8 June 2011

After 1991

This continues my series (see June 1 and June 5) about the background of the imminent new English translation of the Mass.

We have seen that the old 1970s translation of the Missal was regarded by all, at each end of the 'political' spectrum, as Unfit for Purpose. This is worth emphasising because there has recently been a tendency among those most radically opposed to Pope Benedict's liturgical aims to try to hang on to that old translation. An organisation, I believe, sprang up in America called "What if we just said wait?" - which I think means "What if we just said wait until Ratzinger is dead?". There have been similar moves, reported in the Irish Times, among the more radically politicised of the Irish clergy. Frankly, there never was much chance of their achieving what such people seek: for the following rather banal reason. All over the world, wherever there is a hierarchy with an interest in Anglophone liturgy, episcopal conferences have, for years - well, No, decades - been making their way through Green Books, Grey Books, Heaven-only-knows-what-sort-of-colour-books, containing successive drafts and revisions of translated texts. In addition to this, there has been the labour - not an inexpensive labour - of harmonising the preferences of the different hierarchies involved. We know a little about this entire process because, in America, the Episcopal Conference meets openly, and verbal transcripts of the debates, and details of the votes, are regularly published. And there is a distinct sense, as one reads through it all, that the number of bishops prepared to vote for the daunting prospect of going through the whole laborious process yet again, has been limited. In America, a Bishop Trautmann led the resistence to next September's translation, fighting a deft 'sound-bite' campaign which focussed on certain allegedly "incomprehensible" words ("consubstantial"; "ineffable"), and making a final desperate attempt to persuade his confreres actually to defy the Vatican. The support he received gradually diminished. He retires, I think, next year. If, that is, the Holy Father accepts his resignation. One rather suspects ... not that anything is certain, of course ...

This blog, moreover, has shown that the essential problem about both the 1970s translation, and the second (abortive) version which was finished in the early 1990s, was that each embodied a policy of rupture: it was designed to cut off the worshipping community of its own day from the memory and continuities of Tradition - that is to say, from the the old Testament and New Testament echoes in the Latin prayers; from the actual meaning of the Latin; from the great paradosis of worship which has been evolving, generation by generation, for nearly two millennia. It is no exaggeration to say that, since about 1970, English-speaking Catholics have been deprived of the authentic worship of the Roman Catholic Church by having 'translations' used in their churches which express only a minuscule amount of the content of the Latin originals. And I am not talking about the elimination of the 'Tridentine' liturgy. It is the post-conciliar Missal - the Latin Missal of Pope Paul VI - that people have been prevented (by bad translations) from being able to appropriate and to internalise in their Christian consciousness. It is worth emphasising this, because some interests, with a slipshod grasp upon history as well as upon rhetoric, have been suggesting that the new translation which we shall begin to use in September represents some sort of retreat from the agenda of Vatican II. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. September's new translation means Onward To Vatican II.

Quite apart from the different questions surrounding the elimination of the Tridentine Rite, it is the post-conciliar Missal, the Missal authorised by Pope Paul VI "by the mandate of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council", that was kept hidden, by faulty translation, from the ears of the faithful for four decades. It is, substantially, the Missal of Paul VI that the new translation will now begin to make accessible to the People of God. Enthusiasts for Vatican II, and its aftermath, and for Paul VI, should be applauding the new translation. It provides what they claim they want.

Remember: the Council never said that the Mass had to be in English; it simply authorised some degree of vernacular use. This guarded permission was subsequently extended, not by the Council but by a series of unilateral decrees emanating from the Curia. And the Council certainly did not decree that vernacular translations should be such as to obscure a large amount of the meaning of the authorised Latin texts. The Instruction which bears responsibility for the currently expiring translation, Comme le prevoit, had nothing to do with the Council. Again, its origin was in the Curia. People who claim to have a suspicion of the Curia and of its 'dominant role in the Church's life', should, if they have any consistency or logic, be prejudiced against the 1970s translation of the Mass.

The new translation, which our bishops, laudably, are bringing in earlier than most other hierarchies, means: back to Paul VI; back to the Missal which derived from the Conciliar impetus. Those fighting a rear-guard action against it should sort out their own confusions.

Next time, I shall write about the Roman Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, which is the methodological basis of the translation due to come on stream in September.

13 comments:

davidforster said...

It is to be hoped that we will also see the back of the "Jerusalem Bible" which was constructed on similar principles: i.e. substitute what we think the text would have said if it had been written in modern times, by people like us.

This translation has helped to obscure the word of God for a whole generation of Catholics. Once again, not what the Council ordered (whether by 'Council' we mean Trent or V2).

Sir Watkin said...

similar principles: i.e. substitute what we think the text would have said if it had been written in modern times, by people like us.

A version that has worn badly, tho' to be fair the translation is fairly literal, if less so than the DR/AV/RV/RSV tradition.

The translator of Jonah was of course a man noted for his modernism and heterodoxy (hem hem) .....

davidforster said...

