Story of the revised translation – part two
Published: 2 October 2011 By: Elizabeth Harrington
CONCERNS about the new instructions for translating liturgical texts enshrined in Liturgiam Authenticam were not limited to the fact that it in effect changed the rules in the middle of the game.
The genesis of this document was questionable, to say the least.
It was supposedly produced by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, but members of that Congregation had not been informed the document was forthcoming, let alone consulted in its production.
Pope John Paul II had mandated the preparation of the document and approved and confirmed the final version.
There was, understandably, widespread negative reaction to Liturgiam Authenticam, not just from so-called “liberals”.
Chant scholar and self-described liturgical conservative Peter Jeffery described it as “the most ignorant statement on liturgy ever issued by a modern Vatican congregation. (It) should be summarily withdrawn, on the grounds that it was released prematurely, before proper consultation with a sufficient number of experts had been completed”.
Liturgiam Authenticam requires every word in the Latin text to be replicated in the vernacular, the vocabulary, syntax, punctuation and capitalisation patterns found in the Latin to be reproduced as much as possible, and translations to employ what it called a “sacral vernacular” that is different from ordinary speech.
It also gives this direction:
“Great caution is to be taken to avoid a wording or style that the Catholic faithful would confuse with the manner of speech of non-Catholic ecclesial communities or of other religions, so that such a factor will not cause them confusion or discomfort.”
There are several matters causing the Catholic faithful confusion and discomfort at present, but I seriously doubt that worshipping with words used by some other Christians is amongst them.
The distinguished Filipino liturgical scholar Ansgar Chupungco, who is former chair of the Translations and Revisions Sub-committee of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), described the principle of formal equivalence required by Liturgiam Authenticam as deficient, because texts must have beauty and aesthetic form, not just doctrinal fidelity and linguistic accuracy, to be memorable.
He explained that, in its earlier work at revising the Missal, ICEL had been attentive to the properties of formal spoken English and as a result had produced texts that matched the beauty and nobility of the original Latin – texts subsequently assigned to the dust bin.
But the convoluted story of the revised Missal did not end with the new ICEL’s new translation which was completed in 2008 and approved by all the bishops conferences.
In January 2010 Vox Clara announced it had made undisclosed changes to the ICEL texts.
Several months later a report appeared detailing evidence of extensive alterations – allegedly as many as 10,000 – that had been made to the English Missal in violation of the Vatican’s own translation rules and six months after Pope Benedict XVI had received the approved, “final” version of the Missal.
Apart from causing great inconvenience to publishers and composers, these changes have generated much disquiet.
This one example demonstrates why – “to proclaim you yet more gloriously” has become “to laud you yet more gloriously”.
The word “laud” is not part of even formal modern speech, and how will “laud” be understood aurally?
Elizabeth Harrington is the education officer with The Liturgical Commission in the Archdiocese of Brisbane.
02/10/2011 at 1:59 pm Permalink
Whatever the political process of communal authorship of a text (which is far more problematic in many ways of course than sole authorship), as an English literature graduate I must consider the text first and foremost as it stands, i.e. judge the text and its readership.
The text of the missal appears largely an improvement to me, with exceptions one may debate such as “for us men and our salvation” reintroduced in the Nicene creed. However, in the context of the new translation, this particular phrase to me stands out less than in the previous missal translation.
The new translation feels more incisive, closer to the Latin. The flow of the text has more purpose, and punch – my impressions as a reader.
The readership, i.e. principally the congregations where I’ve been part of who have used this new translation, appear to strongly embrace the changes. The priests seem to have more difficultly, with a greater range of changes to their eucharistic prayers, etc.
The experience of seeing Catholics with prayer cards reading – well, first 18 years of my life spent reading from Anglican prayer book – I am enjoying this experience at present. It’s a period of Catholic church history we are working through that I welcome to watch every congregation have to pay attention to written words on the page for a while, until internalised. Mass attendances have risen where I’ve worshipped – not diminished.
Elizabeth Harrington, her credentials in assessing this translation? I’ve read rather general articles in the Catholic Leader on liturgy, e.g. liturgical music. To be brief, they are general.
Harrington concludes the above “Story of the revised translation” article “these changes have generated much disquiet. This one example demonstrates why…. “to laud you yet more gloriously”. The word “laud” is not part of even formal modern speech, and how will “laud” be understood aurally?” [end quote]
Examples that come to mind:
“Scotland lauded as global leader in greenhouse energy”, news article appearing yesterday in a major Scottish newspaper
“Laudate Dominum”, a Taize chant (with Latin text) I’ve used many a time in St Mary’s from 1988 till now, during both Peter Kennedy’s time, and now with Ken Howell. Both priests very happy with the use of this music and indeed it is stunningly simple and effective use of simple 4 part vocal harmony and layered cantor and instrumental polyphony.
Channel 9 sports commentator Peter Sterling “lauding” young Queensland halfback Daly Cherry-Evans about to make his first NRL grand final appearance this afternoon. If a working class game like rugby league can make use on national television of the word “laud”… well, I think this missal translation has resonance by re-introducing such words.
Who says the missal will not change again in another 40 years’ time?
Never say never in the Catholic church.
07/10/2011 at 5:54 pm Permalink
Hello Christians,
Let me quote St Paul: “when I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a
child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me”. Some may ask what has this to do with what words go with what theatre. Simple, words and theatre are a childish discussion. They don’t matter. We need to grow up. The homily where different people – including Mister Rudd – talked about the social justice work done with homeless people and the latest on action on climate change are “living childhood behind me” as St Paul would say.
Love Fosco
17/10/2011 at 11:21 am Permalink
And the ‘hello Christians’ from the Melbourne mentally challenged is why this site is all but dead. I have commented very little in 2010 on this website, but thought one careful response to new missal worthwhile – it was a noted topic mentioned at St Mary’s by Terry and others cerca 2009., and clearly the topic of the day, not to be dismissed.
The numbers at both St Mary’s churches are now approaching equal and the chance of a ‘St Mary’s Centre’ or such in West End fading, because there just wasn’t the calibre of manager, lawyer, accountant, fundraiser at SME 2009 to make that happen… SME please prove me wrong and give us more of a chance of preserving our South Brisbane history.
I cannot comprehend the lack of dialogue between Peter, Terry, and our archbishop 1980s-2000s that has led to a slowly diminishing SME, and an old church which has lost much (tho certainly not all) of it’s modern history. Yet not lost it’s character either, due to hard working, dedicated souls like Maggie and friends at our church.