Treasures of the Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer IV

There are inexhaustible riches buried in the Eucharistic Prayers of the modern Roman Rite. The new English translation helps uncover them, but to delve even deeper, we need to look directly at the Latin. I recommend a look at Eucharistic Prayer IV, which is rarely used, but is a stellar recounting of salvation history filled with resonant biblical language and powerful imagery.

Here's a selection from the Post-sanctus of EP IV, first in the new English translation, and then in the underlying Latin:

You formed man in your own image
and entrusted the whole world to his care,
so that in serving you alone, the Creator,
he might have dominion over all creatures.
And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship,
you did not abandon him to the domain of death.

Here is the Latin:

Hominem ad tuam imaginem condidisti,
eique commisisti mundi curam universi,
ut, tibi soli Creatori serviens,
creaturis omnibus imperaret.
Et cum amicitiam tuam, non oboediens, amisisset,
non eum dereliquisti in mortis imperio.

There are two pairs of bolded words in the English and in the Latin: commisisti and amisisset, imperaret and imperio. The two pairs are translated in different manners. Let us look at the second pair first.

The word imperaret is a third person imperfect subjunctive form of the verb imperare "to order, command; to rule (over)." The word imperio is the noun form of that verb: "command; authority; rule". It is sensible to translate them into English as "might have dominion" and "the dominion", for this captures the sense of the Latin words and the linguistic link between them. The treasure I see here in the text is this: God gave dominion (mastery, you could say, or stewardship) of His creation to man, but when man sinned, He did not let death have dominion over man. This treasure is not too hard to spot in the new translation. (The previous English translation was another matter, translating these two words as "to rule" and "power", two words not immediately related to each other in English. The proposed 1998 text used "be stewards" and "power", even less associated with each other.)

But I think a more concealed treasure (partly due to the translation) is in the first pair: commisisti and amisisset. The first is the second person perfect form of the verb committere which means "to entrust" along with "to bring together, unite"; the second is the third person pluperfect subjunctive form of the verb amittere which means "to lose" along with "to send away; to part with". Both verbs are related to the root verb mittere which means "to send". The treasure to be uncovered here is that God unites — sends together, com-mittere — man and the rest of His creation as part of His friendship with man, but then man casts away — sends away, a-mittere — this friendship. God puts something special and precious into the hands of man, and man casts it aside.

These are just two pearls of great price I've uncovered as I study the Eucharistic Prayers (during the research phase of my work on Praying the Mass vol. 3, The Eucharistic Prayers). There are many more to be uncovered!

[LINK]

Critiquing the new translation alongside earlier ones

I'm still reading Anscar Chupungco's critique of the official English translation of Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation I:

ICEL2010 takes liberty with the Latin text in unum corpus congregentur in Christo, a quo omnis auferatur divisio, whose literal meaning is: “they may be gathered into one Body in Christ, from which may every division be {482} removed.” It is obvious that a quo refers to corpus, not to Christo. There can be no division in Christ in the first place. (A Commentary on the Order of Mass, pp. 481-482)

That is a good literal translation of the Latin provided by Fr. Chupungco (a Benedictine monk). The English text he is critiquing, from the new English translation of the Roman Missal, is "they may be gathered into one Body in Christ who heals every division." He goes on to say:

The Latin text does not say that Christ “heals” every division. The verb “to heal” is not a dynamic equivalent, much less a literal translation of auferatur. What is prayed for is that all division be eliminated from the community, the body gathered into one in Christ. (Ibid, p. 482)

He has a valid point here. The verb auferre means generally "to remove". It appears in a penitential prayer of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (commonly called the Tridentine Mass), aufer a nobis... ("Take away our iniquities from us...").

I wonder, though, why here in the commentary on translation, mention is not made of earlier translations (e.g. 1975 and 1998) of the same Latin text; comparing the 2010 text to earlier translations happens quite frequently in this particular commentary. The two earlier translations I have noted (1975 and 1998) employed dynamic equivalency, and yet they rendered the phrase in question as "healed of all division" and "in whom all divisions are healed". Perhaps this is why a comparison or remark is absent.

