|
CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE
SACRAMENTS
Prot. n. 429/02/L
Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman
Missal
I. General observations regarding the layout of the book, the
disposition of its texts, and the inclusion of newly composed texts.
A.The word “Sacramentary,” evidently
chosen to distinguish this book containing the prayers of the Mass on the one
hand, from the Lectionary, on the other, seems nevertheless to have had the
adverse effect of furthering a mistaken conception of this
“Sacramentary” as a new and somewhat autonomous liturgical book for
the English-speaking world. The term “Sacramentary” is not
characterized by a linear historical development, and the present book also
contains antiphons and other elements that were not in the ancient or medieval
books commonly designated sacramentaries at least in academic usage.
Accordingly, the Congregation asks that from now on the book be referred to in
English as the Roman Missal, and that the official use of the word
Sacramentary be discontinued in reference to it.
B.The ordering of the texts has departed almost
entirely from that of the Missale Romanum, where such ordering often has
significant theological and catechetical implications. In some instances, the
Commission’s stated goal of avoiding repetition of prayers by means of
such restructuring seems to have been formulated without sufficient attention
to the positive effects of such repetition in terms of the congregation’s
progressive comprehension and assimilation of their conceptual and spiritual
content.
C.The proposed text would change significantly the
structure of the Ritus initiales for Masses celebrated on Sundays,
Feasts, and Solemnities. It would thus appear to exclude that the Actus
poenitentialis be used together with the Gloria, as prescribed by
the Missale Romanum for the majority of the Sundays of the liturgical
year. In any event, the disposition of prayers in the Missal is not at the
discretion of the translators, and the ordering of the text, including the
integral structure and sequence of the Ritus initiales, should be
restored to that of the editio typica tertia. In addition, the Missal
should be published as a single book for use on all days of the year, without
fragmentation into parts.
D.Certain texts included in the project, such as
the seasonal introductions and the hagiographical notes by the Proper of
Saints, by virtue of their genre as well as their bulk, should not be published
within a liturgical book. At times, their very content militates against such
an intention. For examples, the statement that (St.) Jerome “began work on
a new Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate”, is
historically inexact, since he selected and compiled existing texts of the
Vetus Latina for many parts of the Bible, while his characterization as
“irascible and intolerant” is hardly an appropriate appendage …
One might cite the inappropriateness of the reference to Santa Claus in
commemorating St. Nicholas, to the unexplained statement that St. Callistus I
“served a sentence as a convict”, or the assertion that St. Pius
V’s “excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I of England hardened the
split between Catholics and Protestants.” While there is an admitted
distinction between a liturgical and a hagiographical text, these are neither.
The present Observations are not the context in which to address question of
the veracity of those statements, it is sufficient to point out that they are
out of place in the Missal.
E.The use of explanatory rubrics that import
material from other liturgical books and documents, such as the Caeremoniale
Episcoporum, would have the affect of reducing or eliminating recourse to
these documents themselves, and would also inhibit the freedom of the Holy See
to act in matters where the normal avenue of implementation of a given
initiative would be precisely those documents. Such a procedure of compilation
is not within the scope of the translator’s task.
F. Consistent with the principles enumerated above
regarding the book’s structure, and also with the communications sent by
this Congregation well over a decade ago to the various Conferences (e.g.
Prot.n. 866/88, 24 June 1988, as well as to the Executive Secretary of the
Mixed Commission Prot. n. 410/66, 16 June 1988, acknowledged by him 10 days
later), in addition to other instances in the meantime in which this Dicastery
has publicly taken the same position, the Congregation must insist that the
texts newly composed by the Mixed Commission be excluded from the Missal.
Supporting this decision are several serious concerns, namely:
- that the procedures set forth in the 1994 Instruction
Varietates legitimae be upheld as regards adaptations to liturgical
books for the sake of inculturation;
- that the proliferation of original texts not hinder the
meditation of the faithful and of their pastors on the riches already found in
the prayers of the Roman Liturgy;
- that the desire for constant variety typical of many
consumerist societies, not come to be regarded in itself as constituting a
cultural value capable of serving as a vehicle for authentic inculturation;
- finally, that the characteristic structure and function of
the traditional Roman Collects, their sobriety, and their reflection of the
tension between the transcendent and the immanent, not be jeopardized by
compositions that may be superficially attractive by virtue of their emotional
impact, but lack the spiritual depth and the rhetorical excellence of the body
of ancient prayers, which were not mass-produced at a given moment but grew
over the course of many centuries.
