www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Liturgy Language: Soaring Poetry vs. Bumpy Prose

The author of the article is Bishop Arthur Seratelli of Paterson, N.J. A good friend of mine studied under the Bishop when he was an adjunct professor at St. Joseph Seminary, Dunwoodie, NY-Staten Island campus. He is orthodox, and also very balanced and mild-mannered. I would love to get his comments on our RDL in light of what he writes below.

Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-22951?l=english
Liturgy Language: Soaring Poetry vs. Bumpy Prose


Column From Chair of US Bishops' Committee on Scripture Translations


PATERSON, New Jersey, JUNE 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is this week's column from Bishop Arthur Serratelli posted on the Web site of the Diocese of Paterson.
Bishop Serratelli is the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations.
At their spring meeting last week, the bishops voted on a new translation of the Proper of Seasons and other texts. However, the vote was not finalized because there were not enough members present to reach the two-thirds majority required for approval. Bishops who were not at the meeting will vote by mail over the coming days.
* * *
The Language of the Liturgy: The Value of the New Translations
In Act III, Scene II of The Tragedy of Hamlet, the young prince gives this advice: "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action." Ever since the publication of the third edition of the Missale Romanum in 2000, translators have been grappling with the challenge of suiting the word to the liturgy. Translators working to provide a fresh translation of the liturgical texts face a number of challenges.
Words, like people's dress, change from one generation to the next and from one group to another in the same society. What one individual calls a "swamp," another more ecologically conscious individual calls "wetlands." A politician waxes eloquently about "public participation." His audience understands him to say "self-denial." The corporate world routinely uses the noun impact as a transitive verb. People follow happily along.
Today, politically correct as well as linguistically conscious individuals carefully circumvent the word "man" not to offend women. Past generations pronounced the word with never the slightest intention of excluding women. But times have changed. We speak now about humankind. Certainly, we have gained inclusivity. Yet, we have sacrificed language that is not so abstract.
English always has been an open language, ready to welcome neologisms. The Internet has enriched our speech with new phrases and words. Text messaging is altering our spelling and our syntax. Language is a human expression. As people change, so does the way they speak.
In his popular rhetorical guide, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum, Erasmus, the 16th century Dutch humanist and theologian, showed students 150 different styles they could use when phrasing the Latin sentence, Tuae literae me magnopere delectarunt (Your letter has delighted me very much). Clearly, no single translation of any sentence or work will ever completely satisfy everyone. Even the best of all possible translations of the new Missal will have its critics.
But there is something more at stake than pleasing individual tastes and preferences in the new liturgical translations. The new translations aim at a "language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves ... dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision" (Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). The new translations now being prepared are a marked improvement over the translations with which we have become familiar. They are densely theological. They respect the rich vocabulary of the Roman Rite. They carefully avoid the overuse of certain phrases and words.
The new translations also have a great respect for the style of the Roman Rite. Certainly, some sentences could be more easily translated to mimic our common speech. But they are not. And with reason. Latin orations, especially Post-Communions, tend to conclude strongly with a teleological or eschatological point. The new translations in English follow the sequence of these Latin prayers in order to end on a strong note. Many of our current translations of these prayers end weakly. Why should we strip the English translation of the distinctive theological emphases of the Latin text? A slightly non-colloquial word order can lead the listener to a greater attention to the point of the prayer.
Our present liturgical texts are framed in simple syntax. The new translations use more subordinate clauses. This, in and of itself, does not render them unproclaimable. By the very fact that, in some instances, the new translations require thoughtful and careful attention to pauses when speaking helps to foster and create a less rushed and more reverent way of praying. Not a small gain for a proper ars celebrandi.
The new translation at times may use uncommon words like "ineffable." The word is not unspeakable! For sure, this word does not come from the street language of the contemporary individual. But, then, why cannot the liturgy use words that elevate the language from the street to the altar? People may not use certain words in their active vocabulary. This does not mean they will be baffled by their use in the liturgy. "If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities" (Liturgiam Authenticam, 27).
Liturgical language should border on the poetic. Prose bumps along the ground. Poetry soars to the heavens. And our Liturgy is already a sharing of the Liturgy in heaven.
The liturgical texts that we are now using are not perfect, but they are familiar. This familiarity makes celebrants at ease with the present texts. The new texts are better. When the new texts are implemented, they will require more attention on the part of the celebrant. But any initial uneasiness will yield to familiarity and to a language that is well suited to the Liturgy.
A language suited for the Liturgy: this is the one of great advantages of the work being done on the new translations. There is more to the Liturgy than the human language of any age or any one country. In the new translations of the Roman Missal, a conscious effort is being made to suit the human word to the divine action that the Liturgy truly is. As Pope Benedict XVI has said, the "central actio of the Mass is fundamentally neither that of the priest as such nor of the laity as such, but of Christ the High Priest: This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real 'action' for which all creation is in expectation. ... This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential" (The Spirit of the Liturgy p. 173).
In his early work Enchiridion militis christiani, Erasmus states the obvious about human speech and the divine. He argues that words always fall short of their task of miming the Logos. Reaching back to Exodus 16, he argues that the smallness of the manna rained down on the Israelites "signifies the lowliness of speech that conceals immense mysteries in almost crude language." Until the end of history, we must be content with imperfect language that will never fully unveil the divine mystery we celebrate. But the new translations, imperfect as they are -- as all human speech will be -- are good translations that have passed through the hands of many scholars and bishops. The language of the new texts, while not dummied down to the most common denominator, remains readily accessible to anyone. Most assuredly, these new translations of liturgical texts will help us better approach God with greater reverence and awe. We gladly await their final approval from the Holy See and their use in the Liturgy!

