“Ecclesia Semper Reformanda”
In 1962 Blessed John XXIII announced his plans for the second Vatican council. The ageing pontiff summed up his intentions when he said: ”I want to throw open the windows of the church and let the Spirit of God blow through and cause a rebirth of the Church”. There was however… another version of his intention and it is the interpretation of this intention which has divided so many: “I want to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in”.
Reinvigorating the Church as one more accessable to the people.,an open Church ready to engage with the world, is an admirable and holy intention…but there is the danger of creating a Church of the world in place of a Church of God. The theology of the council does reinvigorate this Church of God but once again the problem is interpretation.
An example is a particular sorepoint for me, church architecture. The Church has taken two millenia to develop places of prayer which draw from its theology to create ecclesia Dei. They are places designed to lead us to a communion with God: everything from windows which draw our gaze upwards to the common direction which the congregation faces-one community before God.
Some of the post conciliar churches have integrated this theology well. A perfect example is the ‘Church of the Irish Martyrs’ in Ballycane, Naas, Co. Kildare. I would love to say that the majority are as respectful of the link between pre and post conciliar theology but many seem determined to adopt the axiom of ‘out with the old, in with the new’.
Everything about the Mass calls us to such a communion, which is also the celebration’s focus. When we receive the blessed sacrament we move toward our God in the hope and love of a deeper relationship and bond. He responds with the sacrafice of the Son, moving toward us. The consumption of the body of Christ is the Communion of two wills.
When the Mass was translated into the vernacular languages after the council it was rushed and mistakes were made. The current revision is a more careful and studious attempt to retain the sacred nature of the Mass, which was central to the old rite, while continuing in the spirit of the council by creating a greater understanding of the theology for the people (i.e. the vernacular).
The current issue is how to reconcile both intentions. Anyone familiar with languages will recognise that direct translations are always a good idea. The goal here, it seems, is to directly translate the spirit of the words but there are instances where phrases are translated verbatim. I have difficulties with a few of these.
In 1969 the words “et cum spiritu tuo” were translated as “and also with you” as a response to “peace be with you”. The literal translation is incorrect but the spirit is captured. The new translation is literal and we will now respond with “and with your spirit”. This is fine really. No big problem.
The words spoken before receiving communion were “Domine, non dum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantem dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea”. In 1969 they became “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed”. Now they return to the more literal translation: “Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”. Is this neccessary?
The word “Yahweh” has been removed from hymns. I worry whether this will create a greater rift between the Church and our jewish brothers and sisters. After all, the close relationship between both faiths will no longer be highlighted or even have a place in our celebrations. A friend recently pointed out that most parishioners may not see the significance in the word Yahweh. In that case the informed flock hoped for in Vatican II is yet to be realised.
This point cannot be seperated from the recent Motu Proprio which revised the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews: “Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.” = “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illumine their hearts that they might acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Saviour of all.” At least the word “perfidis” is still gone.
Many like the idea of our post Vatican II Church but others see its legacy in this resonse to a blog: “I don’t think that John Paul II “aborted the reform”. The mass is still in English and we are still building ugly churches!” Those of us who love the council must reclaim the spirit of the council before its true legacy is lost. The aim of returning the a sense of the sacred to the Mass is a fine way of moving forward. I wonder whether such a sense is captured in words though.
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 and is filed under Your Questions.
Responses are currently closed
LMaher Says:
1). Ronan asked: “Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”. Is this (change) neccessary?
Yes, to retain the biblical allusion lost in the 1969 paraphrase but actually present in the post V2 Mass.
2). Avoiding the use of the tetragrammaton is about sensitivity to observant Jews who will not even pronounce the Name of God.
3). The use of a true vernacular translation in place of the present paraphrase will help to inform the people about the faith and the culture of that faith. It also may help to create a sacred vernacular. It is a pity that forty years have gone by and we still await a full translation of the Mass.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:55 am
LMaher Says:
Do you or does anyone here know whether or not the Irish language Mass was translated directly from the Latin original or is it a translation of the English version?
August 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Ronan Says:
Lmaher,
I agree with that changes are needed but changes such as (1) seem a little bit like a council in overdrive to me. Not every line should be translated directly from the latin.
My whole point is that much of the sense of the sacred and mystery was lost in the vernacular translations. This is what such a review should seek to re-capture. The sense of the word along with practices and architecture which stress the sacred are necessary…literal translation of latin phrases- “enter under my roof” – are not necessary…I think. This is a huge issue anyway though.
The loss of the word ‘Yahweh’ may be in the name of understanding between both faiths but this understanding is between the intellectuals in both. The loss of the word could lead to many Catholics’ awareness of our link with Judaism being weakened or even lost. This understanding is more important as the Church is not the intellectual elites but the people of God.
You write: “The use of a true vernacular translation in place of the present paraphrase will help to inform the people about the faith and the culture of that faith.” We have had vernacular translations of the readings for years but it doesn’t take much to become cynical about how this has informed the people. The problem here is that the people don’t care. If they’re not listening a new translation won’t make a difference. The aim should really be to encourage interest and foster faith development by encouraging dialogue.
On your question about the translation of the Mass into Irish: I have checked this and answered this query in the ‘Hello’ blog.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
LMaher Says:
The literal translation of Latin phrases- “enter under my roof” – are necessary because it is a biblical reference reminding people about the moment the phrase was first used.
My point is that we have not really had a vernacular translation for these forty years – we’ve only had a paraphrase. The new translation will foster faith development because it communicates the truths of the Catholic faith in its continuity more clearly and with beauty. The liturgy should be beautiful and in its beauty it will evangelize.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Ronan Says:
I hope you’re right Lmaher.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:47 am