Crisis, Conflicts and Controversies During Monarchy: A Cursory Study on the Impact of Monarchy on Israelite Society/Religion

An uncritical reading into the history of Israelite society convinces the reader about ‘Monarchy’ as the momentous point in the social, political, economic, cultural and religious development of the people of Israel. Further extends crisis only to the official syncretism of Solomon, and the resultant division in the Kingdom. But the actual events during the establishment of monarchy were not so plain. Though the growth into the centralized-state like the neighboring nations improved the life-situations of Israelites, yet it need not have been the heaven-on-earth situation for them.  Historico-critical biblical scholarship opine that roughly those 300 years of monarchy might have been a pull and push experience between tradition and change in life, culture and religion of Israelite society.

Religion - in the case of Israelite society religion is blanket term that covers almost every aspect of the society - that had arisen out of the liberation from state oppression and for almost two centuries supported the efforts of the tribes to free them any form of political hegemony within and without faced problems with attempt to establish Monarchy. The new social changes had far reaching impacts on the life-situation of the period before the state, especially on the religion.  So the crisis in our paper refers primarily to the crisis as experienced by people who are dragged into the centralized state. We have numerous evidences of events that attempt to reintroduce the culture of the period before the state in sharp contrast to the then prevailing development. Note for example the controversy over the legitimation of the kingship. The aim of the paper is to resist the temptation that takes the growth of the Israel into a monarchical territorial state as gradual socio-political change or God’s gift, thus accept the varied cultural elements projected during the period as belonging to antiquity. The truth is that most probably they were not; consider for example the ‘temple-cult’, it is something quite contrary to the pre-state theology where Yahweh is close to people, and is unbound to any closed walls.

Unlike our general belief the controversy during monarchy was not between Yahweh nomadic religion and Canaanite agricultural religions; this is simplistic. Rather the major problem was the establishment of the kingdom rule and the consequent social changes that posed a great challenge to the Yahweh religion. Official syncretism i.e. King Solomon bringing in other gods juxtaposing to the main cult for political reasons, though posed a major threat to Jerusalem-temple-theology, the temple cult/royal state cult that developed need not have been the traditional worship of Yahweh religion. Meanwhile this becomes so acceptable that they are unquestioned by Deuteronomic authors, later become their vantage point. The paper intends therefore to make obvious the tension between tradition and change i.e. between tribal alliance and centralized state, charismatic leader and king, Yahweh religion of the liberated group and temple religion during monarchy. We do this by presenting the struggles in the formation of monarchy and by analyzing the different elements that change Yahweh religion into a royal state cult, leaving the controversy of the official syncretism of the later period for further research.

Monarchy: Formation and Rebellion

The formation of monarchy in Israel, according to the scholars goes back to the external military threat from the philistines and internal need for expansion with the rising population in the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries. They record a gradual growth of the tribal alliance into statehood. This is evident from the case of Saul who was the first one to be accepted as the chiefdom close to the ‘Kingship’ and yet never exercised permanent power over everyone. He was limited to his family resources: his son, uncle, army of his tribe and located in his home place. The independent tribal heads (elders of Israel) were not ready to give up their privileges in the wake of centralized political authourity with the monarchy. Only when they experience another lose to Philistines, the people resolved to seek a far-reaching solution. David by then imposed a different kind of central authourity over the tribes, with an independent power base: with capital outside the tribes of Israel, royal professional soldiers other than the traditional militia of the tribes, and taxes. The tribal alliance could not ignore his power and so yielded to the monarchical-state instituted by David, later developed by Solomon his son.

It would be rather unjust to underestimate the social, political, cultural, economical changes the new social institution brought in the Israelite society. The new governance, state-building/architectures, religion and foreign policies manifest its glories. The territory was expanded to form an empire with several vassal states under Israel. The growth was not however free from dangers. The expansion of the empire created a force-situation for the people of Israel to live with non-Israelite population who had to be integrated socially, culturally and in religious terms. This had long lasting impact in the culture and worship of Israel. Take for example ‘kingship theology’, ‘temple theology’ and ‘indispensable mediation of priesthood’ does not have a place in the patriarchal religion or the religion of liberated group. It is comprehensible only in relation to the influence of the Near East theology.

