I am sure veterans of WDTPRS will remember with a smile my rants, fisks, and Patristic glosses on the image of "dew" in the proposed new translation of the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer.
There were some people, such as H.E. Donald W. Trautman, Bishop of Erie, who were beside themselves that anyone would consider speaking about the "dew" of the Holy Spirit in the new translation. They think people are too thick to understand that.
A draft of the new ICEL translation is out and around. Look what I found in the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer:
You are indeed the Holy One, O Lord,
you are the wellspring of all holiness.
Therefore, make holy these gifts, we pray,
by the dew of your Spirit,
that they may become for us
the Body + and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
The good guys score again!
Loading ...
Why is this an objection? I don’t get it. This recalls, in a way, the manna in the desert which is all about providence. Why is this a problem?
The bishops really need to be careful about who they call “not smart enough.” People who live in glass houses……….
[Indeed, the dumbing down of the Church was one of the most alarming things of 20th century Church history.]
Rather, this is about things that are available to anyone, in a way. The Church through time, confirms things that are true. But anyone, even the humblest, can appreciate them slowly and with growing depth. It doesn’t take a phD. It shouldn’t. We are not gnostics.
And lest there be any confusion:
There is nothing wrong with sheer intellectual power, ala St. Thomas Aquinas or St. John of the Cross, used in the service of the Church. As opposed to gnostics with their initiates, cryptic secret texts, abstract secret meanings and cultish behavior, which is not Catholic. Indeed, the prowess & subsequent accomplishments of Aquinas were a great public gift from God to the church and the world.
There is also nothing wrong with people not literally comprehending everything about a beautiful & holy prayer, but growing into meditation and understanding of it over time. No matter how humble and plain that person’s talents might be as long as they are taught to think with the Church, they are king in the order of holding the truth.
It appears that this “leak” does represent the latest ICEL draft…HOWEVER: it would be wrong to conclude from reading this that “dew” and “consubstantial” are necessarily going to part of the translation that eventually goes to print in the U.S. The USCCB has approved the draft WITH ALTERATIONS, for example changing “dew” to “the outpouring of your spirit.” Rome will have the final say, but Rome may very well decide it’s not worth the hassle not to have the USCCB have their way on this, and allow the local variant.
“Rome will have the final say, but Rome may very well decide it’s not worth the hassle not to have the USCCB have their way on this, and allow the local variant.”
Let’s pray that doesn’t happen. Anyway, my “feel” of things (which isn’t worth much) is that there seems to be a policy presumption in Rome now that there not be local variants in English translation. If Rome approves the USCCB’s request for American “adaptations” to the new translation, that would make the U.S. the odd man out: we’d be getting special treatment, and for no good reason either. So I expect, or hope at least, that “consubstantial” and “dew” will remain.
Really, the objections to “dew” were so incredibly silly, you feel embarrassed for the folks who leveled them.
Maybe they can have Bishop Trautman publish his own “Liturgy for Dummies” that he can use in his Diocese. Tom
I second the motion for a “Liturgy for Dummies” but I nominate Fr Z to be the author.
Really, the objections to “dew†were so incredibly silly, you feel embarrassed for the folks who leveled them.
The objection was that the written word “dew,” when, spoken, as it will be, can be misunderstood as “do.” You may disagree, but to brand the concern as “silly” is unfair. Those adept at public speaking are constantly aware of such possible verbal misunderstandings, and take care to avoid them — occasionally even spelling out a word they feel is similar to another where the context does not make it clear. While you may be of the opinion that such a concern is overrriden by the importance of a particular word, one should not fault others for raising the concern.
The word “dew” is in a prayer addressed to God:
You are indeed the Holy One, O Lord,
you are the wellspring of all holiness.
Therefore, make holy these gifts, we pray,
by the dew of your Spirit,
that they may become for us
the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I do not think there is any chance of God misunderstanding what is meant. Any such fear certainly seems silly to me.
The objection was that the written word “dew,†when, spoken, as it will be, can be misunderstood as “do.â€
That consideration doesn’t apply to the English-speaking world outside North
America – there actually IS one y’know :)
Jaykay: I don’t know how people elsewhere pronounce “dew”, but here in the South it’s “dyew”, and not “doo”. So those two words, “dew and do”, sound totally different and I can’t see how anyone could confuse the two when they are spoken correctly (the Southern way being the correct way, of course!) :-)
I’m not from the South — I’m from Illinois — but I pronounce it “dyew.” Anybody who is bothered that “dew” can be confused with another word has been watching too much Beavis & Butthead.
There is no place in the English-speaking world where “dew” (“dyew”) is pronounced as “do”. I say this without fear of contradiction, because if there is, they’ll surely be too ashamed to admit it.
There is no place in the English-speaking world where “dew†(“dyewâ€) is pronounced as “doâ€. I say this without fear of contradiction, because if there is, they’ll surely be too ashamed to admit it.
Henry, how about the soda pop called Mountain Dew? Gimme a Dew (pronounced Doo) dude. Personally I have rarely ever heard it pronounced “dyew”, certainly not in normal conversation. That’s from the North of North America.
John, surely you’re not suggesting that Mountain Dew ad usage is part of the English-speaking world!
Seriously, maybe it’s the alleged spelling “dyew” that’s misleading someone. How I would describe it is that “dew” on the grass is everywhere pronounced to sound the same as the word “due” as in your taxes were due yesterday. It’s certainly not a north-south question. I’ve lived from the upper midwest to the deep south to the northeastern U.S., and this word may be exceptional in not seeming to exhibit regional differences in pronunciation.
In any event, the question is utterly irrelevant in the context of Eucharistic Prayers addressed to God, since He undoubtedly can understand any pronunciation whatever, be it right or wrong. Perhaps what this really proves is that the canon should again be silent (as Cardinal Ratzinger once seemingly suggested) so people wouldn’t be distracted by irrelevant questions.
the use of the concept of “dew” as signifying the power
of the presence of the Holy Spirit sounds so weak or
namby-pamby compared to the power of the Spirit, (or
else that the Spirit has some kind of urinary problem). It
must have a more powerful meaning in a desert, and no doubt refers back to the manna in the desert, but so few
Catholics live in deserts these days. I know that EPII is written by an early Church Father, so one should not tamper with it
too much, but “outpouring” would capture its (the dew’s)spirit and
also seems more powerful, even unlimited, as the Spirit.
This too-short prayer is important because it is used often, especially
since so many priests use this shorter Eucharistic
Prayer II, especially whenever they they think the Mass
has been a little long.
i also find it sad that EPII (and also III now) do not
begin by addressing Father but Lord, which usually is
used these days to address Jesus Himself, and this makes
it difficult to keep in mind that the sacrifice is to
the Father, as Jesus taught us to address Him.