Six months after the imposition of the new English edition of the Roman Missal, the volume of dissatisfaction has moderated. People seem resigned to the wooden and literal translations (“people of good will,” “enter under my roof”), archaic vocabulary (“dewfall,” “consubstantial,” “oblation”), and inflated language of prayer (“holy and unblemished,” “graciously grant,” “paying their homage”). Such language, so different from the plainspoken words of Jesus in prayer and parable, is in contrast to the directive of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II: “In this restoration [of the liturgy], both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” We have also become accustomed to hearing presiders stumble over the convoluted syntax of the prayers and watching them hurriedly turning pages as they wend their way through the labyrinthine new missals. Yet, there is one new expression that involves a significant translation error with serious implications for a proper understanding of the Last Supper as a Passover meal, along with implications for continued Jewish-Christian understanding. In the final analysis, it enshrines poor pastoral theology in the Sunday liturgy.
Advertisement
“Traduttore, Traditore”
All translators are familiar with the caution that translations often distort or even betray the nuances of the original language. This is dramatically true in the substitution of the term “chalice” for “cup” in the words of institution in the Eucharistic prayer from the 1970 missal approved by Pope Paul VI:
When supper was ended he took the cup [chalice].
Again he gave you thanks and praise,
Gave the cup [chalice] to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you and drink from it;
This is the cup [chalice] of my blood,
The blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all
So that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.
In the Greek original of all the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, after the blessing of the bread, Jesus takes a cup (potērion) and says that this is the blood of the new covenant (Mark and Matthew), or “this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke) and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor 11:25). Though Hellenistic Greek had a word—kylix (the basis of the Latin calix)—that suggests a larger ceremonial vessel often used in religious rites, the New Testament authors chose potērion, the normal term for an ordinary drinking cup in daily life.
When St. Jerome translated the New Testament from Greek to Latin he chose the Latin term calix (from which “chalice” derives) to translate potērion, but he did not intend it to mean a liturgical vessel. In both the secular Latin of the time and in Jerome’s translation of the Scriptures, the term calix meant primarily an ordinary drinking cup. In Matt 10:42 Jesus says, “And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple—amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.” While the original Greek has potērion for “cup” of cold water, the Latin translation reads “calicem aquae frigidae.” Given the context it would be absurd to translate this “a chalice of cold water.” Similarly, to translate “my cup overflows” in Psalm 23:5 (Vulgate 22:5) as “my chalice overflows” would be ludicrous.
Although there were early translations of the Bible into English beginning with Venerable Bede, John Wycliffe (1328–84) is credited with the first complete translation of the Latin Vulgate, and here the translation of Jesus’ action over the wine (Matt 27:26) reads “And he took the cuppe,” while the earliest English translation of Mark 14:23 from the Greek, by William Tyndale (1494–1536), reads, “And he toke the cup gave thankes and gave it to them.” Simply put, in neither Jerome’s translation of the Greek into Latin nor early translations of the Latin into English nor the early Greek translations into English was “chalice” treated as a proper translation of the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. “Chalice” was first substituted for “cup” in the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation from the Latin (1582–1609), where it functioned as a post-Tridentine marker of Catholicism against Protestantism—a role it may again assume.
The Last Supper as a Passover Meal
The words of Jesus shape the context of our Eucharistic liturgy today. Jesus sends his disciples to find a place where “I may eat the Passover with my disciples” (Mark 14:12–14). The narrative of Jesus at table with the disciples is portrayed by the evangelists as a Passover meal that highlights clear elements of the traditional Jewish Passover celebration (see 1 Cor 5:7, “Christ our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed”). Though no mention is made of the central act of eating the sacrificial lamb, the blessing, breaking, and eating of the bread and the blessing and drinking of the wine have clear parallels in the Jewish feast. Again of particular concern is the rendering of potērion as “chalice.” The key point is that the liturgy describes Jesus after the supper taking a cup, giving it to the disciples, and saying,
“Take this, all of you and drink from it;
This is the cup [chalice] of my blood.”