While Fr. Chupungco is correct that "healed" does not translate (literally or dynamically) auferatur, I would dare to suggest that "healed of all division(s)" does dynamically (though not quite literally) translate omnis auferatur divisio. For, in this case, the divisions are in a body, a body which is meant to be perfectly united, perfectly one, utterly undivided. The removal, therefore, of divisions in this body appropriately be called "healing".

[LINK]

Translating the Sanctus

The Adoremus Bulletin had an article nine years ago about the proper translation of Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. This article pointed out that while "Deus" is a noun in the nominative (subject of a verb) and vocative (direct address) cases, "Dominus" is only properly a nominative noun. The vocative form of "Dominus" is "Domine", as in Miserere, Domine.

This means the strictly literal translation of the first line of the Sanctus is really "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts," instead of what we're used to, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts."

So I was a bit surprised when reading Anscar Chupungco's analysis of the new English translation, wherein he writes:

In compliance with the norms of formal correspondence advocated by [Liturgiam Authenticam], the English Sanctus for [Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation I] in ICEL2010 (“Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts”) appropriately corrects its 2007 gray book translation of this prayer (Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hosts). (A Commentary on the Order of Mass, p. 478)

There are a number of other inaccuracies in the final translation of the Latin text which the numerous authors in the Commentary have pointed out, but I was surprised at this one.

[LINK]

Biblical exegesis and interfaith sensitivity

I'm reading a new massive commentary on the Roman Missal by the Liturgical Press. It's very helpful for my research on the new translations of the Eucharistic Prayers, but every now and then it rubs me the wrong way with statements like these (emphasis added):

A mystagogy of EP IV needs to point out that the early church or a patristic typological interpretation of OT passages can be problematic for contemporary interfaith sensibilities. Appreciation of the prayer does need to carry with it a certain note of caution concerning its appropriation of Jewish salvation history. In other words, contemporary exegesis of OT texts lets the Hebrew Scriptures stand on their own terms. That being said, the biblical approach of EP IV can be valued and appreciated on its own terms as long as one is aware of the contemporary critique. It is important to note that the NT texts themselves often approach the Hebrew Scriptures typologically. (A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal: A New English Translation, pp. 427-428)

While contemporary interfaith sensibilities might justly govern interfaith activities, there is no need to abandon the scriptural tradition of the Church in reading the Old Testament in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ.  Yes, this is not just an "early church" tradition (as in going back to, say, St. Ignatius of Antioch), it is a scriptural Church tradition:  the evangelists did it, the apostles did it, John the Baptist did it, and Jesus Himself did it.  I see no reason to avoid typological interpretation of the Bible in a mystagogical context.

Perhaps this will come off sounding insensitive, but do we risk losing parts of our authentic Catholic identity, to use a Johannine phrase, "for fear of the Jews"?

[LINK]

New Translation: Awkward wording in the doxology

While I am for the most part pleased with the new English translation of the Roman Missal — what I've read and heard of it — there are a few awkwardly worded sections.

In this post, I'd like to examine one example: the concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer.  In the old translation, the priest said:

Through him, with him, in him,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,
forever and ever.

This is a decent (although not exact) translation of the Latin, which reads:

Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso,
est tibi Deo Patri omnipoténti,
in unitáte Spíritus Sancti,
omnis honor, et glória,
per ómnia sæcula sæculórum.

If you haven't noticed, I'm putting the prepositions in bold. Here is a strict word-for-word translation:

By him, and with him, and in him,
is to you God Father almighty,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all honor and glory,
during all ages of ages.

And here's how it is rendered in the new translation:

Through him, and with him, and in him,
O God, almighty Father,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
forever and ever.

As you can see, the individual lines of the prayer have been re-arranged to match their order in the Latin, but I think it ends up being a little anti-climactic. The order of the Latin phrases is not, in this case, necessary to the form of the prayer; this is not a collect, for example, where the prayer takes the form of "O God, who did X, we ask you, grant us Y."

