“The general mood is that they are very happy to translate more freely. We are breaking up long Latin sentences and doing it with great joy, but no one wants to go back and re-translate the Missal,” said Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn, president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and representative to the International Commission on English Liturgy (ICEL).

Bishop Dunn said that dealing with sexual abuse scandals in their own dioceses is taking up much of the energies of bishops’ conferences like Australia, US, Canada and the UK.

ICEL is comprised of 11 English-speaking bishops’ conferences and 15 associate-members.

The so-called “translation wars” had been going on for some years with theologians and liturgical scholars accusing – albeit privately – the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) of stealing this work from the bishops’ conferences.

In the 1970’s, ICEL started translating the Roman Missal into the vernacular, sending each stage of the translation to all 11 conferences, until an approved translation was sent to Rome in 1998.

The Prefect of the CDW at the time, Cardinal Medina Estevez, rejected the 1998 Missal translation. Liturgiam Authenticam, issued by the CDW in 2001, insisted on an exact translation from the original Latin texts.

The CDW demanded changes to ICEL which resulted in new statutes handed down by the congregation to the group in 2003 as well as a new “formal sounding” translation in 2010 based on prescriptions of Liturgiam Authenticam.

At present, ICEL members are not interested in going through the entire process again.

Bishop Dunn said while Magnum Principium has put control of the liturgy back to the bishops’ conferences as intended by Vatican II,  it [Magnum Principium ] has left the bishops as well as CDW uncertain about their respective roles.

Bishop Dunn said “that even if the local bishops’ conferences do a translation, they still have to submit it to the congregation in Rome for confirmation or recognition of the text”.

“This to make sure the translation doesn’t have theological flaws in it and [to] preserve the unity of the Roman Rite across all languages.”

But the steps by which CDW gives recognition to the text are still unclear, Bishop Dunn said.

Even on the issue of ICEL’s statutes which have expired, the CDW and the bishops’ conferences are carefully trying to find the line that separates each one’s authority.

ICEL was originally formed as an instrument of the English-speaking bishops conferences, but with Liturgiam Authenticam, it became an instrument of CDW.

“The congregation have now advised ICEL that ICEL should once again draft their own statutes. In this sense, they have become far more flexible,” Bishop Dunn said.

Canadian Bishop Brian Dunn [no relation to Bishop Patrick], a canon lawyer, is currently writing the draft of ICEL’s new constitution.

2010 vs 1998

Bishop Dunn said most of the New Zealand bishops are still keen on going back to the 1998 Missal, but he is personally having second thoughts on that.

“I’ve been to ICEL and I see the value of working together. I’m a bit more reserved about simply going back to the 1998 Missal,” he said.

“I think my preference now is to look at 2010 in the light of Magnum Principium,” he said, pointing out that after 8 to 10 years, the people have become used to the “slightly more formal language”.

“The priests may not like the new Missal, but I think the people are less concerned about it,” he said.

Bishop Dunn speculated that when the CDW plenary council meeting is called in February, the congregation may want to discuss the implications of Magnum Principium.

He added that Wellington Cardinal John Dew, who was appointed to the congregation in 2016, will be attending the meeting in February.

The post ‘Translation wars’ running out of steam? appeared first on NZ Catholic Newspaper.

Mr Molloy rightly urges “the arduous task of catechising the faithful into the full beauty of the Mass”. In those European countries which hardly took the liturgy renewal seriously, Mass attendances fell further and faster than in ours. In New Zealand, the catechesis sometimes didn’t get much further than how to do “the changes”. It’s not too late to say again: the key to liturgy renewal and to the needed catechesis is “participation”.

“Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have reminded us that translation is not a mere word for word, phrase for phrase, equivalence, such as we expect to find in a dictionary. Rather, it is a matter of carrying across (trans-lating) the sense of the original, by expressing it in the idioms and syntax of other languages.”

This is not just more people doing more things, though it makes room for a wider sharing of ministries. Participation means allowing ourselves to become absorbed in the mystery of “Christ among us”, and responding — by word, gesture, song or silence, allowing ourselves to be drawn into the mystery.

