A friend of mine forwarded an email to me today with this summary of a news report:
Pope orders fresh review of liturgical translations
January 27, 2017
Pope Francis has ordered a new review of the principles that guide translations of the liturgy, America magazine has confirmed.The Pope reportedly formed a commission to review Liturgiam Authenticam,
the document issued by the Vatican in 2001 that called for liturgical
translations that adhered closely to the Latin of the Roman Missal. That
document, which led to a new and more accurate English translation of
liturgy, has continued to draw criticism from liturgists who favor a
more “creative” interpretation of the language of the Mass.The
Pope’s decision to launch such a review has been widely rumored, but
never officially announced. The commission has not yet met, America
reports, nor has the list of its members been made public. However, it
will be chaired by Archbishop Arthur Roche, the secretary of the
Congregation for Divine Worship—rather than by that congregation’s
prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah, who is known to favor a more
conservative approach.But some would say, "With all the important issues facing the
Church, why this concern about liturgical translations?"
When the reform of the translations came out in 2001, the same question was raised.
The response of reform organizations was, "Yes, there are other important issues. And the words we use in worship is as important now as it was in the consideration of Vatican II which directed its first attention to liturgical reform. “The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the church is directed, it is also the source from which all its power flows.” (SC, 10)
Someone translated this sentence as:
It is at worship that the people of God find the significance of their work of bringing about the reign of God and at the same time express their need to be reinforced in carrying out this “reign of God” work in the world.
The 2001 reform created havoc on a number of points, going from, —among other atrocities—"one in substance with the Father" to "consubstantial with the Father" and from "And also with you" to "And with your spirit."
Commentary from liturgical experts as well as from people in the pews lambasted this "latinization" of worship as widening the divide between priest and people and re-promulgating the dualistic approach to the human person adopted by the councils of past centuries as preferable to seeing the whole person. The America article summarized at the head of this blog states clearly the distinction of principles used in determining these translations:
Archbishop Roche, who was for 10 years chairman of the International Commission for English Language in the Liturgy, addressing the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in September 2014, said the major difference between “Comme le Prévoit” (1969), which governed translation for the first liturgical books after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and “Liturgiam Authenticam,” which has since determined the translation of the Roman Missal in English, French and some Spanish-speaking countries, “was that the Holy See in its directives opted for a shift of the guiding principle of translation from that of ‘dynamic or functional equivalence’ in 1969 to the principle of ‘formal equivalence’ in 2001.”Full article at http://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/01/26/pope-francis-has-ordered-review-new-mass-translation
So there we have it, “dynamic or functional equivalence” in 1969; “formal equivalence” in 2001.
How comforting to know that Pope Francis is so in tune with liturgical scholars as well as experts in the English language to recognize that the formal equivalence of the words gets in the way of our being “Church,” Taking the cue from that other great Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, we know what the “activity of the Church" is:
The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. (GS 1)
When the reform of the translations came out in 2001, the same question was raised.
The response of reform organizations was, "Yes, there are other important issues. And the words we use in worship is as important now as it was in the consideration of Vatican II which directed its first attention to liturgical reform. “The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the church is directed, it is also the source from which all its power flows.” (SC, 10)
Someone translated this sentence as:
It is at worship that the people of God find the significance of their work of bringing about the reign of God and at the same time express their need to be reinforced in carrying out this “reign of God” work in the world.
The 2001 reform created havoc on a number of points, going from, —among other atrocities—"one in substance with the Father" to "consubstantial with the Father" and from "And also with you" to "And with your spirit."
Commentary from liturgical experts as well as from people in the pews lambasted this "latinization" of worship as widening the divide between priest and people and re-promulgating the dualistic approach to the human person adopted by the councils of past centuries as preferable to seeing the whole person. The America article summarized at the head of this blog states clearly the distinction of principles used in determining these translations:
Archbishop Roche, who was for 10 years chairman of the International Commission for English Language in the Liturgy, addressing the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in September 2014, said the major difference between “Comme le Prévoit” (1969), which governed translation for the first liturgical books after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and “Liturgiam Authenticam,” which has since determined the translation of the Roman Missal in English, French and some Spanish-speaking countries, “was that the Holy See in its directives opted for a shift of the guiding principle of translation from that of ‘dynamic or functional equivalence’ in 1969 to the principle of ‘formal equivalence’ in 2001.”Full article at http://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/01/26/pope-francis-has-ordered-review-new-mass-translation
So there we have it, “dynamic or functional equivalence” in 1969; “formal equivalence” in 2001.
How comforting to know that Pope Francis is so in tune with liturgical scholars as well as experts in the English language to recognize that the formal equivalence of the words gets in the way of our being “Church,” Taking the cue from that other great Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, we know what the “activity of the Church" is:
The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. (GS 1)
This sentence summarizes what we are about as Church. Imposing the formal equivalent on people prevents the people’s reign of God work from being expressed and at the same time creates an obstacle to the People of God gaining that power to do that work.
Indeed, words do matter.
