient prayer by adding the word ‘these’.

While at Popeye’s, I asked my bishop to explain the controversy behind the word “gibbet”. He was at a loss for it. I told him that a simple explanation in the bulletin would suffice and that we should not be afraid to use language that gets to the heart of the sacred mysteries. He agreed, but, I don’t know how if that translated into a vote.

If I run into him at Popeye’s again, I’ll ask him. It may cost me another chicken dinner, but, oh well. The fastest way to a bishop’s heart is through his stomach.

 

[FrDavid96]

Personally, I think the word “ignominy” is even more obscure than “gibbet.” Not to mention that people are less likely to mispronounce “gibbet.”

My biggest problem with the Holy Week services is talking about the two thieves on the cross as “revolutionaries” Am I the only one who sees Liberation Theology influence here?

 

[Digitonomy]

Personally, I think the word “ignominy” is even more obscure than “gibbet.”

I disagree. I think ignominy is both a more common word (just checked Google, and there are 10 times as many hits), and a more poetic rendering. And I disagree with Phemie in that I think it emphasizes exactly the sense that he says it leaves out. However, Phemie’s certainly correct in those cases where both words are now omitted.

FrDavid96:

Not to mention that people are less likely to mispronounce “gibbet.”

True, if they can figure out whether it’s a hard or soft “G”.

FrDavid96:

My biggest problem with the Holy Week services is talking about the two thieves on the cross as “revolutionaries” Am I the only one who sees Liberation Theology influence here?

So we have the good revolutionary and the bad revolutionary? Do you have a cite for this; I haven’t read about it before?

benedictgal:

I do suspect that “gibbet” may make a comeback. ICEL was not too happy with one of the bishops when he proposed changes

So just to clarify, have the other ICEL countries approved all of these changes already?

 

[Brendan]

ISo just to clarify, have the other ICEL countries approved all of these changes already?

England, Scotland, Ireland and Australia have all approved the Gray Book. I don’t know about Canada or New Zeeland.

 

[FrDavid96]

So we have the good revolutionary and the bad revolutionary? Do you have a cite for this; I haven’t read about it before?

Gibbet and ignominy aside (I don’t have a problem with either one, as long as the sense of the ligurgy as an extraordinary otherworldy event is preserved)

There is a huge difference between thief and revolutionary.

A thief is a universal criminal. Whatever human culture one lives in, a thief is always a criminal. It’s not a matter of perspective.

A revolutionary on the other hand is a very relative concept. One person’s freedom fighter is another’s traitor. Take Geo Washington for example. He was a revolutionary. From the American perspective, he was the great Father of our Country, who fought for our freedom. From the English perspective, he was a traitor who took up arms against his king.

One of the most important theological truths of the Passion is that Christ was innocent, yet treated like he was guilty. Obvious, no?.

By placing Christ between two thieves, we understand better the reality that an innocent man was treated with the same indignity as two guilty men, who deserved to be where they were.

On the other hand, if we see the two thieves as revolutionaries, we might easily question that. Given the historical context that Herod was a mere puppet king, a client of an oppressive Roman empire, one could easily draw the conclusion that the two “revolutionaries” were also innocent of any real crime. They were merely fighting for the freedom of their people. They did not deserve to be on crosses any more than Christ did not deserve it. It is not at all difficult for us to take their side, or even to see them as heroes. Now we have a very different perspective on the entire Passion. When Christ said to the one on His right, “this day you will be with Me in Paradise” was He saying that the thief’s sins were forgiven, or was He endorsing the revolution against an oppressive government?

Immagine the Passion being read in a country today where the government is indeed oppressive. What do people in Cuba think when they hear the word revolutionary? Do they think of Fidel Castro in the 1950s? Do they think of a possible uprising against the Castros’ regime today?

A thief is a criminal. A revolutionary might be either a criminal or a savior.

 

[Digitonomy]

There is a huge difference between thief and revolutionary.

