"Distress" and the new English translation

The liturgical texts for the Feast of the English Martyrs (4th May) brought to my attention an interesting juxtaposition of uses of the word "distress".

The Entrance Antiphon, taken from the Common of Several Martyrs for Eastertide, was given as being Rev. 7:13-14:

These who are clothed in the white robes are they who have survived the time of great distress and have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, alleluia.

The Scriptural reference is clearly to times of persecution and martyrdom, and the word distress used in the antiphon might more usually be recognised as being translated as persecution.

The prayer said by the priest at Mass immediately after the Our Father also includes the word distress, that word in the new translation replacing the word anxiety in the previous translation:

Deliver us, Lord we pray, from every evil
graciously grant peace in our days,
that, by the help of your mercy,
we may be always free from sin
and safe from all distress,
as we await the blessed hope
and the coming of our Saviour Jesus, Christ.

The resource Become One Body One Spirit in Christ points out that the last two lines of this prayer are a quotation from St Paul's letter to Titus (Titus 2:13), and only comments generally on a wider sense that the word distress has compared to the previously used word anxiety.

I have not been able to verify textually whether or not the use of the word distress in this prayer of the Communion Rite at Mass is a really intended reference to martyrdom (and therefore the intercession for "peace in our days" a specific prayer that the Church might live in peace and not just a prayer for peace in general). It might just be an accident of translation. The more knowledgeable might like to enlighten me via the comments box.

But if we grant that it is a reference to martrydom, its location in the Communion Rite where we approach a most intimate moment of union with God and our fellow believers is interesting. The following passage from the encyclical Ut Unum Sint n.84 offers an insight into the relation of distress to communion:

In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself. The fact that one can die for the faith shows that other demands of the faith can also be met. I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13).

The new translation: two implications

One more public, and one more individual.

First, the public one. I was looking forward to the development of a renewed "style" of celebration to accompany the introduction of the new English translation of the texts of the Mass. This could perhaps be summarised by my expecting a greater sense of faithfulness to the given texts, something totally consonant with the principle of greater faithfulness to the Latin typical (ie definitive) texts that is part fo the new translation. I think I have seen something of this in the parishes I attend, perhaps particularly with the introduction to the Our Father and the dismissal at the end of Mass. However, I am perhaps disappointed in not seeing a more sacred "style" in general. I therefore have sympathy with the question being asked by these two posts: New translation: renewed liturgy? and First Mass With The New Missal.

However, I have found rather beautiful in recent days the new translations of the Preface of Corpus Christi (sung at a Mass for the opening of the Forty Hours devotion in a parish not far away), of Eucharistic Prayer III (used at the aforementioned Mass) and of the Preface for Advent.

The more individual one relates to my praying of the Divine Office each morning. The coming of the new translation of the Missal draws attention to the frustrating choice of hymns and translations (or not in some cases) of the intercessions in the Divine Office. So I now use three different books for this.

I use the Latin for the invitatory, hymn and intercessions. My Latin is far from brilliant, and just good enough to cope with this.

I use the English of the Divine Office for the psalms, Scripture reading, responsory and Gospel canticle.  I expect some will not be surprised by the damage to the spine, which is overcome by use of a zip cover.

And I end with the Collect from the new translation of the Missal (I can do this every day now that it is Advent and there is an allocated Collect for each day).

Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof ...

There is a custom in Europe that, on the Feast of the Epiphany, blessed chalk is used to inscribe the date and the initial letters of the names of the three Magi above the door of your house. Different explanations are offered of the exact meaning of the letters "C+M+B" that are inscribed, one being that it represents the Latin for "May Christ bless this house".

In January of this year, I did this for the first time (OK, the chalk would not write clearly on the paint of the door frame, so I compromised!). This was partly prompted by my frequenting a parish served by priests from Poland and partly by my having neighbours from other European countries. I did think about how I would explain the inscription to anyone who asked me about it, and it is interesting to see where I got to.

I ended up somewhat dissatisfied with explanations such as that about blessing of the house, though the custom does clearly have this aspect to it. They seemed a little bit fanciful, and I felt they were trying to "read into" the practice something that might not have been there in its original inspiration. The fundamental reference, determined because the practice is to place the inscription above the door at the entrance to your house, seemed to me to be to St Matthew's Gospel (Mt 2:10-11, with my emphasis added):

When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy; and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him.

One sense of this custom, then, is that every time we enter our own house we are reminded of the way in which the Magi entered the house and worshipped the child Jesus. A second sense is that we are encouraged to make our homes places where, like Mary, we worship God. We might also see it as an invitation to guests who visit our house to recognise and share in these two senses of the inscription. This seems to me the simple, straightforward sense of the practice based in its Biblical source.

But what interests me for the purposes of this post is how the idea of "the house" in the Gospel passage (the house where Mary and Jesus were staying) becomes a different idea (the house were we live today) in the custom of marking our door frames with the letters "C+M+B".

