With my usual journalistic
flair (and regular readers will know how highly I esteem that profession), I
have obtained a leak: a copy of the letter from Fr Butler to the Tablet in its
entirety, as opposed to the somewhat abridged version they actually published
(and for once, I have some sympathy for their editorial approach).
Given that it was intended
for publication, I do not think that it is out of order to publish it.
Brace yourselves: I quote
it in full, with my pithy and pertinent comments interpolated in red (I will try not to be as prolix as Fr Butler).
Dear
Sirs,
Re:
Revised Translation of the Roman Missal
‘It
doesn’t get better’ is a very apt heading for Martin Redfern’s letter (9 November 2013) on the Revised
Translation of the Roman Missal.
I
am Chairman of our Diocesan Commission for Liturgy and have had much discussion
with clergy, both within the diocese and without. Most priests have got on with
it but grumbled about it. Not only grumbled but also changed or avoided some
words and phrases that they found somewhat difficult to say with meaning. Some
avoid words like ‘dewfall’, ‘oblation’, ‘consubstantial’, ‘many’ (and prefer
‘all’), some refuse point blank to use the Roman Canon ever again. Others
reject the Sunday Collects and have returned to the previous translation’s Book
of the Chair. Another has said that he has returned fully to the previous
translation ‘in order to preserve his sanity’ – clearly ‘all is not well in the
state of Denmark’! All is not well indeed, when members
of the clergy tamper with the liturgy on their own authority: cf Sacrosanctum
Concilium §22.3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add,
remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. Strangely,
given his later appeal to SC, this does not seem to trouble Fr B.
What
has gone wrong?
At
the end of Vatican II in 1965, there was a final statement from the Pope’s
Apostolic Letter, In Spiritu Sancto,
read out to the assembled Bishops by Archbishop Felici, declaring the Council
closed and enjoining that “everything the council decreed be religiously and
devoutly observed by all the faithful.” Yet I do not
hear Fr. B. complaining that we do not use Latin in the way SC mandated (§36.1).
This
prompted me to turn to Sacrosanctum
Concilium to see what it was that referred particularly to matters of
translation (Articles 34 and 36): This is rubbish. §34
is not about translation at all. It is about the revision of the Sacred Rites.
*34:
The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity, they should be short,
clear and unencumbered by any useless repetitions; they should be within
the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require
much explanation.
*36,
#2: The use of the mother tongue is frequently of great advantage to
the people in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments and other
parts of the liturgy, the limits of its employment may be extended. How odd that he omits 36.1: Particular law remaining in force, the use
of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
#3:
… it is for competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned in art. 22,2 to decide
whether and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. How odd that he puts a full stop there, when the sentence
actually continues: 'their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic
See.'
#4:
Translations from the Latin text intended for use in the liturgy must be
approved by the competent local authority…
The
above quotations from the same document contain the words ‘mother tongue’ and
‘vernacular’, both of which are rendered as ‘vernacula’ in the Latin document.
If
we consult Oxford’s Lewis and Short (Latin Dictionary) we find that the word
‘vernaculus,a,um’ is translated as ‘of or belonging to home-born slaves’; Again, he quotes selectively to make his point. The full Lewis and Short entry includes
Native, domestic, indigenous,
vernacular, i. e. Roman (the class. signif. of the word) in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary we find
‘vernacular’ defined as ‘the native language or dialect of a particular country
or district; the informal, colloquial, or distinctive speech of a people or
community. Now also, homely speech.’
‘Vernacular’,
therefore, does not mean choosing the variety of English that is of scholarship
and academe. I think that it would be closer to the reality if we were to think
of the English that we learned from our mothers’ knees rather than the high
flown, scholarly, Latinate vocabulary with which the Revised Translation of the
Roman Missal is now unhappily afflicted. Both his
etymology and his reasoning are flawed here, including his arrogating to
himself, and away from the competent authorities, the right to decide what the
text means.
Of
course, it is not the fault of the translators that brought about this sorry
mess. It is ‘Liturgiam Authenticam’ that is at fault: a document that is now a
laughing stock among academics and scholarly linguists. An unsubstantiated assertion.
