Introduction
In 1983 an ecumenical liturgical consultation was held to determine whether the time had arrived to constitute a body to succeed the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET). Participants in this consultation represented ecumenical liturgical associations and Churches in some of the major English-speaking countries. As a result of these discussions it was agreed that a successor to ICET should be formed, but one with a wider brief that would take into account not only liturgical texts but broader liturgical questions.
Out of this initial, exploratory meeting the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC) was formed. ELLC had its first formal meeting in Boston in August 1985. Participants were representatives of the member associations of ELLC: the Australian Consultation on Liturgy (ACOL), representing six Churches; the Consultation on Common Texts (CCT), representing sixteen Churches in North America; the Joint Liturgical Group (JLG), representing nine Churches in Great Britain; and the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), a joint commission representing twenty-six conferences of Roman Catholic bishops throughout the English-speaking world. A member of the Joint Liturgical Consultation within New Zealand (JCLNZ), representing four Churches, was unable at the last minute to attend this first meeting, but JLCNZ was represented at subsequent meetings. In addition, a representative of the Liturgical Committee of the South African Church Unity Commission, which has four participating Churches, has taken part in the meetings of ELLC. In January 1987 representatives of five Churches in Canada formed the Canadian Churches’ Coordinating Group on Worship (CCCGOW), which became a member association of ELLC in August of that year.
One of the topics on the agenda of the first meeting of ELLC was the question of revising the ICET texts (Apostles’ Creed, Lord’s Prayer, etc.). The ICET translations of these thirteen liturgical texts had been prepared from 1969 to 1975. After two preliminary editions, they were issued in final form in 1975 in a booklet titled Prayers We Have in Common. The ICET texts were approved for liturgical use in the 1970s in many Churches throughout the English-speaking world. Over the last few years, however, there have been growing indications that these texts are in need of some revision.
In preparation for the discussion in Boston, a survey was taken of the Churches to determine the version of the ICET texts that had actually been approved for liturgical use. In some cases an earlier edition of an ICET translation had been approved, that is, one prior to the final version of 1975. In other cases a text had been slightly amended from the final 1975 version in order to satisfy a particular concern of the Church in question. The ELLC members examined the versions approved in the Churches and found that the variation in the texts was small. On the basis of this information, preliminary recommendations for the revision of the ICET texts and general guidelines for the work of revision were drawn up. It was realized that such guidelines could be only of a broad character, and that differences of opinion could arise about their application and adequacy. The guidelines are given below.
It was not the task of the Consultation to compose new texts, but to present existing ones in an acceptable form. The Consultation saw it as an important responsibility to render the original Greek and Latin texts so that misleading implications were avoided and as little as possible of the original meaning lost. As will be evident from the commentary that accompanies the revised texts, a number of changes were made for the sake of accuracy.
In the months following the meeting in August 1985, ELLC submitted its initial list of points for revision and the proposed guidelines to the member associations of ELLC. The associations in turn submitted these to their participating Churches for response. Responses were returned to ELLC in the first half of 1986. In the meantime ELLC had established a committee of revisers which was authorized to carry on the actual work of revision. This committee met for several days in August 1986 and, using the responses received, produced a preliminary revision of the texts with critical notes.
These texts and notes were submitted by ELLC for comment to its member associations and, through them, the Churches. The object was to obtain a response from a representative sampling of the membership of each Church. Churches were asked to ensure that their consultation included those with special abilities, for example, musicians and those with literary skills.
In August 1987 the committee of revisers met for two days at Westminster Abbey, considered in detail the many responses received (which often cohered with each other), and further revised the existing drafts. A few days later the latest versions were considered by a full meeting of ELLC in Brixen (Bressanone), Italy, at which all the constituent bodies, including JLCNZ (New Zealand) and CCCGOW (Canada), were represented. The Rev. Dr. Evan L. Burge (Australia) was appointed editor for the project and asked to prepare and circulate the revised texts as approved at Brixen, together with a draft explanatory introduction and revised commentary. The commentary was to incorporate material from Prayers We Have in Common and to explain the changes that had been made in the ICET texts.
In August 1988 the committee of revisers met in Washington, D.C. to consider the entire work, now named Praying Together , and took careful account of further submissions. It did not, however, believe itself competent to alter the liturgical texts that had been approved by the full Consultation. This booklet, as approved by that meeting, is now published and offered for widespread use, it is hoped, in the Churches of the English-speaking world.
