Rantings on Liturgical Music

I offered a Requiem Mass (in the ordinary form) at a wake earlier. Before the Mass, the members of the choir approached me to ask if they may sing the responses at the Mass. "Old translation or new translation?" I quickly asked. "The old, father," the leader said, "we have not yet updated ourselves." I was disappointed with the answer as the implementation in the Philippines of the new English translation of the Roman Missal was a year behind the implementation in most English speaking countries.

I ask: Why is it that in spite of the formation given by the Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, choirs still insist on singing the responses in the old translation? If the priests are obliged to use the new translation, why should the noncompliance of the choir be toleration. I think that insisting on using the text of the old translation is really arrogance. If priests must follow rules, why shouldn't the choir? Also, in the Philippines, certain compositions paraphrased the official text. This is the bad case of lyrics adjusting to the melody. Why should the text suffer just so that the composition may fit into the melody? Is the liturgical text the servant of the music? I don't think so! The music is the servant of the liturgical text. Fine! "Mundo" and "sanlibutan" might be synonyms. But the official text of the Agnus Dei in Tagalog is "Kordero ng Diyos na nag-aalis ng mga kasalanan ng SANLIBUTAN" and not "Kordero ng Diyos na nag-aalis ng mga kasalanan ng MUNDO..." I think that composers of liturgical music must have the humility required to make their compositions submissive and faithful to the liturgical text.

In the extraordinary form, these things I speak of are not problems!

Also, I ask: Can't the choir prepare a repertoire appropriate for a Requiem Mass? If the bereaved family requires the services of a priest for a Requiem Mass, I think that it will be inappropriate for the priest to preach a wedding homily. He is expected to speak on the reality of the four last things. If this were the case, then would it be too much to expect from the choir to sing songs appropriate for the occasion? Why should the choir have a greater license than the priest? Everybody involved in the Sacred Liturgy ought to have the humility required to submit the self to liturgical laws. The liturgy is not ours. It belong to Christ. It belongs to the Church.

Rejoinder on Pro Multis

A reader of this blog e-mailed me a response to the arguments which I posted on behalf of the direct translation of "pro multis" in the new English Missal. I did not really understand what the other blogger was trying to say but it seems it ended with an "ad hominem" argument which sort of discredits the validity of what I quoted simply because of the prestige of Fr. Chupungco.

I will not go down to that level. Rather, I would bring out the following more objective arguments in behalf of the direct translation of "pro multis" to "for many."

Allow me to quote Matthew 26:28: "for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins." Next is the translation of Mark 14:24: "and he said to them, 'This is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many.'" Where did I get these translations? I got them from the "New Testament Confraternity Version: a Revision of the Challoner-Rheims version edited by Catholic Scholars under the patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine".

The New American Bible, which is the Scriptural source of the English Lectionary, has this translation of Matthew 26:28: "For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." The same New American Bible has this translation of Mark 14:24: "He said to them, 'This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many.'"

The Magandang Balita Bibliya, which is the Scriptural source of the Tagalog Lectionary, has this translation of Matthew 26:28: "Sapagkat ito ang dugo ng tipan, ang aking dugo na mabubuhos dahil sa marami, sa ikapagpapatawad ng mga kasalanan." The same Magandang Balita Bibliya has this translation of Mark 14:24: "Sinabi niya, 'Ito ang aking dugo ng tipan, ang dugong mabubuhos dahil sa marami.'"

These are new translations which, surprisingly, translated "pro multis" to "in behalf of many" and "dahil sa marami." My question is: why did these Scripture scholars insist on translating "pro multis" to "in behalf of many"?

To insist on the argument that it is preferable to translate "pro multis" to "for all" simply because a prestigious liturgist like Fr. Chupungco has spoken is simply an "ad hominem" argument. If Fr. Chupungco is an authority in liturgical matters, I suppose we should also acknowledge the expertise of the bible translators in the field of Scriptural studies. If the basis of the "Institution Narrative" is the Holy Writ, why should the translation in the missal be different from the translation in the Scripture?

I find it very uncomfortable that when I celebrate the Mass of Corpus Christi during the Year B cycle, I read the gospel according to St. Mark which says "in behalf of many" only to say it differently at the institution narrative as "for all." I say two different things in the same celebration of the Mass!!!

I do not mean to be disrespectful to my teacher Fr. Chupungco but even in spite of his prestige, I still beg to differ. I hope that Fr. Chupungco does not get mad at me. He should be proud of me instead because he knows that I don't easily accept things that he said. At least, he knows that I am using my grey matter...I am thinking!