The
document had the intention of creating a specific and recognizable language for
the Liturgy – somehow a language set apart – but, of course, we already have a
language that is suitable for Liturgical discourse, it is known as the Queen’s
English with its enormous vocabulary, capable of describing all things to all
men. And that is what the new translation uses: rather
more richly than he likes, it would seem. Dewfall, oblation and consubstantial are
all found in the Oxford English Dictionary. Whether he is ignorant of, or
deliberately ignoring, the whole notion of hieratic language for formal
worship, I don't know. But he is unwise to pose as an expert without addressing
it.
‘Liturgiam
Authenticam’, therefore, is a Latin document that should
be quietly removed from the Vatican bibliography and never spoken of again. ..because I don't like it, he could have added.
The
notion of ‘competent local authority’ is a subject that is being given much
attention these days by the Bishop of Rome, so there is no need to discuss it
further. Doubtless, when we next have the excitement of translating Latin
documents into English that is ‘understanded of the people’, it will be
Anglophones who undertake the task. The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority (to use the phrase
actually used in Sacrosanctum Concilium) is precisely the authority he is
defying: it was that authority that said that this translation is now the only
one authorised for use in this territory: cf CBCEW’s Decree of Publication For England
and Wales which states ‘From this date forward (27th November 2011) no other
English language edition of the Roman Missal may be used in the dioceses of
England and Wales’. Signed: Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster,
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Rev. Marcus
Stock, General Secretary. (H/T Protect the Pope blog)
I
do hope that we can make use of the 1998 Bishops’ Conference of England and
Wales translation (at least for a trial period and perhaps in paper-back form).
In the meantime, I feel that it is legitimate to use our previous Missal, since
what we currently have was conceived in error (neglecting to follow the rules
from Vatican II’s Sacramentum Concilium
and the type of English to be used), and it was not born of the competent local authority (and
therefore lacks any authority). This is more rubbish. 'I feel' is no grounds at all for such
disobedience. He has not shown that this translation 'neglected to follow' any
rules at all. Nowhere does Sacrosanctum Concilium say a translation must be 'born
of the competent local authority.'
This translation rests on the authority both of the Vatican and the CBCEW.
I
add a footnote, by way of a quotation from Father John O’Malley’s “What
happened at Vatican II”: ‘On November 14 (1962) Cardinal Tisserant, the
presiding president of the day, put Sacrosanctum
Concilium to a vote on whether to accept the schema as the base text. … The
outcome of the voting astounded everybody – a landside in favor, 2,162 votes,
with only 46 opposed. .. The next year, on December 4, 1963, the council
overwhelmingly gave its approval to the revised text ofSacrosanctum Concilium, and Paul VI then promulgated it. The final
vote was even more of a landslide: 2,147 in favor, 4 against.’ Given that, I suggest Fr B. read the whole thing, including
the bits he doesn't like...
The
current Revised Translation of the Roman Missal has already been labelled a
failure; it is also illegitimate. More rubbish.
I
remain, Sirs, yours very sincerely, but very
mistakenly...
(Rev.
Michael J Butler)
Chairman,
Liturgy
Commission, Diocese of Brentwood This is very
troubling: it makes it look as though this letter were written ex officio. However, I have heard that
his Bishop, +McMahon, has made it clear to all his diocesan priests that that
was not the case, and that (as we know) the bishops' decree that the new
translation be used exclusively for vernacular celebrations of the Mass remains
in full force.
5 comments:
There are two further things: you are right to point out that he sent a copy of his letter to each of the priests in his Diocese as Chairman of the Liturgical Commission: but hidden behind the misuse of authority is his assumption that not many of the priests in his diocese read The Tablet.
The other point is that he has stated his case in public and is therefore in error in public. At least the error (if not the errer) should also be corrected formally in public, not by private email that one of the diocesan priests has leaked.
Ttony, You are right on both counts. The fist point I had missed, but the second was one of the reasons I chose to publish this, even though I am not fond of leaking in general.
To be fair to +McMahon, he has refuted this full letter by writing to all the recipients. Let us wait and see if he refutes the published letter by a letter to The Tablet.
I quite agree that the public scandal needs public rebuttal.
Thanks for this excellent post.
Excellent post. What was the man thinking? That a few grumpy souls of his own acquaintance represented the mind of the Church throughout all the parishes and dioceses of the English speaking world? Strange too that he did not consider consulting his bishop.
Post a Comment