Latin Days Are Here Again?

Pope Benedict wants to revive the Latin mass in Roman Catholic worship. But what exactly does that mean?

George Weigel
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:19 AM ET Jun 19, 2008

Is Pope Benedict XVI determined to restore the Latin mass that many Roman Catholics thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history? The answer, in short, is both yes and no. But neither the "yes" nor the "no" quite fits the conventional speculations in several recent media reports following off-the-cuff remarks to a small Catholic association in Great Britain by a Vatican official. In unraveling this, it helps to begin at the beginning.

As he reminds us in his memoir, "Salt of the Earth," the young Joseph Ratzinger was deeply influenced, both spiritually and intellectually, by the mid-20th-century movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church's public worship--a movement that helped pave the way for the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Father Ratzinger was a peritus, a theological expert, at the council, and like many others, he welcomed the council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: here was a ratification of the liturgical reform movement he had long supported and a blueprint for further organic development of the celebration of mass. In the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, however, Ratzinger became convinced that organic development had been jettisoned for revolution, the liturgical Jacobins being a cadre of academics determined to impose their view of a populist liturgy on the entire Catholic Church.

In the decades between Vatican II and his election as Benedict XVI, Ratzinger became a leader in what became known as "the reform of the reform": a loosely knit international network of laity, bishops, priests and scholars, committed to returning the process of liturgical development in the Catholic Church to what they understood to be the authentic blueprint of Vatican II. Seeing a Gregorian chant CD from an obscure Spanish monastery rise to the top of the pop charts in the 1990s, they wondered why much of the church had abandoned one of Catholicism's classic musical forms. Finding congregations that seemed more interested in self-affirmation than worship, and priests given to making their personalities the center of the liturgical action, they asked whether the rush to create a kind of sacred circle in which the priest faces the people over the eucharistic "table" might have something to do with the problem.

And they reminded the entire church that Vatican II had not mandated many of the things most Catholics thought it had decreed: for example, the elimination of Latin (and chant) from the liturgy and the free-standing altar behind which the priest faced the congregation.

