Thoughts on the new translation of the Roman Missal?

So, except for John, we're all gearing up for the new translation of the Roman Missal, due to be used in full starting on Advent. Most dioceses, including mine, are starting in with teaching masses, choir training and informational sessions.

Anyone have any initial thoughts?

My quick $0.02.

1. As others have said before, it's a dumb time to do it, at least for the US church. There are so many more important issues, and so many Catholics whose allegiance to the church is visceral, but who, I fear, will slide from that being straight-up non-Catholics if they find the mass they grew up with so changed. The gains here are largely academic, not theological. The losses are largely pastoral. One shouldn't change horses midstream.

2. The translation is--on the whole--better. It's certainly more literal. That's not the same thing as accurate—though they keep saying it is!—but I'm satisfied it takes fewer important (ie., theological) liberties than the earlier translation. That's good.

3. The new translation is occasionally more beautiful and never flat the way the only one sometimes was, but it's also frequently fussy and opaque, preserving Latin's run-on sentences rich with throw-away conjunctions, helper verbs--mostly participles--and subordinate and coordinate clauses when they could have just broken things up a bit, and been more true to the differences between Latin and English style.

4. While there are definitely gains, in a small number of cases (three?) I find the new translation clearly inferior—even theologically so. The hardest for me are (a) the use of "chalice" for "calix," which simply means cup and renders the narrative of the last supper absurd in not much less of a way as if "wine" were translated "Châteauneuf-du-Pape." (b) using "consubstantial" in the creed—a step back theologically and ecumenically that grates on me. Some losses, some wins, however--"incarnate of the Virgin Mary" may use an unusual word, but it fixes a slight error, as both the Greek and the Latin say "made into flesh" (incarnatus/sarkothenta) not "born."

5. I've heard some diocese are doing this well, beating back the triumphalism that this is a "corrected translation," and admitting it won't be the last word either. But at least in my diocese we had a panel of Latin-less priests praising it as closer to the Latin, and denying that it, like the previous translation, is also a product of its particular moment. I suspect they know this, but the clergy close ranks. That tendency has hardly served the church well in recent decades.

I was told by an Italian nun that they've already had three or four Italian-language revisions in the last 40 years, and that each time they have made the change smoothly. She was rather amused that we English-speakers are making such a fuss.

I suspect the changes were less significant, though.

>4 timspalding: Yes, probably. I had never heard of them until she mentioned it a couple of months ago.

I've experienced the new translation in South Africa, where they introduced it a couple of years ago. From memory (I don't have the text in front of me) I didn't come across anything that gave me any great angst. It was irritating that so many of the changes are so small, and once one has launched into reciting a prayer that one has known by heart for the best part of 40 years, one tends to stumble when one comes to the small changes.

I understand that in South Africa the change was not welcomed enthusiastically by all bishops and priests, so in some dioceses there was little or no preparation. The change was smoother in dioceses and parishes were there was good preparation. Sounds like your diocese is going about it the right way, Tim.

> 2 small number of cases (three?)

What was your third?

I'm sure you've seen others' lists, including changes made after the Gray Book: astare coram 'be in your presence'; hominem perditum 'straying humanity'; profusis paschalibus gaudiis 'overcome with paschal joy'.

We've seen the changes in the prayers, but not practiced them yet. We have been practicing the new songs, and that is pretty awful. I attend three churches, and only one has been able to find music that isn't dismal or tortured. (the worst crime is when "in the highest" travels down the scale)

We sang the old form yesterday, and everyone sang their hearts out, as a sad farewell to some wonderful prayers. It was beautiful.

I'm very sorry that when my children return, they will find the song responses so different, it will not resonate emotionally.

TIME has a blurb on the new translations: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/09/english-language-catholic-masses-to-get-new-...

It's sad that they continue to perpetuate the condescension involved in claiming that the new translations make the Mass "too hard" for people to understand. Since when do we look at the people of God's Church and say, "You're too stupid to understand complex terms. So instead, we're going to use dumbed-down language that doesn't really say what it should but sounds easy enough."

Instead of translating calix in eucharist as "cup," the most direct and literal translation imaginable, the new translation calls it a "chalice." But why stop there? Crank up the words and call it a "cannikin." That's in the Oxford English Dictionary. Surely the people of God can look it up!

Or take the incident in Michael Ryan's America piece:

"When passages from the proposed new translation were soberly read aloud by the presenter (I remember especially the phrase from the first eucharistic prayer that currently reads “Joseph, her husband,” but which in the new translation becomes “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin”), there was audible laughter in the room. I found myself thinking that the idea of this happening during the sacred liturgy is no laughing matter but something that should make us all tremble."

The humor, of course, is that English doesn't normally use "spouse," except in narrow bureaucratic situations, like a form filled out by both men and women which must also provide a space for the husband or wife's name. English has a word for Joseph—it's husband. Except at the DMV.

Weirdly, however, the Latin text doesn't use spouse or husband, but sponsus, which strictly speaking means "bridegroom."(1) I'm not sure what they were intending there in the Latin--perhaps a further distancing of Mary from the duties of a wife. But in any case, "spouse" is only a $5 cognate of sponsus, not a translation of it.

1. I checked, and I can't find it used as "husband" in the Vulgate, and it's used a lot—Christ as the bridgegroom, etc. Ioseph, however, is not called sponsus, but her "vir" (man), translating the aner (man) of the Greek.

>10 timspalding:: The anecdote you relate does make an interesting point. I guess that for me, having grown up with the traditional (i.e. old) Anglican Mass, prayers, etc., the new translation for the RC's brings a sense of comfort. When I started going to RC Masses, I never did get used to saying "And also with you". I still said "And with thy spirit", as much from muscle memory as from the aesthetics. Ditto with the "Lord I am not worthy" before communion: I still say "Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; but speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed".

So the early verdict seems to be this: the new translation does a good job of fixing the dumbed-down swill that ICEL once offered as "translation", but introduces some new clunkers, too. The task now is to judge whether the strengthened precision of the new translation came at too high a price.

I can think of one good thing to come out of "spouse." Clearly the Catholic church is signaling that from now on it won't be concerned with husbands and wives, but merely "spouses." Gay marriage advocates be cheered!

>12 timspalding:: Not so fast. It looks like Archbp. Dolan has reiterated prohibitions on clergy having anything at all to do with gay marriage ceremonies / celebrations: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/canonical-look-at-dolans-decree.html

Not much of a surprise.

Got to go cook dinner for my spouse, er, wife.

