WDTPRS: yet another reason why we need the new translation

The new translation of the Missale Romanum is coming and, my oh my, do we need  it and soon.

Yesterday when I was saying Mass in English at the parish of a priest friend, I nearly gaped at the inept translation of the Super oblata, the "Prayer over the gifts" (26th Sunday of Ordinary Time).

LAME DUCK ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
God of mercy,
accept our offering
and make it a source of blessing for us.

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Concede nobis, misericors Deus,
ut haec nostra oblatio tibi sit accepta,
et per eam nobis fons omnis benedictionis aperiatur.

This prayer did not have an antecedent in any earlier edition of the Missale Romanum, nor have I discovered it in an ancient source. It might be of new composition for the Novus Ordo.

The venerable Lewis & Short Dictionary informs us that fons is a “spring, fountain, well-source”. By extension this means as well “a fountain-head, source, origin, cause.” Make connections in English: for example, “fountains” from which water flows. In church we find a “font”, as in a baptismal font or holy water font. As you are reading this, you see the style of letters make up a “font”. The individual pieces of movable type used printing were once cast by pouring molten metal in a “foundry”. One of the meanings of the Latin fundo, related to fons, is “to make by melting, to melt, cast, found”.

Acceptus, a, um, is from the verb accipio and means “welcome, agreeable, acceptable (synonym. gratus)”. Acceptus is related to gratus, as the effect to the cause; he who is gratus, i. e. “dear”, is on that account acceptus, welcome, acceptable. I think we must say “acceptable” rather than the apparently closer “accepted”.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Grant to us, O merciful God,
that this our sacrificial offering might be acceptable to You,
and that through it the fount of every blessing be may opened to us.

The central image in the prayer is that of a grace flowing out from God as from a font, a source, almost like living water, that is, water which flows. Look at the movement concepts here. God is identified as merciful. We ask that what we bring to the altar will be acceptable by God’s power, for He is the origin of all blessings. A blessing from God, a sharing of something of Himself with us, is to be given by means of the offering. This sharing and God’s gift is likened to a fountain opened up.

Our prayer brings to mind different moments in Scripture of flowing and of water. Think, for one example, of how Moses brought water forth from the rock:

“So Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he had commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their livestock drank.” (Numbers 20:9-11 RSV)

This is an Old Testament prefiguring of the sacrament of baptism. In our baptism we became temples of the Holy Spirit, who is at times described in terms of water, even (pace Bishop Trautman!) as rain or dew. Take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church 694 for a description of the Holy Spirit:

Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” (I Cor 12:13) Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified (Jn 19:34; I Jn 5:8) as its source and welling up in us to eternal life….

“But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.” (John 19:33-34 RSV)

The flowing water of the baptismal font opens the way to the other sacraments, in particular the reception and celebration of the Eucharist, the “source and summit” (fons et culmen) of our Christian lives (LG 11; CCC 1324). We are enabled by baptism to participate in Holy Mass with “full, conscious and active participation” (SC 14). The word “full” (plena) refers to the integral way the baptized take part in the liturgy, i.e., internally and externally. “Conscious” (conscia) demands knowledge of what one is doing, excluding any superstition or false piety. “Active” (actuosa) means primarily interior receptivity, made possible by baptism, resulting from an act of will to unite oneself with the sacred action being wrought in the liturgy by the real “Actor”, Jesus Christ the High Priest. This interior participation (actuosa participatio) comes to be expressed also in outward, physical participation. Through this participation, when we unite our gifts, sacrifices and aspirations to the sacrifice of the priest at the altar, the abundant blessings of God flow forth to us in a manner that we cannot hope to comprehend in this life. Non-Christians and non-Communicants can indeed “get a lot out of Mass”. But “full, conscious and active participation” has its moment of perfection: when the actively receptive and properly disposed baptized person receives Holy Communion (cf. De musica sacra 22, c). The act of reception of Communion in the state of grace perfectly unites both the interior activity of the heart, mind and soul with the exterior actions of processing forward and physically accepting the Eucharist with gestures of reverence. Communion is perfect active participation which must be prepared for interiorly.

Today’s prayer points to the goal of our participation at Mass. We desire that our participation and subsequent reception open up blessings for us. Subsequently, keep firmly in mind the words of St. Paul about improper participation and poor reception of the Eucharist:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Cor 11:27-30 RSV)

Paul makes the connection between the spiritual and the physical, the interior and the “exterior”. The effects of reception of the Eucharist are, for St. Paul, also physical. If the effects of Communion are also physical, should there not be proper physical preparation for reception of Communion as well as interior spiritual preparation? Should we not prepare ourselves with, for example, fasts and deeply expressive physical gestures of reverence? In fact, the Church requires a Eucharistic fast, perhaps too much reduced to one single hour, before Communion (not before the beginning of Mass) and also prescribes physical movements and signs of reverence during Mass.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
God of mercy,
accept our offering
and make it a source of blessing for us.

Ho hum…. Zzzzzzz…..

