Online Articles
FREE e-Newsletter
Sign up below to get our free weekly newsletter packed with news & updates.-
We Respect Your Privacy
The Liturgy – Lost In Translation?
Amidst growing opposition to the new English translation of the Mass it is worth reflecting on the historical development of the Liturgy of the western Church and consider what has changed – perhaps what is ‘lost in translation’ of the tradition – and how historical insights might move us beyond the impasse and ill-feelings many have today.
First, contrary to popular beliefs, Latin was not in fact the original language of the Church. Pride of place goes to Aramaic, then to koine [ First Century ] Greek, followed by the many dialects of the Roman Empire of the first century. Latin was the language of government, law and Roman civil religion. Greek was the language of trade and commerce – and became the lingua franca of Empire. Early Christians worshipped and celebrated the Eucharist in their own languages in their own homes.
Second, as with language, so too the people of God celebrated the Eucharist in different ways without any set forms. The earliest Christian writings on church polity like the Didache offer no set forms for the Eucharist. In his First Apology (c150AD), Justin Martyr said to his readers that at Mass the presider “sends up prayers and thanksgiving to the best of his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen”. In short, the Eucharistic Prayer was to be a spontaneous expression of the one leading the congregation. Since not all presiders were that articulate various Eucharistic prayers evolved in different regions. While most had the same content we know today – the invocation of the Spirit (epiclesis), the account of the last supper (institution narrative) and the prayer of thanksgiving, though not all in that order – regional prayers in regional languages evolved.
Third, even as the Church in the West took on Latin as the language of worship, many local rites persisted: in many parts of Spain (to this day in Seville, in fact) there was the Mozarabic Rite; in England, the Sarum Liturgy; and in France people used the Gallican Liturgy (which heavily influenced the Roman Rite, what is now Eucharistic Prayer I). Diversity was not something to be feared; local idioms did not seem lacking in the necessary gravitas to be pleasing to God’s ear.
Fourth, although the Eucharist in the Middle Ages was celebrated in different forms, the fact that it was celebrated in Latin was a problem. Very few people understood Latin, let alone could read it. Most people, including kings, princes and priests, were illiterate. Many priests simply learned the liturgy by rote and celebrated Mass hoping what they were saying was correct. After the Reformation seminary reform made priests better educated, but the laity still could not understand the Mass. A pattern emerged: the priest celebrated the liturgy while the congregants engaged in their own private prayers – stopping occasionally to stand, kneel, sit, and bless themselves according to bells rung at strategic moments in the Mass. The overall effect was one of passivity. The sense of the liturgy as leiturgia (‘the people’s work’) was lost.
Fifth, this passivity was a central concern of the reforms instituted by the Second Vatican Council. In Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963), the Council expressed the desire “that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people…have a right and obligation by reason of their baptism” (SC,14). Noting both unchangeable and changeable elements in the liturgy, the Council expressed the need that “both texts and rites should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things which they signify” (SC, 21). Celebration of the Liturgy in vernacular translation was permitted. Reasonable cultural adaptation was allowed, even encouraged. Fundamentally, the Council declared:
“The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” (SC, 34)
These five points raise a number of important issues for us as we muddle through the latest English translation of the liturgy. A few themes emerge.
First, it is clear from history that Latin as the language of the liturgy has evolved over time. It was neither the original nor the only language of worship. It is therefore unlike the idea common in Islam, for example, that Arabic is the only true ‘sacred language’, the language of God, and that for worship to be truly authentic it can only be in Arabic. Latin became, despite its universal historical absence at the grassroots, the language of the Church through the church taking on much of the administrative role of the Roman Empire. Roman governance was in Latin, and the Church carried it on.
Second, from earliest times and even well into the Middle Ages there was no one standard form of the Eucharist – even when the language was universalized by the adoption of Latin. Different Eucharistic prayers, even after the Great Schism of the 11th Century, were more common than we imagine. This should not surprise anyone since language is an expression of culture, and culture forms and informs language. The Church has always been a communio, united in diversity, locally autonomous under the bishop, yet in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Diversity is thus part of our tradition, and should not be feared. If anything, the obsession to seek uniformity is an historical aberration – and perhaps today an example of the insidious creep of the worst kind of socio-economic-cultural globalization.