There is another problem which exists in both the old and the new translation: a missing preposition. This may not seem like a big deal, but the Latin does not simply say that all glory and honor is the Father's; it specifically says that all glory and honor is (that is, it goes) to the Father by (through), in, and with the Son, and in the unity of the Holy Spirit. This small detail is not captured by either translation, and can be tricky to convey in natural-sounding English.

[LINK]

Does the new translation of the Mass over-emphasize our sinfulness?

My parish prayed the Confiteor at Mass this morning.  One thing I have read complaints about, in the new translation, is that the Confiteor over-emphasizes our sinfulness.  "I have greatly sinned ... through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault."

Did you happen to notice, new translation aside, the First Reading from this morning's Mass?

Behold, you are angry, and we are sinful;
all of us have become like unclean people,
all our good deeds are like polluted rags;
we have all withered like leaves,
and our guilt carries us away like the wind.
There is none who calls upon your name,
who rouses himself to cling to you;
for you have hidden your face from us
and have delivered us up to our guilt.

Geez, Isaiah!  Lighten up, would you?  And yet, the First Reading ends thus:

Yet, O LORD, you are our father;
we are the clay and you the potter:
we are all the work of your hands.

And so ends the Confiteor, or whatever Penitential Act is used:  we acknowledge that God is almighty in His mercy, capable of granting us forgiveness of our sins, and ready to do so.

[LINK]

"Praying the Mass" receives Seal of Approval from the Catholic Writers' Guild

I'm happy to report that the first two volumes of my series on the Mass have received the Catholic Writers' Guild Seal of Approval.  As we move forward into the new liturgical year using a new translation, I hope that people find thorough and enriching resources to help them receive the new words and personalize them in their own prayer.

[LINK]

The commandments of Jesus

The new English translation of the Roman Missal is about to come into use in the United States.  It has been in partial use in England since September.  It appears, however, that not only Roman Catholics have prepared to switch from the current Sacramentary to the new Roman Missal.  Some Anglicans are (or were) getting ready to make the change as well.  But the Anglican Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, is not at all supportive of that initiative; in a pastoral letter released last Friday, he made this clear:

For those who remain [in the Church of England] there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. In these rites there is not only a prayer for the Pope but the expression of a communion with him; a communion Pope Benedict XVI would certainly repudiate.

[...]

Priests and parishes which do adopt the new rites – with their marked divergences from the ELLC texts and in the altered circumstances created by the Pope’s invitation to Anglicans to join the Ordinariate – are making a clear statement of their disassociation not only from the Church of England but from the Roman Communion as well.

You can read the letter yourself.  There is one small detail from the letter I wish to focus on, certainly not the main thrust of the letter by any means, but a Christian meme I have heard from time to time.  Bishop Chartres said that "among the very few commandments that [Jesus] gave to us is 'Do this in remembrance of me.'"

Jesus did tell His disciples — and us — to do quite a bit!

• Do not swear at all (Matthew 5:33ff)
• Do not repay evil for evil (Matthew 5:38ff)
• Give to those who ask of you (Matthew 5:42)
• Do your acts of charity in secret (Matthew 6:2ff)
• Do not lay up treasure on earth (Matthew 6:19ff)
• Do not be anxious about anything (Matthew 6:25ff)
• Do to others what you would have them do to you (Matthew 7:12)

That's just a brief selection from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is depicted as the new Moses.  As Moses received and dispensed the commandments of God, so too Jesus issues commandments.  There's more in the rest of the Gospels and the remainder of the New Testament.

Especially during this week following the Feast of Christ the King, I think we should avoid a reductionist view of the Gospel, of the commandments of our Lord.  There's more to it than simply "Do this in memory of me."  There are, of course, the two greatest commandments which sum up the whole of the law and the prophets, and without which that awesome Eucharistic commandment is of no avail.  And, as St. Paul reminds us, love is the fulfilling of the law.

So perhaps we can say Jesus did give us few commandments — love God and love your neighbor — and then explained in detail just how we are to do so.

[LINK]