Home > Roman Missal may have been lost in translation

Roman Missal may have been lost in translation

Faithfulness to the Latin style poses problems for vernacular clarity

Posted on January 30, 2012, 3:18 PM

By Errol D'Lima SJ
Pune:

On the first Sunday of Advent last year, some dioceses in India began using the new Roman Missal with its amended English translation.

Bishops and liturgists explained the salient features of the new translation. The new Roman Missal takes note of the revised Latin Code of Canon Law (1983), variations in expression and prescription found in other liturgical books, and present-day pastoral needs.

It is meant to be “an instrument, as it were, of liturgical unity and as a monument of true and reverent worship in the Church,” as had been stated in the apostolic constitution of Pope Pius V who presented the editio princeps of the Missale Romanum (1570). But is the new missal likely to fulfil this purpose?

A radical revision of the mass had been mandated by the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC). To ensure the “devout and active participation by the faithful,” SC mandated the following:

“...the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance. Parts which with the passage of time came to be duplicated, or were added with little advantage, are to be omitted. Other parts which suffered loss through accidents of history are to be restored to the vigour they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary” (50).

Pope Paul VI set up an International Consilium (council) in 1964 to revise the liturgical books in use so that they reflected the directives of the Council. The Consilium issued an Instruction Comme le prevoit in 1969 on how liturgical texts for congregational celebrations were to be translated:

“...it is not sufficient that a liturgical translation merely reproduce the expressions and ideas of the original text. Rather it must faithfully communicate to a given people, and in their own language, that which the Church by means of this given text originally intended to communicate to another people in another time. A faithful translation, therefore, cannot be judged on the basis of individual words; the total context of this specific act of communication must be kept in mind, as well as the literary form proper to the respective languages” (6).

In 1970 Pope Paul VI promulgated the Missale Romanum with the revised liturgy. Later, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments had asked bishops’ conferences to prepare vernacular editions from the Missale Romanum.

Already in 1963 ten bishops’ conferences of countries – including India – where English is used in celebrating the liturgy had set up the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to prepare translations of the Latin liturgical books.

Each conference was represented by a bishop in the ICEL, which merely produced texts but left to the bishops’ conferences the task of authorizing their use in the liturgy after the Holy See’s recognitio (review/approval).

In 2001, the Congregation issued Liturgiam authenticam (LA), an Instruction on the use of vernacular languages in the publication of books of the Roman liturgy. It detailed the principles of translation to be followed in future translations and insisted on recognitio of the Apostolic See before a translation was “undertaken in any way.” (15)

It frowned on “creative innovation” (20) and – other things being equal – wanted Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman liturgy “to be given pride of place in liturgical celebrations” (28).

Given the nature of the minute instructions mandated by LA, it would appear that the Congregation was not altogether happy with the ICEL’s efforts.

LA’s preference was for “formal equivalence” in translating from Latin to the Vernacular. ICEL employed the method of “dynamic or functional equivalence” so that its translation expressed the spirit of the original (Latin) in the new language (the Vernacular).

While formal equivalence is primarily concerned with using words which give priority to the meaning contained in the original, dynamic or functional equivalence tries to interpret and articulate the spirit of the original language in the vernacular discourse. If formal equivalence is the overriding concern of the translator, the resultant vernacular translation will pose problems to those using it.

LA also affirms that “the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission” (30). One result has been the absence of inclusive language in the liturgical texts. Such considerations put a burden on the ICEL translators and raise questions about the way in which LA understands the art of translating.

According to the eminent liturgist Robert Taft, “...to pretend that a translation is not in a very real sense an interpretation of the original is to be completely ignorant of both the nature of language and the nature of translating.”

In the past two decades, gender sensitivity has raised questions about the place of women in the Church and women’s ordination. The deliberate exclusion of inclusive language could foster a greater sense of alienation among women.

To the common mass-goer, the retention of terms such as “consubstantial” or the addition of words like “dewfall” will seem uncalled for.

Will keeping to a language structure and style which suits the Latin language do justice to the vernacular translations meant to inform liturgical celebration? Only the future will tell.

Errol D'Lima is a professor at Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth in Pune

Roman Missal , Translation , Pope Pius V , Pope Paul VI