The Catholic Biblical
Association of
America
LITURGICAL AND BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM
The Revised Sacramentary and Revised New American Bible Lectionary
Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, STD, SSL
Bishop of Erie
Talk given at University of St. Thomas School of Theology at St. Mary's Seminary, Houston, Texas, on February 27, 1997
Among the most significant and pivotal religious events of the twentieth century stands the renewal of Catholic Liturgy. In fact, the twentieth century has witnessed the simultaneous growth of three great revivals within the Church liturgical, biblical and catechetical. All three are interconnected: a renewed liturgy leads to a greater love and understanding of the bible; a greater appreciation of the word of God, embodied in the liturgy, leads to a more zealous proclamation of the word in catechetics. The Catholic Church in the United States can boast of its contributions to all three movements.(1)
The Council Fathers of Vatican II embraced and endorsed a liturgical revival as the central focus of Church renewal. With clear and decisive words, the Council Fathers stated that the reform and restoration of the liturgy must be seen as a "sign of the providential disposition of God in our time, a movement of the Holy Spirit."(2)
With bold and authoritative words, the Council Fathers reestablished liturgy in its rightful place on center stage in the life of the Church: "The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time, it is the fount from which all the Church's power flows."(3)
The central importance of liturgy in the life of the Church is unequivocally reflected in these conciliar words: "Every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the Priest and of His Body the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others. No other action of the Church can match its claim to efficacy, nor equal the degree of it."(4)
Here the Church defines liturgy as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ.
Clearly the liturgical movement of the twentieth century, reaching its zenith at Vatican II, has left distinguishing and lasting marks on the Church's life. What are these marks? What are these liturgical achievements?
The Vernacular
The restoration of the role of the assembly with full, conscious and active
participation
The Church defined as people of God
The participation of lay people in various liturgical ministries
The recognition of the multiple presences of Christ in the liturgy (assembly, Word, priest and
pre-eminently the Eucharist)
The dominant role of Sacred Scripture in all liturgical rites the opening of the storehouse of
Scripture as reflected in the three-year cycle of biblical readings for Sundays and the two-year cycle
for weekdays
The renewal of biblical preaching
The restoration of the catechumenate and scripture-centered catechesis
The restoration of noble simplicity in liturgical rites
The ecclesial recognition of liturgical adaptation and inculturation ("Norms for adapting the
liturgy to the genius and traditions of peoples" Constitution on Sacred Liturgy #37-40).
The Reformed liturgical books
This is the legacy of liturgical renewal. In the course of centuries much of the vitality in the worship
life of the Church had been lost, but thanks to the "movement of the Holy Spirit" at Vatican II, a new
beginning was made. The Church of the twentieth century now donates to the Church of the twenty-first
century, a rich liturgical inheritance a dynamic and ongoing process of renewal.
Nothing is more evident at the core of Christian life than our public worship. It is therefore
understandable that the reforms of Vatican II made their greatest impact in the area of liturgy. Thirty years
after the renewal of Vatican II, liturgy remains the battleground, the focal point for tensions in the Church. It
is disconcerting to hear voices in the Church that call us away from the vernacular in the liturgy. Those who
seek a return to liturgical life, as it was prior to Vatican II, contradict the teaching of that Council. It is
disconcerting to hear voices in the Church accuse liturgists of de-emphasizing the sacred. Good liturgy will
always seek a balance between transcendence and immanence. It is disconcerting to have liturgists blamed
for all the ills of the Church. Due to many cultural forces, society itself has changed radically since the
nineteen sixties. We must avoid simplistic approaches that call us back to an era that has passed. A pre-Vatican II liturgical theology and practice have no chance of speaking to a post-Vatican II world.
