Roman Missal 3.0 —
Updates Installed (Part 2)

Update 4: Fidelity Reveals Theology

The fourth update of the new Roman Missal we shall consider regards the manner of translation itself. In composing the new missal, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) embraced the school of translation known as "formal correspondence" over the "dynamic equivalence" school, which had been employed in crafting the 1973 Sacramentary. The result is that the thoughts, words, and sentiments of the original Latin are captured and conveyed with tremendous fidelity in the new English texts. This fidelity has revealed a wealth of theology and traditional piety in many of the new prayers that was either less clear, or missing altogether, in the former translation.

Presented here are only two of the abundant examples — one from the Proper of the Mass, and one from the Ordinary of the Mass. The Proper prayers are those that change so as to pertain to the particular feast being celebrated. In the following table, compare the Latin original of the proper orations for the memorial of the Most Holy Name of Jesus with the two different English translations:

As I prayed these prayers from the new missal for the first time on January 3, 2012, I was literally struck nearly dumb. Not only did their intrinsic elegance captivate me, but also the fantastic manner in which they demonstrate a form of traditional Catholic piety that is too often ignored. If you look closely at the Latin, you will notice that the prayers nowhere include the name, Iesu. This brilliant reservation of the Divine Name on its very feast is an expression of the piety that has inspired generations of Catholics to be solicitous in their use of the only "Name" that saves.⁷ The prayers, themselves, teach us by their nuance to revere the Holy Name.

The translators who created the Sacramentary (actually, in this case, its companion Supplement), chose, as we see, to insert the Lord’s name in each of the three orations. While there was nothing heinous nor heretical about this decision, it unfortunately did not allow the piety so beautifully intended by the Latin to be appreciated at English Masses. The 2011 Roman Missal, contrariwise, has carefully withheld the usage of the Divine Name in its translation of these prayers and so restored the practice and piety of so many years.

This effort — as well as every other such effort — to reclaim our Catholic heritage is praiseworthy. The second example we shall consider is from the Ordinary of the Mass, which remains fixed at every Mass, regardless of the liturgical occasion being celebrated. This second example is a response that occurs as part of a dialogue with the priest (or bishop or deacon) five times during the course of Holy Mass. It is an ancient exchange, recorded at least as early as the second-century liturgical treatise long attributed to Saint Hippolytus.⁸ In the Latin missal, the response is:

Et cum spiritu tuo.

In the former Sacramentary, the phrase had been translated:

And also with you.

Now, in the newly translated English missal, the response is given:

And with your spirit.

Herein, one can see a clear illustration of the difference between "dynamic equivalence" and "formal correspondence." As small as this change in English may seem, it is a very important change.

By greeting the people with the words: "The Lord be with you," the priest makes a profound statement. He formalizes and ritualizes his interior desire for the dynamic activity of the Holy Spirit to be poured out upon the people of God. This gift of the Spirit empowers the members of the Body to become the transformational leaven of the world, which is a task where God has entrusted God to all His children through Baptism.

The response of the people: "And with your spirit, is equally profound. It refers specifically to the unique gift of the Spirit given to a bishop, priest, or deacon at ordination. This, then, is a prayer of the people for the celebrant. It asks that the priest might have the grace to use the charismatic gifts he received at ordination in such a way that he fulfills his ecclesial, prophetic role. Notably, therefore, this exchange is addressed only to an ordained minister. Whereas it may have seemed appropriate to respond: "And also with you," to a lay person, the fidelity of the new translation helps to clarify that this call and response has always been, and continues to be, reserved for situations between an ordained minister and a congregation.

The orations for the memorial of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, and the response: "And with your spirit," are fine examples of translation by "formal correspondence." This method of translation, we have endeavored to show, carries the benefit of preserving the wealth of theology, and traditional piety, inherent in the prayers of the Roman Rite. In these and similar instances, it is remarkably true that fidelity of translation reveals subtlety of theology.