Resistance to the monarchy, by those who upheld the social structure of the period before the state was a recurring feature during monarchy. Further it gained the support of the people as monarchy failed to promote the best interests of the people. Besides, there was no automatic legitimation of long political rule (kingship) in the pre-state Israel society/religion. We have examples of rebellion in Absalom (II Sam 15-19) and Sheba (II Sam 20), the experiment, but failed. There are glimpses of their political theological view in the Deuteronomic books: ‘only the one who is socially useless becomes King, and he will take everything away from you – your sons, daughters, slaves, fields, and cattle!’ (I Sam 8.11-17); and ‘the establishment of a human kingship is an attack on Yahweh’s kingly rule’ (I Sam  8.7).

It is to counter this theological vaccum created by the rebel movements the court theologians intervened with a legitimation of kingship with their ‘kingship theology’ and centralized state by their Jerusalem temple theology. We shall see them independently always in contrast to the life, culture, religion of the pre-state Israelite society.

Note on the Court Theologians

We have learnt that the monarchy was supported by court theologians. It probably comprised of prophets and priest like Nathan and Zadok. It is ironic that they supported monarchy and praised David as the promised King, his reign an epitome for all the rulers thereafter despite conflicts and controversies. For example prophesy of Nathan was the basis of the origin of the new kingship theology which was align to pre-state Israelite religion (II Sam 7).  As mentioned above if kingship theology was only an integration of the Near East tradition and the pre-Israelite Yahweh religion then the Israelite origin of the court theologians are dubitable. Our supposition is proved right by history as scholars note that David captured Jerusalem, city of Jebusites not by a full scale attack but by a trick (II Sam 5.6-9). Hence he probably wanted the Israelites to live along with Jebusites accordingly kept a deliberate balance between the two populations and its cultic institutions. He appoints two priests for national sanctuaries, Abiathar from the priestly family of Eli (I Sam 23.9; 30.7) and Zadok, the former Jebusite priest of Jerusalem. This balance is changed by Solomon, who banished Abiather because of his support to Adonijah adversary of Solomon, giving whole priestly monopoly to Zadokites. This insight explains the instrumentality of non-Israelite priests (court theologians) in the shift of the Yahweh religion into a Zion religion/universal religion and temple religion with complicated codes. Moreover, they shed light about the enormity of material propagating this new theology in the records of Israel History.

Kingship Theology

Our evidence for the Kingship theology mostly comes from David’s royal house i.e. Southern Dynasty. Another basic assumption is that the essential features of kingship theology are developed after Solomon. As the institution of Monarch was adapted by Israel from the neighbouring traditions, it paved way for the entry of their massive theological and cultic implications of Kingship. Near Eastern traditions regarded a king more or less as God’s representative on earth - as Son of God, the image of God and at times even God himself – who is sent by God to impose divine rule and divine order within and without the state. Thus Israelite society, sooner than it adapted monarchy, gradually convinced itself that God has sent them a King to rule over them, forcing aside their traditional Yahweh religion opposed to domination. Remember Yahweh religion in the pre-state period was basically a religion of the liberated group struggling to fight any form of domination. But with the new social institution, the court theologians inserted doctrines about the privileged position of King (as the son of God) and so the necessary obligation to obey them to find favour with God. We have them clearly mentioned in the royal Psalms (2, 89, 110) composed probably in the peak of the kingship theology. The valour and the conviction about the institution of monarchy in the written records, hint that initially it must have been created and developed by mostly Jebusite priests. The hypothesis is proved by the unrelatedness and the contradiction of this new theology to the Yahweh religion of the period before the state which had once been the symbol of liberation from state oppression. Moreover in the Yahweh religion there was no necessity of mediation to relate with God in other words, there was no space for royal son of God i.e. King. People in the wilderness had a direct experience of God through a leader among them.

Thus there were rebel movements and criticisms to reintroduce the older religion. They were no complete success yet have been forces of challenge to the unquestioned adherence to the Near East tradition. Thus it effected in a middle way in the integration of Yahweh religion with the Near East traditions. First, though the kinds were royal sons of God in the scriptures they are projected with human strengths and weaknesses which is contrary to the Near East tradition. Second, though the king is above people it is repeatedly noted that he is chosen by the people or God on behalf of the people which is opposed to the spirit of monarchy. Third even though king functions he does not constitute it, we have the role of priests and prophets who at times seem to have upper hand than the King. It would not be the case in Near Eastern theology.

Temple Theology

The establishment of monarchy was an important turning point in the main cult of the Israelite society. The evolution of the royal state cult parallel to the centralized state permanently changed the organization, institution, and the function of main Israelite cult. It was a fusion of political power with the religion; the main cult at the central sanctuary was to a larger degree a matter of state. As the centralized state de-empowered the tribal leaders, the centralized sanctuary resulted in the abolishment of all the local cults outside Jerusalem. It is plausible that the temple cult might have been adapted from the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Jebusites.

Scholars believe that non-Israelite priests might have had upper hand in the royal court established in Jerusalem. Abiather and Zadok the royal priests in the time of David are respectively from Israelite and Jebusite traditions. Despite the attempts of David to keep the balance in integrating Yahweh religion with the prevailing cult in Jerusalem, by bringing in the ark of the covenant and appointing priests from both the sides, his efforts collapse with Solomon ousting Abiather from the court. It was then a monopoly of the Zadokities. Solomon thus ends up building a temple. From the evidences available in the scripture and the later research scholars note that he might have actually renovated and expanded the temple already exiting in Jerusalem. In fact we find a mention of tent and threshing floor, some sort of structure as the ark of the covenant is placed in Jerusalem before it was shifted to Solomon’s temple (II Sam 6.17; 7.2 cf. I Kgs 1.29; 2.28). So it is possible that Solomon did not build the temple in cultic free virgin land. Apart from some parts in the temple, the architecture corresponds to the Near Eastern tradition with thick walls separating human beings from God and gradations intent to protect the holiness of God. The bond of the people to God which was so characteristic of the pre-state Yahweh religion found no expression at all in the temple architecture. The lay people could only observe the cult, with no access to the temple itself (the sanctuary). It was as if their God Yahweh disappeared in the semi-darkness of the royal temple. God of the wilderness turned into God who is enthroned ruling from Zion/Jerusalem. Gradually it gave birth to a Jerusalem temple theology that propagated the Kingship of Yahweh and Jerusalem as the city of God in sharp contrast to the people centered Yahweh which is characteristic pre-state Yahweh religion.

Our aim in this paper was to bring attention to the inner crisis and controversies that accompanied the transition to monarchy in the pre-state tribal alliance group to resist temptation to treat the institution of the monarchy as automatic. We have accomplished it by proving that monarchy had elements that was contradicted the pre-state Israelite religion, thus necessitating rebellion. The next interesting topic would be to study the impact of official syncretism and the reasons for the divide of the nation during monarchy. Every religion has its flexible boundaries borrowing some of its characteristics from the neighbouring tradition. But, generally we have tendency to view them as given from the beginning. In this line the paper also makes plain the key elements, temple tradition and kingship theology to have originated from the Near East traditions.

Bibliography

Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol.1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Exile. Translated by John Bowden. British edition. London: SCM Press, 1994.

Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the old testament: An Introduction. New York: Paulist Press, 1984.

Ceresho, Anthony R. The Old Testament: A Liberative Perspective. Mumbai: St. Pauls,  2009.

ET CUM SPIRITU TUO (and with your spirit): An evaluation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal in the light of Vatican II

Despite the niceties and logical arguments explaining and defending the significance of the third edition of the Roman Missal for the English speaking Catholic community in the world, there is unrest due to serious problems that are yet to be resolved in this edition. Though it has been successively implemented by the hierarchy, yet controversies mount on the issue in this part of the world, India. Vatican argues that the translation is a more authentic devotional guide, creating a greater aura of holiness. It is worked out with an aim to create a Universal Roman Missal in matter and form. The major argument is that liturgy needs a liturgical language, a sacred language that is different from pedestrian English. ‘As every sphere of society has its vocabulary, Liturgy needs a new language, one that is distinctively Catholic, sacral and Roman’ would go some of the arguments. They achieved this by a rigorous literal translation of the Latin texts into English. The translation was meant to reconnect Catholics with their roots i.e. Latin.

Since 23 June, 2008 the day when this new translation was approved by Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW), dissenting voices swelled up deterring the actualization of the new translation. The clergy in Australia, Ireland, United States, South Africa and New Zealand criticized the new translation as awkward, archaic, elitist, obscure, clumsy and sexist. Msgr. Michael Ryan, the pastor of St. James Cathedral in Seattle started a petition asking to delay the introduction of the new missal, called “What if we Just Said Wait.” It was supported by 22,000 priests, nuns and lay people around the world some of them prominent liturgists, theologians and musicians. In an interview for the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) discussing the rationale for such campaign, Michael Ryan notes ‘I care about good liturgy […] Good Liturgy demands the best we have and will be compromised by texts that are awkward, arcane, clumsy  and in many cases far removed from the way people  speak’ [10, Dec 2009]. Further in his article “What If We Just Said Wait”, [NCR 14 Dec, 2009], he substantiates his argument contra new translation on the grounds of Vatican II and pastoral sensitivity.