OK, better than, say, "The Good News Bible" - does anyone still use that, I wonder? But to those of us used to the RSV or traditional translations, it always seems to be short-changing its hearers.

Also, there is much variation between books, owing to the variety of scholars (including the one you mention!). There seems less consistency than in some other versions. Also, in the Gospels especially, there seems to be a determination often to avoid the most obvious translation, on the grounds that it is familiar.

Sir Watkin said...

there seems to be a determination often to avoid the most obvious translation, on the grounds that it is familiar

The New English Bible suffered particularly from this. The translators really were determined to translate afresh, even at the cost of avoiding a more natural (but traditional) rendering.

There's a nice story about the parable of the prodigal son. "Fatted calf" was obviously wrong in a new version, so the translators conscientiously went down to Smithfield to find out what the authentic modern terminology was.

They must have been unexpected visitors, but they were received politely. When they had explained the concept (carefully not using the traditional words) the slaughterman they were talking to said, "Ah, yes, I know what you mean. We have a technical term for this - you may not have heard it before ... we call it a 'fatted calf'."

Jesse said...

The translator of Jonah was of course a man noted for his modernism and heterodoxy (hem hem) ..... (Sir Watkin)

And don't get me started on that raving heretic who wrote On Englishing the Bible and actually put its principles into practice! Dynamic equivalence clearly has no place in the Patrimony. Er...

Sir Watkin said...

It's ironic that in a secular context, after a longish period where (e.g. in the Penguin classics) the moderately free approach to translation that Knox advocates predominated, a highly literal one is now the height of fashion (for academic purposes at least).*

People no longer know the ancient languages, but still want to be able e.g. to study Plato's dialogues on a serious philosophical level. The answer is a literal and very technical translation (unreadable for normal purposes) that aims to reflect what Plato wrote as closely as possible (albeit in English).


*There is an ebb and flow to these things, which makes the desire of some to die in a ditch for "dynamic equivalence" (or "paraphrasing" as we used to call it) as a touchstone of modernity both baffling and amusing. Touching naivete.

GOR said...

It is ironic that so much effort is being put into ‘preparing’ the rudi et crudi for the new translation, given that there was so little preparation or even advance notice when the vernacular began to be employed decades ago.

Last weekend I attended Mass at an out-of-town parish where the pastor had already begun to prepare the people for the new translation (the official introduction here in the US is on the 1st Sunday of Advent). I was prepared for frustration, but ended up actually impressed. A four-page booklet was provided with the changes to the peoples’ responses in red. I was struck by the fact that there was very little in red (so why all the fuss?).

Father explained why he was ‘jumping the gun’ with this. There would be no Gloria on the 1st Sunday of Advent. That Sunday follows Thanksgiving here in the US when many people are out of town. Here in Wisconsin it is also deer-hunting season which is religiously observed in these parts with thousands of men, women and boys ‘upnorth’ in the woods. And being late November in Wisconsin the chance of a severe snowstorm is a definite possibility. Valid points, I thought. Now, why didn’t the hierarchy think of that?

What impressed me more was that Father referenced the scripture passages from which many of the responses are derived – and had the Lector read those passages. Nice touch, I thought, and probably news to many in the congregation that there is more scripture in the Liturgy than just the readings.

So, I have changed my mind – preparation is good, especially when done like this!

Sam Schmitt said...

I've always thought that the great Msgr. Knox had the luxury of translating a little more freely because people in his day, familiar with literal versions like the Douay and such, actually knew what the text said - so they lost little and could gain quite a bit from a more idiomatic version.

But as Fr. Hunwicke so eloquently points out, the situation is different now.

The Flying Dutchman said...

If I were the Earl of Derwentwater and had my own private Roman Catholic chapel, I would certainly invite Fr Hunwicke to accept the position of chaplain.

Sadly, I'm not.

Jesse said...

people in [Knox's] day, familiar with literal versions like the Douay and such, actually knew what the text said (Sam Schmitt)

This is actually one of the things Knox complains about in On Englishing the Bible: people would ask him why he had changed the text, as if it were clear to everyone what the text actually said and meant and he was just introducing variety! He (like every other Bible translator) is at pains to point out that the meaning of the text (once the text itself has been established) is often ambiguous, obscure, or even irrecoverable, and that a translation must usually take a stand on one possible interpretation. 1 Kings 16:11 is a light but revealing test passage to see how a translator communicates the essence of a foreign and slightly distasteful figure of speech (compare KJV, RSV=JB=NRSV, NEB=REB, NJB). I'd say that NEB/REB wins in this case.

motuproprio said...

Traditore, tradutore.

tommy said...

david ... say what you may, but I like the English from French translation of the Jerusalem Bible. I have the Ignatius RSV, and the New American as well as a very old copy of the D/R. My favorite is still the Jerusalem. It hasn't obscured the Word of God to me. I respect your views, but you don't speak for everyone.

IanW said...

Congratulations!