Though scholars differ about certain details, we know the Jewish celebration of Passover involved prayers and blessings over four cups of wine, two drunk before or during the main course and two after the meal. The third cup, “the cup of blessing” after the meal, is the cup in our Eucharistic prayers today, “when supper was ended.” St. Paul notes explicitly that it was “after the meal” (1 Cor 11:24) and earlier writes, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16).
The cup that Jesus drank after the meal therefore evokes memories of the Jewish Passover ritual. To call this cup a “chalice” disguises the relation of the Christian Eucharist to an anamnesis (enacted memorial) of the Paschal Meal celebrated by the Jewish Jesus as he approached his suffering and death. The events surrounding the Passion of Jesus have caused great difficulties and sorrow in Jewish-Christian relations. The suppression of the memory of the Jewishness of Jesus in the Christian Eucharist is another example of “de-Judaizing” Jesus, and will erect another barrier to appreciation of our Jewish heritage, to mutual understanding, and to a proper liturgical catechesis.
Challenges to Pastoral Theology and Pastoral Care
Among the achievements of the Second Vatican Council, especially in the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation (Dei verbum), was a renewed focus on Scripture as, in St. Jerome’s words, “the soul of theology.” In the life of the church, people were encouraged to “gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it is through the liturgy, rich in the divine Word or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids” (emphasis mine). In the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (1969), Pope Paul VI noted that the “formulas of consecration have been restored to a purer form reflective of the biblical sources” (Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948–1975). In the decades since the council, through exposure to the liturgy in the vernacular and through opportunities at all levels for deepening knowledge of Scripture, Catholics have become a Bible-reading, Bible-praying church. The traditional representation of the book as the symbol of Protestantism and of the chalice as a symbol of Catholicism had virtually disappeared. Is it now making a comeback?
The introduction of the English word “chalice” at the most solemn moment of the liturgy not only obscures the original biblical and historical context of the event but also evokes an image of Jesus that distances him from the disciples of his own day and of ours. In contemporary English a “chalice” is a liturgical vessel, and people are likely to think of gold or jewel-encrusted chalices found in museums or seen in artistic portrayals. At the Last Supper, Jesus was a Jewish layman using the drinking cups of the world around him, which were to bear the deepest mystery of his life. “Chalice” obscures this transformation of the ordinary by the power of God and distances the celebration from the lives of the participants. Indeed in the new translation of the Roman Missal, the priest says “This is the chalice of my blood,” but one of the optional responses for the people is, “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.” Chalices are for priests; cups for laypeople. This suggests a return to the understanding of a priest as a sacral person separated from the community rather than offering the Eucharist as a member of “the Body of Christ.” Finally, I often celebrate liturgy among parents who, like many others, are instructing young children in the meaning of the Mass. They have told me that some of the arcane language in the new translations has made their efforts to explain what Jesus was doing at the Last Supper more difficult. The reference to a “chalice” has proven especially confusing.
Throughout history changes in the liturgy arose from the faith and practice of the people (“from below”) and from decisions of church leaders (“from above”). I can only hope that “cup” will again rise up to replace “chalice.”
Read more: Letters, August 17, 2012
Related: It Doesn't Sing, by Rita Ferrone
Lost in Translation, by John Wilkins
It is deeply encouraging to see this sort of article by a person of such eminence and good sense as Jake Donahue. As one Catholic whose dissatisfaction with the new 'translation' has not moderated but grown stronger by the day, I can only hope that others of similar eminence will find their courage and also publicly oppose the dross we currently call our liturgy.
If others lack for starting points, may I suggest: The distracting, redundant blooming of "graciously grant, we pray"; or "like the dewfall"; or the many collects, prayers over the gifts, and postcommunions which are absolutely unintelligible, and/or filled with bad theology? Likewise some of the prefaces, also filled with bad theology. Not to mention "under my roof" and "my soul shall be healed" instead of "I shall be healed". Or the displacement of "And also with you", which makes sense in modern English, by "And with your spirit", which does not. (Maybe we could force the issue by saying, "And with your ghost", using the same old translation we used for Spiritus Sanctus?) Worst of all, in my book, is the perfidy surrounding the unilateral abrogation of the ecumenical Common Texts for the Gloria and Creed; the deed itself is a disgrace, so I simply refuse to participate in those revised texts.
