Over the next few weeks the Godzdogz team will be giving a series of reflections on the new Mass translation.
Anyone who has studied a foreign language will understand that translation is a tricky business. What can be expressed with great elegance in one language may sound very awkward in another if one tries too hard to capture the exact meaning. An alternative strategy is to use a principle called dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence gives translators the freedom to effectively paraphrase the original text so that whilst the translation may not be very precise, the result is much more natural and easier to understand. The principle of dynamic equivalence was used for the first translations of the Mass that came out after Vatican II. Over the years, many people have grown to love these translations and there is a recognition of the positive results they've had in bringing about the liturgical renewal urged for by the Council. But that's not to say things can't be improved.
The English translation has suffered from a number of defects. Of course this doesn't mean that the Mass was in any way invalid, but still, the use of dynamic equivalence has ended up obscuring the original meaning rather than making it more accessible. Expressions of our need for God's grace, expressions of humility before God, the mystery of the Mass, the relationship between the Mass and Sacred Scripture – many people have complained that these expressions were lost in translation.
In 2001 an official instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam was issued which marked a departure from the principle of dynamic equivalence in the translation of liturgical books. The new guidance was that translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves the original texts' dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision. Of course balancing all these demands is very challenging and the instruction recognized this and said 'in translating biblical passages where seemingly inelegant words or expressions are used, a hasty tendency to sanitize this characteristic is to be avoided.' Translators were also urged to 'allow the signs and images of the texts, as well as the ritual actions, to speak for themselves; they should not attempt to render too explicit that which is implicit in the original texts.'
The new translation may take a long time to get used to, and perhaps some people will never get used to it, but whatever feelings we have, we can still pray that the new Mass translation will have a positive effect in renewing the life of the Church.
The principle of dynamic equivalence sounds grand.
ReplyDeleteI used the new missal last week - it was my first time to see the book.
It really is a metaphor for so much of what is going on in the hierarchical church at present.
Will the prinicple of dynamic equivalence explain why it is now the 'collect' and not the 'opening prayer'?
Nonsense.
Very good post, Br. Robert. I've seen some of the propers from the new translation; many of them, when compared with the 1973 ICEL translation, are much more elegant and expressive than the prayers they replace.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Michael if the first time that you saw the Missal was last week it means that you haven't yet had sufficient time to learn of the reasons for the changes and make an informed decision on whether they are nonsense. Perhaps with the series of posts that follows you might have a chance to revisit your initial judgment; I certainly hope so. I think that in the main they are hugely beneficial and provide a wonderful opportunity for us to recatechsie ourselves to fully appreciate the splendour of the Mass
ReplyDeleteI never liked the 70's translation. It was bevel-edged, pedestrian and didactic,trying to be as obvious and as trivial as a STOP sign. Compared to the Latin it reeked of liberal condescension, making sure that everything was so simple that a 14-year-old could understand it, like the script for a children's TV show. The Magnificat became "Mary's Song" etc. The fear of expressly religious vocabulary native to the Roman Catholic tradition was compulsive. Good riddance to it.
ReplyDeleteThe new version, from what I have seen of it, is a mixed bag. No Cranmer has arisen out of Vox Clara. But at least it gives the meta-message that something important is being said. And frankly, most liturgists deeply overestimate how closely the folks in the pews pay attention to the spoken word for content, line by line as it is spoken.
It may not be perfect, or even great, but it can't be worse than the non-entity being phased out, along with so many of the other passing enthusiasms of the 1960's Church Effervescent.