The Scandal of the 2011 Missal

Nov 30, 2017 | 12 comments

Why exactly did we find ourselves in 2011 suddenly obliged to declare that Jesus as Son of God is ‘consubstantial’ with the Father?  Why had it been supposed that this would clarify what had been meant by ‘of one being with’ the Father – the previous translation of the Creed from the Roman missal, used in Ireland since 1972?

And why in the same prayer were we now saying that ‘For us men and for our salvation’ Jesus had come down from heaven, when ‘for us and our salvation‘ would have left half of the human race untroubled by the possibility that only those with male chromosomes could fully enthuse about that event?

As for terms such as ‘oblation‘, ‘prevenient grace’ and ‘sustenance’ – and flatly ugly and incomprehensible phrases such as ‘merit to become co-heirs‘ – who exactly had supposed that the liturgy had been improved in solemnity and clarity by these?  Had English truly been the vernacular of the person or persons who had delivered these galumphing atrocities?

And why those impossibly long sentences in the Eucharistic Prayers at the centre of the Mass, prayers that so often lead officiating clergy to substitute Eucharistic Prayer II, the most succinct of the four, for any of the other three?

For a truly literate, succinct and quite shocking explanation of these mysteries the curious reader need look no further than Lost in Translation‘ by O’Collins and Wilkins.  In just over 100 pages this (for me indispensable) book tells us not only why we are still trying to pronounce the unpronounceable at Mass, but why we should instead be using a far superior translation of the missal prepared by people who could speak and write English – a translation that was shelved in 1998 in the cause of what looks extraordinarily like Roman pique and amour propre.

The timeline at the foot of this review will summarise the complete dreadful tale – of what can only be interpreted as Roman resentment that Vatican II had given Catholic bishops anywhere the strange notion that they could do without Roman supervision when it came to deciding what wordage was to convey the meaning of the liturgy in Ireland, England, New Zealand, The United States, Australia et al.

It was especially interesting to learn here why such luminaries as Evagrius of Antioch, St Thomas Aquinas and Blessed John Henry Newman had long ago rejected the practice of translating sacred texts in a simple word-for-word sequence, carrying over even the elaborate structure of complex Latin sentences to a language that still lives.  As brevity, simplicity and clarity are exemplified in, for example, Jesus’s rendition of the Lord’s prayer, it is surely to these ideals and to the meaning of the original that the translator needs to be faithful first of all.  Liturgiam Authenticam – the document that in 2001 mandated that translation take place on the basis of a quite contrary word-for-word method – flew in the face of advice given by St Thomas in the 13th century:

“It is . . . the task of the good translator, when translating material dealing with the Catholic faith, to preserve the meaning but to adapt the mode of expression, so that it is in harmony with the idiom of the language into which he is translating.”

Yet this greatest of the medieval theologians was drawing on a far older tradition of paying attention first of all to the sense of the original.  As early as the fourth century Evagrius of Antioch had translated from Greek into Latin a life of St. Antony of Egypt – advising in the preface that “A word-for-word translation from one language into another conceals the meaning and strangles it, even as spreading couch grass [does to] a field of corn… Whatever lack may be in the words, there is none in the meaning. Let others go hunting after letters and syllables; do you seek for the meaning.”

How then could it have happened that in 2011 there would come a translation of the Missal that would flagrantly flout that long-established principle, and inflict the couch grass of ‘oblation’, ‘merit to’ – and the syntax of Cicero – etc upon all of us?  This slim volume cuts to the chase on this admirably.

It does far more than that.  It compares key passages in the 2011 Missal with what we might now be using instead, if the 1998 ICEL translation – the one that had satisfied eleven conferences of anglophone bishops and that is still gathering dust – had been accepted almost two decades ago by the Holy See.  Here, for example are comparable renditions of the prayer over the offerings for the feast of the Immaculate Conception:

1998 rejected ICEL version

In your goodness, Lord, receive the sacrifice of salvation which we offer on the feast of the immaculate conception. We profess in faith that your grace preserved the Virgin Mary from every stain of sin; through her intercession deliver us from all our faults.

2011 Missal version

Graciously accept the saving sacrifice which we offer you, O Lord, on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and grant that, as we profess her, on account of your prevenient grace, to be untouched by any stain of sin, so through her intercession, we may be delivered from all our faults.

To compare just these two passages is to see clearly the impact of the translation protocols at work in the 2011 missal.  Obsequious courtly terms such as ‘graciously’ and ‘solemnity’ – and theological power terms such as ‘prevenient’ must clutter up and extend the verbiage, and the passage must also be one long single sentence.  The normal conventions of punctuation, aimed at the needs of the celebrant who must enunciate the text, have been sacrificed in the cause of pomposity.  Most importantly, the meaning of ‘prevenient’ – perfectly rendered in the 1998 translation – has been lost in the 2011 version.

As I obviously cannot go on here with further such comparisons I can only urge those interested to read this book – to be convinced that the cause of the restoration of the discarded 1998 translation needs the most urgent support.