Congregation

However, “participation” is the participation of a congregation — the community of Christ’s body — in union with Christ and one another. The song, silence and gestures of a community acting in unison can be a very moving experience. This is the “reverence” of a community at prayer; it’s different from the reverence we experience in private, individual prayer and devotion even “at Mass”. Liturgy is a different thing!

The Second Vatican Council’s recognition of the need for “full, conscious and active” participation (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14) necessitated translation into the languages of the people. Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have reminded us that translation is not a mere word for word, phrase for phrase equivalence, such as we expect to find in a dictionary. Rather, it is a matter of carrying across (trans-lating) the sense of the original, by expressing it in the idioms and syntax of other languages. The present translation’s awkwardness derives from its dependence on formal (dictionary-like) equivalence only. The words are English, but the syntax is still Latin; i.e. not translated.

Comparisons between the present translation and the one we used before it miss the point. The earlier translation was a somewhat hurried job, done under the supervision of an international committee of bishops set up at the Second Vatican Council. They were conscientious and careful men, whose work cannot fairly be described as a “banal bath in mediocrity”. (New Zealand’s representative on that body was the late Bishop Owen Snedden, and one of their advisors was the late Professor G.B. Harrison, previously general editor of the works of Shakespeare).

Nevertheless, the intention was always to revise that translation given more time. This revision was done during the years 1983 — 1997. I witnessed the considerable scholarship and hard work that went into this revision, resulting in a translation that was more sensitive to scriptural allusions, and language that was more elegant. It was approved by the English-speaking bishops’ conferences and set to replace the earlier translation. But then the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments blocked its use because it wanted a translation based on dictionary type equivalence only. That restriction was neither theologically required nor linguistically defensible.

Pope Francis’ recent motu proprio (titled Magnum Principium — The Great Principle) allows translations to more fully respect the idioms and syntax of the receiving language, and instructs the Congregation not to impose its will as it had previously done. The New Zealand bishops have endorsed Pope Francis’ three principles which he says should guide translation: “fidelity to the original text; fidelity to the particular language into which it is being translated; and a commitment to the intelligibility of the text”. It is hard to argue with that, and it does not mean, as Mr Molloy seems to fear, that New Zealand will “be lumbered with a translation that reflects the ambivalence and unbelief of a majority of today’s Catholics”.

Mr Molloy’s, and others’, concern for language is part of a deeper concern for clarity and orthodoxy. He berates “newly appointed spokespersons in the Vatican (for) deliberately ambiguous and partly true half-statements that hope to be all things to all men (sic).” He manages to put into one sentence several of the insinuating phrases that are being used these days to undermine Pope Francis, even if that was not his own intention.

Unfinished

Such criticisms miss the point of what is actually happening. We all happen to live during a relatively recent and still unfinished development. I am referring to a devolution from more paternalistic ways of leading people and being led, to a greater acceptance of personal responsibility. This development is based on a greater appreciation of personhood and of the priority of conscience. Skeptics might need to be reminded that it is not all that long since some Church practices were based on the premiss that “error has no rights”, which in practice meant that people in error had no rights. As recently as the Second Vatican Council this was still being debated. The clear teaching of the Church now is that it is persons who have rights, including therefore persons who are in error or perceived to be in error.

Progress in this direction has had a bumpy ride within the Church. Several human and civil rights that we now take for granted were originally condemned by Popes Pius IX and Pius X. There are some who still long for styles of exercising authority that were typical of feudal societies. They feel the need for law and order and compliance at all costs. They seem to have forgotten how this often resulted in immature dependence instead of growth in personal responsibility.

The process must be allowed to unfold, even at the risk of some messiness. It does not have to involve a betrayal of objective truth or of Church teaching. Traditional Catholic moral theology has always recognised that people can be simultaneously in error and in good conscience. Somehow, our pastoral guidance, sacramental practices and participation in a pluralist society must function within these complexities. Pope Francis is leading us well.

Bishop Peter Cullinane is Bishop Emeritus of Palmerston North diocese.

The post On translations and underlying concerns appeared first on NZ Catholic Newspaper.

“A lot of people are asking, ‘what’s happened to the 1998 Missal?’ We need to actually dust it, take it off the shelf. Let’s have a look at it and see what was achieved,” Bishop Dunn told NZ Catholic.