Someone mentioned to me that some in the UK are calling this the "Paedophile Translation". I'm not certain that is fair, but it has a certain attraction as a polemic device. In any case, a "translation" which attacks the most sacred core of the prayer life of clergy and people alike seems to me demonic.
I'm not learned enough in Latin and Greek, nor Linguistics, to make any scholarly comment on Fr. John's analysis of what may have been lost with the switch back from "cup" to "chalice;" however, as a father and sometimes educator, I do not think the observation that this change will make it more difficult for parents, and presumably teachers, to teach children the significance and Mystery of the Eucharist has much weight. A quick net search of the word "chalice" revealed the following (top group):
chal·ice/ˈCHaləs/
Noun: A large cup or goblet, typically used for drinking wine
The wine cup used in the Christian Eucharist.
Synonyms:
cup - calyx - goblet - bowl
More info »Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
In modern usage, when referring to the vessel holding the Communion wine, either term is acceptable, and perhaps "chalice is the more specific and accurate. Personally, I am more interested in what the vessel contains, than in the specific name used for the vessel. Perhaps in some future Century, if English is still a living language, "cup" will once more replace "chalice." I'm not sure it matters much to the faithful now, or that it will then.
The change to "chalice" feels like a distancing from the original supper. Did a poor carpenter, wanted by the law, and his unemployed blue-collar disciples really use a "chalice" to drink their wine? One of the joys of this whole scene for me was always that Jesus and the 12 were, at least physically, regular working people who ate with their hands and drank out of cups (not red Solo, but you get my point). The people at the Last Supper, as I was taught it, would never have even seen a chalice, no less carried one around with them. I was precisely this "regular guy" image that drew so many poor and working-class people to the Church. Jesus is, in one sense of course, better than us, but in a more immediate sense, he and his 12 were just like us. This gave regular people a shot at real belief and salvation. Imagine a modern day St Peter finishing hauling his nets, walking into a tavern with other fishermen and ordering a "chalice" of Budweiser.
Thanks for publishing Fr. Donahue's piece. I wondered whether my own aversion to the new translation would fade with time and use. It hasn't. And I am glad to find that I am not the only one to murmur under my breath a few "corrections " here and there. I think it is important not to give up on this issue.
Bright spot of my week: a mild joke from the pulpit commending an eloquent but simple passage from the Gospel of John and asking-- aside-- whether anyone present would care to venture a definition of "consubstantial." Universal chuckle was followed by some appreciative comments after mass. Maybe there is some hope....
Fr. Donahue's essay "Cup or Chalice?" is clearly reasoned and lucidly written. The use of "chalice" is evidence that the translators have tin ears when it comes to words and their connotations. How many chalices were there in Jerusalem during the rule of Pontius Pilate? Maybe in the Temple, but hardly in a rented dining room. "Chalice" has been defended on the grounds that Shakespeare uses it. He does indeed: in his 36 Plays he uses it twice, once in "Macbeth" and once in "Hamlet." In both instances it is a "poisoned chalice," like the poisoned chalices of Renaissance Princes in Italy that Shakespeare read about in his sources. The Borgias and such like. In the liturgical setting "chalice" is over-blown, meretricious (be sure to look that one up). It "makes the service greater than the god." "Cup" is sharp, real, personal, intimate--like the last supper. I share Fr. Donahue's hope that "cup" will rise again, but given the current climate in the hierarchy that's not the way the smart money bets. Not in my lifetime anyway: I turn 80 this summer.
It is not true that "the normal term for an ordinary drinking cup in daily life." As can be seen from Liddell and Scott, the term often refers to cups made of metal, Herodotus 2:37 which refers to the Egyptians drinking out of cups made of bronze, or Herodotus 3:148 which refers to someone who possessed cups made of Silver and Gold. It is also used for cups used in ceremonies in temples.
Sorry I seem to be missing a word, the post should have read, It is not true that 'poterion' was "the normal term for an ordinary drinking cup in daily life." As can be seen from Liddell and Scott, the term often refers to cups made of metal, Herodotus 2:37 which refers to the Egyptians drinking out of cups made of bronze, or Herodotus 3:148 which refers to someone who possessed cups made of Silver and Gold. It is also used for cups used in ceremonies in temples.
