Changes in the Liturgy

This story from Catholic News Service on proposed changes to the Mass has really got me thinking. While I may not have any real training in theology, I spend far too much time thinking about translation, so I may just have something worthwhile to say on this issue.

Here's a list of the possible changes included in the article for those to lazy to read the whole thing:

--Whenever the priest says "The Lord be with you," the people will respond, "And with your spirit." The current response is "And also with you."

--In the first form of the penitential rite, the people will confess that "I have sinned greatly . . . through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault." In the current version, that part of the prayer is much shorter: "I have sinned through my own fault."

--The Nicene Creed will begin "I believe" instead of "We believe"--a translation of the Latin text instead of the original Greek text.

--The Sanctus will start , "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hosts." The current version says, "Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might." The new ICEL text for the people's prayer for Communion says "Lord, I am worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

In the Nicene Creed, where the current version refers to Christ as "one in being with the Father," the new ICEL translation says, "consubstantial with the Father." In the documentation sent to the bishops before the meeting, however, the Committe on Liturgy has recommended keeping the "one in being" translation in the United
States.

The committe proposed that the bishops seek to keep the current shorter version of
the beginning of that prayer, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you." The
committee did not, however, propose a change from the ICEL translation at the
end, where the people currently pray, "but only say the word and I shall be healed."

We have a number of issues going on here. First, aesthetically: "And with your spirit" is the biggest offender. That phrase is cleary not English. Also, "Consubstantial" fails to improve upon "One in being," while the longer version of the Penitential Rite is another obvious instance of a phrase not original to English. Finally, I personally like "Lord of Hosts," but the term is obviously somewhat antiquated.

Aesthetics, however, is not the most important criterion by which we must judge. I think that it paramount that we keep in mind that we are members of the Roman Rite, even though we attend Mass in the vernacular. As such, one would assume that the Mass said in the United States would be as close to the normative Latin as possible. I was shocked when I first saw the proposed change to "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you." While the meaning in both prayers is the same, the translator of our current version decided to leave out "roof" and "soul."

Here's the Latin from the Novus Ordo:

Dòmine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanàbitur ànima mea.

Word for word, it would be translated:

Lord, now I am worthy, that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and it will be healed my soul.

This prayer is, of course, a reference to Matthew 8: 5-13.

From the NAB:

5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, 6 saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully." 7 He said to him, "I will come and cure him." 8 The centurion said in reply, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, 12 but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth." 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, "You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you." And at that very hour (his) servant was healed.

From the Vulgate:

5 cum autem introisset Capharnaum accessit ad eum centurio rogans eum 6 et dicens Domine puer meus iacet in domo paralyticus et male torquetur 7 et ait illi Iesus ego veniam et curabo eum 8 et respondens centurio ait Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur
puer meus 9 nam et ego homo sum sub potestate habens sub me milites et dico
huic vade et vadit et alio veni et venit et servo meo fac hoc et facit 10 audiens autem Iesus miratus est et sequentibus se dixit amen dico vobis non inveni tantam fidem in Israhel 11 dico autem vobis quod multi ab oriente et occidente venient et recumbent cum Abraham et Isaac et Iacob in regno caelorum 12 filii autem regni eicientur in tenebras exteriores ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium 13 et dixit Iesus centurioni vade et sicut credidisti fiat tibi et sanatus est puer in hora illa.

As you can see, the only change in the Latin is "anima mea" for "puer meus"--"my soul" for "my slave."* The new translation reflects the Biblical passage in a way our current translation does not. I cannot condemn the current translation of this prayer strongly enough. There is no reason for the changes other than the translator thought that the words we now use express the idea behind the prayer better; however, that is not the translator's job in this case. None of the words from the Latin are complicated, nor is "under my roof" (sub tectum meum) a Latin idiom for a person. The Latin from Novus Ordo can be, and is in the proposed translation, rendered into perfectly understandable English. If the bishops think a prayer should be reformulated, they should take it up with Rome and their fellow bishops from around the world.

While trifling in size, perhaps the biggest problem with our current translation of the Mass lies in the way we recite the Nicene Creed (and no it's not that useless "again"). While the Latin starts with "Credo" (I believe), we, of course, proclaim "we believe." Now, I don't want to get into an argument about theology here. I can see perfectly valid reasons for saying we believe, not least of which is defend against relativism. Be that as it may, I don't think it's too much to ask for the statement of our faith be the same for the entire Catholic Church.

On a side note, I found the quote from Arinze's letter to Skylstad absolutely hillarious: "It it not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past 30 or 40 years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes." I see. So 500 years of tradition can be dropped for an ill-conceived translation, but God forbid that that same translation be minorly altered after a whole thirty years! It beggars belief that some bishops would have actually made that argument.

*I really don't know why the NAB has "servant." The RSV also uses servant, so it's unlikey to be because of an aversion to the word "slave." "House slave" is probably the best translation. The Latin here literally says "boy," which was the usual term for addressing a . . . slave.