Bishop Dunn said as soon as Magnum Principium came out, a number of New Zealand priests started urging their bishops to lead the way and start using the 1998 Missal translation.

“It’s not quite that simple because even with Magnum Principium, you still need to go to the Congregation [for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments] for confirmatio (Latin for confirmation),” explained Bishop Dunn.

He stressed the Congregation “does play an important role because it preserves the unity of the Roman Rite”.

Bishop Dunn said the New Zealand bishops are also not inclined to go it alone because they acknowledge the importance of working collegially with ICEL.

In a recent NZCBC statement, the bishops emphasised they “will be working in collaboration with English-speaking bishops’ conferences around the world, as we seek to explore prudently and patiently the possibility of an alternative translation of the Roman Missal and the review of other liturgical texts”.

Bishop Dunn said bishops of other English-speaking countries also feel the need for unity.

“The general feeling among the ICEL bishops is that we should try to keep that spirit of collaboration and cooperation. That is quite a strength and it’s a very good thing,” said Bishop Dunn. “Let’s not break up what we’ve got going.”

He added the Holy See appreciates ICEL’s efforts as it is the only language group that has worked so cooperatively thus far.

Bishop Dunn said at ICEL’s February meeting, it would be interesting to see what the other episcopal conferences think about revisiting the 1998 translation.

“What I suspect is that many [ICEL] bishops’ conferences may not want to be bothered with a whole new Missal. They’ll think, ‘dear God, not again’,” he said.

Bishop Dunn said his personal opinion is that it might be worthwhile reviewing the 1998 translation for the Eucharistic Prayers, but keep the people’s responses the same.

“In the present Missal, the Collect [or opening prayer] really frustrates a lot of priests because it’s been translated too literally from the Latin and sometimes, it’s not clear exactly what it means,” he said.

The New Zealand bishops have always advocated a review of the 1998 translation because of the complaints of the priests and the people regarding long sentences, multiple subordinate clauses and general “clunkiness” of the present Missal text put out by the Congregation.

The post NZ bishops to ask ICEL to look at 1998 translation appeared first on NZ Catholic Newspaper.

The post New Roman Missal finally delivered appeared first on NZ Catholic Newspaper.

In a letter to priests, lay pastoral leaders, school principals and others on November 9, the New Zealand bishops explained what had happened. The text of their letter follows:
“For some time we have all been working towards the introduction of the new translation of the Roman Missal on the first Sunday of Advent this year. The new missal is also the first ever bilingual missal approved for use in New Zealand, which adds to the significant of this event in the life of the Church in our country.

“The printing process for the new missals was completed last week. At first sight they were everything we had hoped for. Unfortunately, closer inspection of individual copies [revealed] that unbeknown to the printer, a technical flaw had occurred in the production process. The pages containing the eucharistic prayers were printed on heavier paper because they have a higher usage. We had stipulated that the pages of the missal must lie flat when it is open. The pages on the heavier paper do not lie flat, so celebrants would find themselves holding the pages down. This problem will not reduce with time and usage, so it is a serious flaw.

“All possibilities for fixing the flaw in the missals have been explored by the printer, but it cannot be corrected. The flawed missals can be used, but the flaw would be a problem for celebrants for decades to come. We set a high standard for the printing of books, and we are not prepared to accept anything less.

“There is no option but to reprint the missals. As a result, they will not be available for introduction on the first Sunday of Advent. Priests and people should continue to use the format of the Mass they have been using since last Advent until further notice.
“We are awaiting advice from the printer regarding the timing of the reprint, and will advise you of the date the missal will be ready as soon as we have the information. We anticipate being able to let you know within 7-10 days.

“The printer has been very helpful throughout the process of producing the Missal. The staff have considered it a privilege to print the missal and have seen it as an interesting project with its various technical requirements. They are devastated by what has happened, as are our people who have worked so hard over several years to bring this project to fruition.

“We ask for your understanding as we work to ensure that you have the best possible missal for use in the celebration of the Mass. The nature of the Mass and its centrality in our Faith mean that we should settle for nothing less than the highest standard in our liturgical books.”

The post Printing error delays NZ’s new translation appeared first on NZ Catholic Newspaper.