While we can look forward to something better in the future, that is what most of you still have to hear in church now. We need rich beautiful and, above all, accurate translations to help our participation attain that height which Jesus Christ, through the Holy Catholic Church, desires for us!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to WDTPRS: yet another reason why we need the new translation

  1. Fr. John Mary says:

    Father Z: Could not agree with you more.
    Sometimes when offering the OF in English I feel like I’m back in my childhood saying the table grace: “God is good; God is great; let us thank Him for our food. Amen.”
    I have NO problem with the venacular; but please God, the new prayers will actually SAY SOMETHING! (sorry)

  2. FrCharles says:

    At the limit of my faculties I offered Mass thrice yesterday, and each time I was distracted by wondering why there wasn’t much to this prayer. I didn’t think to look at my 2002 MR, though. I thought that maybe it was because the Opening Prayer was so long and there wasn’t much more room on the page. :)

  3. Jack Hughes says:

    Latin is sooo much better

  4. Fr. John Mary says:

    This may not be “on topic”, so block it if you don’t get into this. I’m listening to the re-broadcast of the Pope’s Mass for St. Wenceslaus and the music is very “contemporary”–even bordering on easy listenin'; he intoned the ‘Gloria’ in latin and a vernacular version was sung.
    I thought the Eastern Europeans had a tradition of sacred music! Am I wrong?

  5. Henry Edwards says:

    Fr. John Mary: Perhaps you’re still with it. But I turned it off a few moments into the Responsorial Psalm. Just couldn’t take any more. Rock Czech (if that’s what it is) is worse than ICEL English.

  6. staggering but still standing says:

    And please God, could the change in translation happen before I die?

  7. becket1 says:

    Quote: ” We need rich beautiful and, above all, accurate translations to help our participation attain that height which Jesus Christ, through the Holy Catholic Church, desires for us! ”

    Rome will need more than just a new translation Father!.

  8. MarkJ says:

    The banal liturgical translation foisted upon us by the ICEL is the linguistic equivalent of iconoclasm.

  9. ssoldie says:

    The Modern Rite……After the council…in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic dvelopment came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and ‘replaced it’- as in a manufacturing process- with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot pruduct. Gamber (1989), with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy Joseph Cardinal Ratzenger

  10. Fr. John Mary says:

    Henry Edwards: I could not have said it better myself. This problem is not just in English-speaking countries (as we saw with the Italian music post)…Libera, nos Domine!!

  11. Melody says:

    This is an obscure reference, but when my friends at anime club asked why I prefer mass in Latin, I explained that the English version is like the 4Kids dub. They instantly understood and this led to one of those present going to a NO in Latin. If you care to look up why this company is hated you will see several similarities to ICEL.

    Silly I know, but it’s one to laugh instead of get angry or cry.

  12. Magpie says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that was mentioned at least once on this blog: more-or-less that the NO Mass is like a junior, simplified Mass, and that the EF is the adult, mature faith Mass. I really think this is the case: that those immature in their faith are oftentimes unable to appreciate the EF, and are actually at times averse to it, and will openly criticse it and be very hostile to it. But looking at my own life and faith journey, this was for me at least, linked to my immature faith and poor image of God and I would imagine it would be similar for so many other poorly catechised individuals. Once people know who God really is, and the adoration and love He is deserving, then the EF becomes obvious as the most fitting way to worship Him and the most edifying to our own faith life.

    The NO, at least how it is typically celebrated now, really is a second rate product. But by forcing people to endure a second rate product, it’s sabottaging the restoration of the finest liturgy that we should have.

    In all this I mean no disrespect to the Holy Mass and the Eucharistic Mystery which takes place at every Mass, EF or NO. Just my ramblings…

  13. 4mercy says:

    Thank you Fr. Z for this translation and article! The lame duck (funny!) translations always seem so drab and almost insulting to the majesty of God. The Latin and (let’s pray) the new translations are so rich and beautful. They rightfully remind us that Our Lord, though our Savior and friend, is also the thrice holy GOD!

  14. Father Michael says:

    This past weekend’s prayer in question was a glaring example of both poor theology and poor translation.
    The Mass is “THE” source of blessing…not “A” source! I realize priests are not to make changes but this is a case which cries out to heaven for a simple word change…mea cupla.
    As a priest who has tried and continues to try to implement a more reverent celebration of the Mass inclunding the use of Latin, chant, “ad orientem” on occasion (with very adequate catechesis)it does get frustrating to have folks who just adamantly refuse to even try to understand what we’ve lost and are now trying to recover.
    One lady asked,”if this is to be done, why aren’t the other parishes in town doing it?” I responded: “You would have to ask them why they do or don’t do what goes on there.” Anyway, pray for us priests in the trenches trying to simply “do the red!” Fr. Michael.

  15. Sandy says:

    God bless all of you priests, Fr. Michael and Fr. Z! See what some of us have to hear every day, Fr. Z? We need you to take over translating for the whole Church!

  16. Agellius says:

    Fr. Z:

    I sent this article as a link to my mom, and she had this to say:

    “I like Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s translation much better than
    ICEL’s. However, I wonder why Fr. Zuhlsdorf added “sacrificial” to his version. Many oblatios are “sacrificial” but not all & I don’t see
    “sacrificial” in the Latin. I realize the offering in the Mass is sacrificial – but it looks to me like Fr. Zuhlsdorf did some embellishing of his own rather than stick to the Latin.”

    I know you’re busy but if you have the time I would be interested to know your response to this. Thanks.

  17. P says:

    Father, your analysis, interpretation, and translation are totally correct. Thanks!