Update 5: The Musical Missal

The fifth and final update we shall present here seems almost superfluous. It concerns something patently obvious to anyone who even glances at the pages of the new missal. There is, in fact, nothing subtle or insightful at all about this observation, since it is so plain to see. We share this highlight nevertheless, though, since not everyone has the frequent, even daily, occasion to cast his or her eyes inside the missal.

The fifth update is this: the third typical edition of the Roman Missal is the most musical missal in history.

This missal earns that distinction easily. It contains far more chants than any of its predecessors. Without a doubt, the transition we have recently experienced as the Church in the anglophone world is a prodigious, breakthrough moment for lovers of chant, and of the sacred liturgy. There is not a single prayer intended for audible proclamation for which music is not provided in this missal. Only the private prayers of the priest (including the offertory prayers), which are to be said inaudibly, are left without melody.

It is especially noteworthy that, throughout the entire ordinary of the Mass, nearly every prayer is rendered first with musical accompaniment. Only subsequently does the plain text follow. This ordering, in itself, is undeniably meant to tell us something. It is meant to tell us to sing and to chant.

There is a growing distinction being made among folks who labor in sacred music. It is the question of whether to sing at Mass or to sing the Mass. As the very structure of our new English missal reveals, what matters really is not the singing of hymns or motets. What matters is singing the proper and ordinary prayers of the liturgy, themselves.

Why? The Roman liturgy is a sung liturgy. To be sure, this has not been our experience in the typical American parish since the 1960s. Nor, to be fair, was it the typical experience in the 1940s or 1950s, either. This is most certainly, however, the vision of Sacrosanctum concilium and the Second Vatican Council. It is not merely a matter of the priest’s personal preference.

In this astounding gift from Holy Mother Church, the music has been provided for us. The preference for chanted versus spoken prayer has been made clear. It remains only for the faithful — and especially for priest celebrants — to embrace the vision set before us. What we are experiencing, of course, is not so much a paradigm shift on the part of the Church’s vision; for liturgical praxis on the average parish level, however, a paradigm shift is exactly what is needed.

As Saint Augustine observes: "Cantare amantis est."⁹ If we believe that the liturgy is fundamentally a movement of love, and an expression of our love for God, who, himself, is love, then our liturgy should be sung!

Conclusion

I still happily use my 2008 software. When I bought it originally, I hoped and expected to use it for several years before needing to replace it. The main reason I hesitate to purchase the updated version of the program is that I fear having to relearn how to use it: where the tools are, how the menus are arranged, how to manipulate the document layout, etc.

Not surprisingly, I have been asked numerous times by parishioners how long I think this missal will last. Like many priests, they were hesitant, at first, to undergo this whole process of change. Quite understandably, they now want to be sure that their investment in learning and comprehending the new liturgical texts will be worth the effort.

I have no authority by which to answer their questions, but it is an ardent hope of mine that this new translation of the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal will be a lasting source of nourishment for the Church, in English-speaking territories. The five "updates" we have considered, together with many others, have the potential to enrich our vernacular celebration of the Eucharist greatly.

Hopefully, these updates have been installed successfully.

Endnotes:

1. Saint Irenæus, Adversus Hæreses, 1, 4, c. 33, n. 8.
2. Henri de Lubac, The Motherhood of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982), 15.
3. Blessed Isaac of Stella, Sermon 51 (PL 194, 1862-1865).
4. Lumen Gentium, #64.
5. The Trisagion may be chanted in the Roman Rite, also, particularly during the Adoration of the Cross on Good Friday.
6. Psalm 145:10.
7. Cf., Acts 4:12; Phil 2:9-11.
8. Saint Hippolytus of Rome, Traditio Apostolica, 4, 3.
9. Saint Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 336, 1 (PL 38, 1472). A possible translation of this Latin phrase is: "Only the lover sings."

Fr. David M. Friel serves as parochial vicar at Saint Anselm Church in northeast Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He received his M.A. from Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, Overbrook, and was ordained a priest in May 2011.