We need, however, to keep in mind that in the contemporary Church, despite all the revision and
reform, there is still a chasm of Grand Canyon proportions between the intended reality and our worship
experience. There are parish communities which are communities in name only. Christopher J. Walsh has
put it so well: "Reforms and revisions we've had in plenty, but liturgical renewal will never be achieved until
our texts, rites and affirmations are translated not into this or that sort of English but into reality in the lived
experience of the people; and they will rarely be experienced as real until the congregations celebrating them
are genuine communities of faith, witness and action."(5)
More than ever we need to realize that the liturgical movement and the reform of Vatican II call for
not simply a change of liturgical forms and texts, but rather a transformation of people. The revision of
liturgical books and rites seeks to give new life to people based on a formation that has its summit and source
in the liturgy. How do we reach that goal? What are some steps toward that transformation? Fundamental
and vital are the liturgical and scriptural texts which give meaning and context to what we celebrate. We seek
transformation through sung and proclaimed texts, especially the Scriptures in the Liturgy of the Word, and
through the liturgical texts of the Sacramentary those texts composed by the Church, such as the prayers of
the Mass and the Eucharistic prayers themselves. We seek transformation foremost through the sacramental
elements, the bread and wine at the Eucharist changed into the body and blood of Christ.
In September 1974, Cardinal Knox, then the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, stated that the liturgical books represented "the basic structures of the liturgical services of the Roman Rite" and adaptation of those books was 'absolutely essential' if the ultimate goal of liturgical reform was to be achieved.(6)
The Church today stands at the brink of the twenty-first century. While the Church has made momentous liturgical contributions to the next century, the Church in the United States awaits two essential liturgical books to complete the liturgical renewal: The Revised Sacramentary and the Revised New American Bible Lectionary.(7)
Part I The Revised Sacramentary
Most of the United States bishops recognize that the proposed translation
and new original prayers in the Revised Sacramentary are a vast improvement
over those presently in use. The Revised Sacramentary is better suited for public
proclamation. It will offer new pastoral introductions and revised translations of
collects, ecumenical texts (e.g. Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed), Prefaces and
Eucharistic prayers, and slightly modified Introductory Rites. The revised missal
also includes certain American adaptations, such as the alternate placement for
the sign of peace and the washing of both men's and women's feet on Holy
Thursday.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops has completed its review of the Revised Sacramentary. All the action items pertaining to this revised Missal have been approved by a two-thirds canonical vote. There are over two thousand texts in the Roman Missal and nearly three hundred original or newly composed texts that have been carefully scrutinized by the bishops. Never in the history of our country have bishops taken such an active role in the examination of liturgical texts. Approximately one hundred-fifty texts have been remanded to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL)(8)
for further
consideration. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops will review the
revisions made to the texts remanded to ICEL at its June 1997 meeting. At that
time the consideration of the revised ICEL translation and proposed American
adaptations to the Roman Missal will be complete. The Bishops Committee on the
Liturgy will then compile the various segments and forward them to the
Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments for
confirmation.
The bishops' approval process for the new Sacramentary has lasted three years and at times it has
been a tedious and tense endeavor. I need to stress that on average, more than three quarters of the bishops
have voted in favor of the revised ICEL segments of the Sacramentary. This is a remarkable vote of
confidence in the work of ICEL, considering that the Apostolic See requires only a two-thirds approval. The
bishops have shown strong support for the revision and admirable patience in dealing with this long and
laborious approval process.
Throughout the three-year debate and vote on the various segments of the revised Missal, the bishops have been concerned about the fidelity of liturgical translations. This concern is certainly in concert with the instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, which states that "the content of the text of the Latin typical edition is to be preserved."(9)
This is essential since it is of the
very nature of translation to "faithfully communicate to a given people, and in their
own language, that which the Church, by means of this given text originally
intended to communicate to another people in another time."(10)
0
Father Anscar J. Chupungco, OSB, of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, observes that
"fidelity to the original refers to the content or meaning of the text, not to the form or component words and
phrases. That is why a word for word translation is not a guarantee of fidelity to text. On the other hand, the
use of dynamic or culturally evocative equivalent to express the original message is the ideal translators
should strive for."(11)
1
How literal should a translation be? Should a translation be made one word at a time, or one phrase
at a time, or is the meaning of each sentence sufficient to be rendered? This is an important question that
raises significant issues. The Instruction on Translation of 1969 responds that "a faithful translation cannot be
judged on the basis of individual words: the total context of this specific act of communication must be kept
in mind, as well as the literary form proper to the respective language."(12)
2
ICEL has faced no easy task in presenting to the English-speaking world accurate, dignified and
intelligible liturgical texts suitable for public proclamation and singing. When the vernacular was decreed for
use in the liturgy more than thirty years ago, there was little experience or expertise available in Catholic
circles for dealing with the vernacular as a liturgical language. ICEL deserves the thanks of the Church for
having pioneered the development of a scholarly, sophisticated and systematic approach to the translation of
Latin liturgical texts into English liturgical texts.