II. Examples of problems in grammar, syntax, and sentence
sructure
A. The Structure of the Collects: Relative clauses
often disappear in the proposed text (especially the initial Deus,
qui…, so important in the Latin Collects), so that a single oration is
divided into two or more sentences. This loss is detrimental not only to the
unity of the structure, but to the manner of conveying the proper sense of the
posture before God of the Christian people, or of the individual Christian. The
relative clause acknowledges God’s goodness, while the independent clause
strongly conveys the impression that one is explaining something about God to
God. Yet it is precisely the acknowledgement of the mirabilia Dei
that lies at the heart of all Judaeo-Christian euchology. The quality of
supplication is also adversely affected so that many of the texts now appear to
say to God rather abruptly: “You did a; now do b.” The manner in
which language expresses relationship to God cannot be regarded merely as a
matter of style.
B. The unfortunately monotonous effect of placing
the vocative “Lord” always as the beginning of the prayers has
already been cited by the Congregation in connection with previous texts
submitted for its approval. However, this tendency can also be observed in the
present text.
C. For those Latin texts characterized by the
extensive use of relative clauses, ablative absolutes, participial phrases,
etc., the English text often fails to convey the precise nature of the
relationship between clauses, so that the sense of the whole is lost (e.g. in
particular the Prefaces: e.g., De Ss.ma Eucharistia I: “Qui
verus aeternusque Sacerdos, formani sacrificii perennis instituens, hostiam
tibi se primus abtulit salutarem,” where the failure to convey the
relationship between clauses of the Latin obscures the unity of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice with that of Calvary. Likewise many of the Collects: e.g., Collect,
Wednesday of the 7th Week of Easter, where the relationship between
“Sancto Spiritu congregata” and “toto sit corde tibi
devota, et pura voluntate concordet” is obscured in the English. The
Latin text taken globally, has conveyed with precision certain theological
realities and tensions involving salvation history and the inherent dynamism of
the ecclesial life of grace, which should not be lost in the vernacular text,
however challenging and difficult it may be to convey them.
III. Examples of problems related to questions of “inclusive
language” and of the use of masculine and feminine terms
A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the
term “man” as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation
often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to
a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The
simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is
lost. The term “humankind” coined for purposes of “inclusive
language” remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical
context and, in addition, it is usually 100 abstract to convey the notion of
the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English “man,” which
some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a a
collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with
God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and
Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression
cannot achieve the same affect.
B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately
also maintained the first-person plural “We believe” instead of the
first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the
above mentioned tendency to omit the term “men” has effects that are
theologically grave. This text - “For us and for our salvation” - no
longer clearly refers to the salvation of all but apparently only that of those
who are present. The “us” thereby becomes potentially exclusive
rather than inclusive.
C. After the Orate fratres the
people’s response Suspiciat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis
…has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive
language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for
the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the
Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the
impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose
name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and
is no longer called holy - a flaw in the previous translation that one might
have hoped would be corrected.
D. For the Church, the neuter pronoun
“it” is always used, instead of “she.” So designated, the
Church can appear to be a mere social aggregate, deprived of much of the
mystery that has been emphasized especially in relatively recent teaching by
the Magisterium. The pronoun “it” does not seem to refer properly to
the reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and
Christ’s Bride.
IV. Examples of problems in vocabulary, wording and other aspects
of content
A. Instead of “Collect,” a traditional
Roman term that is both venerable and expressive, the translators continue to
use the term “Opening Prayer” which does not express the same reality
and, in fact, is simply incorrect. Likewise, “Prayer over the Gifts”
does not seem to specify sufficiently the sense conveyed by the term
“Oblata” in this context in reference to oblate that
are themselves taken “de tuis donis ac datis.” A designation
such as “Prayer over the Offerings” would be preferable.
B. “Opening Song” does not translate
“Cantus ad introitum” or “Antiphona ad
introitum” as intended by the rites. The Latin is able to express the
musical processional beginning of the Liturgy that accompanies the entrance of
the priest and ministers, while “Opening Song” could just as well
designate the beginning number of a secular musical performance.
C. The Congregation in the course of its various
contacts and consultations has encountered widespread - indeed, virtually
unanimous - opposition to the institution of any change in the wording of the
Lord’s Prayer. More than one reader cited poignantly the experience of
having seen this prayer coming to the lips of Christians who had otherwise
apparent unconscious, its familiar wording having been learned by them from
infancy. By contrast, the Mixed Commission’s Justification for its changes
in its Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal, seem
inadequate and somewhat cerebral.
