Michael Kelly
Editor’s Comment
So, Irish parishioners will not have to face the upheaval of yet another new translation of the Mass – at least for now.
Reflecting the pragmatism that is the defining characteristic of the modern Irish Church, the cost and huge effort that has gone in to the last revision of the Mass currently in use in parishes means bishops will not re-visit the issue.
There’s an old joke told in ecclesiastical circles that asks what the difference is between a liturgist and terrorist. The wry answer is that at least one can negotiate with a terrorist.
The joke serves to illustrate a serious point that there are few things that divide in the Church as much as liturgy.
While people unhappy with the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s cited many issues, it was ultimately the move away from the traditional Latin Mass that led to schism under Blessed Pope Paul VI.
What have been described as ‘liturgy wars’ have been going on for decades in the Church. Vatican II gave the authority to supervise Mass translations to local bishops’ conferences. For the English-speaking world this meant the establishment of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to carry out this work. Concerns over accuracy and faithfulness to the original Latin text led the Vatican to effectively neuter the body in the 1990s scuppering a 1998 translation of the Mass that had been expected to be adopted by bishops here.
What emerged was a Vatican-supervised translation that led to a new Roman Missal that was adopted in Irish parishes exactly six years ago this weekend.
Controversy
The process has not been without controversy. Many priests and parishioners expressed the belief that the translations were inadequate and did not properly reflect English as it is actually spoken. Others welcomed the translations as more authentic, given the faithfulness to the Latin text.
In truth, the current translation is inadequate in many ways. For the most part, the people’s responses (“And with your spirit” etc.) work quite well and – to take the example of the pre-communion “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and I shall be healed” – are both faithful to the original Missal and scripturally-sound.
In other places the Missal is very weak. Some of the opening prayers, for example, are hard to comprehend. A rigid adherence to the Latin text has meant that many of these prayers are unwieldy and often make little sense over several readings.
When the time comes for the next revision of the Roman Missal (likely to be quite some time away) the challenge will be to balance faithfulness to the original with the need for a text that is both beautiful and comprehensible.
In the meantime, the energy that so many people put into fighting about liturgy could be better expended on reaching out beyond the Church to those who no longer practise their faith.