Very true. Again, do you have a cite discussing the insertion of “revolutionary” into the liturgy? I was not aware of this, and it seems rather a bizarre substitution unless we’re now convinced that’s a more accurate description of what they were, based on the original texts.

 

[FrDavid96]

Very true. Again, do you have a cite discussing the insertion of “revolutionary” into the liturgy? I was not aware of this, and it seems rather a bizarre substitution unless we’re now convinced that’s a more accurate description of what they were, based on the original texts.

It’s the word used in contemporary translations of the Scripture (not the liturgy per se).

I’ve never looked it up in the Greek (truth is, wouldn’t know how). But I do know that throughout the centuries, the understanding has always been “thieves.” * I cannot imagine that if the original word was indeed “revolutionaries” and not “thieves” that it took so long for anyone to catch this.

• Even if we use the word “criminal” as many translations have, it still renders the theological truth that they, not Christ, were the guilty ones. “Revolutionaries” calls their guilt into question.

 

[Digitonomy]

It’s the word used in contemporary translations of the Scripture (not the liturgy per se).

Sure enough, here’s the NAB for Matthew 27:44

The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way.

From BLB we get the Textus Receptus

τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ οἱ λῃσταὶ οἱ συσταυρωθέντες αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτῷ

and the Morphological Greek New Testament, whatever that may be:

τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ οἱ λῃσταὶ οἱ συσταυρωθέντες σὺν αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν

I will leave it to Greek scholars to expound on the meaning - no wait, I see a footnote in the NAB from verse 38, which also uses the word…

Revolutionary: a guerrilla warrior fighting for nationalistic aims, though the term can also denote a robber.

Here’s some discussion I found about it. It sounds as if we really don’t know, as the Roman authorities likely didn’t distinguish these two categories in deciding who to crucify. However, it is an odd choice to choose “revolutionary” rather than “robber” when we don’t know, and when the tradition has been the latter.

 

[Aramis]

Personally, I think the word “ignominy” is even more obscure than “gibbet.” Not to mention that people are less likely to mispronounce “gibbet.”

Aside from the usual soft-G/hard-G/silent-G issues endemic to American English…

My biggest problem with the Holy Week services is talking about the two thieves on the cross as “revolutionaries” Am I the only one who sees Liberation Theology influence here?

No. And it isn’t a happy thing.

However, Jerusalem at the time of Christ was filled with revolutionaries. Hence lots of executions. Or, that is the implication of Josephus, at least.

 

[FrDavid96]

It sounds as if we really don’t know, as the Roman authorities likely didn’t distinguish these two categories in deciding who to crucify. However, it is an odd choice to choose “revolutionary” rather than “robber” when we don’t know, and when the tradition has been the latter.

Thanks for the post. I admit I can’t read the Greek (not proud of that fact, but it is a fact).

Robber, thief, not a significant difference; still a criminal deserving of some kind of punishment regardless of one’s viewpoint. But robber, revolutionary is indeed a difference. The Tradition of the Church has always seen them as robbers. Why should we change that now? If the word can be rendered either way, why choose “revolutionary” given what I see as an obvious distortion of the whole point of mentioning that He was crucified between 2 criminals? I can’t understand it.

The point I’m trying to illustrate is that the people who are doing the translations for us, whether they are liturgical texts or scriptural, are doing a very poor job of conveying into English the meaning of the texts themselves. That’s why we’re in the mess we are in now, and why Rome has to take such efforts to correct it.

I cannot help but mention the outright hypocrisy of modern Scripture scholars who readily and smugly discount St. Jerome’s translations of the Scripture (and others) into Latin or some later language becuase they say that ancient scholars changed the meaning, and therefore we shouldn’t trust them. Then they go and do exactly the same thing. Where has happened to honest scholarship?

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks for the post. I admit I can’t read the Greek (not proud of that fact, but it is a fact).

Robber, thief, not a significant difference; still a criminal deserving of some kind of punishment regardless of one’s viewpoint. But robber, revolutionary is indeed a difference. The Tradition of the Church has always seen them as robbers. Why should we change that now? If the word can be rendered either way, why choose “revolutionary” given what I see as an obvious distortion of the whole point of mentioning that He was crucified between 2 criminals? I can’t understand it.

