 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
CHANGES IN THE ROMAN MISSAL, PT. 5: Why A New Translation? (Cont.)
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is part of an ongoing series written by Father Daniel Merz highlighting many of the historical and theological bases of the forthcoming publication of a revised English translation of the Roman Missal. The new translation, tentatively set for release around November 2011, will involve slight but noticeable changes at Mass. Father Merz is the chairman of the Liturgical Commission for the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo. — BH]
In the last article, we began to look at some of the challenges faced by those charged with translating the liturgy into the English language during the Second Vatican Council. To help with those challenges, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) was formed in 1963.
For some time, concerns had been growing in Rome over the style of translation being used. For principles of translation, ICEL used the 1969 instruction, Comme le prévoit, which advocated a rule of translation known as “Dynamic Equivalence.” According to this theory, the concern is to translate concepts more than words. The concept or sense of a phrase must be translated, rather than the exact words. An example is given here from the Opening Prayer for the First Sunday of Lent. The current translation uses the principle of Dynamic Equivalence and the proposed new translation uses the principle of Formal Equivalence — a more literal rendering of the Latin original:
CURRENT TRANSLATION: “Father, through our observance of Lent, help us to understand the meaning of your Son’s death and resurrection, and teach us to reflect it in our lives.”
PROPOSED NEW TRANSLATION: “Grant us, almighty God, through our yearly exercises in the holy Season of Lent, to grow in understanding of the riches hidden in Christ and to pursue their effects by a worthy way of life.”
The original prayers of the church use a wide variety of titles for the divine: God, Lord, almighty God, eternal Lord, etc., etc. Using the principle of dynamic equivalence, ICEL chose to translate most of these titles with the English “Father.” The thought was that all of these titles refer to the same divinity and that “Father” conveys more warmth than “almighty God.”
Next, “our observance of Lent” basically means the same thing as “our yearly exercise in the holy Season of Lent,” but it seems clear that, though the substance was maintained and a certain crispness garnered, some depth and richness were lost. Lastly, the “riches hidden in Christ” does refer to his “death and resurrection,” but again, poetry was sacrificed. ICEL had also been experimenting with the creation of original English texts. Some language theories doubt whether it is ever possible to translate accurately from one language to another, and the alternative in such a case would be free composition in the genius of the native language. In May 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments promulgated a new document on translation theory entitled Liturgiam Authenticam (the authentic Liturgy). This instruction reserved the creation of new liturgical compositions to the Holy See alone. It also provided principles for translation that differed significantly from the previous instruction, Comme le prévoit. Note, for example, the following excerpt from Liturgiam Authenticam:
“The translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the liturgical texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax, and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptations to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.” (No. 20)
A number of factors led to the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam. By 2001, the Roman Rite had over 35 years of experience in using a vernacular liturgy. In 2000, the Roman Rite had promulgated a revised “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” and a revision of the Roman Missal itself was coming (published in 2002).
The question often arises, why does it take so long to get a revised English translation? Every other major European language has already undergone revisions of its initial translations in light of decades of experience. In part, the reason for this discrepancy was that the English translation was not for only one country, but for every English speaking country in the Catholic world. In the Spanish-speaking world, on the other hand, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, etc., all use their own Spanish translation that differ from one another. If it were only up to the United States, it would be much easier, but that is not the case. The English language translation affects the whole English-speaking world. And actually, the English translation affects the non-English world as well. In some countries, there is no one who knows Latin, and so they actually translate from English. This raises the importance of an English translation above other vernacular translations. This can be seen from a letter written on Oct. 26, 1999, by the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez, to Bishop Maurice Taylor of Galloway, Scotland, head of ICEL at that time. In that letter the prefect said:
“Problems with the English language translations of the liturgical texts assume a particular gravity in proportion to the prominence of the English language in the international community. Even while it remains essential that liturgical translations be made directly from the original texts into the various modern vernacular languages, the impact which the English language translation is likely to exert on certain other versions is an observed and unavoidable fact, which in turn must be said to place a significant responsibility on those charged with the translations into English.”
The third edition of the Missale Romanum, which was published in 2002, included various modifications due, in part, to a revised Code of Canon Law and the publication of other liturgical books (e.g. the Ceremonial of Bishops). There were also new Mass formulas for recently canonized saints, as well as new prayers for the Commons of Martyrs and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
We can say, then, that there are three major reasons for the new translation currently underway: first, because the current translation was always considered provisional; second, because the church has provided significantly revised principles of translation; and third, because of the publication of the third edition of the Missale Romanum.
It has never been a matter of whether to do a new translation, but rather when . . . and how. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has repeatedly encouraged the English-speaking bishops to speed the new translation along as quickly as possible. The Holy Father understands the language of the liturgy to be an essential dimension of the renewal of the liturgy, and one of the most important means of inculturating the Roman Rite into the genius of various peoples.
[NEXT ISSUE: We look at the principles and process for the new translation of the Roman Missal.]
(This article was reprinted with permission from The Catholic Missourian, the newspaper of the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |