A story of envy leads us deeper into this Gospel today. We could spend all kinds of time exploring the ideas of Justice with talk about equal pay for equal work. We could study the details of this text noticing that the landowner has the foreman do the paying. There are curious details about what each group is offered: one group is offered the usual day’s pay, and another is offered “what is just.” The last group is offered nothing. However, all those details and more only stay on the surface while we need to go deeper into this story that comes right after Peter asks Jesus what the disciples are going to get out of his mission; what they are going to get for their sacrifice and work.
The whole parable is a challenge to an attitude and an expection that God owes us something. The grumbling group thinks that they are the center of everything, and the parable makes us uncomfortable because it exposes us when we quietly and inwardly side with those grumblers who evaluate everything that happens from the point of view of their own comparitive well-being. They think they are special because they worked all day, so the owner owes them big time. Whatever protects and promotes them is good, and they like it. But if someting happens that makes them equal to others, they begin to whine and complain that it isn’t fair. The first hired complain because the salary difference or the reward did not benefit them. Their real problem is that they value themselves by comparing themselves to others: bad business! Even more so, they think they deserve something special.
Here lies a deeper meaning to this parable. What matters is not what we get. What matter is that we work in the vineyard. The problem addressed in this parable is idleness. Doing nothing is what the owener is concerned about. He keeps going out to those who are doing nothing and calling into work. That is his concern. Notice that there is no mention of wage for the last hired, he just wants them to get productive in his vineyard.
A world of envy and it’s inhabitants can never get to the truth of this parable. They are only concerned about getting what they deserve. We are called to a world of abundance and goodness. In that world, we who work in the vineyard get the usual day’s wage, just enough for today. Our prayer calls it “daily bread.” We are, in the end day laborers doing God’s work. We have no job security at all, and here we see the heart of this parable. We are dependent upon a call everyday and we have no claim on God. But each day we respond to God’s call to work in the world.
We must avoid Peter’s mistaken assumption that by sacrificing a lot, we are going to get a lot; and that those who give up the most will get the most. It is not going to be that way. We are never in God’s debt and God never owes us anything. We have to get that right.
Working in the vineyard of this world for God is not a burden for which we deserve some just reward, but a privilege. If we have responded early, we are not treated unfairly, we are favored. I once read something by St Teresa of Avila who put it this way: “We should forget the number of years we have served him, for the sum total of all we can do is worthless by comparison with a single drop of the blood which the Lord shed for us.”
Jesus told this parable on his way to Jerusalem where he would be handed over, suffer, and die. When we finally begin to do some of God’s work in the vineyard of this world, we might stop thinking it’s all about us and what we’re goint to get out of it and what God can do for and give us. Then we might concentrate more seriously on what we really owe God, and that might well stir up a generosity in us that is more remarkable and surprising than what we see in the owner in this story.
Last week I reviewed for you the history, the reasons, and the thinking behind the New Roman Missal that will come into full use later this fall. Already before Mass began today we shifted into the new translation of the Gloria Hymn so that by the time Advent begins you should be fairly well comfortable with the new wording. The cards you find in the pews will remain there for your use until we make a decision about new hymnals which will be a considerable financial burden for us that I hesitate to assume at this time. Eventually we will try publishing a Liturgy Sheet for each week and see how that works for awhile.
There are two other matters in the new Missal that deserve some attention. The first of these is the Profession of Faith we make after the homily as the Liturgy moves from the Word to the Eucharist. As I said last week, the revised translation from the Latin is now closer to the Latin original. In the last forty years, translators have learned a lot and there is now a concern to express our faith with more precision.
The Profession of Faith we most commonly use is the Nicene Creed. What you will notice immediately is that it will now begin with “I” rather than “We.” The Latin word is in the singular: I; and that singular form has been used everywhere else in the world except here, so now we shall say what everyone else says. Personally I find this change leading us closer to our use of the Profession of Faith in Baptism. I think this is a good change. If you remember, at Baptism, the profession of faith and the renewal of that profession is always in the singular. You hear this every time we have a Baptism. I ask the question: “Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?” and the response comes: “I do.” As we now begin to Profess our Faith each Sunday, there will be that obvious connection between that moment and the Baptismal Liturgy.
A little further into the text “seen and unseen” is now going to read: “Of all things visible and invisible.” This change is more precise. I have family in Denver who are visible but unseen. We believe that God made things we cannot see for whatever reason and also made things that are invisible. In the same phrase of the Creed we will say that we “believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God. The old translation said: “only Son of God.” These words also appear in the Gloria, and the change emphasis that Jesus did not “only” or “merely” materialize as the Son of God, but that he was intentionally BEGOTTEN – his presence was always in the divine plan. The words: “Born of the Father before all ages” become: “Eternally begotten of the Father” because it is more precise since it is our believe that Jesus dwelt with the Father before time began.
