Principles of Translating the Missale Romanum
(from the Newsletter 2008 Newsletter– © 2008 USCCB)

As the translation process for the third edition of the Roman Missal continues, we would like to take the opportunity to provide our readers with a somewhat detailed insight into the principles that are being used for the translation process.

The sources for these principles are the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam,and the Ratio Translationis for the English Language, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2001 and 2007, respectively. One of the guiding principles of the translation is to be found in number 20 of Liturgiam authenticam:

The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, 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. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.

One of the most challenging aspects of this principle has been to keep the balance between creating a flowing vernacular text that is compatible with the rhythm of popular prayer while, at the same time, translating the text in an integral and most exact manner. The question of translating the text in an integral and exact manner demands a great deal more than just simply translating word for word. Sometimes, those not engaged in translation are of the impression that one simply has to take a dictionary and perhaps a thesaurus and thus produce an “exact” translation. Understanding of vocabulary and syntax are simply the entrance way into the process of translation. Translators, when they first approach a text, must explore the biblical and patristic sources of the texts they are dealing with. They do this through careful study of various scholarly studies. Sometimes, understanding the use of a word or phrase by the Church fathers can unlock important aspects of the meaning of a particular prayer. The particular context that surrounds the use of a word by a particular Church father is very important. Oftentimes the Fathers of the Church are trying to address particular epistemological, anthropological and soteriological issues of their day. One also has to have an understanding of the particular heretical or separatist movements that could have influenced the use of particular language.

A very challenging syntactical issue is that of preserving the relationship of the elements of syntax as a text is translated into English. Liturgiam authenticam notes in number 57:

That notable feature of the Roman Rite, namely its straightforward, concise and compact manner of expression, is to be maintained insofar as possible in the translation. Furthermore, the same manner of rendering a given expression is to be maintained throughout the translation, insofar as feasible. These principles are to be observed:

a) The connection between various expressions, manifested by subordinate and relative clauses, the ordering of words, and various forms of parallelism, is to be maintained as completely as possible in a manner appropriate to the vernacular language.

b) In the translation of terms contained in the original text, the same person, number, and gender is to be maintained insofar as possible.

c) The theological significance of words expressing causality, purpose or consequence (such as ut, ideo, enim, and quia) is to be maintained, though different languages may employ varying means for doing so.

d) The principles set forth… in n. 51, regarding variety of vocabulary, are to be observed also in the variety of syntax and style (for example, in the location within the Collect of the vocative addressed to God).

The application of this paragraph of Liturgiam authenticam has made some extraordinary demands on translators, especially with reference to 57a. The use of extended subordination is a method to order all the elements of a sentence in such a way as to express a dependence on God as the source of all saving action. The very syntax of the sentence indicates what is secondary or subordinate. In addition, the meaning of the prayer is communicated through the use of a sequence of tenses that links all action solely to that of the main clause.

When such a sentence is broken up, in English, into many shorter sentences there comes about a cumulative loss of meaning between those ideas which are secondary and their subordination to a principal action. In general, the translators have remained faithful to the principle, but there have been some prayers that were so extensively long that they needed to be broken into two sentences.

We close this consideration with an example of a draft translation of the Prayer Over the Offerings for the Eleventh Sunday in Ordinary Time:

Latin Prayer Deus, qui humáni géneris utrámque substántiam præséntium múnerum et aliménto végetas et rénovas sacraménto, tríbue, quǽsumus, ut eórum et corpóribus nostris subsídium non desit et méntibus.

A Suggested Early Draft O God, who in the gifts presented here nourish with food and renew with Sacrament the twofold nature of the human race, grant, we pray, that their sustenance may not fail us in body or in mind.

Principles of Translating the Missale Romanum, Part 2
(from the February 2008 Newsletter – © 2008 USCCB)

As we progress with the production of the various Gray Books that will be reviewed by the American Bishops, we continue our review of the principles that underlie the translation as laid out in Liturgiam authenticam (LA).

Expected Changes
There are some translations that from the very first days were laid out by LA. Paragraph 56 noted:

Certain expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a greater part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony, are to be respected by a translation that is 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.

One should not be surprised, therefore, to find as a final translation “And with your spirit.” Nor would it be surprising to find after the words “what I have failed to do” of the Confiteor, an insertion: “Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”

With reference to the profession of faith, LA no. 65 states:

By means of the Creed (Symbolum) or Profession of Faith, the whole gathered People of God respond to the word of God proclaimed in the Sacred Scriptures and expounded in the homily, recalling and confessing the great mysteries of the faith by means of a formula approved for liturgical use. The Creed is to be translated according to the precise wording that the tradition of the Latin Church has bestowed upon it, including the use of the first person singular by which is clearly made manifest that “the confession of faith is handed down in the Creed, as it were, as coming from the person of the whole Church, united by means of Faith.” In addition, the expression carnis resurrectionem is to be translated literally wherever the Apostles’ Creed is prescribed or may be used in the Liturgy.