Rome is burning, new texts are fiddling (NCR)

>15 John5918:: To quote Mr. Kennedy, "This return to hollow and brittle wordings that supposedly echo the pre-Vatican II Latin texts is another clumsy effort to repeal the rich theological documents of that epochal council and to recreate the lost and gone world of Vatican I."

I enter into evidence the Collect for the last Sunday of the liturgical year (discussion drawn from here):

The old translation:
Lord,
increase our eagerness to do your will
and help us to know the saving power of your love.

The revised translation:
Stir up the will of your faithful, we pray, O Lord,
that, striving more eagerly
to bring your divine work to fruitful completion,
they may receive in greater measure
the healing remedies your kindness bestows.

The Latin text (do we really need to be reminded that this is the original official version?):
Excita, quaesumus, Domine,
tuorum fidelium voluntates:
ut, divini operis fructum propensius exsequentes;
pietatis tuae remedia maiora percipiant.

A word-for-word literal translation (mine):
Stir up, we beseech, O Lord,
the wills of you faithful:
That, seeking more eagerly the fruit of divine work,
they might secure the greater remedies of your faithful mercy/kindness/love.

I see the argument know. We, the first translators of the liturgy into English after Vatican II, know our theology better than anybody else, so we can just leave out the whole "fruits of divine work", since it doesn't matter, does it? My Latin teacher had a word for that: F. My theology profs also had some nice comments for us when we completely ignored whole chunks of the texts under analysis: F.

So if Mr. Kennedy is really interested in the "rich theology" that so many in the pews (he claims) know already (it's almost as if he thinks that the laity somehow receive a better theological education than the clergy, whose bumbling "sleight of hand" he dismisses), why would he want the old version with its watered-down-almost-to-meaningless prayer? If his folk are all so very concerned for the theology of the Church, why is he so dismissive of an attempt to make the liturgy more rather than less theologically sound?

P.S. Is this is from the same National Catholic Reporter that recently printed a homily preached by an "ordained" Roman Catholic Woman Priest, (http://ncronline.org/news/women/how-do-you-welcome-strangers), based on a "liturgy" where two of the three readings were from trendy modern books rather than the Bible?

>16 nathanielcampbell:

Attend, if you will, to how you create a straw man and then hate him. Kennedy doesn't mention the passage you cite, yet you chose it—among the hundreds of possible passages, which may support other theses—then state "I see the argument know." I propose you don't see the argument at all. You made up the argument and then focused your hate at it.

Incidentally, the thing you hate so much is the text of the mass as it's been, in English, for 40 years. That text was approved by Rome, by the same curial and thus ultimately papal power as the new one. It's the mass said by John Paul II when he came to the states, not to mention Benedict. "F" to them too, I suppose? Personally, I agree the new translation is more accurate most of the time. But they're also worse some of the time—your hypothetical Latin student who translated "calix" as "chalice" might not get an F, but they'd get a D. And the curia also gets a D in collegiality for rejecting the revised translation prepared by English-speaking bishops and foisting another on it instead. Grades aside, the triumphalism and hatred that it's occasioned from the theological right is notable.

As for the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper, printing something you disagree with, Vatican II also got rid of the Index. If you don't like it, don't read it. However, for what it's worth, they cast their net very widely, and print many things you'd agree with too.

Hoist by my own petard. See, this is what happens when I let the fiery demons of irrational responses fuel my posts. I apologize for letting myself get carried away attacking either the NCR or Kennedy.

At the same time, I think there is merit to discussing Kennedy's contention that his theological training is, apparently, superior to that of many clergy and especially the congregations who implemented the new translation. And as for straw men, the idea that the new translation is a smoke screen for child abuses tops, I think, mine on the translations, for at least I stayed in the same arena (liturgical translation) rather than foisting whatever my current beef with Rome is onto the translation.

>18 nathanielcampbell: especially the congregations who implemented the new translation

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. The whole Church is implementing the new translation, albeit some bishops' conferences more quickly than others.

>19 John5918:: I meant the specific administrative Congregations (mainly the Congregation on Divine Worship), not "congregation" as in "where one or two are gathered".

>20 nathanielcampbell: Ah, thanks!

>18 nathanielcampbell:

Yeah, I disagree with a lot of the talk about the old-translation's theology being better. It's a hard case to make. What's bad about the new one is, I think, the theology implicit in the desire to put literalism above comprehensibility. If one took Jesus' parables and recast them as epideictic showpieces in the style of Libanius, would it be the theology that was wrong? Maybe not. But something would be wrong. Certainly Jesus would have gotten nowhere in his preaching.

the idea that the new translation is a smoke screen for child abuses

No, it's just very bad timing. This has been in the works for years and years.

But I think Kennedy is right that this is all part of "reforming the reform." Benedict is very much a liturgical conservative, and this—and the encyclical that underlay the rejection of the Bishop's first translation—is part of that effort.

This stance has lead him—and to a lesser extent JPII—into a number of blind alleys. Nobody is talking about an indult for the use of the old translation, yet such an indult was granted for Catholics who refuse to accept the Novus Ordo mass itself. This conditional permission was later, by B16, replaced with a blanket permission to do so, even against the wishes of the local bishop. Benedict's desire to accommodate such people so overrides his good sense that he revoked the excommunication of the SSPX, without, apparently, being aware that, three of the four bishops were vicious anti-semites and one was a straight-up Holocaust denier. So, you can say this much for those ordaining women priests—they may be schismatic, but at least they aren't denying any genocides.

The whole Church is implementing the new translation

Whole English-speaking.

Here, by the way is Cramner's Book of Common Prayer on the same prayer:

"Stir up, we besseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plentously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded."

This also has problems, but it gets the rhetorical parallelism between propensius and maiora. That "the more" we do X, "the more" we get Y. This parallelism is clear in the Latin—note each clause ending with comparative form and verb—but obscured in the English.

To really English it, I think you'd want to rethink certain phrases.

Some thoughts:

1. The Latin seems to be attempting to contrast fructus with remedia? It's a bit weird, then, to keep "fructus" as "fruit" (not harvest), but "remedia" as the bloodless "remedies" not the concrete "cures" or "medicines." That is, to keep the parallelism you should keep them at the same level of generality. One guesses that "fruit" no longer seems specific to someone accustomed to reading a lot of religious language. If you want to combine the "fully" of exsquens and the fructus, I suggest "seek the harvest" since harvest is by its nature the culmination.

2. Remedies of mercy is typically Latin for "healing mercy" or "merciful medicine."

3. If percipiant goes with a concrete thing it should be "secure." If it goes with something general it should be "understand."