There is an even more important point made by this book:  that in overruling the anglophone bishops’ conferences on the missal this curial interference of the late 1900s was a flouting of a key principle of Vatican II – that key responsibility for church governance belongs to regional conferences of bishops also.  If the bishops of Ireland, England, Wales etc can so easily capitulate to such flagrant and foolish overreach, what kind of precedent has been set for the future, and what conclusions should those bishops now come to regarding other matters critical to the health of their own congregations – under a jurisdiction inclined (for how long?) towards decentralisation?  Those bishops too should read this book – as a warning to seek the gifts of the Holy Spirit (including fortitude) in any such future assault on Vatican II, the only sure gateway to the future – and to pray for those gifts right now also, in urgent consideration of a missal that clearly should not still be in required use.

I chose carefully the word ‘scandal’ for the title of this article.  A scandal is a ‘stumbling block’ – an obstacle to belief.  This short book explains how and why the 2011 missal became a clear obstacle to the belief that common sense, scholarship and wisdom will always guide the leaders of our church – and makes a formidable case for the conclusion that this travesty needs to be cleared out of everyone’s way as speedily as possible.



1963Sacrosanctum ConciliumVatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy – stipulates that responsibility for determining the liturgy would rest with the Holy See and the bishops of different regions.  It allows translation into the vernacular, to be ‘approved’ by regional bishops, and makes no mention of the need to have such translations ‘recognized’ by the Holy See.

1964Sacram Liturgiam – a motu proprio or personal edict by Pope Paul VI prescribes submitting translations to the Holy See for an official recognitio or approval.

1972 – ICEL – (The International Commission on English in the Liturgy) – introduces first vernacular translation of the Roman Missal.  This comes into use in 1973, and remains in use until 2011.

1981 – ICEL begins painstaking revision of the 1972 Missal.

1998 – ICEL wins support for new English translation from eleven English-speaking bishops’ conferences and submits this completed translation to Rome.  It is rejected without discussion by Cardinal Medina Estévez, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who also then demands radical changes to ICEL which place it under Vatican control.

2001 – A new document, Liturgiam Authenticam, is issued by the CDW, changing the rules for translation of the liturgy and emphasising the need for word-for-word (rather than meaning-for-meaning) translation.

2011 – The 1972 missal is replaced by a new word-by-word translation prepared by a reconstituted ICEL, gifting English-speaking congregations everywhere with e.g. ‘consubstantial’ in place of ‘of one being’ in the Nicene Creed.  Lengthy sentences following the structure of Ciceronian Latin are declared literally ‘unspeakable’ by some priests – and in Ireland some clergy continue to use the 1972 translation.

2016 – Pope Francis appoints a commission to revisit the rules for translation set out in Liturgiam Authenticam .

2017 – (September) Pope Francis in the motu proprio ‘Magnum Principium’ restores to the conferences of English-speaking bishops the authority to translate the liturgy.

Sean O’Conaill, 30th November, 2017


  1. Colm Holmes

    Thanks Sean, excellent summary. Why Oh why can’t we use the 1998 translation now? Is it really because so much money has been invested in printing the gobbledygook 2011 version?

  2. Aidan

    If we are going for a new, more meaningful translation of the Mass why not include a more meaningful translation of the Lord’s Prayer, replacing such out-of-date words and theologically misleading phrases as ‘art’(in heaven), ‘hallowed’, ‘Thy’ , ‘trespasses’ , ‘and give us this day our daily bread’, ‘and lead us not into temptation’ . If one argues that we are all used to the current translation of the Lord’s Prayer and so ‘they’ should keep it as it is, one is missing the point, falling into the same trap as the current translation of the Mass and not paying sufficient attention to the current younger generation and future generations, many of whom have found the whole Mass boring and meaningless in its current format and departed the Church or at least ceased to attend Mass.
    We also need to look at the Prayers of the Faithful which are rarely ‘of the local faithful’ present at Mass but rather written by a cleric in another part of Ireland or elsewhere and also do away with such a meaningless departing instruction, which crops up every now and then in the Mass leaflet, as ‘Go, the Mass is ended’ , which sounds like ‘OK folk, the Mass is over so off you all go home now!’ How about ‘Go and live the Mass in your everyday lives and announce its Good News in all your words and actions!’ or something similar and more meaningful than ‘Go, the Mass is ended!’. And stop cutting hymns short as soon as the priest arrives at the altar or leaves the altar at the end of Mass and thus often missing the key verse at the end of the hymn. It makes hymn singing into, not a higher form of prayer which it is, but filler while the priest comes and goes. And how about a wider range of more joyful, modern hymns and frequent instructions for the congregation to join in and not just leave the singing to the choir. How about more reflective silence after each reading of Scripture and perhaps some shared reflections from invited members of the congregation. These and many other issues need to be addressed and not just a better translation within the current structure of the Mass.

