Dear Editor, There seems to be a kerfuffle as to whether or not to revise the translation of the Mass in English. When I learnt Latin, I was told that Latin was a dead language because it never changes. Vernacular tongues are living and change, so when we use living languages in liturgy, we accept that they must be revised on an ongoing basis (and that this costs money). Only the Roman Missal in Latin is set in stone.
I am not going to defend the 2011 version of the Mass in English, but am at a loss to understand why nostalgia abounds for the missal it replaced. Having departed considerably from the Latin original, it was so clearly out of sync with the Mass in other modern European languages and even with Mass in Irish (which to me was a model translation), it was embarrassing.
I understand some have hailed the “noble simplicity” of the older translation, but I am more inclined to use the term banality. In addition, there seems to be a very condescending view of the reading ability of the lay faithful among some clerical opponents of the current translation.
There may be a sound of the theology manual rather than the riches of English literature to the new version, but it must be recognised the Church no longer has the sort of integrated scholarship (theology, languages and literature) at its disposal that it had 40 years ago. The contrast between the original Irish translation and its revision is a case in point.
Finally, the Word of God in Scripture by necessity must be accurate, so might I suggest that the Revised Standard Version, translated from Greek and Hebrew originals, be preferred for use in Church than the popular Jerusalem Bible, translated as it is from the French Bible de Jérusalem. Once again, the Irish translators of Scripture followed the RSV model and remained faithful to the original.
Yours etc.,
Peadar Laighléis,
Laytown, Co. Meath.
We can surely do a better job with the liturgy
Dear Editor, Your front page announcement on Mass changes (IC 30/11/17) will be of interest and concern to most churchgoers.
Certainly, a new issue of glossy publications should be avoided at all costs – and cost is the operative word here. Yet, it is vitally important that we get back to praying the liturgy in a language that we are familiar with. The time has come to drop the ‘vouchsaferies’ and the ‘YouWho’ clauses; indeed, relative clauses no longer belong in spoken English – we can leave that kind of thing to Cicero.
There is really no need for either great expense or great delay in providing improved texts. Is there any real need for the extensive multiple choice we now have in our texts? Take the collects (and matching offertory and communion prayers) – we have hundreds of them. And we hardly need the 30 prefaces now available to us. Church leaders must be aware that some priests, put off by the turgid and bombastic language of the Missal, are now substituting their own sometimes quirky compositions no better than the originals.
As regards printing costs, all we need is a simple folder or soft cover booklet – something more elaborate than a Sunday leaflet; it might run to 5,000 or 6,000 words.
It’s worth a try – in the above or some modified form. Oscar Wilde modified the old proverb “what’s worthy doing at all is worth doing well” to “what’s worth doing at all is worth doing badly”.
We can modify this still further: “what badly needs doing is worth doing badly” – and without delay.
Yours etc.,
Matt Carpenter MHM,
Rathgar, Dublin 6.
A horror brought home
Dear Editor, Last weekend a Pro-Life Campaign conference was held in Dublin, where the head-line speaker was Abby Johnson, a former director of an abortion clinic in Texas.
One could hear a pin drop as she spoke of witnessing, through an ultra-sound scan, a baby being suctioned apart by the abortionist equipment and at one point leaving the back-bone swirling around in his mother’s womb. While this was happening she stood idly by, observing. Many listeners shed tears while some left the room gutted by the reality likely to befall Ireland.
Such eye witness accounts bring home to us that horrendous horror so sanitised and steadfastly avoided by the Oireachtas Committee whose intention is to delete the ‘right to life’ of the unborn from our Constitution, ‘ach sin scéal eile’!
Yours et.c,
Gearóid Duffy,
Lee Road, Cork.
More pressing issues than Mass translations
Dear Editor, Your article on possible revisions to the Mass texts cited several sources stating that mainly due to cost considerations the Irish Church will not be revisiting the new liturgical translations that were introduced six years ago (IC 30/11/17). While cost would undoubtedly be a significant issue to any proposed change, surely the merits of the new translations need further unwrapping and explaining to the faithful. I am involved in my parish assembly for the past several years and have yet to hear a single objection raised about the new translations. That’s not to say that there are not people out there who dislike them. The article refers to “ongoing complaints from some parishioners (around the country) about some of the texts of prayers used at Mass”.
I would respectfully urge them to read what Bishop Robert Barron has to say about the new translations. They are, the bishop says, more courtly, more theologically-rich, and more scripturally-poetic and more in keeping with liturgical language to be used when addressing Almighty God, the Lord of Heaven and Earth. Bishop Barron was last week described by Austen Ivereigh in The Tablet as one of the most successful Catholic evangelists of the digital era.
While the concerns of those who are uncomfortable with the new translations should be addressed, there are surely numerous other areas that require missionary witness and input from all of us.
Mass attendance, basic understanding of our faith, queues for Holy Communion but none for Confession, youth Evangelisation, etc. A full list would take up several letters.
Yours etc.,
Don Cahalane,
Blackrock, Co. Cork.
Christian? Then you know what to do
Dear Editor, About Greg Daly’s article “Church urged to take lead on Refugees” (IC 30/11/2017) – there is no doubt about what we are called to do as Christians. I noted Bishop Kevin Doran’s article on same in The Journal.ie, which along with the comments from Fr Alan Hilliard are a welcome response from the Irish Church.
Often homeless Irish people are pitted against asylum seekers and refugees, but those of us who call ourselves Christian should help both, not either/or. Old Testament and New Testament Scripture is very clear on this. Deuteronomy 10: 19 says: “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Hebrews 13: 1 says: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.” Matthew 25: 35 says: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
For the past 17 years, asylum seekers have been congregated and segregated in large hostels owned by private landlords who profited from the Government for their keep. Some have languished there for up to eight years waiting for a decision while losing valuable skills and talents.
I am happy to hear there is now a change in policy and people who have not had a decision on their case within six months will have the option to work. It is also good to know that the community will be enabled to extend hospitality and support.
If the Church and not-for-profit sector had been allowed to provide services from the beginning, a lot of money would have been saved and there would have been a lot less fear and anger toward asylum seekers and refugees. I hope we can put things right as well as helping “our own”.
Yours etc.,
Josephine Stroker,
Elphin, Co. Roscommon.
Woolly language in the Mass
Dear Editor, If English grammar were really “closer to German than Latin” (Ireland will not revisit Mass changes, IC 30/11/17), we would still use the term Holy Ghost (heiliger Geist) – which seems to refer to an individual – rather than Holy Spirit (sanctus spiritus) – which is much vaguer and woollier. I don’t recall laypeople being consulted about the change!
Yours etc.,
Kieron Wood,
Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Not so meaningless after all
Dear Editor, I was surprised to read Mary Kenny describe our Euro notes as comparatively “vapid and meaningless” (IC 30/11/2017). The symbolism of the bridges, doors and windows on the notes should be obvious, with the architectural styles varying as the notes increase in value taking us through our shared European history: Classical, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Art Nouveau and Modern.
Yours etc.,
Gabriel Kelly,
Drogheda, Co. Louth