Since the Second Vatican Council, church-wide catechesis has become a central issue of importance for the Church. This issue has been mirrored in the development of the new English translation of the Missale Romanum Editio Typica Tertia. A general unification of translation is being sought to make it comparable to other languages’ translations. Additionally, by more explicit reference to biblical passages in the liturgy, the faithful will have a more conscious understanding of the Faith they share with Catholics around the world.
One of the initial points of interest faced by the translators of the Missale Romanum has been the use of “dynamic equivalency.”[1] This conceptual translation of text has played a major role in the liturgical development of English-speaking countries. The new translation, however, seeks to reunite the English vernacular with the original Latin text by introducing what has been termed “formal equivalency,” a more literal and historical, yet no less conceptual translation of text.[2] In an explanatory address to the National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical commissions, Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, reinforced the necessity of literality and historicity of the coming translation:
“In liturgy, the words addressed to God and the words spoken to the people voice the Faith of the Church… The words used in liturgy … pass on the faith of the Church from one generation to the next. ”[3]
One of the key issues facing the English-speaking bishops regarding translation is how to better impart the subtle, yet crucial biblical references present in the Latin texts. In many areas, the current translation may offer “dynamic” interpretation, but lacks the biblical straightforwardness that is seen as more efficacious by many in the leadership of the Church. An example of this, given again by Bishop Serratelli, refers to Eucharistic Prayer III:
“In Eucharistic Prayer III, we will no longer say: ‘From east to west, a perfect offering is made to the glory of your name.’ Instead, we pray the words of Malachi 1:11: ‘From the rising of the sun to its setting.’ Nothing is lost in meaning. A sense of poetry is gained.”[4]
What Serratelli and others seem to say is that while a translation is not always successful in reiterating things such as syntax, wording, and style, it should nevertheless be the goal of the translators to hold to the integrity of the original language.[5] Things such as paraphrasing, modern and/or culturally exclusive language, and omissions or additions to the original text should be avoided.[6] By following these guidelines, the aim is to produce a liturgy that contributes to “the building up of the Faith throughout the broad and diverse English-speaking world.”[7]
To illustrate the nature of the transliteral changes of the Missale Romanum, it is helpful to look at what will be arguably the most evident change for the congregation, namely the English equivalent to “et cum spiritu tuo.” This responsorial phrase is currently translated as “and also with you.” In the revised edition, however, it will be more literally translated as “and with your spirit.”[8] Although a controversial move for many, translating the most used congregational response into a more uniform translation seems logical for a couple of reasons. English is the only major language of the Latin Rite which has not translated this phrase in a literal sense, examples being found in most any European language, from Spanish (“e con tu Espiritu”), to German (“ und mit deinem Geiste”).[9] Additionally, this phrase is more historically concurrent. Since the 3rd Century, the phrase “et cum spiritu tuo” has been utilized as a universal greeting to the clergy by the congregation. This greeting referred to the gift of the Holy Spirit received by the priest at ordination. By responding in this manner, the congregation declares that “the priest [has the] divine assistance of God’s spirit and, more specifically, [uses] the charismatic gifts given to him in ordination and in so doing … fulfill[s] his prophetic function in the Church.” [10]
This example of the Missale Romanum Editio Typica Tertia represents a much broader and impactual text. As can be seen, its goal is not to reinvent but to revitalize the principle liturgy of the Catholic Church by strengthening the communal bonds within Her through language and catechesis.
Bibliography
· Arinze, Francis Cardinal. Paragraph 3 of the Letter Accompanying the Recognitio from Francis Cardinal Arinze. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available online at: www.usccb.org/romanmissal/RecognitioLetter.pdf
· Serratelli, Arthur . Address to the 2008 National Meeting o Diocesan Litugical Commissions. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available online at: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/serratellispeech.shtml
· “Notes on the New Translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available online at: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_notes.shtml
· "Principles of Translating the Missale Romanum." United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available at: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_principles.shtml
From about 1985 to 1998 the bishops sponsored a broad consultation with clergy and laity to produce an improved translation of the 1975 sacramentary. The fruit of that effort was approved by nearly all the bishops of the eleven countries in which English is a principal language. It was forwarded to Rome for the neccesary recognitio. It languished there while, behind the scenes, a Third Edition of the Roman Missal was being crafted by the Congregation for worship. As the latter was completed the translation proposed was rejected. The bishops were told that an entirely new translation would have to be drawn up based on new principals articulated by a document called Liturgiam Authenticam. Thus was launched a new round of what came to be known as the liturgy wars.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for priests of my generation to simply regard the new translation as something clearly superior to the one we have been praying for nearly 40 years. Many of Christ's faithful may well experience it as an unsolicted imposition.
I sense that many in the younger ranks of clergy and clerical aspirants view this as a simple matter of following authoratative directives from those who know better. I guess we shall have to see. I know that my task as a pastor is to find an intellectually honest way to pave the way for what will become normative in December 2011.
Finally,I see an interesting irony. Beginning next year priests may lawfully use the 2011 English Missal and the 1962 Missale Romanum, but not the 1975 Sacramentary. Have we been praying wrongly?