Folks,

Haven't posted on this board for a while, but here's an important article concerning Roman Catholic liturgical translations. A number of the regulars (especially Rusnak) will be glad to hear that ICEL has been stopped dead in its tracks.

In Christ,
Steven

__________________________________________________________________________________

VATICAN CRACKS DOWN ON LITURGICAL TRANSLATIONS

VATICAN, May 7, 01 (CWNew.s.com) ? The Vatican has issued new norms for the translation of liturgical texts, repudiating the principles that have been used in recent English-language translations.
The new Vatican instruction specifically says that translators: - Should not adapt the original Latin texts, but render them faithfully in the vernacular language; - Should preserve gender-based references, especially in the Scriptures-rather than changing texts to more "inclusive" language; - Should obtain Vatican approval at each step in the process of translation, editing, and adaptation of texts.

In a 50-page document that was made public on May 7, the Congregation for Divine Worship stresses the need for a faithful rendering of the liturgical text approved by the Holy See. The document, entitled Liturgiam Authenticam, is signed by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. But the document also stresses that the text has the explicit support of Pope John Paul II, who "approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority."

Although Vatican officials say for the record that there have been no serious problems with liturgical translations, informed sources acknowledge that the new document is a response to sharp disagreements over English-language translations. The International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), which has until recently produced all official translations for English-speaking countries, has been heavily criticized by Catholic activists? and, more recently, by some American bishops.

In fact, the principles set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam clearly contradict the policies used by ICEL for years. The Vatican's new definitive rules would raise questions about the translations now available in use in English-speaking countries, including the latest Lectionary. These same guidelines, if they were applied consistenly to translations of the Scriptures, could call into question the translations used in the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised New American Bible, and the Jerusalem Bible.

Some changes mandated by the new Vatican instruction are sure to command immediate attention. For example, the document insists on "the use of the first person singular" in the opening of the Nicene Creed, so that the Creed should begin "I believe" rather than "We believe." And the document calls for the Congregation to reply, "And with your spirit"-rather than "And also with you," when the celebrant says, "The Lord be with you." But the more important message of Liturgiam Authenticam is the rejection of ICEL's overall approach to translation.

Since the Second Vatican Council, liturgical translations have been done by national episcopal conferences-or, as in the case with English translations-by commissions set up jointly by the bishops of different countries that share a common language. These translations must be approved by the Holy See before being put into use. During the past decade, the Vatican has refused to grant approval for several English-language translations, and approved others only after having insisted on substantial modifications.

The Congregation for Divine Worship indicates that the purpose of Liturgiam Authenticam is to provide official norms for translations, to guide the work of the bishops' conference. The document makes it clear that these norms supersede the guidelines set forth in previous Vatican statements. Officials of the Congregation stress that there is "nothing new" in the document. Rather, they suggest, the Vatican is making the record clear in order to curb translators from indulging in their own novelties.

The Latin texts that are submitted to translators, the Congregation for Divine Worship points out, "are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal." Those texts do not need to be "renewed" by translators, the document emphasizes; they should merely be translated accurately.

Similarly, Liturgiam Authenticam denies that translators have the authority to prepare "alternative" texts. Again, the document stresses, the job of the translator is simply to render the Latin text into the vernacular language, without editorial changes.

The most heated disputes about liturgical translation have centered on the use of "inclusive" language. The Congregation rejects the effort to strip all gender-based references out of the liturgy. Thus, for example, the document says: "The term 'fathers,' found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church."

Moreover, Liturgiam Authenticam dismisses the fundamental argument used by proponents of "inclusive" language: the idea that gender-specific language might cause some people (in most cases women) to think they were being "excluded" from the message of the liturgy. Preachers and teachers should ensure that no Catholic feels excluded from the liturgy, the Congregation for Divine Worship says. But that task is not a function of translation. The new document explains:

"Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy."

I've read the instruction and my first reaction was, "Finally!" a lot of the translations we have now are just bad and it's obvious even to my paltry Latin skills.