In what ways is the translation of the Revised Sacramentary superior to our present English
Sacramentary? There is greater intelligibility for public recitation and singing. There is coordination of
biblical images in collects with the Scripture readings of the day. There are new pastoral notes and American
adaptations. The new translation also offers greater doctrinal precision. For example, in the Apostles Creed
the words "He descended into hell" have been changed to "He descended to the dead." The present translation
conveys the notion of the fiery hell of the damned, Gehenna. However, the doctrine of the Church, made
explicit in this article, teaches that Christ descended into Sheol. According to the catechism of the Catholic
Church, Christ descended "ad inferna" to free the just who had gone before Him.(13)
3
The Eucharistic Prayers I-IV have been well received over the past twenty years. The revised
translations have changed only that which was necessary for greater fidelity to the Latin text or for the sake of
proclamation. Eucharistic Prayer IV has been rendered inclusive.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal give each
conference of bishops the authority to make variations and adaptations in the revision of liturgical books,
provided that the substantial unity of the Roman Rite is preserved. Missals already published in French,
German, Spanish, Polish and Italian have a large number of variations and adaptations. All of these were
approved by the Apostolic See. "Adaptation" is not a bad word. It is part of our ecclesial tradition to situate
the Gospel in the world and to adapt the rites of the Church to new circumstances. Vatican Council II is a
good example itself of adaptation to contemporary culture while preserving the substance of the faith. In
1994 the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments issued an instruction on The
Roman Liturgy and Inculturation.(14)
4
The Revised Sacramentary holds great promise and potential for God's people.
Part II The Revised New American Bible Lectionary
In his apostolic letter on the third millennium, Pope John Paul II stated, "In
order to know the true identity of Christ, Christians must return with renewed
interest to the bible."(15)
5
On December 13, 1996, all seven active cardinals of the United States met in Rome with the Prefects
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of
the Sacraments. What prompted such a high-level meeting of Church leaders? The cardinals had traveled to
Rome in behalf of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to hasten the approval of the Revised New
American Bible Lectionary, which has been awaiting confirmation in Rome since 1992.(16)
6
The Council Fathers of Vatican II called "all the faithful" to full, conscious and active participation in
the liturgy, and stated such participation is "their right and duty by reason of their baptism."(17)
7
"Jesus, Son of God and Son of Mary, is the all inclusive person in
whom all humankind find the source of their unity and communion.
The Eucharist is His memorial. As such, it is an all inclusive cele-
bration. It is a challenge to all and any kinds of discrimination. It
is a call to affirmation of the dignity of each and every human per-
son. All without exception or preference are called to sit in equality
in sister/brotherly relationship with the Lord Himself, so as to share
together His life."(18)
8
If those girls attended Mass before 1981, they would have heard these
words spoken by the priest over the chalice at mass: "This is the cup of my blood.
The blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all
men." In 1981, the Apostolic See permitted the dropping of that one word "men"
making the text inclusive. For those opposed to inclusive language, is there
anyone who would go back to restoring the word "men" to the words of
consecration?
Inclusive language is a complex and sensitive issue which has ramifications
far beyond translations. It has become the focal point for judging continued
liturgical progress or retrenchment. It is a major pastoral concern for the Church in
the United States.
There has been a noticeable loss of the sense of grammatical gender in the
American usage of the English language. Modern English does not have
grammatical gender the way French, German and Spanish do. With the course of
time and the influence of culture, the meaning of words have changed. Words that
once referred to all human beings are increasingly taken as gender specific and
consequently exclusive. Words such as "man, brethren, forefathers" which were
once understood as inclusive generic terms, today are often understood as
referring to only males. Certain usages of "he, his, and him" once were considered
to be generic and included both women and men, but today, in contemporary
American usage, refer to only males. For more and more people, generic
language no longer works. To refer to women using masculine language appears
to many to be unjust and inaccurate. It does not promote full participation in the
liturgy. The Church today must grapple with the gender specific singular pronoun.
It is important to distinguish vertical inclusive language from horizontal
inclusive language. Vertical inclusive language is God language, and the bishops
of the United States have stated: "In fidelity to the inspired word of God, the
traditional biblical usage for naming persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy
Spirit is to be retained."(19)
9
In many instances, a more inclusive translation will actually be closer to the original Greek or Hebrew
text. For example, consider Mark 8:36,37: "For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit
his life? For what can a man give in return for his life?" This is the Revised Standard Version translation.
However, if you consult the original Greek text, you will find that the word "anthropos" is used for "man".
That Greek word does not mean a male human being, but rather a human being in general. In this instance,
inclusive language actually corrects a distorted translation and accurately brings out the meaning of the
inspired text.
Addressing women, using male language, denies women their own identity. When women are not
named specifically, they are excluded from full participation. This diminishes the Church. It is a problem for
the whole Church, for men and women alike.
While we all admire and welcome the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is
regrettable that it does not employ inclusive language. In paragraph 1579, the
Catechism deals with celibacy, and states: "Called to consecrate themselves with
undivided heart to the Lord and to the affairs of the Lord, they (the ordained
ministers of the Latin Church) give themselves entirely to God and to men." This is
a most unfortunate translation in view of pedophile behavior in our society. This is
not the language to promote celibacy in the contemporary culture of the United
States. This is a dramatic example of why exclusive language is unacceptable.
The longer the confirmation of the new Lectionary is delayed, the greater
difficulty we will have in preventing people from changing biblical texts on the basis
of their own personal likes and dislikes. Great havoc is being done to the inspired
word by people not trained in Scripture. There is an urgent pastoral need for an
approved scripturally- sound Lectionary with the use of horizontal inclusive
language.
Bad inclusive language also exists. The Oxford University Press recently
published "The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version." This is a most
irresponsible translation that offends the doctrine of the Church and revealed
truths. This translation eliminates all references to God the Father. The Lord's
Prayer begins "Our Father Mother in heaven." In some instances, the translation
is not based on the inspired texts and even adds words not found in the original.
In my opinion, this biblical version is not so much a translation as a rewrite based
on contemporary political and social ideologies. The editors of this volume have
done a great disservice to biblical scholarship and the need for a balanced use of
inclusive language.
A new American Lectionary without horizontal inclusive language will be
inferior to other biblical translations, even to those done by fundamentalists, who
certainly uphold the literal meaning of Scripture. This past year a new translation
of the bible, with a recommendation by Billy Graham, was published by Tyndale,
entitled Holy Bible: A New Living Translation. This bible is the work of
conservative, biblical scholars from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Southeastern College of the Assemblies of
God, Westminster Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Dallas
Theological Seminary, and Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary to name just a
few. This text boasts of the fact that it uses gender inclusive language. In the
introductory notes, the translators comment: "In the Pentateuch, most of the laws
are stated in language that is replete with masculine pronouns. But since it is clear
in many cases that the recipients of these laws were both male and female, we
have used gender neutral language where appropriate." Another example is found
in the New Testament of Epistles, where the believers are called "brothers"
(Adelphoi). Yet, it is clear that these Epistles were addressed to all believers
male and female. Thus, we have usually translated this Greek word "brothers and
sisters" or "Christian friends."(20)
0
It will be a sad day for Catholic biblical scholarship and even a sadder day for the pastoral life for the
Church in the United States if the new Lectionary does not incorporate the principles of gender inclusive
language. If biblical scholars from the fundamentalist tradition, who clearly revere the literal interpretation of
the bible, employ gender inclusive language and Roman Catholics are denied that opportunity, there is not
just a liturgical problem, there is an ecclesiological problem of great magnitude. It is the fear of many
Catholic Scripture scholars that our new Lectionary will be called "inclusive" but in fact will offer only a
tokenism, thus making the Lectionary inferior to existing non-Catholic translations.
