© Roger M Tagg 2011
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
This is a booklet, widely circulated to Roman Catholics, explaining the thinking behind a recent official change in the English words to be used in the Mass.
The aim appears to be to achieve a more accurate and faithful translation of the Latin. When the RC church first moved to English from Latin in the early 1970s, the priority had been to make the words “feel pleasantly idiomatic”. More recently, certain senior people in English-speaking parts of the Roman Catholic church have felt this to be less than ideal.
| Page | Highlight |
| 2 | “Translators now ... have a firmer grasp of the meaning of the original texts and the demands of oral presentation.” [RT: This is a bit puzzling to me. Hadn't the translators made the conscious decision to go “pleasantly idiomatic”? Did they really suffer from an incomplete grasp of the original meaning? One supposes that such people could virtually “think in Latin”. So what new insights have appeared in the last 40 years?] |
| “The revised translation has more depth.” [RT: It isn’t made clear in what sense ‘depth’ is meant.] | |
| (People) “should appreciate even more the value of the faith they hold so dear.” [RT: Unless justified, this can only be read as an intention, or as a hope. But it might also possibly be read as implying that there’s room for improvement in people’s appreciation of the value of their faith.] | |
| 3 | “The new translation brings more of these allusions (i.e. passages from the Bible) to light.” |
| “Many sentences are longer.” [RT: presumably the previous translation broke them up, as this often helps ordinary churchgoers’ understanding. But when these sentences are being spoken by a congregation, they will be broken up anyhow. So this may not make so much difference.] | |
| 4 | “Much of this (i.e. ‘the beauty of Latin poetry’) is lost to people who have not studied Latin.” [RT: but is the author of this booklet really claiming that the new translation can recover this beauty for the average parishioner?] |
| 5 | “Some of the prayers sound humbler, a bit more modest in the presence of an awesome God.” [RT: This sounds like what was described as “cringing mendicancy” (maybe behaving like a street beggar) by Anthony Quinton (see The Great Philosophers, edited Bryan Magee BBC 1987), in his comments on Spinoza’s writings. Quinton contrasted prayer in Judaism as graceful acceptance, as opposed to Christians’ petitions for their own desires). I am also reminded of Antony Flew, a theologian who remained an atheist until his last few months, but who then still said that he did not want to have anything to do with a God who was like a ‘cosmic Saddam Hussein’.] |
| 8 | “And with your spirit.” [RT: that’s what Anglicans have said for a long time. A number of other changes seem to have gone towards the Anglican words.] |
| 9 | “And with you, Father.” [RT: if we are going colloquial, how about “And with you too”?] |
| 10 | “Kyrie eleison” and “Christe eleison”. [RT: the only Greek phrases left in the Latin Mass. There isn’t any discussion of their precise meaning, or how that meaning may have changed. But at least they aren’t banned – they are part of the tradition that people wouldn’t accept losing.] |
| 11 | “... adding ‘through my most grievous fault’ ... makes it look as though we are a lot more sinful now than we used to be. ... (but) ... the guiding principle of the translation is a closer adherence to the words in Latin.” [RT: It’s in the Anglican words too. But it’s certainly ‘cringing’.] |
| 14 | The Gloria [RT: this certainly seems to be a more literal translation.] |
| 15 | “We are so overcome with awe in the presence of God that we practically babble and stammer.” [RT: I don’t think this is how most well-educated people feel (or have felt for some time). It sounds more like the style of some American ultra-evangelistic sects.] |
| 17 | Adding “O” to show respect. [RT: it may reinforce deference and ‘different language for a special purpose’. But it may also carry a message of ‘olde worlde’, or ‘behind the times’.] |
| 19 | Starting the Credo with “I believe”. [RT: Anglican again.] |
| 21-2 | “Consubstantial” [RT: a word also used by Anglicans. But I wonder how many people understand what it really signifies. I regard it as arising out of very old ‘early church’ arguments about the nature of the Trinity, which many people still struggle with today (see this page). Maybe we just have to say the word and move on.] |
| 21 | “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead.” [RT: There is maybe a danger here if people confuse this 'look forward to' with the colloquial sense as in ‘I look forward to Christmas’. What if we are worried about whether or not we will pass muster? Or what if we think it's a rather grim prospect in any case?] |