Now perhaps the biggest and most obvious change in the Creed comes with the introduction of a word that is certainly a “mouthful” for children.
“Consubstantial”. This replaces the expression: “one in being” to describe the relationship between Jesus and the Father. It is a word that is used for nothing else, so why not use it to describe something that is completely unique? The relationship between Jesus and God is essential to our Faith as Christians, and heresies have divided Christians over this issue in the past. The early church carefully considered how to express this relationship and carefully chose a word that expresses the dogma of the Divinity of Jesus. Jesus and the Father are not just one in “being”, they are one in substance.
The same principal then brings the word “Incarnate” into the new translation replacing the words: “born of the Virgin Mary.” This birth is unique. The Word (Jesus) did not become Flesh at birth. The Word was present at conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. There are a several other changes that in my opinion are not as significant and challenging to our thinking, and there is not enough to time to mention them all, but one final one strikes me as powerful. Near the very end the old translation said: “we acknowledge one baptism….” The new one says: “I confess.” It is stronger and more forceful. One baptism is not something we simply acknowledge. It is something we firmly believe in. This involves the heart not must the mind. So, the changes in the translation of the Creed are a good example of what I spoke of last week: the effort to translate into English a deeper and more precise expression of the original Latin text
The other matter shows up most clearly at communion time when the priest lifts up the Body and Blood of Christ and says: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those called to his supper.” The new translation goes like this:
“Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” To which you will now respond: (take a look at the card in the pew) Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” This is a good example of several other changes that will ring a note of familiarity once the whole translation goes into use. The guiding principal was an effort to make more obvious texts and words of the Sacred Scriptures as we use them in our prayer. I think you recognize more quickly the words of the Centurion who came to Jesus asking for the life of his sick son. A connection is also made in the part said by the priest now using the word: “Blessed”. These words should strike a familiar note connecting us to the Beatitudes which in Matthew and Luke say: “Blessed are you.”
Two final observations. After the Words of Consecration or the Words of Institution, the priest called for the assembly to proclaim the mystery of faith with the words: Let us Proclaim the Mystery of Faith.” Now the priest will simply say: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH just as in other places similar statements say: The Word of the Lord, or The Body of Christ. The are simple faith-filled statements that prompt a response. When this occurs, the priest is in the middle of a prayer directed to God. In the old translation the focus shifted from God to address the assembly then turns the attention back to God. By omitting the words: “LET US” the focus stays upon God. The priest makes a announcement, and the people make an acclamation. The response you make is an acclamation, not a proclamation. An acclamation is addressed to someone; a proclamation is made about someone. So you will address someone. It is an acclamation. You are not talking to each other about someone. There will be three acclamations: they are slightly different, just enough to get you mixed up, but then you will have to pay attention rather than just rattle off something by rote memory. Previously there were four, and one goes missing because it is a proclamation rather than an acclamation: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” You see? That is a proclamation: talking about someone. It is not an acclamation. Here at Saint Mark in time you will know which one to sing by the musical introduction, and sometimes it will be printed in the worship sheet.
Finally, the deacon is not excused from the challenge of the new translation. He gets several options that better suggest that what is happening is not simply our departure from the building, but that we are entering the world with a mission. He will say: “Go Forth! The Mass is ended.” or “Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord!” or “Go in peace glorifying the Lord by your life!” or simply: “Go in peace.”
Now there is much more that could be said in greater detail, but I have no reason to believe that it would be of great help. Simply keep in mind that the Mass is not changing, and our prayer is not changing. Only the words are changing. Remember that this change is an effort to deepen our sense of this great and awesome mystery, and at the same time continue to stir in our minds and hearts a connection between our words and the words of Sacred Scripture. Best of all, these changes will call us all out of our routine and sometimes mindless repetition and challenge us to think, to remember, to pray, and to acclaim with full heart and mind the wonder of the faith we share and celebrate at this altar.
In 1963, the Second Vatican Council revised the Liturgy of the Western Rite or Roman Rite Church and affirmed the use of the “mother tongue” which we have called “the vernacular”. The council established a Latin Language text which was to the basis for every language group to work from, and the Council entrusted to each national conference of Bishops the right to oversee the translations which Rome would then approve. The English speaking Bishops of the world established an International Commission on English to begin the work. It took ten years to complete the work and have it all approved. Now keep in mind that English in South Africa, in India, New Zealand, Ireland, and especially Oklahoma is quite different making the work most challenging. The guiding principal for the translations was technically called: “dynamic equivalence” which simply means that the goal of the translation from the standard text in Latin was to come up with the overall sense and meaning of the text in the most modern English for each place. It is helpful to understand that this principal guiding translations was only used and applied for English. Other languages did not use this principal. They stayed more strictly and closer to the literal translation of the Latin.