    • Annie Orourke

      wow Aidan I guess you’ve gotten these down well. I’ve never even considered that we could have any chance whatsoever of re-doing all those stinkin’ words. I’ve taken to sitting off in a corner so that i could do those prayers in a way that made sense- so now i’m not even part of the congregation anymore. and all that just because they couldnt make anything meaningful. Then over all these years they’d change the wording to ‘consubstantial’. Holy shit. i took Latin 5 years, studied all the Desert Fathers and mystics and seriously meditated for 10 years and the word consubstantial makes sense but not here and not in the 20th century!! maybe 3rd C ???? So thank you so much for opening that door and articulating what needed to be done

    • Martin Murray

      Very well said Aidan. In relation to your comments on the singing at Mass I couldn’t agree more. In reducing hymns to liturgical bookends we are missing out on a wonderful opportunity for uniting voices, hearts and minds in worship which in itself is transformative.

      There is another issue too which Richard Rohr has highlighted in his recent daily reflections (17/12/2017) when he says: “Much of common religion is well-disguised self-interest — high premium fire insurance for the afterlife — instead of self-emptying love. Most of the official Catholic liturgical prayers ask in some form, “That I or we might go to heaven (This is not a guess. I have counted!)” Is there no other priority than my personal salvation? Jesus talked much more about how to live on earth now than about how to get to heaven later.” Surely this adds to the sense of irrelevance and alienation experienced by many, especially young people (still) attending Mass. So yes, I agree: its not just about translation. There is much to be done, but as with so much in the clericalised church, it seems the liturgy is ring-fenced and in the hands of the wrong people.

    • Pat Thomas

      Amen > Make it easy to say,easy to pray and easier to understand

  3. Noel McCann

    Many thanks, Sean, for this excellent summary. So the bishops have no plans to take any action following the Pope’s decision to delegate responsibility for the translation of the missal to local episcopal conferences. According to the Irish Catholic “Msgr Joseph McGuinness, who chairs the Irish Church’s Council for Liturgy, confirmed to The Irish Catholic this week that there is no plan at present for the Irish Episcopal Conference either to authorise its own translation, or to revisit the translation produced by ICEL (the International Commission for English in the Liturgy) in 1998”. Bishop of Achonry Dr Brendan Kelly – who also sits on the bishops’ liturgy commission – is quoted in the Irish Catholic as saying “the cost and effort of producing the current version of the Roman Missal made a revision at this time prohibitive”. Surely, if the mass and the eucharist are at the centre of our faith, given the damage caused by the current, awful translation,no cost and no effort should be spared in trying to undo the scandal of the 2011 translation imposed, as we now know, by powerful Vatican officials who hijacked the work of ICEL. Surely it can’be that difficult [or expensive] to revert to the translation used between 1973 and 2011 – even as an interim measure to save us from further exposure to the current translation.

  4. Ann Lardeur

    In the Jesuit Masterpiece “Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils” although Edward Yarnold has consubstantial in his translation of Nicea he continues “for us humans …” “became human”

  5. Ann Lardeur

    Few points of advice from George Orwell. Pity Bishops do not take this on board.
    2.Never use a long word where a short one will do.
    3.If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
    4.Never use the passive where you can use the active.
    5.Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
    6.Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

  6. Anthony Neville

    In September this year the ACI issued a press release urging the Irish bishops to react to the pope’s motu proprio ‘Magnum Principium’ by reverting to the pre – 2011 missal immediately. If a total revision was considered we recommended the 1998 ICEL proposed wording.

    But when did the Irish bishops listen to the laity?


  7. Martin Harran

    As a non-Irish speaker, I’m curious to know what the new Irish translation is like; does it use sensible language or does it follow the same tortuous compliance with defunct Latin that we English speakers are compelled to suffer.

    Anyone able to comment?

  8. Mary Vallely

    I would also be interested in knowing the answer to Martin Harran’s question about the Irish translation. Curious!
    It’s an important topic, of course, and I notice that the same topic produces a lot of comments from some on the ACP site who don’t seem to comment on anything else. It seems to be the number one priority for them. Is it not symptomatic of a certain trait in the hierarchical mentality of the RCC, that of not listening, of ignoring, and of treating the ordinary lay person and priest as lesser mortals. In other words, acting in the very way Jesus showed us how not to treat others? It is bullying really, isn’t it?
    Meanwhile the plight of the homeless in Ireland worsens, the number of women and children suffering from domestic abuse increases – the very issues Jesus would want us to tackle with total commitment and perseverance. Yes, and with justifiable anger too.
    Of course the words we use at mass are important but the real problem is the arrogance of a man- made structure that does not allow for a true and real contact between people. We are voices crying in the wilderness and that is the tragedy.

  9. Joseph McMahon

    Eloquent and well reasoned summary. As somebody who has studied Latin, I am offended that many people think this translation has something to do with Latin. The unfortunate translators have as much knowledge of Latin as they have of English and are entirely innocent of grammar. Of course,like lots of other priests, I don’t use their barbaric expressions.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This