4. "That" is Latin-ese. It's one word because the Latin is one word. English is different. It starts clauses like that with "so that" or "in order that."

5. Because it loses the comparative, the new translation implies that, if you don't seek the fruit of God's work more eagerly, you get bupkis. That misses the point—which is that God's healing mercy is always available, but that, when people strive for God's work more eagerly, they receive his mercy more abundantly.

6. "divini operis" is, again, typical Latin for "God's work." We don't say "divine" in English quite as readily.

7. The participial form, exsequens, is very Latin. English is much less ready to use participles this way.

8. "Stir up" is nice because, apparently, it got into English tradition and became the day you stirred up the Christmas pudding. Still, I'd prefer "rouse." We rouse people's will more than we stir it up. Besides, the primary meaning of excito is "wake up" not "move around a pot in a clockwise direction."

9. Lastly, ut + subjunctive can denote both purpose and result. (I'd have to look into use in church Latin, but that's the classical understanding.) Stressing the purpose too much, with "so that" or even "that" sounds like a rather crude "do ut des" notion. That is, it implies the faithful should do God's work in order to get a prize. I think that overplays the "ut" and sounds primitive anyway.

So, Tim's official (2011) translation, approved by the Pope* is:

Rouse the will of your faithful, Lord,
To seek the fruit of God's work more eagerly,
And secure your healing mercy more abundantly.

Or maybe:

Rouse the will of the faithful, O Lord,
To more eagerly seek the harvest of God's work,
And more fully grasp your healing love.

I'm sorry, but this is simply better English than:

Stir up the will of your faithful, we pray, O Lord,
that, striving more eagerly
to bring your divine work to fruitful completion,
they may receive in greater measure
the healing remedies your kindness bestows.

Incidentally, note how "receive... bestows" subverts the active verb percipiant, may they grasp. The Latin says "Rouse them up to seek and grasp it!" and the new translation says "Rouse them up to, striving, sit there and receive it." Not a bad illustration of what's wrong with the Church today.

---

*Of LibraryThing.

This morning I got a surprise when, at the end of Mass, the priest brandished a new Roman Missal, announced that from now on we would be using it, and led us through the main changes. As mentioned above, I was at the bishops' plenary meeting two months ago where they decided not to implement the changes countrywide. However each individual bishop is free to do as he wishes, and it seems that the Archbishop of Juba has decided to implement it in his own archdiocese (although initial indications are that this will mainly be in the town parishes). I've been out of the loop a bit, flying around conflict zones with the Anglican archbishop and UN peacekeepers in old Russian helicopters to facilitate a peace process, so I haven't had chance to chat to the Catholic archbishop in the last few weeks and I was unaware of his decision until today.

Well, peace be on your spirit then!

And with your spirit!

Our messages are consubstantial!

I am consubstantial with the new translation.

So, seriously—now that it's out there, what do people think?

I'm still of the same opinion—that it's clunky. But I'm not going to make a bit stink about it. We have a bunch of parishioners who are, largely on bad grounds.

In the "spirit of the times", I thought y'all might enjoy Commonweal's "Revised Translation" of a Christmas Cookie recipe: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=16347

Cute! Passing that on to my bakers.

That's awesome.

>31 nathanielcampbell: It's obviously doing the rounds, as it has just been sent to me today by a Catholic bishop.

Seriously, I accept the new translation, (and as with other controversies or disappointments that one may say result form dealing with the human-side of the Church) because "I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church, in spite of the in spite ofs."

Sure. I don't think any of us are "not accepting" it.

Our priest has been kinda cute, giving a special smile and nod at the times we need to be mindful of the new wording. It has helped enormously.

My thoughts are that is a move in the correct direction, anytime you can get a new translation that is more faithful to the Latin original it's a win for all the faithful. I just wish those missal publishers would get the missals out :(

I have opposing thoughts about the change of word from 'cup" to "chalice." But I think it echoes the ongoing struggle between the commonality of human experience which Jesus shared and the grandeur of God's presence.

Perhaps it's a good thing to have that struggle to reflect on while receiving Communion.

We could change "bread" to "croissants."

Two Sundays, two different experiences.

Last Sunday I was in the Archdiocese of Juba, which has theoretically made the change, at least in its urban parishes. The Eucharistic Prayer was in the new translation, but wherever there is dialogue both the priest's and people's parts were still in the old one. At the end of the Mass the parish priest again drew our attention to the new translation (and the new Mass book that can be bought for around USD 1.50), acknowledged the confusion that occurs with different people trying to use different translations at different points in the Mass, and said that the new translation "doesn't flow like real English" but the Vatican has decreed that we should use "Latin English".

Today I was in one of the most isolated parts of South Sudan in a different diocese for a huge outdoor celebration with one of our retired bishops. The main part of the Mass was in English (old translation), but songs were in a variety of languages, readings were in both English and Toposa, and an elder did the Prayers of the Faithful in traditional Toposa style. The liturgical dance at the Offertory Procession was lively as a mob of Toposa in traditional dress couldn't resist joining in. Spears, machetes, beads, animal skins, feathers, bells (made from old bottle tops), tassels and bare breasts were very much in evidence amidst clouds of dust and the strong smell of cattle dung. But still the Mass was not much more than two hours long.

It's nice to hear that it's not just me. It's not "real English."

Does the church try to prevent bare breasts at mass?

>43 John5918: The (almost certainly apocryphal) story told by most missionaries is of a priest working amongst a community where women only wear a tiny scrap of leather apron, nothing else. The missionary himself has become accustomed to it, but when he hears that the bishop is coming next Sunday, he asks the women to cover their breasts during the visit so as not to shock the right reverend gentleman. Sure enough, when the bishop and the missionary walk into the chapel the next Sunday all the women are wearing the little leather apron over their breasts instead of in its normal position.

But seriously, the Church does not try to prevent bare breasts at Mass. Tribes where people don't wear clothes are becoming rare in Africa, but breastfeeding is normal and there is no western prudishness attached to it.

>43 John5918:

Nice story. I'm going to claim I heard it from someone who was there, k?

A cute but maddening video for middle-schoolers about it:
http://vimeo.com/25418061

I love that they chose calix, surely the most obvious bogosity in the new missal. Calix is nothing more or less than the "unmarked" term for cup. You see it said over and over again on these Catholic websites that calix really means chalice. It's cuckoo!

I really wonder what went on here. My guess is that the translators were aware of the philology here—that "chalice" is not a more accurate translation of either calix or the greek (ποτήριον in all places and it means cup, cup, cup)—but wanted to elevate the language for its own sake. Thus only subsequent proponents are making this silly argument that "chalice" is really the exact translation. But who knows? Translating Latin and Greek today is like asking a modern woman to churn some butter for the family, like her ancestors once did. Maybe they really think it is. That would be scary.

See Telegraph: Pope's Latinist pronounces death of a language on Reginald Foster, the "Pope's Latinist." (I've known a number of people who studied with him.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1540843/Popes-Latinist-pronounces-deat...

I was struck that Foster translated Deus Caritas Est. I would have thought Benedict would write his own Latin for encyclicals. But apparently not. As such, it's absurd that the Latin is the official text, not the—presumably—German.

Foster was, however, wrong that Benedict wouldn't liberalize use of the Tridentine mass. He predicted he wouldn't because of controversy. Ha! Fast forward to Benedict's decision on SSPX bishop Williamson, the Holocaust denier!

A thought on "chalice" as the translation for "calix":

Has anyone seen the Stella Artois commercials to the effect that their beer is served not in glasses but chalices? An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjXzZQwpZiM

Nice.

Another Mass yesterday with about 75% of the congregation using the old translation and 25% the new. We had the parish priest (I go to Mass in a chapel which is an outstation of the main parish so we get a variety of priests, with the parish priest only coming occasionally) and at the end of Mass he again gave us a telling off and told us all to buy the new Mass book (only SSP 5, or about USD 1.50). Part of the problem is that not all the priests who come here are committed to promulgating the new translation; I mentioned it to one of them a few weeks ago and he really didn't care that people were using different responses.

In Sudan and South Sudan, where the people have a huge and very personal interest in peace, the congregation is always invited to join in the peace prayer after the Our Father ("Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles, I leave you peace, my peace I give you..." - from memory). This prayer has changed in the new translation but I notice that even our parish priest is still using the old translation of this prayer so that the people can join in easily.

or about USD 1.50

I'm guessing that's not absolutely trivial in South Sudan, though.

>49 timspalding: You're right. It's quite a significant sum for a lot of people, who are already facing increased prices and economic hardships due to the oil shut-down and the on-again-off-again war with Sudan. Actually I was thinking of just buying a couple of dozen copies myself and handing them out to regular Mass-goers. Might do that next time I'm in town.

Various US bodies printed up a page showing all the response changes—with the changes in red. You could get a PDF and xerox them.

>51 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. I'll persuade Catholic Relief Services to print and photocopy them - some of their people come to Mass at this chapel.

I've just googled and found a simple one at http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/CatholicMass-BasicTexts-Rev3.pdf

Exactly. I didn't see that one, but it's the same idea. The changes are not extensive, except for the priests. Make about twice as many copies of that as you have parishioners and you'll be fine. Or do some laminating :)

I'm currently participating in the annual plenary meeting of the Sudan Catholic Bishops' Conference, bringing together the bishops of Sudan and South Sudan. They have decided to use the new translation for their daily mass and breviary during the meeting. They're still stumbling over the words and fumbling for the right page.

It now seems that most dioceses are trying to use the new translation, but it's still very patchy, and happens more in the towns than the rural areas. Bishops are still concerned about the cost of the new altar missals, lectionaries and breviaries, which could cost thousands of dollars for each diocese. They appear to be buying them piece-meal rather than trying to re-equip the whole diocese at once.

One elderly retired bishop complained to me with a grin, "They're trying to make me spend all this money on a new breviary, but I only have a few years left so what's the point?"!

I REALLY don't like the new Creed, and the fact that it's singular "I believe" rather than "we believe." The Church is the repository of belief, even when we struggle individually with parts of it. Also, I believe for my children, who have fallen away for a while, and the "we" version is more appropriate.

~54

I am curious about this. I have not actually seen one of the new missals "in the flesh," but I had some interest in purchasing one due to this thread - until I looked them up and saw the price. Is there something I'm missing by not seeing this volume "in the flesh" that would justify the price?

>56 lawecon: Good question. We're actually getting them cheaper than the ones that would be on sale in Europe or presumably north America, through the Pauline Sisters, a Catholic religious order who do publishing and printing, but they're still expensive.

If you just want to see the basic new translation of the mass you can buy a small mass booklet very cheaply. You don't need the whole Roman Missal which has all the different prayers and variations for different seasons, etc.

Thank you for that guidance.

To give you a feel for what is apparently going on in North America - the individual use missals are around $60 in hardcover or bonded leather (no softcovers are available), the "chapel" missals are around $75 and the "altar use" missals are from $100-160. (The latter, of course, would be overkill for most noninstitutional users.)

This does somewhat surprise me, since I, not that long ago, found that you can buy such volumes as the Ignatius Bible (a very heavily annotated version of the RSV) in a full sized hardback for less than $20. And the NAB with full annotation has long been available in a very inexpensive paperback. The Jerusalem Bible is, for some reason, somewhat more expensive, but not a lot more, but I understand that it is not going to be the approved version once the new edition of the NAB comes out.

The switch from "we" to "I" was part of the return to the Latin. The English form used after Vatican II was that of the original creed, which used "pisteuomen" (we believe). In liturgical settings, Greeks now use "pisteuo" (I believe), but using the "we" form was part of the Vatican-II era return to patristic and early Christian sources. By going with "I believe," the translation more correctly followed the Latin (credo), and lost that Greek and patristic flavor. The same can be found elsewhere in the changes, for example from "one in being" (which translates some of the overtones of the Greek "homoousios") rather than "consubstantial" (which isn't really a translation at all, but mirrors the Latin with its slightly different overtones).

Vatican II was part of a big upswing in interest by Catholics in pre-Medieval Christianity. That trend has, I think, run its course.

Priests dislike new Mass translations, survey says (NCR)

Study finds split on new translation of Roman Missal (NCR)

Study indicates wide rejection of new translations by US clergy (NCR)

> 10

In Scotland we have a wee two handled cup called a quiach from the Gaidhlig cuach. In fact many of our words are closely related to Latin.

Currently I'm at an international Caritas conference in the Netherlands. We have Mass each day in English. It's very interesting to hear all those of us from countries where English is regularly used automatically reciting the new translation ("And with your spirit", etc), but those from countries where they rarely have Mass in English are still accustomed to the old translation, so "And also with you" can also be heard loud and clear with a strong Dutch accent. The singing is multilingual, with parts of the Mass in Greek, Latin, German and French. We're an older group, so many of us were happy to sing the old Latin favourites lustily, as well as some of the old English hymns. It's nice to be in an old chapel that has good acoustics, unlike many modern churches, so the dreaded microphones were not needed. We've just now come from Compline, where the Salve Regina was really belted out.