Third, the historical record shows that as the liturgy shifted towards greater uniformity of form and Latinization of content a greater passivity emerged in the Church, particularly among the laity. While – granted – this gave the Church a sense of universality (the Mass was the same in Rome, Manila and Nairobi) it was at the cost of popular engagement: most Romans, Filipinos and Kenyans shared in common incomprehension.
What might this suggest about liturgical reform? First, that language matters. Language unites or divides people. Latin, the history suggests to me, united people often in mutual incomprehension. Translations were rightly seen as necessary, in language understandable to people for full participation. Translations had to convey accurately the theological truth of the Mass in language people understood.
Yet translation is never simple transliteration (at least it shouldn’t be). For languages are always expressions and reflections of cultures. Good translation expresses culture accurately – or it sounds to its native users like a kind of crude pidgin and, particularly if such translations are avoidable, may be treated by speakers as expressions of contempt for their language – and themselves. It attacks speakers’ dignity to be addressed thus.
English-speakers are multi-cultural in background and English has many forms in the world today. This would suggest that when translating the liturgy due respect for these cultures and forms of the language are in order. Any attempt, perhaps, at a universal translation may inevitably fail. People will be offended – and particularly if the language is that of worship, such offence may lead to a whole variety of spiritual, theological and pastoral crises. I think we are seeing the beginnings of this today.
What then, should be done? The least we can do is acknowledge the need for proper translation in language people actually understand and use. I understand this as the vision of Vatican II and wholly endorse its call for noble simply, clarity and understandability. Sadly, the new English translation does not seem to meet these standards.
On a deeper level, noting the cultural diversity of English itself and the historical example of the early Church, it may also be worth considering a kind of liturgical subsidiarity: over and above the existing prayers of the Mass, should we not start considering developing local, inculturated yet theologically faithful forms of the Eucharist? This would not be an arbitrary act but an exercise of collegiality between liturgists (including a few Latinists), sacramental theologians and poets well-versed in the idiom of their communities. Such activities might also embody the best of what Catholicity means to us – unity in diversity, rooted in the primacy of charity.
Comments
6 Responses to “The Liturgy – Lost In Translation?”
Leave a Reply
Search Our Site
-
This Weeks Issue
[Click Front Cover to Enlarge]
The Headlines
» Special focus on: Catholics and media communications
Read More | Archives
» Cardinal says no to media laws
» TV talents to sing for pope in UK: Michelle McManus and Susan Boyle
» Praying the Rosary at abortion clinic
» The Shroud mystery solved?
» Parish makes use of new media to raise funds -
Thanks to The Southern Cross for publishing this instructive article. Given what Fr Egan records here, it is mind boggling that we have been saddled recently with such inferior translations. It is interesting to note that all the other conferences in the English speaking world did not introduce the new texts as was done in South Africa at the beginning of Advent. They chose to wait until the entire Missal is published before implementing new texts. What has happened is interesting. Apparently Rome did not want any experimentation in introducing new texts. Perhaps under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, South Africa’s early introduction of some revised texts can been seen as “experimentation”, testing the waters. If the Vatican has any sense, before proceeding with costly printings of new Missals, etc. it should study carefully the South African reaction to the new texts. Many correspondents on this issue to The Southern Cross, like, Professors Emeritus in English at KwaZulu-Natal University Colin Gardner and Jack Kearney, have offered enlightened comments that deserve respectful consideration. Fr Egan’s article merits serious attention.