Bishop Donald Trautman, the strongest of all critics questioned the whole theology behind the new translation contends that liturgy did not need sacred language but pastoral language. One of the major deficits of the new translation, despite some of the good elements, was the inaccessibility of the text. He quoted for example words like ‘incarnate’, ‘sullied’, ‘unfeigned’, ‘ineffable’, ‘gibbet’, ‘wrought’, ‘thwart’ to argue that the language is not in the living language of the people. Against the craze of the Vatican about the sacred style that is proper to the liturgical language, he would note “the celebration of the Eucharist always followed the language of the people. There was no such thing in East or West (in the church) as a sacred language” [“A Pastoral Deficit”, Tablet, 3 Feb 2007]. Quoting the simple style of Jesus’ ministry, he urged the translation use a language that is in resonance with the faithful. Later in his lecture on this translation he criticized that “the translators have slavishly transposed a Latin into English without respecting English sentence word order” [“Liturgy Needs Not Sacred Language But Pastoral Language” NCR, 26 Oct 2009]. Critiquing the translators’ attempt to use a complicated language ‘timeless English’ (Sacred English) he writes, “Christ’s message can only be heard in the culture of the hearer. Liturgy does not take place in the cultural vacuum. If the liturgy of the church is not celebrated in terms that resonate with the assembly, it will not be heard” [“A Pastoral Deficit”, Tablet, 3 Feb 2007]. His major criticism was that the translation has overstepped in the balance between transcendence and immanence with the exaggerated attention to the vertical dimension, the transcendent dimension in Liturgy.  The theological structure behind the text seems to have neglected the doctrine of incarnation pivotal to Christianity!

Another major dissenting group is the Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland, who argued that the text had to be scraped by the bishops since everything in terms of theology, anthropology and linguistics of the contemporary world is being breached by this new translation [“For New Mass, Closer to Latin, Critics Voice a Plain Objection”, The New York Times 11 Apr, 2011]. Quoting Bp. Trautman, they argued that the insensitive and archaic language of the new translation needs revision before it is introduced to the people, in the winter of that year i.e. First Sunday of Advent, November 2011. They said, “Catholics should be allowed to pray publically in their own language. Jesus used the language of the people when he was speaking with them. The New Testament is written in the language of the ordinary people, not classical Greek” [“Press Conference on Liturgical Texts” 3 Feb 2011]. Further they also highlighted the theological, linguistic problems in the text. One of their major and unique contentions is that the language is unfair to females, with its deliberate exclusivism.

Unmoved by these legitimate criticisms and the rebellion that broke out in South Africa (late 2008), the Church actualized the translation as intended by CDW from the First Sunday of Advent, 2011 in almost all parts of the English speaking world.  It also happened in the diocese where I now reside - Archdiocese of Madras Mylapore, Chennai, India - for my theological formation towards priesthood. With an open mind, ignorant of all that had happened around the new translation, I participated in the Eucharist, which used the New Roman Missal. Things did not turn out well, my instinct was constantly repelling the change from ‘And also with you’ to ‘And with your spirit’ as old, abrupt, lop-sided and dualist, further the prayer ‘Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof’ was irritating. I doubt the claim ‘the new translation provides the faithful with prayers that are theologically accurate, in a language with dignity and beauty that can be understood’ by its proponents.

At least in the two noted texts, I could not find any meaningful change but an ideology being forced upon me by a group of Vatican bureaucrats, who supplement the text with clever arguments to justify the proposed changes. For example, responding to the critique from American clergy Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, the former chairman of the U.S. Bishops Committee on Divine Worship in defense of the new translation writes “It [the new translation] is not perfect but perfection will come only when the liturgy on earth gives way to that of heaven; where all the saints praise God with one voice.” Further on the problem with the structure of the English in the new translation he explains “the guiding principles of translation call for the preservations of biblical imagery and poetic language (and structure), […] ‘sending down your spirit… like a dewfall (Psalm 133, Eucharistic Prayer II). […] The texts may be unfamiliar now, but the more one understands their meaning, the more meaningful their use will be in liturgy” [“Bishop Serratelli tries to Reply Msgr. Ryan” 27 Feb, 2010]. Other similar Vatican sympathizers similarly note that the introduction of the ‘correct theological terms’ would intrigue people to know theological language, their meaning and relevance.