We have used inclusive language liturgical texts in English since 1976, without any significant
problem. ICEL has used inclusive language rather than gender specific language in the Rites of Anointing
and Viaticum, the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults and the Order of Christian Funerals. These texts have
been well received by our people. Now there is a need to bring inclusive language into the Sacramentary and
the Lectionary.
Finally, let it be stated forcefully that the use of inclusive language does not mean an endorsement of feminist agenda or women's ordination. Inclusive language is simply a recognition of contemporary culture and the changes in the English language. It is clearly a response to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, that there be full participation in the liturgy.
Conclusion
The goal of all bible translation is to convey the meaning of the inspired text
as accurately and faithfully as possible to the modern reader. However, the
Pontifical Biblical Commission notes that "a translation is always more than a
simple transcription of the original text. The passage from one language to
another necessarily involves a change of cultural context."(21)
1
From the beginning of the Church, the proclamation of the Scriptures has been an essential part of the
liturgy. The first Christians inherited the reading of the Scriptures at liturgy from the Synagogue. When the
Scriptures are proclaimed in the midst of the community of believers at liturgy, it is Christ who speaks. The
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states: Christ is "present in His word, because it is He Himself who speaks
when sacred Scripture is read in the Church."(22)
2
When people come to liturgical celebrations, they come with the everyday language of contemporary
life in their ears. When people pray in their own words, they use the language with which they are
conditioned daily. That language reflects the influence of television, videos, movies, newspapers, magazines
and best sellers. Our liturgical and scriptural language must be "within the people's powers of comprehension
and normally should not require much explanation."(23)
3
Liturgical and biblical texts have been evolving for centuries. They connect us to the Church of all ages: past, present and future. May the contemporary Church be open to that further development. Let us be pro-active and persuasive, patient and prayerful as we seek the liturgical and biblical texts for the Third Millennium.
1Pioneers in liturgical movement in the United States include Father Virgil Michel, OSB, Gerald Ellard, SJ, H. A. Reinhold, Martin Hellriegel, Michael Mathias, CSC, Godfrey Diekmann, OSB
2No. 43, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican II
3No. 10, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican II
4No. 7, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican II
5A Sourcebook About Liturgy, pg. 169, ed. by Gabe Huck, Liturgy Training Publications, 1994
6 Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, Collegeville, MN., the Liturgical Press, 1982, #697
7 Precisely, the Second Edition of the Lectionary for Mass using the New American Bible
8 The International Commission on English in the Liturgy was established during the Second Vatican Council on October 17, 1963 by representatives of ten English-speaking Conferences of Bishops: Australia, Canada, England and Wales, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Scotland, South Africa and the United States
9 No. 53, The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation, The Fourth Instruction for the Right Application of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy, March 29, 1994, The Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments
10 Instruction Comme le Prévoit, On The translation of Liturgical Texts for Celebration with a Congregation, Consilium, Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press 1982, #123, 838-880
11 The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation, Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions Newsletter, December 1994, Vol. 21, No. 6
12 Instruction Comme le Prévoit, #6
13 Catechism of the Catholic Church, United States Catholic Conference, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994, No. 632, No. 633
14 Op. Cit.
15 Tertio Millennio Adveniente, No. 40
16 On July 20, 1992, the RNAB Volume I of the Lectionary was sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. 219 Bishops voted in the affirmative and 27 voted in the negative. The biblical translation used in the Lectionary is the New American Bible with revised New Testament and the New American Bible Book of Psalms.
17 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican II, No. 14
18 "Some remarks on women, the Eucharist and inclusive language", Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, Liturgy Office, Vol. 20, No. 2, December 1995 - January 1996, pg. 49
19 "Criteria for the Evaluation of Inclusive Language Translations of Scriptural Texts Proposed for Liturgical Use", Bishops' Committee on Liturgy Newsletter, Oct./Nov. 1990, #30
20 Pg. XLV, Holy Bible: New Living Translation 1996, Tyndale House Publishers
21 The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993, IV, B
22 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican Council II, para. 7
23 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Vatican Council II, para. 34