Despite my serious misgivings about the ‘latinised’ english texts that have been foisted on us hapless Catholics, I am encouraged by the commentary of some of our braver clerics. We are a church united in diversity albeit the voice of diversity remains but a tentative whisper …
This historical conspectus by Fr. Egan is interesting enough, as far as it goes, but how relevant is it to the immediate issues posed by: (a) the unqualified support given by the Second Vatican Council to “the substantial unity of the Roman Rite” (SC, n.38) and to the supreme role of the Apostolic See in regulating the liturgy (SC, n.22); (b) the organic and careful process originating in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC, n.23) which resulted in the promulgation of the Novus Ordo (1969) and the revised Missale Romanum (1970); and (c) the voluntary agreement that there should be a single English translation of the Latin master texts of the Novus Ordo and the Missale Romanum (not to mention the other liturgical books), which was a manifestation in 1963 of a desire for liturgical unity among bishops in English-speaking countries and resulted in the establishment of ICEL? A unity which Fr. Egan believes is already misjudged.
The existence in the first centuries of the Christian era of (1) free forms of the Eucharistic Prayers, (2) diverse forms of the baptismal creed, (3) variant Latin texts of the Sacred Scriptures, and (4) disparate lists of the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments are historical facts. The interesting question is what forces impelled the Church, East and West, to abandon this diversity, and first institute and then stipulate for canonical versions. This process did not move at the same rate in every case, but the impulse was already strong and visible as a matter of discipline throughout all four instances by the 4th and 5th centuries.
One thing is certain: it was not the expression of a drive by successive popes for Papal control. The process of standardising texts was an entirely natural and spontaneous one, and it arose from a gradual and general understanding that in all four instances the importance of these texts was such that doctrinal clarity and coherence depended upon there being an agreed version. This was always – as it remains – an aspect of the search for the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Jn.14:17, 26) and it was inseparable from the incessant struggle which the Church has maintained since her earliest years against heresy (Mt.24:4f.; Gal.1:7; 2Tim.4:3f.; 1Jn.2:26).
The Church was rocked in the 4th century over the necessity for the insertion of the letter iota in one word of the official Greek version of the unified Creed approved at Nicaea (AD 325). Who will be so bold as to say that the word “hominem” in the official Latin version of the same Creed need not be translated?
As for Fr. Egan’s idea of a way forward, the practical difficulties mercifully present sufficient obstacles to it to relieve me of the need to argue against. He is presumably speaking of English language liturgies (otherwise I cannot see the relevance). One can only shudder at the prospect of a local South African English eucharistic liturgy confected “by liturgists (including a few Latinists), sacramental theologians and poets well-versed in the idiom of their communities”. How many different eucharistic liturgies is Fr. Egan envisaging for the SACBC region? What is the guarantee they will be “theologically faithful” (and faithful to what)? And approved by whom, might I ask? The plethoric abuses still defacing the Novus Ordo in North America are warning enough. Free-form liturgy? No thanks.
[...] “Lost in translation.” [...]
My thanks to the the Bishops of South Africa. The fact that they anticipated the implementation of the new translation of the Mass may do the Church a favor. The reaction to this new translation will certainly be universal in the English speaking world. I salute Fr. Egan for his insightful article and only hope that Rome will begin to listen. Whatever happened to the Church’s respect and reverence for the “Sense of the Faithful?”
I understand what you are trying to say! The problem with our American culture, I cannot speak for UK, nor other English speaking countries, is that everyone wants the church to do what they see as their personal opinion! Language is very difficult to establish universally because they have their own dialects! But one thing that I’ve found in Spanish, that there are many diferent forms or ways that a word can be translated, but when it comes to the Mass prayers, they stick to the Latin form!
When we go to our ministry in the hospital, it is funny to know that when we say in Spanish, “They Lord is with you,” they always answer, “And with your spirit!” We are here in Miami, and in one day we will encounter people from Cuba, The Caribbean, Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, Panama, etc., and although they have diferent words for different fruits, or things, this is the universal answer for all of them which are diversified in culture, language
In the other hand, when you enocunter English speaking persons, the answer is “And also with you!,” if they answer at all! True that Spanish is one of the languages derived from Latin, as French, Rumanian, Portuguese, & Italian. Therefore is easier to translate this languages from Latin that for example English!
