(MIS)TRANSLATIONS

Problems with the vernacular 1969-2011

The switch from Latin to the vernacular was the most obvious of the changes to the mass. Although some were and remained totally opposed to it, and many more regretted it, most Catholics either welcomed, or came to accept this fundamental change. However, as could have been predicted, translation proved less straightforward than expected. This section reviews the contrasting sets of official guidelines on the translation of the liturgy and their consequences, in particular for the two translations into English.  Ironically, it is the Latin editio typica which guarantees the faithfulness of the inevitably changing vernacular versions, preventing them from permanently altering the content of the mass

Familiar prayers enter the soul. They become holy through repetition, and should not be changed except for very good reasons. However, most of the negative reaction to the new mass could probably have been avoided if the style of the translation had been different. Even forty years later, traditionalist commentators were still given to criticising the new mass when what they were objecting to were features of the original translation.^[1] As we will see, the official guidelines issued to translators favoured a simple style and structure, and explicitly encouraged the use of paraphrase. The translations therefore omitted many items present in what was an already modified Latin text. By insisting on faithfulness to the Latin original, new translation guidelines ensured that the second translation into English of 2010 corrected most of the features criticised the first time round (although this time it was condemned for being Latinate-sounding  and structurally over-complex!)

As the experience in recent decades of Anglicans demonstrates,^[2] it is difficult enough to get liturgical revision right when it is in English but ours is an international church and liturgical change involved translation into many different languages.  Eventually any translation will come up against the natural limitations of one or both languages in the face of which the translator has to make some choices. There are no right answers, but plenty of wrong ones. That is why the Hungarian liturgist Laszlo Dobszay suggested retaining Latin at least for regular celebrations of High (sung) mass in order to safeguard its content.^[3]

Above all, it is vital that translators of sacred texts work to consistent, explicit principles. There have been two sets of guidelines for the translation of the mass, each of which has been applied to a version of the mass of 1970. In the case of the translations into English in particular, the resulting missals of 1975 and 2011 were very different indeed.  

‘Comme le prevoit’ (1969)

The criticisms of the first translation and of its distinctive features such as paraphrase, and the simplification of style and structure was unfair to the translators, as they were following a brief issued in 1969 by the Consilium (and not by the Sacred Congregation for Rites, which is why the document does not have a Latin title). The advice it contained was based on a theory called ‘dynamic equivalence’, which separates message or content from form. Applied to the text of the Latin mass, it frequently led to paraphrase and simplification of structure, inevitably resulting in some distortion of content:

 12 (c) The translator must always keep in mind that the “unit of meaning” is not the individual word but the whole passage....  Thus, in Latin, the piling-up of ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilem may increase the sense of invocation. In other tongues, a succession of adjectives may actually weaken the force of the prayer. The same is true of beatissima Virgo or beata et gloriosa or the routine addition of sanctus or beatus to a saint’s name, or the too casual use of superlatives. Understatement in English is sometimes the most effective means of emphasis.’ 

The first sentence is unexceptionable in itself, but this perspective on translation led to excessive paraphrasing and a marked stress on content over form. There is a clear invitation here to eliminate what are described as ‘routine’ uses of ‘sacral adjectives’ in the Latin text from the translation. It is not clear exactly how the use of understatement (which is a cultural feature of a particular style of English, rather than an inherent or universal characteristic of the worldwide language), would work in translating superlatives

‘ 24 (c ) Sometimes, the meaning of a text can no longer be understood, either because it is contrary to modern Christian ideas ... or because it has less relevance today, ... or because it no longer expresses the true original meaning ... . In these cases, so long as the teaching of the Gospel remains intact, not only must inappropriate expressions be avoided, but others found which express a corresponding meaning in modern words.’

This is so loosely framed that it could be read as permitting, or even encouraging, changes to items accounted (by whom?) less relevant today, (and relevant to what, exactly?) or not in keeping with modern Christian ideas (it does not refer simply to modern Christian language or terminology, but to ideas, and so seems to imply going beyond translation into editing).

‘28. Among the separate elements are those which are essential and others which are secondary and subsidiary. The essential elements, so far as possible, should be preserved in translation, sometimes intact, sometimes in equivalent terms.

The implication is that elements deemed (by whom and on what criteria?) secondary or non-essential can, if necessary, be omitted, and that even essential elements (which are to be retained if possible!) can be conveyed in the form of an equivalent. The authors of the document seem ignorant of the force of the word ‘essential’, when they say that such elements are to be translated as far as possible.

‘33. Certain Latin terms present difficulties of interpretation because of their use and meaning, which are much different from their corresponding terms in modern languages. The translation will therefore demand an astute handling and sometimes a paraphrasing, in order to render accurately the original.

The chief difference between Latin and English is not primarily in the area of terminology but of style and structure, as the next paragraph says. While translation certainly requires ‘astute handling’, using paraphrase to convey concepts is likely to lead to a loss of precision.   