Over the past 40 years, the Catholic liturgical wars have tended to be fought among specialists and activists. The largest post-Vatican II splinter group, associated with the excommunicated French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, certainly had its problems with the new liturgy; but the deeper cause of the Lefebvrists' march into schism was their rejection of Vatican II's teaching on religious freedom, which they deemed heresy. The overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world have welcomed the new form of the mass that became normative in 1970, a mass celebrated entirely in English (or Spanish or French or Polish, or whatever language the congregation speaks). Over time, the silly season in Catholic liturgy that peaked in the 1970s--"clown" masses (with the priest vested as Bozo or somesuch), free-for-all prayers that ignored the prescribed rite, dreadful pop music, inept "liturgical dance," a general lack of decorum--began to recede. A re-sacralization of Catholic worship became evident in many parishes. What Ratzinger and other specialists had called "the reform of the reform" was underway at the grass roots, and under its own steam.

It was to accelerate that "reform of the reform" that Benedict XVI issued a decree last summer permitting the widespread use of the 1962 Roman rite, known technically as the Missal of John XXIII. Amidst the recent, fevered speculations that Latin days are here again, it's important to note what the Missal of John XXIII is not. It is not the "Tridentine Rite," because it includes modifications of the missal mandated by the Council of Trent in the 16th century; it is not the "mass of Pius V," which some Catholic megatraditionalists argue is the only valid form of Catholic worship. It is, in fact, the mass as celebrated every day at every session of the Second Vatican Council. (The 1962 missal did contain a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, which some, but certainly not all, Jews found offensive. After a brief flurry of criticism, Benedict XVI modified the prayer; conversations about its further alteration continue. The modified prayer was used in the minuscule number of Catholic congregations that celebrated Holy Week 2008 according to the Missal of John XXIII; no pogroms resulted, and indeed the argument seems to have died out.)

Some may find it ironic that the "old Latin mass" that Benedict XVI has permitted is precisely the mass as known by Pope John XXIII, hero of Catholic progressivism. But there is in fact something "progressive," in the sense of reformist, about Benedict's strategy here.

Yes, the mass of John XXIII is celebrated in Latin, and yes, it is often celebrated (although it need not be) with the priest and the congregation facing the same direction as they pray--looking together, as classic liturgical theology teaches, toward the return of Christ and the inauguration of the heavenly Jerusalem. But the pope's point in making this form of liturgy more widely available is neither nostalgic nor retrogade. Rather, by encouraging the more widespread celebration of this classic form of the always-evolving Roman rite, Benedict XVI intends to create a kind of liturgical magnet, drawing the "reform of the reform" in the direction of greater reverence in the Catholic Church's public worship. In doing so, the pope is also reminding the church that, as Vatican II put it, the mass is a moment of privileged participation in "that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle." "Going to mass," in other words, is not something we do for ourselves, or something we make up ourselves; liturgical worship is our participation in something God is doing for us.

Will this Benedictine reform-of-the-reform mean that every Catholic parish will soon have at least one Sunday celebration of mass in Latin, using the Missal of John XXIII? It seems unlikely, not least because very few priests today are competent Latinists. But in those places where the Latin mass of 1962 is celebrated reverently and without nostalgic accretions (lace-bedecked older vestments, for example), it will be a source of spiritual nourishment for the minority that prefers this way of worship, even as it introduces a new generation to what will be, for them, a new form of liturgy. In international settings, the use of this rite in Latin may help revive that ancient tongue as a common Catholic language for common worship--no small matter in an increasingly diverse and pluralistic church. Among scholars and parish clergy alike, the more widespread celebration of mass according to the Missal of John XXIII may prove to be the reformist magnet that Benedict XVI wants it to be, encouraging those who are already at work re-sacralizing the liturgy.