When it comes to considering the new English translation of the Domine, non sum dignus in the Communion Rite at Mass, I think that it is helpful to recognise a similar way in which a Gospel text is used. The new translation makes much more transparent than did the previous translation the reference to the Gospels (Mt. 8:8, with a parallel in Lk. 7:1-10):

Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.

The "under my roof" of the Gospel text (ie the house of the Centurion whose servant is ill, and to which Jesus has been invited) becomes, in the Liturgical text, the "under my roof" of the physical body and soul of the person about to receive the Eucharist, now seen as a "house" to which Jesus-Eucharist is invited. The act of a physical healing becomes the idea of a saving from sin through receiving the Eucharist. Again, I think the Biblical text itself should be allowed to speak to our understanding of how it is used and becomes a different idea in its Liturgical use.

In the light of Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ's criticism of the revised translation on this point at Thinking Faith, I think it is useful to have some understanding of the dynamic of how the Biblical text is used in the Liturgical context. Since, in the Gospel text, Jesus has indicated that he will come to the house of the Centurion in the immediately preceding verse, the suggestion that the Liturgical text is intended for a situation where the faithful do not as a rule receive the Eucharist seems to me a reading into the text of something that is not there. To go on to argue that the previous translation - "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you .." - provides a better reading for times when many more people do receive the Eucharist is in consequence irrelevant.

Become One Body One Spirit in Christ: the Rite of Peace

The discussion of the Sign of Peace comes towards the end of the  video clip in the section of the DVD about the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The text that accompanies the video clip, and the relevant part of the accompanying essay, has this to say about the Rite of Peace:

The Communion Rite continues with the Rite of Peace, the rite by which the Church asks God to grant peace and unity to all her members as well as to the whole human family. This prayer is followed by a symbolic gesture in which all in the assembly exchange a greeting of peace with those around them. The greeting is conveyed in words and through a sign: a handshake or embrace or kiss which is an expressionof the genuine desire that all may be at peace. The gesture is symbolic in that those nearby in the assembly with whom the peace is exchanged represent all those whose lives touch our own and with whom we need to be at peace. In the words of one Father of the Church:

"This kiss that all exchange constitutes a kind of profession of unity and charity that exists among them. Each of us gives the kiss of peace to the person next to him, and so in effect gives it to the whole assembly because this act is an acknowledgment that we have all become the single Body of Christ the Lord and so must preserve with one another that harmony . . . loving one another equally, supporting and helping one another, regarding the individual’s needs as the concerns of the community, sympathising with one another’s sorrows and sharing one another’s joys (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Baptismal homily 4.39)."

Those with whom we exchange the peace also represent the entire world community whom we, as followers and messengers of Christ, pray may experience the peace that only Christ can give. The Rite of Peace has three parts: first, the prayer for peace by the Priest; next, his wish for peace to all those gathered in the assembly, and finally, the greeting and gesture of peace among all those taking part in the Mass. It is up to the Bishops of a given territorial Conference to determine the gesture suitable for the exchange of peace in accord with the culture of their people. The exchange of peace is a solemn religious action and whatever gesture is chosen for this rite should be dignified and carried out in a reverent manner.

There are aspects of this catechesis that I find helpful and informative, but there is also a key one that I would wish to express more strongly, though it touches on a point beyond my control and beyond the control of the good sister who gives the catechesis in the video clip. Rather than saying that "whatever gesture is chosen for this rite should be dignified" - that could be said about going on stage to collect an Oscar - I think the issue is that "whatever gesture is chosen for this rite should be sacred", something implied when the exchange of peace is described as a "solemn religious action". It is not intended to be the everyday greeting that we give in the streets or at our places of work, and one can be forgiven for seeing the examples shown on the video accompanying this section of sister's catechesis as being rather everyday though carried out with some reverence. At a time when not a few are adopting the "orantes" gesture or holding hands during the praying of the Lord's Prayer, I do wonder whether the introduction of the new translation does not give Episcopal Conferences an opportunity to adopt a new gesture for the sign of peace, something akin perhaps to the Liturgical kiss of the high Mass in the Extraordinary Form, a gesture that is clearly sacred in character.

I found the identification of the three parts of the Rite of Peace useful - it is all too easy to take the exchange of the sign of peace among the congregation as being the complete Rite - and the prayer of the priest for peace gives a clearly Christological orientation to the "peace" that is exchanged. I also found the ecclesial (as opposed to a merely social) implication of the sign of peace, illustrated by the citation from Theodore of Mopsuestia, useful. It isn't just about "being friendly to someone next to you in Church"; it is about the person to whom you offer the sign of peace being representative of the Church as whole. The representative nature of the exchange also makes sense of a directive to exchange the sign only with the person nearest you in the Church - there is no necessity to exchange the sign with as many as possible. When the Rite of Peace is seen as a whole, its Christological-Ecclesial dimension is more readily appreciated.

