The structure of the collects:
Relative clauses often disappear in the proposed text (especially the initial Deus, qui ..., so important in the Latin Collects), so that a single oration is divided into two or more sentences. This loss is detrimental not only to the unity of the structure, but to the manner of conveying the proper sense of the posture before God of the Christian people, or of the individual Christian. The relative clause acknowledges God's greatness, while the independent clause strongly conveys the impression that one is explaining something about God to God. Yet it is precisely the acknowledgment of the mirabilia Dei that lies at the heart of all Judeo-Christian euchology. The quality of supplication is also adversely affected so that many of the texts now appear to say to God rather abruptly: "You did a; now do b." the manner in which language expresses relationship to God cannot be regarded merely as a matter of style.
All who appreciate English agree that Archbishop Cranmer translated the Latin Collects into a form of English that has not been surpassed and which also gave to the English language of prayer one of its distinctive ways of addressing the Father in the Name of the Son.
Regrettably the Roman Church decided in the 1970s not to use the classic English idiom of the language of prayer in the translation of the content of the Latin service books. It chose to go for "contemporary English" and, since there was no agreed form of the language of prayer and worship in this modern style, there has been much controversy between conservative and radical forces ever since. So the Roman Church is yet a long way from agreement concerning the English texts of her major services. Likewise we may add the Protestant Churches still search for an agreed form of English for public worship and for Bible translation.
Thus the translation of the Collects is but one aspect of this whole matter that is no nearer solution now than it was in 1980.
For example, let us take the Collect for Purity in the Order for Holy Communion. In the original Latin of the Sarum Missal it begins, "Deus, qui omne cor patet." [God to whom every heart is open.].
Cranmer's rendering is: "Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee and worthily magnify thy holy Name;."
Here the logic is that the priest and congregation in the presence of God the Father REMEMBER certain revealed truths about God (that He is all seeing and all knowing) and in this reverential mood make a petition (for cleansing of the heart etc.).
From the 1970s this traditional structure of prayer was all but abandoned by Roman Catholics and Anglicans for the following:
"Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known and from you no secrets are hid: Cleanse.."
Here the logic is that priest and congregation stand before God and presume to tell him what he already knows and, we may add, knows in a far more profound way than any human being could ever know! Instead of reverence there is familiarity, as if the conversation were between two near equals!
This modern structure is found in hundreds of modern Collects. A particularly bad one occurs at the beginning of the new marriage service of the Church of England:
"God of wonder and of joy: grace comes from you, and you alone are the source of life and love. Without you we cannot please you; without your love, our deeds are worth nothing. Send your Holy Spirit.."
We, mere mortal creatures, with finite minds and limited knowledge, dare to tell God what He knows perfectly and what we know from Him and only
imperfectly. And then we command him, "Send your Holy Spirit." Shame on us!
The wise men of the Vatican put it this way: "The relative clause acknowledges God's greatness, while the independent clause strongly conveys the impression that one is explaining something about God to God. Yet it is precisely the acknowledgment of the mirabilia Dei that lies at the heart of all Judeo-Christian euchology."
If we were dealing with the odd Collect here or there than perhaps we could turn a blind eye, but as a study of the Roman Sacramentary, or Common Worship of the Church of England, or the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church USA, reveals we are dealing with many examples of such Collects and thus of a mindset, an ethos, an attitude deeply ingrained in the minds of modern liturgists.
When some of us have expressed concern about this widespread phenomenon (it occurs most weeks in the Liturgy) we have been told such things as this -- the structure of the Latin and of Cranmer's English (which became standard English!) is out of date and we do not these days use relative clauses in this manner.
Don't we? Well we do (or at least well known writers and novelists do)! Ian Robinson has collected some of this modern usage -- see ' "You Who", a brief anthology' in the book, The Real Common Worship, ed. Peter Mullen, Edgeways Books, 2000. [sales@edgewaysbooks.com]
The Vatican asumes that "You" is here to stay in the addressing of God in Roman Catholic public worship in English (this assumption could change!). However, it is now calling for not only accurate and pleasing translation from the Latin but also for a language of prayer that is truly one that promotes reverence before Almighty God, the heavenly Father.
We may observe that so many English-speaking Catholics have become used to the dumbing-down process in language since the 1970s that they may well resist attempts to create a form of English that is truly and really a language of prayer and worship. Right now, sad to say, Roman Catholics speaking English do not have a satisfactory language of worship and prayer - and neither do Protestants who insist on using only "contemporary" English!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
No comments:
Post a Comment