 ‘34. The prayers (Opening prayer, Prayer over the gifts, Prayer after Communion, and Prayer over the people) from the ancient Roman tradition are succinct and abstract. In translation they may need to be rendered somewhat more freely while conserving the original ideas. This can be done by moderately amplifying them or, if necessary, paraphrasing expressions in order to concretize them for the celebration and the needs of today.’

One can only ask what precisely are the ‘needs of today’ which require a free translation, or even paraphrase of ‘succinct and abstract’prayers?

One of the requirements laid down by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in 1963 was simplicity and the translators of the 1970 mass had certainly taken it to heart, opting for a terse style without many subordinate clauses, quite unlike the Latin original. The structure was simplified, the word order frequently modified and passages paraphrased rather than directly translated. This led to the translation being fluent, and reading naturally as English but in places inevitably rather general and bland, which sometimes obscured or even distorted the meaning. In a sacred text, that could be regarded as problematical.

‘Liturgiam Authenticam’ (2001)

As is often the case, the correction of the perceived faults of the previous policy was a priority, and the approach taken is the exact opposite.^[4] This had important consequences for the new translation of the mass issued in 2010. That two translations of familiar material into the same language should give such divergent results represents a powerful argument in favour of a stable text not requiring translation, and certainly underlines the importance of retaining the Latin editio typica as a benchmark. The 2010 translation leaves nothing out and is therefore a better guide to the content of the original text.

The new guidelines stipulate that every word and phrase is to be translated, and that even the structure of sentences should mirror that of the Latin text. White complains that in the light of this approach there is now little hope of the ‘creation of new texts’, noting that it contained ‘more than a hint’ of a return to tight central control.^[5]  It could be said though that it was precisely the lack of such control in the late 1960s and early 1970s which had led to the shortcomings explicitly or implicitly listed here. Ferrone echoes White’s sentiments and in particular objects to the stated aim of creating a distinctively ‘sacred vernacular’^,[6] In doing so, she no doubt speaks for the majority of American liturgists and bishops.^[7] After speaking of ‘omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations’ (paragraph 6), taken to be a reference to the original translation into English, the document draws some conclusions for future practice.                                                        

‘20 …. The original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.’

‘57a. The connection between various expressions, manifested by subordinate and relative clauses,[and] the ordering of words, ...  is to be maintained as completely as possible ...

‘56…. Expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole Church … are to be respected by a translation that is as literal as possible, as for example the words of the people’s response Et cum spiritu tuo, or the expression mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa in the Act of Penance of the Order of Mass.’                                                                        

‘59.Expressions that have a particular doctrinal or spiritual importance … are, insofar as possible, to be translated literally.’

The consequences of the requirements that the structure of Latin texts was to be retained and every element translated, without paraphrase or omission, and in some cases literally, were fiercely criticised when the new translation of the mass was published in 2010. However, given the unsatisfactory experience with ‘Comme le prevoit’ it was inevitable that the new advice should be both cautious and prescriptive. Even more vexing to many who were not convinced of the undesirability of the previous guidelines and the resulting translation was the commitment to a sacral vernacular.

‘27. … If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities. Indeed, it will be seen that the observance of the principles set forth in this Instruction will contribute to the gradual development, in each vernacular, of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language.’

‘47. … Liturgical prayer not only is formed by the genius of a culture, but itself contributes to the development of that culture. Consequently it should cause no surprise that such language differs somewhat from ordinary speech. Liturgical translation that takes due account of the authority and integral content of the original texts will facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship  …’

There was moreover a history behind the English-language translation. The quality of both existing elements and proposed revisions was severely criticised. In recent years, the Vatican has turned down various ICEL drafts of liturgical texts, amid particularly sharp disagreement on 'inclusive' language, an important issue in North American culture, but to which Rome seems to have overreacted, probably misinterpreting it as connected to pressure for the ordinatio of women.

Liturgiam Authenticam was also widely interpreted as signalling the end of what was referred to as the ‘ecumenical’ goal of common liturgical texts.^[11] Article 40 states that translations leading to texts identical to those of other churches are ‘confusing’ for the laity and are best avoided.^[12] This article was mocked at the time, but it is true that common liturgical texts with other churches could indeed mislead by being taken to imply a common theology of the Eucharist. Moreover, common texts was certainly not a declared goal of the CSL, although many had suspected during and after the Council that there had been an unspoken policy of facilitating convergence wherever possible.