Now we all know that language changes over time. The various words can take on new meanings never thought of a generation or two earlier. We can all think of examples of how new words come into our language and how other words simply begin to change meaning. Think of words like “cool”. For my grandmother, it was a description of temperature. Now it is an affirmation of value as well. Because of these changes over time in the meaning and use of words there is need to make adjustments from time to time re-examining how a translation passes on the original text.
We are living now through one of those times. In 1998 35 years after the first translations began the same International Commission using the same guidelines went to work to study the text and produce a more up-to-date translation. When the work was finished and sent to Rome, it was not approved, and there followed a serious re-thinking of the original idea of “dynamic equivalence”. In other words, should this commission be giving us what they think the Latin text should mean in English, or should the translation give us what the Latin text literally says when translated into English. Let me suggest a couple of examples of how “dynamic equivalent” works or doesn’t work. In Spanish people say: A Dios, and the dynamic equivalent in English could be “BYE BYE” or “See you later” but that really isn’t what it says. It is “sort of” what it means, but it isn’t what it says. Now translating A Dios into English by the new guidelines it would say: “To God” Another example: the French often says: A Bientot which some might think means: “Good bye” or “Farewell” when what it really says is: “Till later” which has a very different meaning since “Farewell” has a finality about it that is not intended. “Tell Later” says and implies that you are going to see one another again fairly soon.
Since 2002 work has been going on with this project, and it has been completed and approved. This will not be the last translation, or is it the final one. Some of us older folks remember other translations, and sometimes things will sound familiar. Such change is a part of growth and life. The English Speaking Bishops Conferences have established the First Sunday of Advent, November 27 as the time to begin; but for several reasons in this country we are going to begin using your parts prior to that time. Each parish will be free to choose when it will begin to do so, but it has been recommended that we do so before Advent so that that we will have become more accustomed to these new words and not distract ourselves with something new during the Holy Seasons of Advent and Christmas. For one example, the words of the Gloria are different. But since we do not sing the Gloria during Advent, the first time you would be expected to sing it would be at Midnight Mass on Christmas which obviously would be disturbing. So we are going to begin using your parts of the new translation now and my part will change with Advent.
One of the most interesting consequences of this new translation is that all the English Speaking Churches throughout the world will now be using the same translation. That was not the case with the first or1963 translation. Mass in India or South Africa or in New Zealand had different translations than we did. We will now all have and use the same translation where ever English is spoken. I suppose we could see that this is one more consequence of globalization. Our English language is becoming more and more unified as communication systems bring us all together. Now another consequence of this translation style is that there will be more words, because now every word in the original Latin prayer is translated into the English. The consequence is then: more verbal unity in the English Speaking church, more words, and more similarity to the translations of other language churches.
Changes for you will be few and simple. Changes for me on other hand will be quite a challenge, but that’s my challenge, and I have been practicing. You will have a card with your prayers and responses on it, and you will need to use it for awhile, but I suspect that in no time at all, they will disappear. Some of your texts will be simple and easy, and I suspect you will adjust without a thought. A couple of others will take more attention, and that is not a bad thing. We all know that rattling through memorized prayers for years and years often results in the prayer being said thoughtlessly and carelessly. So we have a chance to pay attention again to what we are saying and what we mean as we pray.
At the beginning of Mass in what we call the Introductory Rites, there comes the first of your changes. I will greet you with the words: “The Lord be with you.” and you will respond: “And With your Spirit.” Then when we move into what is now called; “The Penitential Act” there will remain several optional prayers chosen at the discretion of the priest. The prayer that begins: “I confess to almighty God…” will be slightly changed with, as I said earlier, more words that more literally translate the Latin. In the old translation we said: “that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words”….. Now you will say: “that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, therefore…..” This new translation speaks to the seriousness of our sin and the sincerity of our contrition. It offers a more humble way to collect ourselves before stepping any further into prayer.
The Gloria, that great hymn of praise that we sing with all the church will be quite different with new words – bringing into English all of the words in the universal text in the Latin. It will not be hard, but there will be new music.
The introductory rites conclude with a prayer sometimes oddly called: “The Opening Prayer.” It’s hard to tell if it’s opening the Mass which has already opened, or closing the Introductory Rite. In effect what it really does is move us from the Introduction and Penitential Act to the Liturgy of the Word. All of these prayers for every Sunday, every feast, and every special occasion have been re-translated. What you will notice is a very different kind of English: less folksy and more elevated or formal. It marks the dignity of the occasion and the place.
When it comes to the texts of Scripture, there will be no changes, and the next change in your text comes with the Preface opening the Eucharistic Prayer and the Hymn: Holy, Holy, Holy. Next week, I will speak a little more about these changes, and we will take a little time to learn a new setting in the new translation of the Gloria and the Holy.
For now, let us begin: The Lord be with you……………….