My friends on the other hand sympathizing with me, resented the new translation as backward and irrelevant. A nun friend calls it as rubbish. May be in the fourth century people might have waged war s on the proper use of the terms like ‘consubstantial’ ‘begotten not made’ but they make no sense to contemporary ordinary worshippers. If the church sincerely cares for the faithful it would incarnate the word in terms that would atleast come close to their level. If Vatican II is all about the welfare of the people of God, especially concerned about their full, active and meaningful participation in the liturgy the greatest of all prayers, then how could such an unjust imposition of Roman Missal follow it?

Vatican II and the Politics of the New Translation

The first greatest achievement of the Vatican II as far as an ordinary catholic is concerned was the ‘vernacular liturgy’. Nothing else of the council did impact ordinary Catholics as the reformation in the liturgy did. Liturgy though not perfect, thereafter became accessible and meaningful to people. The council then urged the Bishop’s conference to see to the careful translation of the Latin liturgy which would be approved (recognito) by CDW. The role of Rome was only to approve. This led to the formation of International Commissions according to the varied major languages of the Catholics. The English speaking world formed the International Commission on English in Liturgy (ICEL). It produced translations in 1973. Following the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Post conciliar document, 3 April 1969) ‘that the translators task is to find a faithful but not a literal translation of Latin’ it produced a translation remaining faithful to the original Latin. Though many liturgists agreed that it was hastily done and required revision in its prosaic and exclusive language, it was welcomed well. People were able to express their sentiments to God. 

A small fraction, on the other hand blamed vernacular liturgies to have diluted and perverted the sacred worship. For these objectors the worship has abandoned the sacred and mysterious elements i.e. the vertical dimension of Liturgy. The members of ICEL aware of the limitations of the first translation commenced a second edition of the Roman Missal from 1980’s. It was eventually completed it in 1990 following the principle of dynamic equivalence i.e. the thought expressed in the text than literal replacing of the text word for word and using a more gender neutral language. Meanwhile on the other side with the change of the prefects of CDW, the slogan ‘reform of the reform’ filled the air. Attempts were made to change and restructure and renew the ICEL, with an intention of bringing new changes in the principles of Vernacular translations. They were basically convinced that vernacular liturgy and other reforms like receiving communion in the hand, Mass facing people, were a misinterpretation of Vatican II. The major proponent of the theory was Archbishop Malcom Ranjith Patabendige, who was secretary of CDW from 2002- (term of service not sure).  Sharing such an argument, the bureaucrats in Rome including then Card. J. Ratzinger believed that such a shift has been the cause for the drop in attendance in the church and in the vocation to priesthood.

The antagonism to reforms in the Liturgy reached its zenith with the appointment Card. Jorge Medina Extevz as the prefect of CDW. He began to systematically dismantle the liturgical renewal prevalent at that time. As a key element of his strategy he changed the general instruction of the Roman Missal on translation with the introduction of the document Liturgiam Autheticam (LA), 20 March 2001. He claimed it to have been at the request of John Paul II, who by then had less influence on the curia. Authours writing about it note, “LA did not recommend but commanded. It insisted that translations follow an extreme literalism.” Hence CDW rejected the proposed revised version of the Missal in 2002. Later it appointed altogether a new staff to rework the English translation. With the election of J. Ratzinger to the Chair of Peter the traditionalists progressed in their agenda - a new translation of the Roman Missal that is literally faithful to Latin text. By this time CDW were filled with people who assisted him in Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Turning deaf years to the plea of the Bishop’s conferences to reconsider the translation, they proceeded and got it approved on 23 June, 2008.  The linguistic, theological and grammatical problems of the third edition of the Roman Missal are yet to be repaired. The text has now been implemented.

A Note about Major Defects in the New Translation

In the light of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy Vatican II, the new translation can be assessed on three levels: principle of translation, collegial responsibility and pastoral concerns. The assessment is from the point of improvement. We do acknowledge some of its positive aspects have serious problems with its theological framework. Here, however we evaluate within the limited framework that an open, inclusive, profound yet lucid translation of the Roman Missal, taking in the counsel of the faithful, would incent a meaningful participation in liturgy. Because in the sentiments of Bishop Trautman though there is much good in the New English translation of the Roman Missal, there is much more that still needs improvement to make the text grammatical and accessible to the people.