‘Gravely distorted’

It is now generally accepted that the first translation of the mass was flawed.^[13]  Apart from the simplified, rather flat style, what critics noted was the number and nature of the omissions. It seemed to observers that on occasions the translators had altered the sense of the text for theological and ecumenical reasons. In 1979, the best-selling English Catholic newspaper, 'The Universe', published a critique of the ICEL translation of the new liturgy, accusing those responsible for it of aiming for simplicity but producing banality. There were also, it said, hundreds of omissions and other errors.^[14

Christopher Monkton, the editor, explained why he had been so shocked: half the errors involved omission, and that there were so many meant they could not be attributed to simple carelessness. The conclusion could only be that the translators were following a policy of downplaying certain elements in the mass, and where it was deemed necessary to achieve that goal, of leaving out words, phrases or more substantial parts of the text.^[

The features noted in the English version were not confined to that language references in prayers to ‘negative’ concepts including sin, guilt and repentance, hell and purgatory were drastically reduced,^[16] and one French liturgical historian describing the new liturgy as if anything an adaptation of the mass rather than a translation, notes that concepts such as incarnation, soul, angel, hell, sin, and intercession are apparently taboo terms.^[17]Similarly, the Italian translation is criticised for having totally suppressed expressions relating to sin and evil, and the necessity of redemption.^[18

Language and liturgy                                                                                                                                                

Despite the enthusiasm of liturgists in the second half of the twentieth century for the ‘creativity’ of the largely improvised liturgy of the early church (as reflected in the celebrant’s freedom at various points in the new mass to choose from alternatives), it is fixed, familiar forms of prayer which create holiness over time.^[8] The use of a sacred language is the most obvious way in which the traditional mass does so, marking off the liturgy from everyday life, just as the priest’s vestments do.^[9]

 Sacred language is not inherently holy, it acquires holiness precisely by virtue of being used in the liturgy. For example, by Jesus’ time Hebrew was no longer the language of everyday life in Palestine, having been replaced by Aramaic, but it continued to be the language of the synagogue.  Exactly the same thing happened to Latin in Western Europe after the emergence of its daughter languages such as Italian and French.

Sacred language is above all stable^[19], and typically develops archaic features through a reluctance to follow changes in everyday use, a feeling that holy language should be distinctive, more solemn. Although liturgical scholars were struck by the presence of improvised prayers in the liturgy of the early church and the new mass of 1970 incorporates alternatives, as well as allowing the celebrant to use his own words in places, liturgical history demonstrates the need for fixed, dependable forms of prayer, which along with familiar ritual helps to create holiness over time. Moreover, anyone who tries to ‘design’ a replacement or alternative liturgy is unlikely to do as well as the tradition. It was also and remains important to ensure the orthodoxy of prayers, which is why the Canon came to be written down as early as the third century.^[2

Hebrew and Latin remained liturgical languages even after ceasing to be used for everyday communication, because they acquired holiness from their association with prayer. Even when the language used for liturgical purposes is the medium of everyday communication, it tends not what you would hear on the street, but a ‘sacral’ version of the language: this is true of the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorized Version of the Bible, both written in a dignified and already semi-archaic style, as was the Canon of the Mass in its time, as Lang demonstrates.^[21

Something is lost if a translation fails to take account of the distinctive style and form of the original. For example, the Canon includes:                                                                                                 

●      doubles featuring synonyms or near-synonyms : a feature of pagan Latin rhetorical style ^[22]                                                   verbs: ‘rogamus ac petimus’ we ask and pray; nouns: ‘haec munera, haec dona’ these presents, these gifts                                                                                                                      

●      sets of two items: ‘acccepta habeas et benedicas’ accept and bless; ‘omnis honor et gloria’ all honour and glory

●      sets of three: ‘hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatem’  a pure victim, a holy victim, a spotless victim                  ‘per ipsum, et cum ipso et in ipso’ through him, and with him, and in him

●      or even more:  ‘semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis et praestas nobis’ you always make all these good             things, sanctify them, fill them with life, bless and bestow them upon us.                             ]

The structure of a prayer can also be part of its message, the Canon’s is remarkable, with the prayers symmetrically placed around the consecration, symbolising an invitation to consider them as a group, rather than as a linear sequence.6333The unchanging nature of Latin is a strong argument in favour of its retention. Translations cannot always convey the exact meaning of the original text, and vernaculars change over time but the Latin text guarantees stability and comparability. If we had a purely vernacular  liturgy, English-speakers would already, only a generation since changing  from Latin, be two steps away from the original and in danger of losing touch with it. Multiply that by all the vernaculars and the scope for divergence is dizzying.

Paradoxically, we can hope to pass on the mass in a faithful, reliable vernacular form only because the Latin version stands behind it. Even if it is never again used as the (or a) regular language of the mass in parish churches, Latin will continue to be the primary liturgical language of the Catholic Church. It should be seen as part of our Catholic heritage and an important sign of our international and historic identity. Including some Latin prayers in celebrations of the Ordinary Form would certainly be one way of achieving this. Experience suggests that it is perfectly possible to pray the Gloria and other set-piece prayers occasionally with the rest of the mass in English. The next step would be to put into effect the CSL’s express statement that the faithful should be able to say or to sing in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them (CSL 54, 36. 2). This would mean the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei.