Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Patterson, NJ, in his diocesan newspaper The Beacon (via Whispers in the Loggia ), writes a sound defense of the proposed new translation of the Mass. Or more accurately, a sound defense of the spirit in which the translation was made:
But there is something more at stake than pleasing individual tastes and preferences in the new liturgical translations. The new translations aim at a “language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves . . . dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). The new translations now being prepared are a marked improvement over the translations with which we have become familiar. They are densely theological. They respect the rich vocabulary of the Roman Rite. They carefully avoid the overuse of certain phrases and words.The new translations also have a great respect for the style of the Roman Rite. Certainly, some sentences could be more easily translated to mimic our common speech. But they are not. And with reason. Latin orations, especially Post-Communions, tend to conclude strongly with a teleological or eschatological point. The new translations in English follow the sequence of these Latin prayers in order to end on a strong note. Many of our current translations of these prayers end weakly. Why should we strip the English translation of the distinctive theological emphases of the Latin text? A slightly non-colloquial word order can lead the listener to a greater attention to the point of the prayer . . . .
A language suited for the Liturgy: this is the one of great advantages of the work being done on the new translations. There is more to the Liturgy than the human language of any age or any one country. In the new translations of the Roman Missal, a conscious effort is being made to suit the human word to the divine action that the Liturgy truly is. As Pope Benedict XVI has said, the “central action of the Mass is fundamentally neither that of the priest as such nor of the laity as such, but of Christ the High Priest: This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real “action” for which all creation is in expectation . . . .This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential” (The Spirit of the Liturgy p. 173).
Bishop Serratelli is right: It’s not just an argument about taste. At the core is an argument over the nature of the liturgy itself. Is the Mass a time to teach the faith and worship God or a time to feel good about ourselves? Is the liturgy a foretaste of the communion of heaven or a party for our own enjoyment?
Not that these actions are mutually exclusive. We should enjoy the liturgy as a foretaste of heaven, and we should rejoice in the truths it proclaims. But the fundamental question remains: Is the Mass primarily about us or is it about God? According to Bishop Serratelli, the new translation of the Mass better points us toward its proper focus: the author of our salvation and the source of our joy.