Fr. George Rutler on the New Translation, on Liturgists and on Ad Orientem

I have always been a fan of Fr. George Rutler because I find him as a man of culture. I respect his views and I love his preaching over EWTN. With what he wrote on the New English translation, liturgists and Ad Orientem, I couldn't have said it better!
Read and be educated:
Fr. George Rutler on the New Translation, on Liturgists and on Ad Orientem

Pro Multis

"The current translation of the words of Jesus over the cup has been changed in accord with the method of literal translation. The words “it will be shed for you and for all” have been revised to read “which will be poured out for you and for many” because the original Latin says pro multis (for many), not pro omnibus (for all). The new translation ignores the exegetical context of the words Jesus pronounced at the Last Supper. He was not restricting his offer of salvation to a group of people. His sacrifice was for all, as the New Testament affirms again and again, although every one must welcome in faith his offer of salvation. The apprehension that the word “all” might be interpreted as automatic salvation for all does not justify the shift to “many”. In most languages “many” and “all” are not mutually inclusive. As it stands, the new English translation of pro multis does not render faithfully what Jesus declared at the Last Supper...In 2006 the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to the presidents of the conferences of bishops regarding the translation of pro multis. It urged them to correct the current translation “for all”, because the Latin text says “for many”. It elucidates that the phrase “for many” is the exact translation, while “for all” is not a translation but a catechetical explanation of the words Jesus pronounced over the cup. Biblical exegetes, like Albert Vanhoye, beg to differ." (Fr. Anscar Chupungco, WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THE ENGLISH LITURGY?)

By saying "The new English translation of pro multis does not render faithfully what Jesus declared at the Last Supper," is Fr. Chupungco implying that ICEL's mistranslation of pro multis to "for all men" is the faithful rendition of our Lord's words? He invokes the ignorance of "the exegetical context of the words of Jesus pronounced at the Last Supper" for the insistence on behalf of the more literal translation of pro multis to "for many". While invoking the authority of modern exegesis, Fr. Chupungco disregards what the Catechism of the Council of Trent said about the matter: "The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew (26:28), some from Luke (22:20), but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: for you, He meant either those who were present, or those present or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many (Heb. 9:28); and also the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine (Jn. 17:9)." (J. McHugh and C. Callian, Catechism of the Council of Trent, 227-28.)

St. Alphonsus Liguori, bishop and doctor of the Church, has this to say about the matter: "The words pro vobis et pro multis are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a cetain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only those who cooperate with grace." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist.)

Well, of course, Fr. Chupungco's party will say that I quote from pre-Vatican II sources and such already speaks of ignorance about modern exegesis. But is this not what St. Pius X warned us of? I think that his warning about the Modernists' bias against the Fathers of the Church can also speak for their bias against anything that is associated with Tradition:

"The Modernists pass judgement on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon Tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entrirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived." (Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 8 September 1907, 42.)

Fr. Chupungco mentioned that in 2006, the CDW sent a letter to the presidents of the episcopal conferences urging them to correct the translation "for all" because the Latin text says "for many." I could not remember the CBCP or even my own bishop sending any circular directing the correction of the translation "for all" to "for many." Why is it so? Is it because the Philippine bishops regard Fr. Chupungco as the only liturgical authority? How about the authority of the Holy See? I think we should remember that theologians, no matter how brilliant they are, should not see themselves as above the Holy See. Episcopal conferences, while relying on the expertise of their consultants, must give the letters from the Holy See greater weight than the opinion of their experts.

The New Missal: Disaster or Opportunity? [Updated]

In the New Liturgical Movement blog, this interesting article on the new Missal translation in English is worth our careful attention. Unfortunately, in the Philippines, there seems to be some silence regarding the new English Translation which has received the recognitio from the Holy See. Is there a silent "conspiracy" in the Philippines to simply ignore the new English translation? Just asking.

The whole article responds to the accusation that the new translation is a regression. I would like to post an excerpt of the article:

"the new Missal translation does not return to something past. A reading of the
texts does not reveal precious or antiquated language; there are no thee's and
thou's. This excerpt from the Third Eucharistic Prayer is not Elizabethan or
King James English:

Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial
of the saving Passion of your Son,
his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven,
and as we look forward to his second coming,
we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

This is not antiquated English; this is formal and sacral English.

To use this kind of language is not "retrograde," nor does it represent an effort to "freeze" the "Spirit of Vatican II." It is, instead, faithful to the nature of the Liturgy -- a formal and public worship, where formal language is therefore appropriate.
Sacral language marks what we are doing as sacred and holy, not ordinary or
everyday. The Mass, as the "source and summit" from which our life in Christ
flows, is the holiest thing that we do, in which we participate in Christ's own
prayer as high priest. If that doesn't warrant language set apart from the
ordinary, then nothing does."

The author (Rev. Robert Johansen) gave this conclusion:

"The new Missal, because of its greater fidelity, will be an antidote to that
confusion. If my own effort to gauge the response of faithful Catholics shows
anything, it is that most of the people in the pews will take the implementation
of the new language in stride. Far from the "pastoral disaster" feared by some,
I believe that the new Missal, if approached in a spirit of fidelity, will
provide all Catholics with an opportunity to enrich their faith and lead to the
deeper participation in the liturgy that Vatican II envisioned."

Just follow the link:The New Missal: Disaster or Opportunity? [Updated]