Winning the Battle, Losing the War

“Winning the battle, losing the war” became the frame for this post at a performance to celebrate the Chinese New Year on Valentine’s Day/Ash Wednesday. Watching this talented family of immigrants perform their traditional music, I realized that the lunar New Year is called “Tet” in Vietnam. The Tet Offensive in 1968 was the turning point in the “American War”: when the forces of the United States inflicted great damage to the North Vietnamese, and when the people of the United States started to turn against the war.

The birth of the New Moon is celebrated by Jews every month as Rosh Chodesh, this year February 15. I would like to know if the new moon begins the 46-day cycle (Sundays don’t count for the 40 days of fasting) that leads up to Easter, but I can’t find an easy answer online. Certainly St. Valentine’s celebration is not linked to a moon cycle except in popular songs and swoony images of love. Lunar New Year is even acknowledged on the February 16 Google search page with images of dogs on a ski lift, celebrating the Olympics in South Korea. Let us not forget the fragile hopes raised by North Korean participation there.

Celebrations are important to nourish human life, and we as Catholics have a rich liturgical tradition. I want to argue in this post that traditionalists in the Vatican won the battle of English translations, but will lose the war. The 2001 document Liturgiam authenticam resulted in the 2011 Missal for the entire English-speaking world that is an obstacle to genuine celebration of the liturgy, every day, every week.

Consider these examples from an article in Commonweal, by Gerald O’Collins with John Wilkins:

The Christmas Day “Prayer over the Gifts,” from the 1998 rejected Missal:

Lord,
on this solemn day accept the offering
which has brought us reconciliation and perfect peace
and is the full expression of our worship.
We ask this in the name of Jesus, the Lord.

Compare this with the “Prayer over the Offerings” from the 2011 Missal:

Make acceptable, O Lord, our oblation on this solemn day,
when you manifested the reconciliation
that makes us wholly pleasing in your sight
and inaugurated for us the fullness of divine worship.
Through Christ our Lord.

Another example: “Prayer over the Offerings” from the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

First the version from the 1998 rejected Missal:

In your goodness, Lord, receive the sacrifice of salvation which we offer on the feast of the immaculate conception. We profess in faith that your grace preserved the Virgin Mary from every stain of sin; through her intercession deliver us from all our faults.

Now the version from 2011 Missal:

Graciously accept the saving sacrifice which we offer you, O Lord, on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and grant that, as we profess her, on account of your prevenient grace, to be untouched by any stain of sin, so through her intercession, we may be delivered from all our faults.

“Prevenient”? Really?

I am grateful to the authors for providing these illustrations of awful translations, and they go on to describe the goals of Liturgiam authenticam:

The instruction wanted a “sacral style” (stylum sacrum), which could differ from current speech and even sound strange and “obsolete.” It dreamed of a “sacred language” (lingua sacra) with its own “vocabulary, syntax, and grammar,” which might have its impact on “daily speech.” Where current English and other languages have moved toward “inclusive” speech, the “sacred language” should not follow suit. The gendered language of Latin was not to be altered. “Pray, brethren,” excluding half the human race, is in accordance with the instruction, whereas “Pray, brothers and sisters” would not be.

I can’t tell you how much this makes me want to wage war! You may remember that my small faith community does not use the 2011 Missal, but every time I am part of a celebration in a church that does, I struggle with the language on the card or worship aid so blithely imposed on millions of people. My little private battle is NOT to be imposed upon.

O’Collins and Wilkins quote “chant historian” Peter Jeffrey, who writes about Liturgiam authenticam in his book Translating Tradition:

He sharply criticized the instruction’s tone: “What it lacks in factuality it makes up with naked aggression. It speaks words of power and control rather than cooperation and consultation, much less charity.”

I am not usually drawn to military metaphors, but when it comes to the liturgical life of the church, I am sorely tempted. I want to endorse the motu proprio Magnum principium promulgated by Pope Francis last year, which suggests not a world-wide battle but a process to “become the voice of the church in its time and place,” to quote O’Collins and Wilkins. Now is the time for the bishops in English-speaking countries to step up and continue the process of effective translations begun by the ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy), the 1998 versions above. Only New Zealand has.

This article, “English Is Not Latin,” is adapted from Lost in Translation: The English Language and the Latin Mass. It provides historical and linguistic context to more fully understand the role of language in celebration – and the political battles surrounding it in our church.

Happy New Year, New Moon, Valentine’s Day, and Ash Wednesday! Wear red, and repent of all the prayers you have less than enthusiastically recited, and know that the war is not over.