But we have another back set up! Ever since we came from Puerto Rico to Miami to live, almost 40 years ago, we have noticed, how different is the Liturgy, and the attitude of Catholics in the US. It has been changing for the worst! You do not go to a Catholic Church, that you find a missal like in the old times. The Missals we had when we were young, even the one we bought when we were married, we cannot use anymore.
We have been using a daily Missal that comes every month and includes the daily Mass, complete, and some days the readings are completely different!
This is Liturgy speaking! And how about the translations and the usage of the English language! We were born in 1939, & 1941. We learned Latin, and know all the prayers in Latin , Spanish & English! When the changes came, we were In Eglin AFB, and a Lebanesse Priest in the AFB took us by the hand and help us with the changes. Then we weren to Puerto Rico for 3 more years and we knew and felt no problem with the changes. It was here when we came back to Florida, that we felt the difference!!
In the attitude of the people, is like we owned the church! The priest has do do as we please, or we take action by slandering! I’ve seen it in our old parish, that a new priest came some years ago, and it was terrible, the issues in the newspapers, and every time you went to church, people with letters, to the archbishop, to take the priest out of there! Why? Because he did not like cats, because he did not smile like people wanted(he had a head injury and has affasia).
Then I go to another church and they assign a young priest because our pastor died, WOW! The slandering that came from the “leaders” of the church, was awful! He was and is a saintly priest, he sticks to the truth! What the church did, they move out of Fl. to California! He did no wrong at all, it petty criticizm.
Third, the church that our Children used to go to school when they were small, the same thing! Five years ago, they acussed a priest of wrong doing, (sex scandal), the church took him out of his duties as priest! Five years later, he was found innocent, but he asked not to come back to the church, nor to Miami. Still people are slandering him, they have not let go! No the outsiders, leaders of ministries within this particular church. Now they assigned a very saintly priest, that we know from old times! Now everyone especially the group that are in the Council of the Church. They are writing to the Archbishop to take him out of there, because he is too archaic! Like the gospel of last Sunday said: “prophets are not liked in their own town!” Whe prophets say the truth they end like St. John the Baptist, beheaded!
Last example, a church that we go to daily mass, when we cannot go early to our parish, the council again said that this “saintly priest” and gifted homilist was keeping money from the church! Inmediatly he was removed from the church, and investigation was done! Three years later, they did not find any wrong doing! This priest came back to the same church, and is still pastor, although he has been there a long, long, time!
This has been our experience since we first began to attend church here in Miami. Sometimes I ask myself, if we instead of following Christ and helping the church, are more interested in doing our own will, and also that our priests in our mist do as we say, not as what Christ wants us to do through our Church! Jesus gave the magisteriumn to the Pope, Peter, and then the folllowers! Yes, there have been abuses, in the Papacy, by bishops, by cardinals, by priests, but this does not change, that Jesus said, “You are Peter, and in this rock I will built my church!”……..A little bit forward He ordered,”Whatever you loose on earth it will loose in heaven, whatever you bound on earth it will be bound in Heaven! We as “prophets, priests, and kings” through our baptism, are here to stand for the truth, even if we lose our lives! If we all start deciding for ourselves what we want Rome, (the Pope) to do, they will have a million of different ideas! You have to let the Holy Spirit lead Rome, and all of us into what HE WANTS US DO! We need to be humble and obedient in other to follow the Truth! “I am The Truth, The Way, and The LIght!” says Jesus! None of us is God, nor thinks like Him, we need to humbly let Him show the Path to Peter, as He promised, now Pope Benedict XVI. We do not want to hear the words of Jesus when he was referring to His disciples,” One of them is a devil! Let not be us to destroy Jesus church, like some women are doing, starting a new Cahtolic Church because they do not agree with the Pope, that women should be priests! It is called, Catholic Shechurch! It is not our opinion we trust, it is God Will we follow and trust forever! Maribelle T Pagan, SFO