1. Principle of Translation

With the document LA the principle of translation has been formal equivalence i.e. literal translation of the text word for word, to produce a proposed sacred language in the Liturgy. Thus it discarded any creative innovations – dynamic equivalence - that has been introduced in the international bodies. It was a willful negligence of the insights gained from 100 years of experience in anthropology and linguistics.

As a result, first the text has turned archaic, elitist and obscure. The English is not readily understandable by the average catholic. Some of the sentences have 70 to 80 words. Bp. Trautman highlighting this problem argues

The Latin text is not inspired. It is a human text, reflecting a certain mind-set, theology and world view. There are good Latin texts – balanced, carefully crafted – and there are bad Latin texts – convoluted, lengthy, complicated, abstract – that become a translators herculean task. Because of literal translation in the new Missal, complicated Latin wording has become complicated English wording. For example in the Preface of Christ the King there are 13 lines and 88 words in one sentence. How will this promote intelligible and meaningful prayer? [“Liturgy Needs Not Sacred Language But Pastoral Language” NCR, 26 Oct 2009]

Vatican II’s constitution on the Liturgy on the other hand, recommends liturgical rights and texts to radiate a ‘noble simplicity’. Further that they be short, clear, within the people’s power of comprehension without any explanation.

Second the text has used the Vulgate version of the scriptures which in some places is not faithful to the original sources. Again taking Bp. Trautman’s arguments, in the consecration prayer for the wine the new translation goes “In the similar way, when supper was ended he took this precious chalice [Eucharistic Prayer I] in his holy and venerable hands [and said …] For this is the chalice of my blood and blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many”. In the previous translation we have the word ‘cup’ instead of ‘chalice’ and ‘all’ instead of ‘many’.  This clearly evidences the literal reading from the vulgate totally indifferent to their possible misinterpretations, insensitive to its limited implications. Let us take them one by one. The word ‘chalice’ is not what is in the original language of the New Testament, Greek uses the word posterion which refers to a drinking vessel or cup. Besides it is obviously mistaken in its introduction of the word precious chalice. But, the change in the prayer before communion “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but…” is justified on the basis of being faithful to biblical imagery.

More serious problem arises with the change of the word ‘many’ for ‘all’; again a mistake as a result of Latin literalism. In English the word ‘many’ does not mean all, but a majority implying the exclusion of some. This goes contrary to the clear and certain teaching of the church that Christ died for all. When questioned, ICEL points to the accurate translation of the Latin pro multis as the reason for the change. But, the Aramaic word which has been translated into Greek, then later into Latin mean ‘for everyone’ i.e. for all (pro omnibus). So the present translation is wrong. This was though brought to the notice, it did not get through. The Pope and the commission overstepped to explain that ‘many’ in English was equivalent to ‘all’.

Third, the literal translation of Latin has been insensitive to the women’s feelings, who have been excluded in its language. It uses the word ‘man’ to refer to humanity and at place even to God. We read in Eucharistic Prayer IV “You formed man in your own image”. This is sexist language. True revision shoul have revised similar mistakes in the old translation. Instead it has made it worser. When it was brought to the notice of the commission, quoting LA they note “translations must be freed from exaggerated dependence on modern modes of expression and in general from psychologizing language” [Paul Collins, And Also With You, 10.]

2. Collegial Responsibility

In Vatican II one of the major shift was from aristocracy to decentralizing the power structure. That resulted in “Collegial responsibility”. But examining the new translation its making and forceful implementation into the English speaking world, there is an evident overstepping on the authourity of the Bishop’s conference to render vernacular editions which would later be approved by Rome [SC Nos. 36, 40]. So today we have a text that is a work with a vested interest forced into the faithful from above. So scholars note that this translation violated the Council’s Constitution on the Church. ‘It is not only a linguistic mess but an ecclesiological one’ [Micheal J. Casey, “The New Translation as a Betrayal of Vatican II”, 10 Sep 2010].

3. Pastoral Deficit

Another major defect of the new translation is its pastoral deficit. The liturgical changes introduced by Vatican II were welcomed by people mainly because the prayers and words of the liturgy made sense to them. They wanted something new today, more relevant and meaningful than the older version. The new text, on the other hand, has proven more archaic and obscure to the previous one.