Incessant translation of texts by supposed experts gives me the feeling that they really aren't experts in the first place! If they were, wouldn't they have gotten things right by now?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ignatius:

"Incessant translation of texts by supposed experts gives me the feeling that they really aren't experts in the first place! If they were, wouldn't they have gotten things right by now?"

Yes, they are not experts. In fact, I believe that their first objective was to adopt the worst translation possible. The result: exit mystery.

Instead of trying to translate the Latin verbatim or trying to be politically correct, just adopt a translation that is poetic and reverent. A good translation need not be at odds with the original meaning of the text.

To be fair, the goal for these commitees is to maximize the congregations' understanding of the Mass, Scripture, etc. However, it is more important to enter into the mystery of God and experience His greatness than to have a modern, newspaper-like "understanding" of the texts.

Greg, accountant & sinner

Dear Greg,

Your "accountant and sinner" reminded me of how the Guild of Lawyers received their patron.

A lawyer tried to press Rome to declare a patron for his profession.

He was told to go to a church where there were statues of saints not yet assigned to guilds.

He was to be blind-folded, led around the Church three times and then the first saint whose statue he would grab would be the lawyers' patron.

He did so and then grabbed hold of something while he yelled, "We have our patron! We have our patron!"

When he took off his blindfold, he saw that he had grabbed hold of the statue of the devil that St Michael was standing on . . .

Thomas More and Ives of Brittany later became the patrons of lawyers . . .

Alex

Dear Steven,

And now if only the Ukrainian Catholic Church could have a single translation of the same calibre - well a lot of us are certainly "hotovy" (ready) for it!

Alex

Wonderful news! Actual translations, getting rid of the ICEL paraphrases and other errors (like ‘for all’ for pro multis), will get rid of about half the problems with the Novus Ordo. Next: restoring gestures and postures of Godward common prayer (which the Byzantine Rite has) with better rubrics, better architecture and interior design (both a return to old forms and a development of new forms that share their character) and a reversal of iconoclasm.

Iconoclasm lasted in the Byzantine Empire for about 100 years? In the Roman Church the restoration may already be under way in only 40. Good.

Serge

Old World Rus’

Does anyone know for sure if the corrected liturgical translations will indeed restore the Words of Christ in the Institution Narritave back to, "for you and for many"?

Is there a plan to print revised English Missals, etc., and officially mandate their use, and if so, what is the expected time frame for all this to come about? How long might it take before corrected translations actually replace the current ones?

Will some local priests be at liberty to drag their feet in implementing the change, or will there be a quick, sweeping change, once everything is approved and finalized?

[This message has been edited by Mirfsem (edited 05-17-2001).]

>>>Will some local priests be at liberty to drag their feet in implementing the change, or will there be a quick, sweeping change, once
everything is approved and finalized?<<<

You mean in the same manner that our God-loving bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches have done for the past 56 years?

Christ is Risen!!!

Of course, we now have a whole generation raised in the ICEL liturgy. If the RC Bishops order changes, they will get a whole new chorus of "we've always done it this way!". I suppose we shall see.

He is Risen Indeed!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

>>Of course, we now have a whole generation raised in the ICEL liturgy. If the RC Bishops order changes, they will get a whole new chorus of "we've always done it this way!". I suppose we shall see.<<

If by "we've always done it this way" you mean changing things on a fairly regular basis you may be right.

Besides, if the bishops and priests would take the time to actually educate the faithful regarding the history of the Church and the liturgy I think the chances of a problem will be reduced. The new guidelines are certainly more in keeping with the organic development of the Mass over the past two centuries than anything ICEL has put out in its illustrious career (kind of sad when a bunch of guys in Italy know more about the English language than people who are supposedly native speakers ).

The new guidelines seem to be an excellent implementation of tradition into the present life of the Church.

I think the rank-and-file Roman Catholics, both the faithful Mass-goers and the casual ones, will be happy as long as the Mass is still in the vernacular.