We're still taking the piss (in a fraternal and charitable way, of course!) out of the young Argentinian priest who presided at the Mass this morning at 7.45 am and kept mentioning how early this was to have Mass. The majority of us, of a certain age, found that very amusing as we are used to Mass rather earlier than that.

64

Keep out of those coffee shops John :-)

This morning's response to the psalm (28th Sunday of the Year, A);

In the Lord's own house shall I dwell
for length of days unending.

I was at a celebration mass marking the 50th anniversary of the priesthood of one of our retired bishops in his own rural village a couple of hours drive from Juba. Several thousand people were at mass, of all tribes and many nationalities. Only three were native English speakers (if you count the two Americans!) This response seemed to baffle everyone. As I said quietly to my wife, "'For length of days unending', or, as we say in English, 'for ever'".

The retired bishop who presided at the mass is not a native English speaker but he is of the old school and has been speaking it fluently for longer than I have been alive, but even so he stumbled over the proper prayers and the preface.

I suppose my point is that if the intention of the new English translation was to make the scriptural and theological intent of the normative Latin version clearer, it only works if it works, so to speak. If it isn't read properly and nobody can understand it properly, then it falls a bit short.

>67 John5918:

That is from the lectionary though, rather than missal, and as such has not been newly translated?

>68 hf22: You might be right, although I noticed that when I bought my new daily missal it had different psalm responses to the old one, and for the first year or so the response we used at mass depended on which version of the lectionary happened to be on the lectern that day. But it might have been a change of bible version which the publishers decided to slip in as they were reprinting the books anyway. But the proper prayers and prefaces are part of the newly translated missal, and I think many people find those translations more opaque than even the ordinary of the mass.

>69 John5918:

Yeah, there is a couple of verisons of the psalm responses in the various lectionaries. For example, while Australia and the UK both use the JB lectionary, they have different translations of the psalm responses. No idea of what is the history on that particiular oddity.

But yes, the proper prayers and prefaces are the retranslated missal, and they are complex. Part of the issue is that the Latin prayers themselves are reasonably complex even in Latin, and might be candidates for rewritting in the typical edition itself.

Other than that, another option which might come to pass is using the 1998 collects etc, after removing any inclusive language issues etc Rome might still have. The proper prayers and prefaces do not bother the congregations over much, and therefore could be changed again without massive disruption (unlike the ordinary / responses).

I can be rather slow on the uptake at times, but it only really struck me today that many of the sung parts of the mass are still being sung using the old translation not the new one (or at least they are where I live). I think of the gloria, credo, sanctus and proclamation of faith in particular.

>71 John5918:

They've changed over where we are. But you can understand how that part would be harder to change.

>71 John5918:

Is that a resource issue more than anything? Financial wise for getting new settings and whatnot, and time / people wise for learning them?

I can see that being a low priority, when you have limited resources.

>73 hf22: Is that a resource issue more than anything?

Yes, probably is.

>74 John5918:

Fair enough. Cost us a small fortune in time and cash, and we have a lot more of both. So a much longer informal transition period in African circumstances would seem perfectly fine, particular as a previously approved translation can hardly have turned evil overnight.

Much different than an ideological retention of the old translation, or indeed of editing based on the personal preferences of individual priests.

>73 hf22:

Do people read music in South Sudan, or is it just printed versions of the words?

Much different than an ideological retention of the old translation, or indeed of editing based on the personal preferences of individual priests.

Effectively identical, of course. But the latter involves enemies who must be crushed.

>76 timspalding: Do people read music in South Sudan, or is it just printed versions of the words?

Most people would probably not even read the words, due to the high rate of illiteracy. And of course buying hymnbooks or otherwise printing the words is expensive, so they are few and far between. Hymns are usually taught by rote. That leads to many variations and "mistakes" in both the words and the music. There are many hymns that I know from my own upbringing (and by reading the music) which are sung here with some significant differences.

Of course there are some musically-literate people, but not too many. Quite a lot of our liturgical music was composed by our own cardinal. In his younger days he was a fine liturgist and composer. We also use music composed during a certain period in Ggaba, Uganda, which has spread widely across East Africa.

>76 timspalding:

No it is bloody well not. Motives matter.

>78 hf22:

Well, the liturgical effect is identical, and one would think that arguments about the liturgy were arguments about the liturgy.

However, as we know, arguments about the liturgy are not arguments about the liturgy. They're arguments about authority and obedience, and hostility toward one theological wing of the church. On that score, the priest who retains the translation is committing the sin of disobedience.

I would counter, however, that the priest's intentions matter too. If the priest's intentions are disobedience per se, that would be bad. Things are otherwise if the priest's intentions are that his flock understand the mass. Because understanding the prayers fulfills the church's intention that all engage in active participation in the mass. And understanding the mass is not unrelated to whether or not Catholics attend mass, which is in turn not unrelated to salvation itself.

If I were a priest I'd be glad of the positive changes, and let the contorted structure, awkwardness and unnecessary abstraction elsewhere in the texts lie. Let the looks of boredom and estrangement among the faithful lie on the souls of those who hijacked the process and forced through a translation the English-speaking bishops didn't want. But I can at least understand other views.

>79 timspalding:

Sigh. Liturgy with insufficient resources devoted to it is less than ideal liturgy. So using the old translation for such reasons is still undesirable, but the answer to that would be to pony up the money required, not to snipe from the sidelines.

However it is no sin to be poor, and to make do the best you can. It is however a sin to deliberately impose undesirable liturgical abuses on the people because of ideological reasons, and yes against the authority of the Church. Which can be criticised from outside, because it not due to actual practical limitations, but people just choosing to act contrary to their vows.

Particularly as it is only in the ideological imagination of progressives and liberals that the new translation estranges those in the pews (or those not yet in the pews). Because as per what actual hard data has been collected (http://americamagazine.org/issue/5163/signs/new-translation-receives-wide-acceptance), it does not.

Also, as a side point, I can't see any evidence understanding the mass (though very desirable) drives attendance. Both the pre VII Latin mass and current Orthodox liturgies not in the vernacular don't seem to have lower attendance rates due to that issue. If anything, understanding seems to lose some people who would have otherwise kept attending as nominal Christians. Full, active, conscious participation, as called for by VII, is a good thing if achieved. But it, and therefore the reformed mass, are more demanding on the laity.