Bishop Kevin Dowling CSSR of Rotenberg in the northwest South Africa reacts “It was a purely arbitrary decision to demand that the English text had to faithfully represent the Latin in its first place, that many of the changes made no sense, and that some of the formulations were simply bad English” [Paul Collins, And Also With You, (Catholics for Minsitry, 2009) 14].

Thus it goes against the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy which has a section on norms for adapting the liturgy to the temperament and traditions of people. The Constitution allowed legitimate variations and adaptations see SC No. 38. But, the new principles of translations (LA) show a major shift from the emphasis on the prayer of the congregation to a focus on the centrality of the Latin text.  I quote, Paul Collins who in his paper And Also With You writes “No care or sensitivity is shown for the praying people or their needs. It’s as though the Latin text had a priority call on God’s attention, and unless the English follows that text literally the prayer of the priest and people goes nowhere” [Paul Collins, And Also With You, 10]. All this was done in the name of replacing profane language with a sacred one. The Constitution on Liturgy on the contrary, stipulated vernacular language not sacred language.

We are not sure how much of the creed and other Greco-Roman metaphysical nuances would be relevant to the lives of the people. Moreover the whole process of the development of the Missa has proved with evidences how the hierarchy neither cared to consult nor received the responses of ordinary catholics including the powerless clergy. It is injustice not to care about the people who form the heart of the church. It is undeniable that the translators have failed to consult  the faithful in an adult manner. The text thus has ended up with a ‘propositional faith’ that is slow to make sense to them.

Conclusion

The paper I acknowledge is not exhaustive there are gaps that need a solid filling some parts even re-structuring studying closely documents that render rationale for the present translation and the General instruction of the New Roman Missal 2012. Yet it is clear from the arguments that there is much that is not ok with the present translation. It needs a revision. But why was the Indian Church so quiet about the whole thing? Is this English OK with us? I am yet to understand the mysterious silence about the issue: from theologians, authourities and laity!


At certain points when I was working on the paper, I even shared the views of priests who ignored this translation, given the serious problems like global challenges to justice peace and the environment; nagging scandals; and persecution of Christians in parts of Asia.

But, I believe that ‘Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life’ (LG 11) if this is set right every other problem will find its way out of the church. The problem nevertheless, exists in the Church with this type of theology and celebration of Eucharist that is probably distant from the teachings of Jesus. If the essence of the Eucharist is about Jesus’ incarnation in love, then everyone who participates in it experiences the double fellowship. We are inspired and strengthened thereafter to share our experience with others. ‘A drop of honey attracts more flies than a barrel of vinegar’ notes oriental wisdom. Probably, if the Eucharist fails to inspire us then what we need is not just another revision, but a total restructuring.

The present translation does not look like genuinely aimed at the increase in the active participation of the liturgy. Instead aims to impose the Latin formula even at the expense of losing the faithful. Already a good number of people participate in Eucharists either for selfish motives or take part compelled by the sense of obligation, but go back to continue their selfish life less challenged by it. With translations that make it look even more magical, we run the sure risk of further advancing this mentality, than challenging them to experience inner (life) transformation. The problem thus is much more complicated than the need for revision. Moreover, if making a revision in the text is so complicated how much is it difficult to expect a change in the structure? We believe the spirit continues to work in the Church inspiring people and guiding it towards authentic life and authentic worship; provided we courageously allow it work in and through us. Let us then take courage to express our dissent about this unreasonable translation.


Bibliography:
Collins, Paul. And Also With You: Is the New Missal A Betrayl of Vatican II. Catholics for Ministry: 2009.
Filteau, Jerry. " Liturgy Needs not 'Sacred Language' but Pastoral Language". National Catholic Reporter, 26 October 2009.

Goodstein, Laurie. "For New Mass, Closer to Latin, Critics Voice a Plain Objection". The New York Times, 11 April 2011.
 "Press Conference on Liturgical Texts"Association of Catholic Priests - Ireland. 3 February 2011. 
McBrein, Richard. "The New Roman Missal". National Catholic Reporter, 22 February, 2010.
Ryan, Michael. "What if We Just Said, 'Wait'". America, 14 December, 2009
Trautman, Donald. "A Pastoral Deficit" The Tablet, 18 February 2012. 


Other links and Further reading Please Check: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/.