www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Kelleher and Liturgiam Authenticam

Someone has indicated to me that Fr. Serge Kelleher had authored a response to Liturgiam Authenticam. Does anyone know where to obtain such a document. I cannot find easily.

Fr. Michael

In my view the most comprehensive and professional refutation of Liturgiam Authenticam is Professor Peter Jeffery's Translating Tradition: A Chant Historian Reads Liturgiam Authenticam. A Pueblo Book. Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN. 2005

I don't recall Fr. Serge giving a detailed critique of Liturgiam Authenticam. He did write a book critiquing the RDL, most recently discussed on this forum in Just read Fr. Serge Kelleher's book on the RDL.

Fr. Taft was critical of Liturgiam Authenticam ih his McManus lecture; see Fr. Taft 2007 on liturgical reform, Liturgiam Authenticam, etc..



History repeats itself, see Re: Was RDL, now Q on Father Rober Taft, and repeating my evaluation here again:

Magnum Principium has pretty much returned the power to the Episcopal Conferences that was withdrawn by Liturgiam Authenticam.

Here's a somewhat different take on it: Magnum Principium: A US Perspective [ncregister.com]; it is a conservative perspective.

The process, who's in charge, who has the authority is one thing, the quality and propriety and principles of the translation is another. So for the Latins and for us (mutatis mutandis) is Et cum spiritu tuo, And with your spirit or And also with you? Is Domine, Lord or Father? Why would a liturgical translation drop a word such as holy, of all things (as was previously done by the Latins and is now done by us in the RDL), that is explicit and unambiguous in the source language? And on and on. Does it matter?

A. And with your spirit
B. Lord
C. I don’t know
D. Yes

However LA has taken

Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso
est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti,
in unitate Spritus Sancti,
omnis honor et gloria,
per omnia sæcula sæculorum.

Which had been in the US Missal:

Through him, with him, in him,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,
for ever and ever.

And made it:

Through him, and with him, and in him,
O God, almighty Father,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
for ever and ever.

They impose the Latin word order which does not flow or chant well in English. It does add back God which is good. Adds two ands in which are unnecessary but because they are in the Latin they have to be in English? but lets for all ages of ages stand as forever and ever?

Given the answer to D, I would recommend even challenge those desiring good translations, to seek an answer and acceptable solution to C (and other instances that have been discussed in the past).

Not LA itself explicitly I think (?) but certainly its influence.

Some think not enough because of other issues; see Through him, with him, in him… [praytellblog.com] English can have a problem with indicating or falsely conveying a vocative, a true and intended direct address. How directly are we addressing God in prayer?

I'm not seeing this at all.

I'd say essential. As in the dropping of holy, I am suspicious of translators that think it's ok to eliminate the word God, present in the source, from a liturgical translation. To me these are obvious and blatant examples, accepted by our bishops, of translators that put themselves above the given source text, and that source text held up as being definitive.

As a matter of style the ands add an emphasis, a rhetorical reinforcement. Also I think it makes the chant smoother.

It seems the powers that be have it that the contemporary English speaking world cannot handle ages of ages. Yet, Eucharist Prayer (EP) III (old translation) where Domine is Father (unlike as in their EP I and EP II, where the words have their standard meanings) has from age to age for non desinin, now rendered (reflecting the Latin original) "never cease." So it's ok to invent a positive term age to age for the original's negative expression, but don't consider ages of ages for sæcula sæculorum. As I've said before, too much of the translators and not enough of the text.

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
which does not flow or chant well in English.

I'm not seeing this at all.

The order is not natural English for one. Maybe you have to hear it chanted live. The old one flowed, the new one not so much.

It's not the expected bland, flat-footed prose, and I'd say more "natural" than a lot of English poetry that is understood and appreciate for its beauty. Lofty thoughts sometimes demand lofty words and expression. I've infrequently heard both new and old versions chanted in English and a difference did not stand out to me but they were not heard side-by-side for comparison, and the voice of the priest not factored in.

But what is the source language, here Latin but the same for Slavonic and Greek etc., saying in its fullest sense, and to what extent is the translator required to, and responsible for, conveying that precise meaning and emphasis? The link I gave was rightly concerned about direct address, for instance. Based on the final product, the modern-progressive (versus modern-traditional) approach cares little of details, nuances and subtleties. For instance, Latin, an inflected language, word order is more flexible than English and consequently choice of word order is making a statement. Consider again:

1. Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso
2. est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti,
3. in unitate Spritus Sancti,
4. omnis honor et gloria,
5. per omnia sæcula sæculorum.

The Father as the recipient is mentioned in the dative not the vocative immediately after the Him, the Son. Is that important to convey? Can English do it without sounding awkward, a subjective evaluation? The Holy Spirit is mentioned next. So what I would want a translation true to the source's presumed intent to convey is:

1. a stylized reference to Him, the Son, with an intended rhetorical repetitious use of and
2. to whom the prayer is directed but not as a direct address
3. completing the Trinitarian formula and ecclesial epiklesis-type statement, in the unity of the Holy Spirit
4. the expression of the doxology
5. the customary completion.

The est, is, in 2.is too awkward there in English. Working through the Latin with those considerations I get, except for 5.and dropping the O that can imply direct address, the 2008 recognitio version in the link I provided:

1 Through Him, and with Him, and in Him,
2 to You, God almighty Father,
3 in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
4 is all honor and glory,
5 through all (the) ages of ages.

The is in 4 is not newspaper English, true, but for me not jolting, especially if chanted as it should be. I haven't found present settings in English or Latin online. In the old Latin missal only 5 was chanted as the ekphonesis; 1975 Latin versions are in a publication Ordo Missae by the monks of Solesmes. That chant seems flexible enough to accommodate a variety of English renderings.

Thanks to Liturgiam Authenticam, I can go to Mass anywhere in the United States; no problem. You hear Catholicism in the text even at liberal parishes because they have to use the book or else. I came back into the church three weeks after I saw and heard it implemented for myself on the First Sunday of Advent 2011. It's like a theologically corrected version of the first Anglican services I remember. It doesn't have the sentimental value of Anglican English but it's an equivalent. Me: English-speaking Catholics have no tradition of English in the liturgy so they don't care about translations. The only English prayers they care about are the ones they do have a tradition with: the prayers of the Rosary. That's why in the missal and even the most liberal parish, the Our Father is in Tudor English.