You just have to think of some of the people who share John’s outlook on being Catholic – As a matter of identity rather than intellectual assent. A vernacular liturgy comes across as both more wordy and didactic, and keeps demanding our intellectual assent to things. For some such people therefore, vernacular liturgy is going to push them away from the mass, which perhaps they could have otherwise retained.

I mean, I am not suggesting this is a selling point for non-vernacular liturgy, but I don’t think vernacular liturgy as a supporter of attendance can be accepted as axiomatic.

It is however a sin to deliberately impose undesirable liturgical abuses on the people because of ideological reasons

I'm not sure what "ideological reasons" means. I would characterize wanting to use prayers people can understand as "practical reasons." And I would be inclined to describe the translation process that got us the current translation as "ideological" not to mention contemptuous of local churches.

Because as per what actual hard data has been collected

30 percent think it was a bad move. But the real test is whether or not people are understanding certain passages, such as the collects.

Also, as a side point, I can't see any evidence understanding the mass (though very desirable) drives attendance. Both the pre VII Latin mass and current Orthodox liturgies not in the vernacular don't seem to have lower attendance rates due to that issue. If anything, understanding seems to lose some people who would have otherwise kept attending as nominal Christians. Full, active, conscious participation, as called for by VII, is a good thing if achieved. But it, and therefore the reformed mass, are more demanding on the laity.

I suspect it goes both ways. There is a certain allure to "sacred language"—to singing things in unfamiliar words as a sort of elevator shoes to holiness. Catholics can take this to extremes. Time and again I've heard people praise the Latin mass as if it weren't in a human language but in some sort of divine symbol language--the sort of mystification that Europeans once applied to hieroglyphs! If you ask me, this attitude has even infected the new translation, with "chalice" quite inappropriately injected into the consecration; it sounds special and fancy, although in this case the Latin text isn't.

At the other end, however, I know the new translation has left many lapsed and low-attending Catholics behind, and obviously severed the liturgical commonalities between the churches. It's silly to imagine that the Pope might actually change the date of Easter as a sign of common Christianity, but the Catholic church broke the very symbolon of the faith, the Nicene Creed, by separating its language (in fussy and obscurantist(1)) ways from that used in other English-language churches.

As for the Orthodox, while it varies by church and by the characteristics of the local community, I'm sure you're aware that vernacular liturgies are exceedingly common.

---

1. Would you really defend all the changes in the Nicene Creed?

I think there's a big difference between experiencing something that one doesn't understand at all, which might well be beautiful and prayerful, and having something in one's own language deliberately (ideologically?) written in a way which makes it difficult to understand. The former has some point to it. But what on earth is the point of having the mass in the vernacular if not to make it easier for people to understand and participate in?

>81 timspalding:

I'm not sure what "ideological reasons" means.

Many of the changes people make and propose are because they don’t like the theology embedded in the reformed rite.

I would characterize wanting to use prayers people can understand as "practical reasons."

People can, I think, understand the language fine. The content, perhaps not, but that was true even with simplified language of the old translation (even more so in some ways, because the content was simply missing).

This is particularly so when it is remembered the alternative approved by the English speaking Bishops was not the simplified 1970s translation, but the revised 1998 version, which has a similar level of complexity in the language used.

And I would be inclined to describe the translation process that got us the current translation as "ideological" not to mention contemptuous of local churches.

The translation process was simply an attempt to ensure the translation actually reflected the theology of the reformed rite as embedded in the Latin typical edition. The ideology was from those in the English translation bodies, and some amongst the Bishops, who wanted to impose their own ideas on it (mostly gender neutral language in relation to God etc).

And to do so, they held the whole process hostage, so that when Rome had to go and fix it we were left with a number of issues in the detail (particular in the detail of many of the collects).

30 percent think it was a bad move.

A fair chunk of people are going to think any change is a bad move, just because having to relearn the texts is a pain. 70% approval is a really high level of support from people in the pews, and I doubt the 1998 would have received a much better reception.

But the real test is whether or not people are understanding certain passages, such as the collects.

Some of the collects are clunky, but I don’t think they are understood any less than say the 1998 versions would have been.

If you ask me, this attitude has even infected the new translation, with "chalice" quite inappropriately injected into the consecration; it sounds special and fancy, although in this case the Latin text isn't.

Except everyone has always been fine calling the actual vessel used at Mass a "chalice". The whinging about calling the "chalice" a "chalice" is incomprehensible.

At the other end, however, I know the new translation has left many lapsed and low-attending Catholics behind, and obviously severed the liturgical commonalities between the churches. It's silly to imagine that the Pope might actually change the date of Easter as a sign of common Christianity, but the Catholic church broke the very symbolon of the faith, the Nicene Creed, by separating its language (in fussy and obscurantist(1)) ways from that used in other English-language churches.

The idea that most Protestant groups, even liturgical ones, mostly use those so called common texts is divorced from actual experience. In a great many Anglican churches, for example, you are just as likely to get a random creed like statement as you are the Nicene Creed. Many of which, when I was an Anglican and travelling around, I could not actually assent to in good conscience.

And when the Nicene Creed was used, many and various translations and paraphrases were applied. As any Anglican will tell you, Common Prayer left the building some time ago in their communion. And Anglicans are perhaps one of the most uniform in their use of language amongst even the liturgical Protestants.

The bigger problem with the new missal regarding the creeds is actually found in the Latin typical edition, which now allows the Apostles Creed to be used all the time, which is very far from an ecumenically agreed one.

As for the Orthodox, while it varies by church and by the characteristics of the local community, I'm sure you're aware that vernacular liturgies are exceedingly common.

Yeah, it varies, but non-vernacular liturgies are far more common amongst the Orthodox then they are amongst Catholics.

Would you really defend all the changes in the Nicene Creed?

The Creed? Yes. All the Collects? Not in every detail.

>82 John5918:

having something in one's own language deliberately (ideologically?) written in a way which makes it difficult to understand.

No one deliberately included anything in the translation with the intent of making it difficult to understand. Some people defended on that basis, but I think they really just wanted a return to Latin.

Anyway, what happened to assuming good faith?

>83 hf22: I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm sure they thought they were doing it for the best of reasons, despite the overwhelming voices raised against the changes. But it was a deliberate decision (whatever its reasons) taken in the face of much well-founded opposition and it had the effect (as predicted) of making it more difficult to understand.

For the record, I don't think your example of "chalice" is the least understandable change, although I do think it is one of the clumsiest and least justifiable since cup is actually a perfectly good, legitimate and understandable translation of calix. "Consubstantial" is one example which is far more problematic. But as Tim says, much of the controversy is about the proper prayers of the mass, made more difficult to understand by the fact that one only hears them once a year, as opposed to the ordinary of the mass which one hears regularly.

Edited to add: You are correct, of course, that Catholics recognise the word chalice. It's a highly stylised gold-plated gem-encrusted type of cup used in rituals. It's almost certainly not what Jesus used when, accípiens et cálicem íterum tibi grátias agens dedit discípulis suis ("he took the {disputed word} and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples").

>84 John5918:

despite the overwhelming voices raised against the changes. But it was a deliberate decision (whatever its reasons) taken in the face of much well-founded opposition

Hardly overwhelming or well-founded opposition. Mostly it was from the very people who deliberately caused the mess in the first place, by refusing to fix the justified theological concerns of Rome.

and it had the effect (as predicted) of making it more difficult to understand.

That case has not been made out, particular as I have pointed out, the people in the pews have overwhelming reported that they think it is a good thing. The evidence otherwise is mostly ideological, with very little empirical content.

For the record, I don't think your example of "chalice" is the least understandable change, although I do think it is one of the clumsiest and least justifiable since cup is actually a perfectly good, legitimate and understandable translation of calix.

The objection of people who happily call the vessels chalices when they are cleaning or polishing them, to calling them the same thing when they hold the Blood of Christ, is just madness. Ideological madness.

"Consubstantial" is one example which is far more problematic.

No one who does not understand consubstantial understands "of one being". It is a dense and technical theological term however you translate it.

You are correct, of course, that Catholics recognise the word chalice. It's a highly stylised gold-plated gem-encrusted type of cup used in rituals. It's almost certainly not what Jesus used when, accípiens et cálicem íterum tibi grátias agens dedit discípulis suis ("he took the {disputed word} and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples").

Firstly, the last supper was itself a Jewish ritual, and so it is anachronistic to assume Jesus used the cracked cup from down the inn. But more to the point, this precisely shows the ideological and iconoclastic basis of these objections. The understanding and desires of the people in the pews have very little to do with it.

I have comments on much, but I'm ditching them to focus on one particular stupidity.

The text is clear. Calix is the straightforward, unmarked word for cup. It's used as such by Jerome, and so by the current Vulgate, translating the equally unmarked Greek word (poterion), in the very passages quoted within the mass here. It's the same word Jerome and the current Vulgate use to translate the same Greek word in numerous other passages too--my cup flows over, give me a cup of cold water, etc.

Good grief, the very word is used elsewhere in the very Latin text of the mass, and NOT translated as chalice—see "when we eat this bread and drink this cup (calicem)." See "this is the cup (calix) of my blood" a few phrases later. And obviously its used in lectionary many times, again never translated "chalice."

To repeat: Although the word occurs many places in the mass and in lectionaries, it's always translated as "cup." This is the only place it's translated "chalice."

So much for fidelity to the text!

Yes, Latin-English dictionaries will give extended meanings for calix--chalice, vessel, goblet, vessel, tumble, cannikin, whatever. One might find similar extenions for other common words--canis meaning hound, bitch, canine, man's best friend. It doesn't change the simple philology of the situation. People who know Latin, or any language, know that translation is a good deal more than finding a word in the dictionary and looking at all the words with commas between them. And if "calix" should be translated as "chalice" in this phrase, I see no barrier to translating "panis" (bread) as "baguette" or "eclair."

He took the eclair and broke it and gave it to his disciples… Now doesn't that sound so much more elevated?

Nor is the simple philology changed by the abssolute torrent of bullshit Latin explanation applied to this change—that the text is about a special kind of cup, that prior translations had simplified this noble word, etc. It seems most of these people actually believe this stuff, although it's equally clear none of them could have passed my first-year Latin test. No, this is embarrassing stuff, yet more proof that Latin has gone extinct, even within the church.

That a small minority of weird zealots trumpet the language, without undersanding it, and fasten on this as some sort of recovery (!), restoring the accurate translation obscured by the liberals, only makes the loss all the more sad.

Ignorance reigns--a very fussy and pious ignorance, for sure.

Now, I'm going to presume there was someone in Rome who knew what they were doing. As such, I'm betting they felt the circumstance needed some elevation--that "splendid cup" wasn't as fancy as "splendid chalice" and the Novus Ordo needed more fancy. Maybe it does, and we should retranslate large swaths of it as if we were ambitious eighth graders trying to sound posh.

But let's not pretend this was about fidelity to the language.

>86 timspalding: He took the eclair and broke it and gave it to his disciples…

Might get more people receiving communion if we used eclairs!

>86 timspalding:

This ignores both context in translation, and the nature of the receiving language.

Chalice is not a good translation because it transliterates the Latin term calix, though transliteration particularly for technical theological terms has a long tradition in Christian translations (think all the Greek transliterations in Church Latin itself).

But the liturgical vessel being used when these words are said is precisely called a chalice, from the Latin base, and the meaning chalice has in English comes precisely from this use. That definition currently being a drinking cup: goblet; especially: the eucharistic cup (from Merriam Webster). That is, the idea in English that a chalice is a special / precious cup, comes precisely from its association with the precious blood in the liturgy.

In context therefore, in English, the right term for a chalice is a chalice. Objecting to calling a chalice a chalice in the Mass, because it has a special meaning from it use in the Mass, is just dumb as a matter of translation#.

It only really makes sense as an ideological objection, to the very nature of ritual objects such as chalices being more than everyday items, but Christ himself would have been using a ritual and not everyday cup that is also stupid.

# And comparing calling a thing in the Mass what it is called at every other time, to calling bread something that it is clearly not such as an éclair, is a really special kind of stupid. When you resort to scornful non-arguments, it really shows that you have nothing to offer on a question.

* As to why the translation cup was used in the MA, buggered if I know. The inconsistency is weird and annoying, not that most people notice even if asked.

>88 hf22:

The English "chalice" certainly comes from the Latin. English often does this--taking a foreign word and giving it a new, specific meaning. Thus hund is the regular word for dog, but hound is a special kind of dog in English, chai is the regular word for tea in many languages (e.g., Turkish), but is a special kind of tea in English. There are thousands of these things. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether a text actually written in these language should be translated using the borrowed word. Etymology is not meaning and never has been. It's only useful when you're learning a language and need a leg-up. After that, it's how translators get into trouble.

As for technical terms, we are not calling a chalice a chalice. We are mistranslating a Latin passage. The Latin does not have a special term for chalice here. It has the regular term for cup. Saying the motive here is that I object to sacred objects is simply idiotic.