I suspect, though, that it will take a lot of persistent catechesis before most of the faithful at Mass on Sunday come to appreciate the true meaning of the Sign of Peace. Cynically, one might insert "clergy included" after the word "faithful" in the last sentence - but my experience suggests that such an insertion is less cynical and more realistic than it would appear.

Yet another parish newsletter notice

THE NEW MISSAL is causing confusion among some of the faithful e.g. instead of saying, "And also with you", you will say, "And with your spirit". The idea is to get as close to the literal meaning of Latin as possible. In the opinion of many these alterations are clumsy and in some cases theologically suspect. If you have strong feelings about it, you can voice your opinion on http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/.

[If you wish to voice a strong view in favour of a prompt implementation of the new translations, there is another petition to sign instead: Fr Tim posted about it here.]

How many typical/ordinary parishioners will know what "Father" is referring to here, let alone know enough about it to be "confused"? Of them, how many will have had sufficient sight of the new texts to be able to have any formed opinion one way or another about them? And, of them, how many will just go along with things as they happen? An image of a wooden spoon being moved in a circular fashion comes to mind here ...

The coverage of the same issue in this week's Tablet (I believe there was coverage last week, too, which is probably where dear Father got the prompt for his newsletter notice above) has a couple of interesting aspects. And that's in addition to its regular "Listen to the Word" feature, where "study" translations of the prayers of the Mass are used rather than the translations from the Missal itself, thereby illustrating vividly the whole question of the liturgical translations.

The Letters Page

A photograph showing parishioners "returning the peace greeting during Mass in Cape Town, South Africa". It shows the parishioners with hands extended forwards, presumably towards the altar. Now, in my recent reflection on the sign of peace I have thought that what is needed is a clearly sacred sign of greeting/response - and that a handshake is not a sign with such a sacred character, rather the contrary. Perhaps our bishops could consider changing the form of the sign that they expect to that of a mutual extending of hands similar to that shown in the Tablet's photograph. This seems quite a practical way of doing things, and it reflects a liturgical sign already present in the Liturgy in the extension of the priest's hands during the greeting "The Lord be with you".

"Our liturgical life is too important for rushed decisions taken without consultation".

"The imposition of a new translation of the Missal, without dialogue or consultation ...".

Date of publication of the 3rd editio typica of the Roman Missal: 2000. Date of finalisation of the English translation of that 3rd edition: 2009. Rushed? Hardly! Others will know better than I the number of meetings, drafts, re-drafts etc that have been undertaken during that nine years by ICEL and the relevant Bishops Conferences. This does sound rather like "consultation" to me.

And a rather ironic decrying of "persistent disobedience" in the Church by one who would have us "just say wait"!

Clifford Longley

This column appears much more supportive of the idea of the new translation of the Missal than one might have expected. The comment that the prospective changes in wording at Mass are "already causing nervous breakdowns all over the country" seems far fetched to me. I suspect that the impact so far in most parishes is the same as that of Summorum Pontificum - and that is "not a lot". One should be careful about reading the headline to Clifford's piece - it refers to the current translation that is due for replacement - and is followed by one or two further specific criticisms of that translation:

It has 1969 stamped all over it - except even the Beatles were writing better English.

And Clifford ends up by appearing to suggest that English is not a suitable language for the Liturgy ... is Latin the more suitable alternative then?

The heart of the problem is that the English language has lost its solemn and cermonial register - a victim of the First World War, I've seen it argued - and hasn't found an alternative. I've never found a modern liturgy, in any denomination, that sounded just right. They all seem synthetic and self-conscious. English is not a good liturgical language, just as it is not a good operatic language. The latest translation is bound to be defective. Just like all the possible options.

But, perhaps the point is that our Liturgy is not a "modern liturgy" - in the sense of being something that we write from scratch ourselves - but a renewal of an ancient liturgy. The Church of England's choral tradition might also be an exemplification of a successful use of English as a liturgical language, it too having something of a heritage behind it. The principle of a translation into English that is as faithful as possible to the Latin original ... seems quite reasonable to me.

New English translation of the texts of the Mass

The United States Bishop's Conference have posted the texts of the new translations of the ordinary texts of the Missal, for which they have just received the recognitio from Rome. Catholic and Loving it has posted some extracts and commentary, which makes interesting reading.

I noted particularly the observation towards the end of the post about the prayer said by the priest after the Our Father, where a present tense in the presently used translations has been rendered into a future tense in the new translation. What this makes more clear is that the Eucharistic Liturgy is celebrated in expectation of the return in glory of Christ - cf St Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 11, which ends by saying that, in celebrating the Eucharist, "we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again".

This looking towards the Lord's coming is the significance of the Eastward orientation of the Liturgical celebration, so greater faithfulness to the Liturgical texts in this regard will help to promote this sense of the Liturgy.