Critical Mass: Lost (and Found) in Translation II

(Dear reader: Part I of this sub-series can be found here.)

The proposed 2005 draft for the English revision of the Order of Mass (you know, the one that everybody was fussing about on eBay), is on the table at the bishops' conference in Washington this week. Bring on the spin doctors...

It seems that people are accustomed to the banality of the present translation, and should not have their delicate sensibilities upset. This from a bunch of guys who, in the last three years, can barely take responsibility for anything without a parade of lawyers and "child protection" experts fingerprinting your Aunt Minnie who's been teaching catechism for a lifetime. After all, she might be a danger to the kiddies. Duh...

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mentions a comment by Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago:

[Cardinal George] noted that a long-standing division between bishops who prefer standard American English and those who want a literal rending of Latin has become more complex. Some bishops on both sides have realized that the current English text is more familiar and meaningful to many Catholics than the centuries-old Latin text once was, he said.

"There are those who have been quite critical of the present translation, but who are now saying that we don't want to disturb the people, especially in the situation of weakened episcopal authority we have now," he said, referring to distrust of bishops who failed to remove child molesters from the priesthood.

Okay, Eminence, leaving aside the fact that you have a doctorate in linguistics, let's talk about distrust for a moment.

The problem with someone who lies (and if we're talking about dropping everything because of the sex scandals, we are talking about various prelates lying through their teeth for years), is not so much that they have lied, but that we no longer know whether we can believe them.

Ah, yes, what to believe!!! This, to quote the Bard: "is the rub."

If we pray what we believe, then what we believe needs to be clear enough -- not only for the ones who proclaim it, but out of respect for the One who hears. We have commented eariler in this occasional series (see reference to part one, above), about the significance and meaning attached to a particular word, or set of words.

Before they dismiss the proposed revisions on the basis of that to which their subjects are accustomed, our shepherds might be reminded that this did not stop anyone forty years ago, when the official liturgical reform after Vatican II was implemented.* Nor would it have prevented the liturgical intelligensia from going through with their original plans in the 1980s and 1990s, to purge the texts of male pronouns in reference to God as Father, as well as introduce a host of "adaptations" that would have borne no resemblance to the official text of the Roman Missal, as originating in... well, of all places, ROME.

The American bishops wonder out loud about an atmosphere of distrust. It is because, quite simply, their actions have demonstrated that the faithful do not know whether they can be believed. If they are to regain that trust, what better place to start, than with WHAT IS TO BE BELIEVED?

Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, PA, is among the last of the old status quo with respect to liturgical revisionism. He uses a line from the Nicene Creed as an example of his distress with the latest draft.

The Latin text that defines the nature of God the Son reads in part: "consubstantialem Patri." This portion is currently rendered: "one in being with the Father." The 2005 proposal goes: "consubstantial with the Father." (Gee, whiz, you'd almost guess that an English word originated in Latin, wouldn't you?) In other words, the Son is of the same substance as the Father. This is exactly what it means to say "one in being." And to say exactly what you meant about the Son in relation to the Father, was a really big deal in the early fourth century, when a heresy that said otherwise was overtaking the majority of the Catholic world.

So to apply the root meaning, as opposed to a less accurate tangent, is all the better to explain the nature of God. And if we pray what we believe, aren't we better off getting it right the first time?

Getting it right the first time!!! That too, to quote the Bard again... you get the idea.

–––

* It is here that the paleo-traditionalists would be quick to remind us, that nobody in the pews asked for a reform of the Mass -- nobody, that is to say, other than many of the Fathers of the recent ecumenical council. The lack of a global "straw vote" in matters of faith and belief notwithstanding, this point is another matter for this continuing occasional series. Stay tuned...