Serge

Old World Rus’

This document has been hotly debated in a number of Internet groups that appeal to a wide spectrum of RC believers. The reaction has been mixed, but hardly anyone is defending the quality of the current translations. Most of the critics of this document don't like the heavy-handed way in which it was implemented and how the document "ties the hands" of the translators. Also, the document takes a pretty hard line with regard to inclusive language, and that alone is sure to trigger a negative response from some.

Given the weakened state of the English language these days, it will take a minor miracle to produce a text that is simultaneously accessible to most people, theologically sound, and at the same has a touch of poetry.

In Christ,
Steven

"I think the rank & file RCs will be happy.."
"given the weakened state of the English language.."

I moved from my old RC parish several years ago. We must have been in a time warp? In kindness I deleted the specifics.

Unless my situation is irregular, this is what I have come to believe: when there is unfaithfulness, blatant sometimes, it is not due to ignorance or carelessness. Confusion, subtle changes in rites and the liturgy, may guide some along a path they might not otherwise trod.

I have a very deep pain inside, please pray for us.

I agree that there have been serious problems with translations in the Roman liturgy over the past years. I clearly remember 70 novices and young seminarians trying to suppress laughter when in the Gospel reading, the woman tore her house upside down looking for her 'lost dime'.

As a diplomaed theologian and an MS PhD linguist, I realize that rendering text from one language to another is not an easy task. There is a 'dictionary definition' of a word (semantic meaning); but there is also a 'pragmatics' type semantic that attempts to understand what the word meant in the cultural milieu. Thus, the 'dime' was the actual semantic meaning for that coin at that time. So, even in a mid-19th century rendering, a dime was a fairly decent sum of money. It would buy 2 loaves of bread. But today, even a piece of hard candy is worth 25 cents!

Thus, the liturgical (and scriptural) translator has got to work within linguistic frameworks, but has got to also decide which of potentially several conflicting theologies to incorporate into the translations. As an example, Byzantine translators use: "Trinity, one in ESSENCE (or SUBSTANCE) and undivided." If you're a 'Western scholastic', you choose substance; if not, then essence. And the people have no idea what the difference might be, so perhaps you ought to use: "Being".

This also leads to questions about referring to God as "He". Sure, it feels comfortable because 'that's the way we've always referred to God'. But, if one is being theologically (and linguistically accurate) since God is a spirit and has neither a pee-pee or a woo-woo, then shouldn't we be using a 'tertium quid'? (Hebrew doesn't have a neither-masculine-nor-feminine alternative. Latin and Greek do. So does English: "It". German does; but French and Italian don't. Neither do Spanish or Portuguese. So, is God: "It"?

The French use the 'formal' "VOUS" in speaking to God in prayers. The Germans use the "DU" familiar form. The Greek doesn't distinguish. Neither does English.

So, the question exists: use the purely semantic form (and get "dime") or use the pragmatic semantic form and get to play "Wheel of Fortune" with which theological perspective is going to determine the appropriate word? And then, you've got to find someone who not only knows the languages, knows the theology, but who can actually produce DECENT language to render the texts. (I love a lot of the Ruthenian hymns, but I CRINGE at some of the grammar. I only wish that there had been a cadre of nuns in the 'translators' grammar schools to impose ruler-justice on linguistic infelicities.)

I wish I could win the lottery to establish a Byzantine translation institute in America for all the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics to produce a Pulitzer Award Winning translation of our liturgical texts. The Sisters in Uniontown and Bishop Kallistos have done great work; but we can, and should, do better.

Christ is Risen! (Christ HAS Risen!) (Christ HAS BEEN Risen!)

Does anyone know if this new translation/revised translation is only applicable for European languages or for all languages? I live in Japan and here, the Liturgy translation into Japanese is in very archaic Japanese, which is akin to the English of Beowolf. If it were based on the translations of St. Francis Xavier, then I could understand, but from what I have heard (Hearsay, mind you) the Liturgy we use is only about 30yrs old. Anyone know the answer as to whether or not the Japanese Liturgy will be revised?.....or will I have to wait until Sunday to ask our Priest.

Shuu no heiwa,

Jason Glavy
Yokohama, Japan