| “Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” [RT: I know that’s what it says, but where do confession, absolution and the Mass itself come in? Most babies haven't committed many sins yet. Might not personal resolution to do better be a much more sensible idea?] | |
| 28 | “... a fuller summary of ‘salvation history’” [RT: I reckon many readers will struggle with what this means. This web site gives an idea of how big a minefield this term is.] |
| 29 | Transubstantiation [RT: I know it is approved doctrine, but one which many people with a scientific education would be happier without. They may be just as happy with the symbolism by itself. Again, it's a minefield - see this page for example.] |
| 32 | “Eucharist” [RT: yes, the modern Greek word for ‘thank you’ is indeed ‘evcharisto’. Literally, this means ‘well charitably’. But this shows how word meanings evolve and change over time. ‘Goodbye’ is similar – it literally means ‘God be with you’, rather than ‘I’m going’ or ‘you’re going’. My implication here is that even the meaning of religious Latin words changes - because all meaning has to take account of our social and physical culture - which changes, albeit sometimes slowly, over time.] |
| 40 | “Proclaim’ versus ‘acclaim’ [RT: to how many people will this make a difference?]. |
| 43 | “Deliver us ... from |
| 44 | “Pronouns referring to the Church are now feminine.” [RT: surely in the spiritual sense they traditionally always have been, unless we are talking about ‘the building’ or ‘the organisation’, which are neuter, i.e. ‘it’.] |
| 45 | “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.” [RT: cringe again.] |
| 46 | “My soul” instead of “I”. [RT: To make this distinction sounds like ‘Cartesian duality’ (after Rene Descartes), something strongly criticised today by both philosophers and scientists. It’s an artificial separation: our thought processes are all implemented on body tissue, but that doesn't mean we are machine-like automata.] |
The changes seem to be more for academic theological reasons than to help parishioners. I wonder what the motivation really was? Who is going to benefit from the new words, and how?
From my rather detached viewpoint (I'm clearly not RC), it seems that people at large, especially in the West these days, are diverging in their attitude to religion into two main contrasting groups and many further subgroups.
Main group A is of those who can get on quite well, and be good people, without taking on board all the dogma, church organization and tradition, rituals and practices. They find that these are ‘out of sync’ with what we now know about the universe and about human behaviour. They are also against absolute authoritarian hierarchies.
Main group B is of those who find it helpful - or necessary – to have traditions, hierarchies, rituals, stories and even myths – in order to make sense of the world and to keep themselves motivated. This is not particular to Christianity (or any particular sect within it). It surely applies to all the main world religions, and also many minority cults. It may even apply to groups like bikie gangs, US college fraternities, football team supporters clubs etc.
One of the main splits in group B is a three-way one, between the following:
It appears that the changes
to the English wording in the RC Mass are addressed only to group B1.
I won’t address here the general issue of the RC church’s line on ‘sin’, except to
say that some of the wording in the booklet seems to emphasize a gap between ‘wretched’
ordinary people and members of a hierarchy who know (but may not act) better.
This has been used in the past as a means by which ordinary people can be kept
in subjection, ‘thrall’ or ‘under the thumb’ of better educated people in
power. In my view, though, rather than asking third parties to ‘pray for us’,
shouldn’t we be saying “However well we are trying, we are still falling short
of the mark. We need to do better. Perhaps we can look for help from those around us in our attempts to do
better.” This all sounds a bit like what we might look for when we are trying to lose
weight! As I’ve said elsewhere, surely what’s most important is the spirit of Good in
ourselves and other humans, towards each other, other living things and our
environment – and not cringing before Antony Flew’s ‘all Terrible’ ‘cosmic
Saddam Hussein’, and certainly not his
sidekicks. Index to more highlights of interesting books Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction. This version updated on 20th December 2011 If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author
rogertag@tpg.com.au.Links