Observations on the English-Language Translation of the Roman Missal (cont.)

IV. The distinction of Liturgical Roles

A. In the vast majority of the cases in which the priest prays in the third person for the people (and again, the Eucharistic Prayers are notable in this regard) the translators have opted instead for the first personal plural. Such a choice obscures the distinction of roles that is evident in the Latin text, and in particular the priest’s role as intercessor and mediator vis-a-vis the people for whom he prays in an unselfish manner. The priest is thus submerged within an amorphous congregation that prays for itself. Obscured at the same time is the important notion of offering the Mass on behalf of others or for their benefit. These are crucial issues. Even at a purely literary level as well, this procedure augments the monotony of the translation.

B. The rubrics and notes have been completely re-worked in ways that obscure the distinction of hierarchical and liturgical roles. A few examples:

• In the Prayer over the People for the ritual Mass of Confirmation, the translators seem to have wished to alter the universal and constant discipline of the Latin Church according to which the bishop is the ordinary minister of the Sacrament. In place of the Latin, Deinde, episcopus, manibus super populum extensis, dicit:, one finds instead, "The priest sings or says the following prayer with hands outstretched over the people."
• For the Chrism Mass of Holy Thursday, it is suggested that those laypersons who exercise a ministry to the sick, to the catechumens, and to families of children being baptized and confirmed, take their places with the Bishop during the Mass. On the other hand, the intentional focus of this celebration on the sacramental priesthood is obscured somewhat.
• In the Order of Mass, where the Latin rubric reads, "tunc sacerdos incipit Precem eucharisticum," the translators have altered it to read instead, "The priest leads the assembly in the eucharistic prayer." Such an alteration — for it cannot be termed a translation — obscured the true nature of the Eucharistic Prayer as a presidential prayer in which the people participate by listening silently and reverently and by making the acclamations preserved by the rite.

C. Another example of the translator’s having altered texts (or, in this case, maintained a deficient wording) to the detriment of the distinction of roles between priest and people is the prayer Orate fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium ... , which becomes "Pray brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice ..." as if the congregation and priest both offered the sacrifice in an indistinct manner.

D. Given the Latin tradition that very closely links the words "Mysterium fidei" to the words of institution, it is inappropriate for the deacon to give the invitation to the Memorial Acclamation. The translators, with no authorization, have introduced this change. The same importance traditionally attached to the words "Mysterium fidei" precludes its replacement by other formulae, even though the Congregation appreciates the practical considerations motivating the translators to offer alternative introductions to the Memorial Acclamation. It is perhaps useful to observe here that the Congregation considers the translation "Great is the mystery of faith" a good one for rendering in English the precise meaning and purpose of the Latin phrase in its liturgical context.

E. The translation of "Et cum spiritu tuo" as "And also with you" has become familiar in the English-speaking world, and a change in the people’s response would no doubt occasion some temporary discomfort. Nevertheless, the continuous literal translation of this response in all major liturgical traditions, whether Semitic, Greek, or Latin as well as in virtually every other modern language, constitutes a historical consensus and an imperative that can no longer be set aside. The present translation inappropriately situates the exchange on a purely horizontal level, without an apparent distinction in the roles of those who speak; the literal translation in its historical context has always been understood in relation to the crucial distinction of liturgical roles between the priest and the people. Weighty considerations such as these necessitate that the English translation at last be brought into conformity with the usage of the other language groups, and with the tradition, as is also prescribed now in the Congregation’s recent Instruction Liturgiam authenticam.