D. The word “presbyter” often continues
to be used instead of “priest,” for example in the Proper of Saints.
The Holy See’s position on this matter was made clear in a letter of the
Congregation for Divine Worship to the Conferences of 20 September 1997. At the
same time, many titles are used there which do not appear at all in the
Missale Romanum. In the titles of the celebrations the designation
“Saint” is consistently omitted, contrary to the established
tradition of the Church. One example of these tendencies: “6 October:
Bruno, presbyter, hermit, religious founder.”
E. The rich language of supplication found in the
Latin texts is radically reduced in the translation. Words and expressions such
as quaesamus, exoramus, imploramus, praesia … ut, dono, concede,
etc., have been collapsed more or less into the terms “ask” and
“grant,” transferred almost always in the last line of the prayer,
resulting in a corpus of prayers that is relatively monotonous and impoverished
with respect to the Latin. In addition, these factors render the imperative
verbs in the body of the orations somewhat abrupt and presumptuous in tone, so
that the oration seems to be a command rather than a prayer addressed to God.
Again, there is more than style at stake here.
F. The language often lapses into sentimentality
and emotionality in place of the noble simplicity of the Latin. A focus on
transcendent realities in the Latin prayers too often shifts in the English
prayers in a focus on the interior dispositions and desires of those who pray.
The overuse of the word “hearts” when the word is not present in the
Latin text weakens the use of the term on those occasions where it actually
occurs. Likewise, the overuse of the term “sharing” flattens and
trivializes the content conveyed by the Latin words participes and
consortes.
G. For patena, calix, etc. the
translators avoid the use of specifically sacral terminology, and use words
commonly employed in the vernacular for kitchenware. In an already secularized
culture, it is difficult to see what legitimate purpose could be served by a
deliberate desacralization of religious terminology. There do exist in English
words for these items having sacral connotations, such as “paton” and
“chalice,” but these are assiduously avoided in the translation. The
Congregation views this tendency with regret, especially in conjunction with
certain other tendencies enumerated in these Observations, by which the sense
of the transcendent is not only inadequately conveyed, but actively
obscured.
H. The word unigenitus is often translated
simply as “only,” so that Jesus is called the “only Son” of
God. The distinction between the terms “only” and
“only-begotten” is often crucial in the liturgical prayers, which
unfold within a Trinitarian dynamism precisely by virtue of our own adoptive
sonship.
I. Frequently there are important words translated
either in an inadequate manner, or not at all. Among them are: devotus (-e,
-io), dignor, ineffabilis (-iter), maiestas, mens, mereor, novitas, verustas,
offera, pietas, piacanis, propitius, supplices, and many others, besides
those mentioned elsewhere in those Observations. The challenge posted by the
translation of certain of these concepts into contemporary English underscores
a cultural fact that is at the same time perhaps the strongest indication of
the necessity of doing so, even when the result must be a text that will have
to be clarified by good catechisis.
J. The text exhibits some confusion on the part of
the translators regarding the intended sense of the words caelestis and
caelorum which, in the original text, refer at some times to heaven as
such, but at other times to heavenly realities experienced now. Confusion on
this point hinders the text in its capacity to convey the eschatological
tension at issue in the Latin text.
K. In the conclusions of the Prefaces, the
enumeration of the heavenly choirs (cum Thronis at Dominationibus, etc.)
is often omitted in favor of the singular term “angels”. The reason
for this tendency of the text in many places to make gratuitous alterations is
not clear.
L. In the text in particular the Eucharistic
Prayers many significant biblical expressions and allusions continue to be
obscured, as do significant allusions to events or notable features of a given
Saint’s life or works.
M. In order to assist the faithful to commit
various parts of the sacred text to memory and to appropriate the text more
deeply without the jarring inevitably created by the dissonance of diverse
translations of the same passage, those texts taken directly from Sacred
Scripture, such as the amiphons, should reflect the wording of the same
approved version used in the Lectionary for which the Conference has received
the recognitio of the Holy See. Only those textual adjustments should be
made which are necessitated by the manner in which the editio typica has
employed the official Latin text (e.g., sometimes adding a vocative such as
“Domine” or condensing two verses). For the sake of such unity
as regards the biblical text, it is appropriate and preferable that this
element of diversity be maintained among the versions of the Roman
Missal eventually to be published by the various Conferences.
