Clifford Longley on the Missal translation

[mcb]

There's a remarkably poor article on the new Missal translation by Clifford Longley in this week's Tablet. In it he argues both against the new translation and against the old one it's replacing, calling them both 'vandalism'. He concludes by claiming that English is inherently unsuitable as a liturgical language, and that any translation of the Missal is 'bound to be defective'.

The article is littered with errors and non-sequiturs. A few times he blames things on the 1973 translation which are actually present in the Latin original: the reduction from a nine-fold Kyrie to (he says) a threefold one (though it was a reduction from nine to six); the loss of the threefold repetition of Lord, I am not worthy. (In any case, doesn't Sacrosanctum Concilium call for rites that are "short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions"?)

At the end of the article Longley asserts that "the English language has lost its solemn and ceremonial register". He doesn't offer any evidence for this. It seems to me that solemnity and ceremony are cultural phenomena, not grammatical artefacts. If English-speaking people in the 21st century don't 'do' solemnity, it's not because their language is not equipped for it.

The most glaring error, it seems to me is in the claim that "a traditionalist coup inside the Vatican … put doctrinal purity before literary quality". This is way off target. What the new norms for translation elevate isn't anything doctrinal, it's slavish adherence to Latin word order, above fluent and intelligible English.

I've long felt that the Tablet doesn’t 'get' liturgy; in particular, for all its championing of the Vatican II vision of how the Church should run itself, it's never shown any profound grasp of how the impetus toward "full conscious and active participation" drove the Council’s liturgical reforms, and is worth fighting for still.

[Gabriel]

I've long felt that the Tablet doesn’t 'get' liturgy; in particular, for all its championing of the Vatican II vision of how the Church should run itself, it's never shown any profound grasp of how the impetus toward "full conscious and active participation" drove the Council’s liturgical reforms, and is worth fighting for still.

If the Tablet doesn't 'get' liturgy can it really 'get' Vatican II? It probably doesn't help that the model of participation it might understand (everyone doing anything) is that parodied by those conservative mindset as, rightly, not what the phrase means.

[mcb]

the model of participation it might understand (everyone doing anything) is that parodied by those conservative mindset

I think that's probably unfair to the Tablet - if anything, its outlook on liturgy is more conservative than the internet fruitcakes make out.

as, rightly, not what the phrase means.

Not sure I agree with the "active participation doesn't mean people doing stuff" trope that you find repeated among conservatives. To my mind actuosa participatio necessarily entails both the internal and the external. 'Participation' implicitly defined as purely internal was what the Council reforms strove to change.

[Gabriel]

I may have been exaggerating slightly but my impression is that the Tablet would see participation in terms of numbers of ministers involved, say, rather than the engagement of heart and mind expressed in liturgical action (a dialogue of the internal and external at both an individual and communal level) which shapes how we live.

[docmattc]

It certainly is a poor article. The ending leaves the reader unclear as to whether the author is sugesting that as any translation is 'defective', we shouldn't get too worked up about it, or whether we should therefore not translate at all but use the Latin. He suggests that English is not a good liturgical language, but is his argument against English specifically or the venacular in general?

Not sure I agree with the "active participation doesn't mean people doing stuff" trope that you find repeated among conservatives.

I don't either, it doesn't have to mean people doing stuff, but neither does it suggest that people shouldn't be doing stuff.

In the same issue of the Tablet, Rober Mickens describes the Major Synagogue in Rome as an "imposing temple". Whilst generally 'temple' can mean 'place of worship' I'd suggest that in the context of Judaism, this is a very sloppy choice of noun.

[presbyter]

In the same issue of the Tablet, Rober Mickens describes the Major Synagogue in Rome as an "imposing temple". Whilst generally 'temple' can mean 'place of worship' I'd suggest that in the context of Judaism, this is a very sloppy choice of noun.

Mickens is probably just using A common description of the building - Il Tempio maggiore israelitico a Roma.

[JW]

I enjoy Clifford Longley's thought-provoking articles but tend to agree with the comments expressed here. If English isn't a good language for Liturgy, how come the Book of Common Prayer, the Authorised Version and our own RC Douai Version served their various liturgical functions so well for so many years.

The point he makes that neither there are problems with the existing translations is true. I think we all concede this. It is probable that there are also problems with the new translation. I think ICEL are between a rock (Peter's successor Pope Benedict) and a hard place (English speaking clergy and laity who are educated and express their views).

As has been mentioned on other threads, it looks as if the new translation is coming - I suppose it will be another 50 years before it is decided that it isn't suitable.

BTW, I don't think that that Tablet editorial board have a particular view on Liturgy, unless it were one of general support to Vatican II - not that I can speak for The Tablet. For example the excellent studies by Daniel McCarthy OSB, comparing texts in the current translation with the original Latin, have helped to convince many that we have missed out on some lost treasures in the Mass texts we currently use.

[NorthernTenor]

If English isn't a good language for Liturgy, how come the Book of Common Prayer, the Authorised Version and our own RC Douai Version served their various liturgical functions so well for so many years.

I agree, JW. However, this raises a couple of issues. The first is that these translations were part of a tradition of formal English that was in some measure archaic when they were written (much like the Latin that replaced Greek in the liturgy of the Fathers), and whose structure sometimes reflects that of the Latin that it often translates. For better or worse, the establishment of the English-speaking Church (ICEL included) has rejected this tradition, outside of texts such as the Lord's Prayer and various Marian prayers and hymns, where deep-rooted popular preference has prevailed.

The second is that the literary and cultural value of that tradition didn't spring, fully formed, from Coverdale's brow. The tradition evolved (as tradition does) from the Middle English of the Lollards to twentieth century texts like the 1928 Prayer Book and the RSV translation of the Bible. It's therefore unreasonable to expect the first translation of a new form of our Rite, within a liturgical tradition that has little experience of the vernacular, to achieve a similar value at first attempt. Indeed, it's remarkable that some of it is as good as it is. It's difficult though, not to acknowledge that its departures from the original can have theological implications (e.g. et cum spiritu tuo / and also with you), or that it includes literary shortcomings sometimes verging on the banal or the ridiculous (e.g. Wonder-Counselor, and the doggerel-rhythms of the Gloria and Sanctus translations). The problem is that consideration of new translations has become caught up in ecclesiastical and cultural politics. Those who oppose them focus on a perceived threat to the legacy of the second Vatican Council; those who commend them fear that opposition reflects disloyalty to Rome. Both miss the point that excellence won't be achieved overnight, and that the next hundred years will likely see further revision.

[Peter]

What the new norms for translation elevate isn't anything doctrinal, it's slavish adherence to Latin word order, above fluent and intelligible English.

Does this mean we'll get a new version of the Lord's Prayer: "Thy will be done as in heaven, so also on earth"? Just in case you're interested, the Czech translation uses this order, the Dutch follows the current English one.