Unfortunately, the exegesis offered here is rather misleading.
"Potērion" does not mean "ordinary drinking cup in daily life." It is a more general term for any drinking vessel, not just ordinary ones. One of the comments above gives one example, but there are many examples through Greek literature showing Potērion being used for cups that are definitely not daily and not ordinary.
"Kylix" is the basis for the Latin "Cylix" from which come chalice, but it is more complex than that. The "kylix" was a low vessel with two handles and a shor stem on a base. The "liturgy" it was associated with were the drinking parties dedicated to Bacchus. As such, most were decorated with (often lascivious) scenes of Bacchus that would be slowly revealed as the wine was drunk. It should be quite understandable that the NT authors would not choose this word. It is disingenuous of Mr. Donahue to characterize the Greek word as applying to all liturgical vessels.
With three centuries and a culture difference between Jerome and the NT writers, it should be unremarkable that some of the cultural baggage of the Greek word had not made it over. "Cylix" may have a root in "Kylix," but they are not the same word. Jerome did not make his choice willy-nilly. We have to remember that he was deeply immersed in the Palestinian world, and he was cantankerous about his translation. He chose that word for a reason. If there is a translation "problem" it is not with the new Missal translation, it is with the Vulgate. But St. Jerome is a much tougher target than the committee that did the new translation of the Missal.
Finally, we have to address the issue of the Last Supper itself. We often hear, "Oh Jesus was a simple and poor preacher, the vessels would have been simple and poor." But let's consider a couple of things here. Jesus may have been poor, but that doesn't mean that everything about him was poor. When Jesus was crucified, he was wearing a seamless garment, and a seamless garment was expensive. When the disciples followed to the "place that had been prepared," they were led to an upper room. A second story was an expensive space in that time and place. The place that had been prepared had been a place for a wealthy Jew to celebrate Passover. The vessels of the Last Supper were not the vessels of a poor carpenter, they were the vessels of the wealthy. And we also have to remember what the Passover seder was and is. It is a ritual feast. It is liturgical. The best vessels are used, not the everyday vessels. This ties into all of sacrificial history throughout the Bible, where it is the best that is offered to God, the best that is dedicated to God, not just our common and everyday.
It only would have taken a little bit of digging to find all of this.
Hello, wineinwater. I appreciate your speculation but that is, truly, all it is: speculation. One thing we can know for sure: "cup" covers any type of vessel, while "chalice" is restricted to a particular type of cup. The fact that the Last Supper was a ritual meal and that its setting had been prepared for Jesus does not necessarily mean that the setting was wealthy, nor does it imply necessarily that the drinking vessel was, in fact, anything remotely resembling what we know today as a "chalice." Those who favor the entirely unbiblical idea that the Last Supper was the "first Mass" and also, of course, the "ordination" of The Twelve (and we are still left with that pesky problem of where Jesus sent the women disciples while he said the magic words...) probably love the use of "chalice" in the present (awful) translation. But nothing supports its use whatsoever, on either a biblical or historical basis.
Janet, it is much more than speculation, it is a reasoned assimilation of known facts.
We know from architectural history that an upper room in that time and place was a space that only the more wealthy could afford. It is a reasonable conclusion that the person who could afford to own such a space would also be able to afford vessels for the Passover that were finer than those of a common laborer.
We know from literary history that "poterion" is a general term for cup, and not a term that specifically applies to only ordinary, daily drinking vessels as the author contends. It is therefore a reasonable conclusion that the NT authors' use of "poterion" does not preclude a finer, more ritualistic vessel. And, the fact that the normative translation of the NT from Greek to Latin uses a word that refers to a liturgical and ritual vessel shows that the Church, at least since that time, believed that that was what the NT was referring to. It's one thing to make the argument that the Church has been wrong about her Biblical translation for over 1600 years. It's quite another to criticise the translators for choosing the English word that reflects what the Church has believed for over 1600 years. If the author wants to argue that the Church has been wrong to use "chalice" since Jerome, he is welcome, but it is disengenuous to make the argument that we are wrong only when we use the English word for chalice.