I've been having some good and spirited conversations lately with friends about the new translation of the Roman Missal. We've been discussing things such as "What does it mean?" "Why did we change it?" "Is this one better than the previous one?"
I won't leave you hanging, I love the new translation. I love it and find it amazing that this is the text that will be used at every mass for the rest of my life.
That being said, I (as I am sure many do) have varying explanations and viewpoints on what it means...let me give you my thoughts.
I don't view this as an improvment in the sense that the mass we had up unitll this past Saturday was somehow inferior or in some way wrong. I simply see the two as different.
I think we see the 2 schools of thought at work here: a) the text ought to be in the common and ordinary parlance of the everyday worshipper, b) the text ought to be in a language that magnifies in poetry, mystical language and theology. Neither camp is intrinsically wrong, they are just different.
Our previous transalation (the one up unitll this weekend) was more in camp A where the language was easy, the grammar was elementray and there was not a lot of ornamentation among the words. Wrong? No, just one way of approaching it.
This current transaltion occupies more of camp B where we hear vivid language saturated in complex grammar and sentences more concerned with expressing the beauty of the divine mysteries than brevity. Wrong? No, just different.
I think this is the best approach. We shouldn't attack the language our church has used for the last 40 years and label it anything negative.
I want to emphasize that I love reading this missal and can't wait to soon pray it as a priest within the mass. I love poetry, vivid and florid language. I love to read and write language that seeks to put into words that which is beyond all words and understanding. I love to read and reread a sentence over and over again to ascertain its deep and delicate meaning.
Do I feel this translation achieves this more than the previous translation? Yes. Do I think this is a better translation? No.
Both texts have and will lead countless faithful to encountering the Living God, and isn't that the point?
They are distinct and different- we can't deny that - but I find it difficult to qualitatively declare one superior ove the other.
We, the faithful, need to not combatively dwell on the fact that we have a new translation and that it dramatically changes our use of English in the Liturgy. We cannot ignore it, but we need to accept it, acknowledge it, and move on to worship.
Worship is what these words lead us to. Worship is what the previous words lead us to.
We need to become educated and aware of what the language is telling us. Once we know it, we need to embrace it and love it. We need to move forward as one holy catholic and apostolic church and give witness to the world of the love, power and presence of God!
This translation should, and I believe it will, make us stronger and one.
We will be united as a sacramental people who radically delve into the depths of the mysteries of God.
This can be a challenge to many, and that is okay. But, we can't stay there, we need to move on. The church grows and develops as it needs to in order to meet the needs of the faithful. We have a new translation, let's embrace it as the Church desires us to and get back to worshipping God, but in newer and richer ways!