Guidelines for the Revision of the ICET Texts
The following guidelines were adopted by ELLC in 1985 for the revision of the 1975 ICET texts:
- In order to avoid pastoral disruption, only necessary changes should be made.
- Sensitivity should be shown to the need for inclusive language.
- The revision should be made bearing in mind that these texts are for use in the liturgical assembly. The ease with which they can be said, heard, and sung is an essential element of the revision.
- The revision should use language that is contemporary and suited to the present version of the ICET texts.
The following comments on these guidelines and their application may be helpful.
Only necessary changes
The ICET texts had been approved and are now in use in many Churches throughout the English-speaking world. The aim of this guideline was to ensure that forms with which worshipers were familiar would be disrupted as little as possible. Only changes considered necessary for accuracy of translation or to comply with the several other guidelines were to be made. A change in text was considered necessary when a significant number of Churches had consciously rejected an ICET word or phrase when publishing their own liturgical forms. For example, the opening of the Te Deum (“You are God: we praise you”) was widely rejected despite its fidelity to the emphasis of the original Latin. By contrast, the ICET versions of the Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, and Sanctus proved generally acceptable and therefore no changes were considered necessary (apart from one pronoun, on the basis of guideline 2). Another application of guideline 1 concerned lines 9 and 10 of the Lord’s Prayer (“Save us from the time of trial/and deliver us from evil”), which had been found unsatisfactory by some Churches in England and also in Australia, but not, apparently, in other parts of the world. “We have just succeeded in having this revision accepted,” said one report. “It would be pastorally insensitive to make changes to it now.”
Inclusive language
The Consultation recognized that, because of changes in the received meaning of the words, the use of “man” or “men” for “human being(s)” can be misleading and is no longer generally acceptable in liturgical texts. This necessitated changes in lines 13 and 16 of the Nicene Creed and line 18 of the Te Deum. For similar reasons “forebears” was preferred to “fathers” in the Magnificat, line 17, and the Benedictus, line 8.
Male-oriented language referring to God presents greater problems. ELLC considered that the removal of all masculine forms would take the texts beyond the process of translation and into the realm of theological reinterpretation. Very few respondents urged ELLC to as far as this. At the drafting stage, attempts were made to render the Magnificat and Benedictus without masculine pronouns, but these were unsuccessful. On the other hand, the number of masculine pronouns referring to God can be reduced without compromising fidelity to the original texts. For example, the Consultation noted that the repeated pronoun “he” of the Magnificat in the ICET version has no counterpart in the original Greek. Similarly the Holy Spirit was referred to as “he” several times in lines 25 to 28 of the Nicene Creed, whereas the word for “spirit” is feminine in Hebrew and Syriac, neuter in Greek, and masculine in Latin.
The avoidance of masculine pronouns referring to God can sometimes be achieved by repeating “God,” as in the Gloria in Excelsis, line 2. Another way is to express the thought in the passive. There is scriptural precedent for this (for example, “Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted ”). The Consultation was reluctant to take this path if another solution could be found because it was likely to detract form the directness and freshness of the language. Passives were considered acceptable only where it is clear to a modern reader that the active subject is God.
Another method is to turn original third-person utterances into direct address. The Consultation has provided alternative versions of the Benedictus and Magnificat which proceed in this fashion. The commentary on these canticles explains the biblical and liturgical justification for this procedure.
Ease of saying, hearing, and singing
The importance of this guideline for congregational worship is obvious, though opinions may differ about how well it has been applied in the revisions of the ICET texts. Examples where euphony dictated change can be found in the Te Deum, in lines 1-4 and 14.
Contemporary language
It is not easy, but it is desirable, to achieve a level of language which avoids archaism and is clear, dignified, and intelligible. Early attempts to remove “hallowed” from the Lord’s Prayer were unsuccessful as they all led to changes in meaning. Attempts to restore “magnifies” to the opening of the Magnificat failed on the grounds that the word was being used in an archaic sense and more contemporary words were available. There is a similar, but more serious, problem associated with the use of “temptation” which some would like restored in line 9 of the Lord’s Prayer. The original sense of “severe testing” has disappeared in modern usage, leaving the false impression that God would entice people to do evil. Certain theological terms such as “sin,” “incarnate,” and “resurrection” have, however, been judged indispensable. There was considerable disagreement about restoring the traditional rendering of line 8 of the Apostles’ Creed (“He descended into hell”)—not on the grounds that talk of hell is outmoded in modern times, but because the precise meaning of the line is uncertain.