And the net result over time? Almost certainly not "Latin days are here again" in every Catholic parish but rather a more reverent, more prayerful celebration of mass according to a reformed missal of 1970--and according to what the Second Vatican Council actually prescribed.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142217

The Ruthenian Bishops' Revised Divine Liturgy imitated all the failed customs the Roman Catholics did in the 1970s. Keep writing letters to Rome! We need to skip past the silliness in Liturgy and get down to the "Reform of the Reform". It can't happen unless YOU write a letter today! Rome has not been impressed with the Ruthenian Reform and has let the bishops know it is reviewing it. Keep up the pressure! Your letter sent today can save us!

This makes me think about all those who approve of the revised divine liturgy in the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy. I know some people love it. I also know some people think it was "reasonable" and thus, they should go along with what their bishops have done. Finally, I know a third group who, unlike many bloggers and posters, recognize that they are not experts in liturgy.

I would recommend that group one write to Rome expressing how much they love the new liturgy. I would recommend that group two also write, expressing how important they think it is that Rome not interfere in a reasonable action taken by their church sui iuris. I would recommend that we all pray that the Holy Spirit guides the Church as need be and have faith that such occurs.

Lastly, do we really need to whine to Rome like this? This seems pretty juvenile over an issue that is really about personal taste. But, if the anti-text group writes to Rome, I guess we should too.

The "this" I was referring to came from:

Yes. Many of my Ruthenian Catholic friends have written letters to Rome expressing their displeasure with the reformation of the Liturgy. It seems that Rome is listening! Bravo!

Sorry to give away the Awful Truth - but the fact is that in the nineteen-fifties most Roman Catholic priests in America (and presumably other countries) were not competent in Latin either. I could give some startling examples, but people would be reluctant to believe them. Suffice it to say that when Bishop John Wright went to Worcester, he required the Priests to pass an examination in elementary Latin - and required those priests who flunked the exam to take courses in remedial Latin. He was the only Bishop I've heard of who did this.

During Vatican II it was moderately amusing to notice people like Cardinal Spellman arguing for the absolute retention of Latin - and making his argument in a lingo which would make Pig Latin look respectable. Meanwhile the vernacularists were making their arguments in flawless Ciceronian Latin. If you can read Latin don't take my word for it; the speeches of Vatican II (all in Latin except for the speeches of the Melkites, who spoke in French) have been published and are available in major Catholic libraries for anyone to read.

Fr. Serge

That's OK, Father.

I can't read French, either.

hawk, one of whose great regrets is having taken Spanish rather than Latin (and failed in keeping up with his daughter, and with vain hopes of catchingup)

Felix wrote: Lastly, do we really need to whine to Rome like this? This seems pretty juvenile over an issue that is really about personal taste.

Bishop Arthur Seratelli of Paterson, N.J. wrote: But there is something more at stake than pleasing individual tastes and preferences in the new liturgical translations. The new translations [for the Latin rite] aim at a "language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves ... dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision" (Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). The new translations now being prepared [for the Latin rite] are a marked improvement over the translations with which we have become familiar. They are densely theological. They respect the rich vocabulary of the Roman Rite. They carefully avoid the overuse of certain phrases and words.

George Weigel wrote: As he reminds us in his memoir, "Salt of the Earth," the young Joseph Ratzinger was deeply influenced, both spiritually and intellectually, by the mid-20th-century movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church's public worship--a movement that helped pave the way for the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Father Ratzinger was a peritus, a theological expert, at the council, and like many others, he welcomed the council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: here was a ratification of the liturgical reform movement he had long supported and a blueprint for further organic development of the celebration of mass. In the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, however, Ratzinger became convinced that organic development had been jettisoned for revolution, the liturgical Jacobins being a cadre of academics determined to impose their view of a populist liturgy on the entire Catholic Church.

The few who support the Revised Divine Liturgy seem to always move the discussion away from accurate translations and complete rubrics. They seem to always think that liturgy is nothing more then an assembly of words and actions arranged according to the personal taste of the arrangers.

I have heard the same reports that �Dostojno Jest� has heard. If we keep up the pressure on the bishops they will eventually do what is right and allow the real Byzantine Liturgy. If we keep writing to Rome we will get written directives that prevent local bishops from jettisoning the liturgy of their own Church. The whole Revised Divine Liturgy is an embarrassing fiasco.