Translating "cup" as "chalice" because that's a better explanation of what the cup means here directly contradicts the whole programmatic point everyone says is at issue in Liturgiam authenticam--namely, getting away from "dynamic translation" toward the most exactitude possible. As LI put it "the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses."

This, sir, is a gloss. It's a piously motivated gloss. But it's a gloss.

>89 timspalding:

And, if I recall my liturgy studies from long ago, this part of the Eucharistic Prayer is anamnesis: a recalling to mind, the recollection or remembrance of the past, the memorial character of the Eucharist, recalling God's saving deeds, remembering what Jesus said and did. It is about what Jesus did, not about a modern liturgical chalice.

>90 John5918:

Well, there's a theological issue here--every mass recapitulates the Last Supper and death on the cross. Every mass is the same mass. So "chalice" might make sense as an explanatory gloss here—we call it a chalice because, although Jesus used a simple cup, we use a ritual object, sometimes a precious one, which we call a "chalice," so we're "doing the same thing."

This would make sense if the point of the translation was to provide traditionalist gloss on the Latin text—to emphasize that the fat and elderly man covered in yards of silk and embroidery, hoisting the bejeweled hunk of gold, is acting in the person of Christ. A "liberal" might prefer to translate it "mug" or "Solo cup" to emphasize that Jesus' actual poterion was surely not as nice as most of the "cups" we use today. That too would be a theological gloss.

But the whole point is to avoid such glosses!

---

1. Probably either clay or recycled glass with color imperfections and lots of interior bubbles. Don't go after me on ancient glass. I spent six months doing archaeology on just that!

>89 timspalding:

The English "chalice" certainly comes from the Latin. English often does this--taking a foreign word and giving it a new, specific meaning. Thus hund is the regular word for dog, but hound is a special kind of dog in English, chai is the regular word for tea in many languages (e.g., Turkish), but is a special kind of tea in English. There are thousands of these things. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether a text actually written in these language should be translated using the borrowed word. Etymology is not meaning and never has been. It's only useful when you're learning a language and need a leg-up. After that, it's how translators get into trouble.

Except I am not saying etymology is meaning. I am saying that when we name the drinking vessel in the priest’s hot little hand during the Mass, we use its actual name, as used at all other times.

The etymology merely explains why a chalice is called a chalice, and why chalice has the connotations it currently does in English. And when you are objecting to using a word in the Mass, because it has gained connotations from use in the Mass#, you have reached peak stupid.

As for technical terms, we are not calling a chalice a chalice. We are mistranslating a Latin passage. The Latin does not have a special term for chalice here. It has the regular term for cup.

The only reason chalice is considered a special term is because it has been used to refer to the chalice in the Mass. That is, it is not a special term at all, except from it becoming a consecrated phrase due to its use as the Church now (again) proposes it be used.

And calix is not a regular term for “cup”. It is a regular term for a drinking vessel, often but not exclusively stemmed / footed one. “Cup” has its own special connotations in English, usually referring to those drinking vessels used for coffee / tea (alternatively the cooking measure or certain trophies).

I have, for example, have never drank wine from a cup. A wine glass (if glass) or perhaps goblet if metal. But never, in English usage, a cup.

Saying the motive here is that I object to sacred objects is simply idiotic.

It is the motive of many on this question, and explicitly so. As to your motives, that is for you to tell me.

Translating "cup" as "chalice" because that's a better explanation of what the cup means here directly contradicts the whole programmatic point everyone says is at issue in Liturgiam authenticam

The key section of LA in this regard is LA46-56, particularly:

Liturgical translation that takes due account of the authority and integral content of the original texts will facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship, even though it is not to be excluded that it may exercise an influence even on everyday speech, as has occurred in the languages of peoples evangelized long ago …

One should maintain the vocabulary that has gradually developed in a given vernacular language to distinguish the individual liturgical ministers, vessels, furnishings, and vesture from similar persons or things pertaining to everyday life and usage; words that lack such a sacral character are not to be used instead.

The present translation is not always faithful to either LA or the Latin text (i.e some the most awkward collects etc are not actually particular good at following the Latin either). But on this point it is doing precisely as LA instructs.

This, sir, is a gloss. It's a piously motivated gloss. But it's a gloss.

It is not a gloss. It is the interaction between language, translation and history. And while some translators have the explicit aim of attempting to eliminate the ages between a text and its recipient, and it not really possible, nor indeed desirable for an incarnate faith.

>90 John5918:, >91 timspalding:

And, if I recall my liturgy studies from long ago, this part of the Eucharistic Prayer is anamnesis

As Tim points out, the Mass is not simply the Last Supper represented. It is a whole lot of things all at once.

It is about what Jesus did, not about a modern liturgical chalice.

The modern (and ancient) liturgical chalice is also part of calling to mind what Jesus did. It is not an alien imposition on the actions of Jesus being recalled.

although Jesus used a simple cup, we use a ritual object, sometimes a precious one, which we call a "chalice,"

It does not seem evident to me that Jesus used “a simple cup” per se. From what we know of Jewish ritual, though the Seder stuff is admittedly post temple destruction, more than just everyday items were used for a Passover meal (even if we are not talking jewel encrusted gold items). And indeed from what we know from the later development of Christian ritual.

And the chalice is after all always going to be special for orthodox Catholics, because it holds the precious blood. Christian usage will therefore make the words for it special, as it has for chalice, despite efforts otherwise. Which is why trying to cycle through terms to escape this is both fruitless and undesirable.

# Well, uses about the Mass, rather than in it per se given the texts have only recently been put in the venacular. But the point remains the same.

Funnily enough our archbishop recently issued an instruction that the parts of the mass, when sung, must use the correct words. However I believe this was not aimed at the difference between the old and new translations, but rather at all the strange adaptations of gloria, credo, sanctus and agnus dei which have crept in over the decades. Many are just paraphrases of the actual text. The "Peruvian Gloria", for example, has virtually nothing in common with the gloria except the words, "Glory to God". We had also been singing a couple of versions of the credo which again had little in common with the real text except the words, "I believe". One of my pet hates, which we sang yesterday, is a sanctus which does have all the correct words and has a really nice tune but adds, "The angels are singing" just before "hosanna in the highest". Why? The metre and rhythm and everything would still work perfectly if we just sang, "Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest".

There's plenty of good modern liturgical music out there. For my generation in England a lot of it came from the St Thomas More Centre in London. But even the one-man-show singing Italian missionary who sometimes presides at the chapel I attend in Juba on Sundays at least has some good modern versions of the kyrie, gloria and sanctus.