N. Since it is already permissible, as specified
by the Institutio Generalis, to use other sung texts in place of the
antiphons given in the Missal, the Conference may wish to publish separately a
set of such texts, and perhaps some of the antiphons prepared for the present
project may eventually qualify for inclusion in such a publication. The
Congregation would not be opposed to such a measure provided that the texts
chosen be doctrinally sound. However, in the case of texts from Sacred
Scripture, it is the sacred text itself that should determine the qualities of
the music to which it is to be set, rather than vice-versa. This principle does
not seem to have been followed consistently in the antiphons given in the part
of the project that the translators have labeled the “antiphonal.”
The antiphons to be printed in the Missal should appear within the Mass
formularies, as in the current editio typica.
V. The distinction of liturgical roles
A. In the vast majority of the cases in which the
priest prays in the third person for the people (and again, the Eucharistic
Prayers are notable in this regard) the translators have opted instead for the
first person plural. Such a choice obscures the distinction of roles that is
evident in the Latin text, and in particular the priest’s role as
intercessor and mediator vis-à-vis the people for whom he prays in an
unselfish manner. The priest is thus submerged within an amorphous congregation
that prays for itself. Obscured at the same time is the important notion of
offering the Mass on behalf of others or for their benefit. These are crucial
issues. Even at a purely literary level as well, this procedure augments the
monotony of the translation.
B. The rubrics and notes have been completely
re-worked in ways that obscure the distinction of hierarchical and liturgical
roles. A few examples:
- In the Prayer over the People for the Ritual Mass of
Confirmation, the translators seem to have wished to alter the universal and
constant discipline of the Latin Church according to which the Bishop is the
ordinary minister of the Sacrament. In place of the Latin, Deinde Episcopus,
manibus super populum extensis, dicit ; one finds instead. “The
priest sings or says the following prayer with hands outstretched over the
people.”
- For the Chrism Mass of Holy Thursday, it is suggested that
those laypersons who exercise a ministry to the sick to the catechumens and to
families of children being baptized and confirmed, take their places with the
Bishop during the Mass. On the other hand, the intentional focus of this
celebration on the sacramental priesthood is obscured somewhat.
- In the Order of Mass, where the Latin rubric reads,
“Tunc sacerdos incipit Precem eucharisticum ,” the translators
have altered it to read instead, “The priest leads the assembly in the
eucharistic prayer.” Such an alteration - for it cannot be termed a
translation - obscures the true nature of the Eucharistic Prayer as a
presidential prayer in which the people participate by listening silently
and reverently and by making the acclamations prescribed by the rite.
C. Another example of the translators’ having
altered texts (or, in this case, maintained a deficient wording) to the
detriment of the distinction of roles between priest and people is the prayer
Orate, fratres, ut meum ac vostrum sacrificium …,which becomes
“Pray brothers and sisters that our sacrifice… as if the
congregation and priest both offered the sacrifice in an indistinct
manner.
D. Given the Latin tradition that very closely
links the words “Mysterium fidei” to the words of institution,
it is inappropriate for the deacon to give the invitation to the Memorial
Acclamation. The translators, with no authorization, have introduced this
change. The same importance traditionally attached to the words
“Mysterium fidei” precludes its replacement by other formulas,
even though the Congregation appreciates the practical considerations
motivating the translators to offer alternative introductions to the Memorial
Acclamation. It is perhaps useful to observe here that the Congregation
considers the translation “Great is the mystery of faith” a good one
for rendering in English the precise meaning and purpose of the Latin phrase in
its liturgical context.
E. The translation of “Et cum spiritus
tuo” as “And also with you” has become familiar in the
English-speaking world and a change in the people’s response would no
doubt occasion some temporary discomfort. Nevertheless, the continuous literal
translation of this response in all major liturgical traditions, whether
Semitic, Greek, or Latin as well as in virtually every other modern language,
constitutes a historical consensus and an imperative that can no longer be set
aside. The present translation inappropriately situates the exchange on a
purely horizontal level, without any apparent distinction in the roles of those
who speak: the literal translation in its historical context has always been
understood in relation to the crucial distinction of liturgical roles between
the priest and the people. Weighty considerations such as these necessitate
that the English translation at last be brought into conformity with the usage
of the other language groups, and with the tradition, as is also prescribed now
in the Congregation’s recent Instruction Liturgiam
authenticam.
National Catholic Reporter, Posted May 16,
2002
|
|