John, the people you describe sound very similar to your group. After all, your group wants the liturgy your way based on personal taste. I would ask us to end the name calling and focus on the merits, but I don't think we even have a right to argue. Instead, I think we both should submit to a reasonable change made by the hierarchs of our church, a church guided and filled by the Holy Spirit.

You refer to the RDL as an "embarrasing fiasco." I think the only such fiasco is the letter-writing revolution by the pre-RDL bunch. If someone is going to argue with their hierarchy and write to Rome about small changes to the liturgy that amount to personal taste, its not going to be me.

However, if the letter writing does work, I'll accept it too. I won't change jurisdictions, I won't write letters to Rome, I won't write long posts on the forum, etc. I'll accept it as another reasonable decision by the hierarchy and I will go on with my life.

When I first joined this forum, I was shocked at how entrenched everyone has become on this issue. I really think we need to move on. How can be be constructive if there is such disunity based upon the divide this causes in every third or forth thread?

Oh, this is rich! Felix wishes that those who oppose this fiasco foisted upon the faithful would just shut up and go away! Sorry, Bubby, it ain't gonna' happen! Have you actually even read ANY of the multitude of postings on this subject, citing errors, doctrinal changes, and total disregard for the sanctity of the Liturgy? It might behoove you to consider researching the subject just a bit before you accuse those who wish to remain faithful to "that which has been handed down to them" of pandering to "personal tastes".

Alexandr

Felix,

your post raises questions in my mind.

isn't a good question how this recent disunity was caused? Was it not caused by the RDL? Wouldn't the time and money spent on the RDL been better used on an evangelization program rather than on revising?

Personal taste? I was born in the 1970s, how in the world did those who came before me know what I would have liked? Gee, do you think that it isn't just mine (and others who oppose the RDL personal tastes), it might be something called Tradition?


Monomakh

Alexandr,

I don't mean to be too rude. But I think you and John Damascene (obviously not the real one) and the group with which you both are part have gone too far. I have a right to think that, and I think my belief is based on logic.

I agree, however, that if what you describe, such as a "total disregard for the sanctity of the [l]iturgy," were occurring, it would be time to act. But I think we can both agree that a "total disregard" is not occurring. No one is urinating on the alter. No one is being mandated to throw Christ's body and blood onto the floor. This debate is about minor changes.

I have carefully considered most of what has been written (I have read a great deal of old posts). I believe the dispute does not warrant letters to Rome. That's my position. I have a right to take that position. I have a right to defend my hierarchy.

To me, this debate is more the product of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law) than about right or wrong.

Sorry if you disagree,

Felix

Monomakh,

I don't get to sit in on meetings of the bishops, so I don't know what was spent or how it might have been better used. I suspect you don't either.

As to your birthday, I was born in the 70s too (nice to meet you fellow 70s person). But, in the case of 70s people, I think the another rule would apply - The rule that many people want things to be the way they were when they were eight years old. My buddy Ray came up with it, we call it the Eight Years Old Rule.

Felix

PS - I almost accidentally dodged your question. I think we can both agree that the RDL's introduction has caused disunity on the forum.

Felix,

I know that a church in major decline should have spent the time and money on trying to evangelize rather than revising and dividing. I'm surprised that you can't see that rather obviously?

Could you please name the BCA parish that celebrated the Red Book when I was eight years old? In fact, you can use any year in the 1970s and 1980s. (I'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist) I'll await your response.

Monomakh

Monomakh,

I have no idea what your parish was using during that time or if you were even in the BCA then. I did not attend church at all until 2000! (That was my loss) Also, I did not mean to imply that I knew what was being used when you were eight years old. I was just joking about the Eight Years Old Rule - I don't think it has to be exactly when a person was eight. I do think the rule goes to a key issue though, people don't like change and cling to the past, sometimes when there is no need to.