A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal: A New English Translation ed. by Edward Foley, et al.

Abstract

Reviewed by: A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal: A New English Translation ed. by Edward Foley, et al. David A. Pitt Edward Foley, et al., editors A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal: A New English Translation Developed Under the Auspices of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy Collegeville, MN: Pueblo Books, 2011 xxxiii+694 pages. Hardcover. $59.95. Surveying the array of books, articles, and opinions written leading up to, and immediately following, the implementation of the English translation of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal four years ago, it is clear that a great many were primarily concerned with the proximity of the event. A great many seem, now, out of place: arguments concerning the overall legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the translation and its process bespeak the particularity of that time; and, happily, the combative and/or dismissive tones in which they were frequently put forward seem to have softened. It is therefore noteworthy that A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal was authored within this context. For while it was, indeed, particularly timely, as a result of its structure and method, its greatest value lies in its enduring contribution to the liturgical life of the Church. At the heart of the volume are fifty-three essays authored by twenty different scholars. Treating only the Ordinary of the Mass, the essays are organized around the three principles for reform articulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 23: theological, historical, and pastoral. The structure is established by three introductory essays (“The Ordo Missae of the Roman Rite: Historical Background,” “The History of Vernaculars and Role of Translation,” and “Mystagogy: Discerning the Mystery of Faith”), which each weave the three principles together regarding their specific area of focus. Then, for each of the larger units (Introductory Rites, Liturgy of the Word, Preparation of the Gifts, Communion Rite, and Concluding Rites) and Eucharistic Prayers (I–IV, Reconciliation I and II, and Various Needs), a five-fold structure is essentially the same. First, a side-by-side comparison between the Latin and English texts are offered, without any commentary. Second, the history of the Latin text and rite is described. These essays refer the reader back to the origin of individual elements, whether these [End Page 281] be in medieval manuscript sources, or more recent innovations. This method offers readers the opportunity to assess the place of individual liturgical elements within the rite. Particularly helpful here were references to the possibilities that were envisioned in the post-conciliar liturgical reform. Third, essays treating the theology of the Latin text and rite are offered. Here a presentation of the relationship of particular elements to the larger sense of the liturgy and to the life of the Church affords readers the opportunity to reflect upon the significance of those elements within the larger liturgical structure. Fourth, the English translation of the Latin text and rite is examined. These essays contain both praise (e.g., the use of ambo instead of lectern, 181) and critique (e.g., the use of the false friend “acclaim” for “acclamo,” 181) for the translation, insofar as the translations have either highlighted or diminished the sense of the Latin original. The essays make reference to those occasions where the translation stands in opposition to the original Latin (e.g., “sive … sive” of the Preparation of the Gifts, 219), but sharpest critique in these essays is reserved for those instances where translations are judged to have been unaffected by scholarship (e.g., “bonae voluntatis” of the Gloria, 140) or appear to have contravened the official methodology for translation (e.g., “astare” of Eucharistic Prayer II, 332). While in lesser hands these essays may have contributed to resurrecting earlier conflicts, Anscar Chupungco, Gilbert Ostdiek, and Tom Elich must be commended for their astute and balanced work. It is clear that these criticisms are intended constructively. Fifth, essays offer mystagogical implications for the texts and rites being studied by asking the very pastoral questions—how are Christians to “do” what is asked by the liturgy as they live lives of faith? These essays are among the most universally accessible in...