The point I’m trying to illustrate is that the people who are doing the translations for us, whether they are liturgical texts or scriptural, are doing a very poor job of conveying into English the meaning of the texts themselves. That’s why we’re in the mess we are in now, and why Rome has to take such efforts to correct it.

I cannot help but mention the outright hypocrisy of modern Scripture scholars who readily and smugly discount St. Jerome’s translations of the Scripture (and others) into Latin or some later language becuase they say that ancient scholars changed the meaning, and therefore we shouldn’t trust them. Then they go and do exactly the same thing. Where has happened to honest scholarship?

I guess I should have tempered my enthusiasm. I probably missed some chunks of the debate. To be quite frank with you, I have not read any part of the Gray book. Does anyone know where I can find it, short of sneaking into the bishop’s office ?

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess I should have tempered my enthusiasm. I probably missed some chunks of the debate. To be quite frank with you, I have not read any part of the Gray book. Does anyone know where I can find it, short of sneaking into the bishop’s office ?

USCCB website. www.usccb.org

It’s in PDF format, and more seems to be appearing all the time.

Remember though, the discussion about “robbers” is about the translation in the Lectionary and not the Sacramentary.

 

[Joannm]

USCCB website. www.usccb.org

It’s in PDF format, and more seems to be appearing all the time.

Remember though, the discussion about “robbers” is about the translation in the Lectionary and not the Sacramentary.

I think she was speaking of the gray book for the Proper of Seasons, which was just approved and is not on the web site. Basically now only the bishops, and some scholars or Directors of Worship have copies of that. I saw the green book for the Propers of Seasons a few summers ago since one of my professors was critiquing the book for his bishop, but I have not seen the gray book.

 

[benedictgal]

I think she was speaking of the gray book for the Proper of Seasons, which was just approved and is not on the web site. Basically now only the bishops, and some scholars or Directors of Worship have copies of that. I saw the green book for the Propers of Seasons a few summers ago since one of my professors was critiquing the book for his bishop, but I have not seen the gray book.

I called the chancery to see if I could take a peek at the Gray Book. Our Ordinary hasn’t made it back from the conference yet. But, I am hoping that he will let me see it. It may cost me another Popeye’s dinner, but, it’s worth it.

A blogspot had posted the Gray book on its website, but, ICEL got after the blogger and they had to pull it down.

I realize that we are not a democracy, but, it would be nice if they could at least post what the USCCB has already approved. When I wrote legislation, the bills were posted on the web as soon as they were filed. Even the amendments were posted.

The strangest part of the debate centered on the “readability” of the text. One ordinary was complaining that the sentences went on for several lines. I wanted to scream. That is the same problem that I have with the Lectionary, especially when it comes to proclaiming the Pauline letters. And this translation is from the RNAB by, drum roll, the USCCB. The “readabilty” is terrible. I have to consult either my RSV-CE 2nd edition Bible or the Spanish lectionary to know how to break up those mega-sentences. And they are complaining about “readabilty”?

Having seen the Green Book (what is already posted online), I found these to be much more readable.

 

[Corki]

I

If I run into him at Popeye’s again, I’ll ask him. It may cost me another chicken dinner, but, oh well. The fastest way to a bishop’s heart is through his stomach.

Sorry for the OT post but your Bishop (who I love) really gets into the fast food, doesn’t he?

I was at a Piccomolo’s one day and struck up a conversation witht the owner and she was telling me about the Bishop of Laredo who stopped into her shop on his way back from a meeting with the Cardinal AB in Houston.

BTW, I have heard you Bishop speak at a conference and you are truly blessed.

 

[bpbasilphx]

My biggest problem with the Holy Week services is talking about the two thieves on the cross as “revolutionaries” Am I the only one who sees Liberation Theology influence here?

My understanding is that Gestas and St. Dismas were only common-garden-variety robbers and murderers.