Music for the Texts
Over two thousand musical settings of the ICET texts have been published, particularly of those used in the Eucharist. Where possible, the texts in this booklet have been revised in such a way that they can be used with existing music. Because relatively few musical settings for the Te Deum, Benedictus, and Magnificat have been published since 1975 (as compared with settings of the eucharistic texts), the Consultation considered it feasible to make substantial revisions in these despite its first guideline to avoid unnecessary changes.
Experience has shown that the Gloria in Excelsis is better sung than said, and the same is surely true of the other canticles. A variety of styles is possible: for congregation alone, for congregation and choir, for cantor and congregation, and for choir alone. Many of these can be used with a number of different musical instruments. A good composer can respect the words and bring out their meaning and significance through the music.
Some Churches may wish to sing the texts to traditional plainsong or Anglican chant. This may necessitate some modification of the punctuation and adjustment of the lines. It may also be found advisable occasionally to insert a word or syllable to make a necessary change in the rhythm.
British and American Usage
This booklet has been prepared with standard American spelling. The Consultation expects that in areas where another standard is preferred the texts will be modified accordingly. Among the words which will need to be changed are “Savior” and “worshiped.” Similarly, the Consultation recognizes that “shall” will be substituted for “will” in some areas.
Sense Lines and Indentation
The texts in this booklet are given in sense lines, which help those who proclaim them to appreciate their shape and meaning. Punctuation has also been used to indicate natural pauses or links in the thought. The lines have deliberately been made neither too long nor too short. It is expected that ELLC texts will be printed in the sense lines given in this booklet.
When it is necessary to break one of these lines, the second part is indented to show its subordination to the first part. It helps proclamation if the break is made at a natural break in the line rather than going all the way to the right margin and leaving only one or two words on the second line. Thus, if necessary, line 21 of the Benedictus could be broken in this manner:
to shine on those who dwell in darkness
and the shadow of death.
For reasons of clarity, some have also suggested that line 4 of the Nicene Creed be broken so that the comma is observed:
of all that is,
seen and unseen.
As printed in this booklet, the ELLC texts include indentation of certain lines or groups of lines to indicate subordination or consequence. It is expected that most editors and publishers will follow this style as given. For particular reasons, however, a Church may choose to print all ELLC texts “flush left,” with all lines beginning at the same left margin, except for broken long lines as indicated above. The English Language Liturgical Consultation requests that editors and publishers remain consistent in their layout of these texts in their liturgical publications, and in all other publications such as those produced by religious educators and editors of popular booklets and books of prayers.
Acknowledgments
The Consultation records its recognition of the pioneering work of its predecessor, the International Consultation on English Texts, under the joint chairmanship of the late Canon Harold Winstone and Dr. Ronald Jasper, as well as its gratitude to the many correspondents and the liturgical consultations and commissions around the world who have devoted energy, time, sensitivity, and scholarship to the task of revising the texts and reviewing the commentary. The Consultation thanks Dr. Evan Burge for accepting the daunting task of preparing this commentary. And it is especially grateful to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy for hospitality and continuing care and for providing the Consultation an executive secretary, Mr. James Schellman, without whom the present project would not have been possible.
Members of the English Language Liturgical Consultation
(* denotes a member of the committee of revisers)
- Australian Consultation on Liturgy (ACOL)
- The Rev. D’Arcy Wood
- The Rev. Evan Burge*
- Canadian Churches’ Coordinating Group on Worship (CCCGOW)
- The Rev. Msgr. Patrick Byrne
- Consultation on Common Texts (CCT)
- The Rev. Horace Allen Jr.*
- The Rev. Hans Boehringer*
- International Commission on English in the Liturgy
- The Rev. John Fitzsimmons*
- The Rev. Msgr. Frederick McManus*
- Joint Liturgical Consultation within New Zealand (JLCNZ)
- The Rev. Canon Robert McCullough
- Joint Liturgical Group (JLG)
- The Rev. Canon Donald Gray*
- The Rev. A. Raymond George
- Liturgical Committee, South African Church Unity Commission
- The Rt. Rev. Frederick Amoore
All Rights Reserved | English Language Liturgical Consultation