The translation of the Ordo Missæ approved by the Latin Church members of the USCCB, at its June 15, 2006 plenary meeting, has the opening words “I believe.” In addition, at three points in the Creed, the Bishops recommended that the action of the gathered assembly be clarified by the restatement of these opening words:

• “And in one Lord Jesus Christ” becomes “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ”;
• “And in the Holy Spirit” becomes “I believe in the Holy Spirit”; and
• “And one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” becomes “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

The bishops also addressed the translation of consubstanialem. Since 1970, this important theological term has been rendered in the United States of America as “one in being.” The bishops voted to retain this translation, instead of adopting the ICEL rendering of “consubstantial.” Finally, the rendering of “He suffered death and was buried” was changed to “He suffered, died, and was buried.”

With reference to the expression carnis resurrectionem, the Bishops approved the translation “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead.”

It is to be kept in mind, however, that all of these texts have been submitted to Rome for recognitio. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will also have to take into consideration the translations that have been submitted by other Conferences of Bishops. Number 87 of LA indicates, “It is recommended that there be a single translation of the liturgical books for each vernacular language.”

Scriptural Allusions
LA notes in par. 49:

Characteristic of the orations of the Roman liturgical tradition as well as of the other Catholic Rites us a coherent system of words and patterns of speech, consecrated by the books of Sacred Scripture and by ecclesial tradition, especially the writings of the Fathers of the Church. For this reason the manner of translating the liturgical books should foster a correspondence between the biblical text itself and the liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition which contain biblical words or allusions. In the translation of such texts, the translator would best be guided by the manner of expression that is characteristic of the version of the Sacred Scriptures approved for liturgical use in the territories for which the translation is being prepared. At the same time, care should be taken to avoid weighting down the text by clumsily over-elaborating the more delicate biblical allusions.

An application of this principle can be seen in the translation of the third Eucharistic Prayer approved by the bishops in the June 2006 meeting. We presently pray “so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.”  In reflecting on this passage, the translators sought to capture more clearly the Scriptural allusion to Malachi 1:11 which, in the New American Bible version, translates: “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations.” The translation awaiting confirmation reads: “so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.” A further example of the application of this principle can be found in the translation of what is presently rendered: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed.” The suggested translation reads, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” Though awaiting confirmation, the translation indicates the attempt at making the scriptural allusion more clear.

Principles of Translating the Missale Romanum, Part 3
(from the March 2008 Newsletter – © 2008 USCCB)

Continuing the series on principles surrounding the translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, we turn now to questions of person, number, and gender.

Paragraph 57b of Liturgiam authenticam (LA) notes that “in the translation of terms contained in the original text, the same person, number and gender is to be maintained insofar as possible.” This applies not only to the liturgical text but also to the original language of the biblical text as well. Thus the grammatical gender of a given word which denotes a spiritual or divine being such as God the Father or Christ should be translated as in the original text.

A particular exception is given with reference to the Holy Spirit. The masculine person is to be used for the Holy Spirit (i.e., Romans8:16 “The Spirit himself bears witness.”) and for the “Spirit” of God in the Old Testament as well. This is seen as consistent with the Latin tradition of biblical translation and liturgical prayer.

Explicit directions for our question are provided in LA no. 31. One should avoid resorting to mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. This approach opens the door to theological and anthropological problems.

Specific attention is given to the term, “Son of Man.” LA no. 31b notes: “the fixed expression ‘Son of Man’ must be rendered faithfully and exactly. The great Christological and typological significance of this expression requires that there should also be employed throughout the translation a rule of language that will ensure that the fixed expression remain comprehensible in the context of the whole translation.” The Ratio translationis indicates as particularly apt the use of the inclusive “man,” in the singular or in the plural in contexts in which a clear delineation or parallel is being drawn between divine and earthly realms.

With reference to the Church, LA no. 31b indicates a preference for the feminine pronoun rather than the neuter.

Care also has to be taken when a different word replaces the inclusive “man.” Some suggest the use of “human being” or “person.” Because these words seem to be more proper to philosophical discourse, these words night be considered as inappropriate for a biblical context. The use of the word “humans” as a substantive raises some aesthetic concerns and might evoke a contrast not with God, but with animals. Other terms such as “mortal,” “one” or “people” all have some problematic aspects to them.

LA approaches this question from a very definite perspective. In paragraph 29 it notes:

…Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy. Although considerations such as these may sometimes help one in choosing among various translations of a certain expression, they are not to be considered reasons for altering either a biblical text or a liturgical text that has been duly promulgated.

Thus, when the final text appears proper catechesis will have to be provided for those expressions that need clarification in order to address any perceived prejudice or unjust discrimination.

Principles of Translating the Missale Romanum, Part 4
(from the May-June 2008 Newsletter – © 2008 USCCB)

Concluding the series on the translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, we turn to the issue of competencies, the process of consultation, and the obtaining of the recognitio.

With respect to translation, it is important to recall that it was the mind of the Second Vatican Council that the Conferences of Bishops should play a central role. The competency of the Conferences of Bishops was referred to in Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), no. 22 §2, where it notes that “in virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops’ conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories.” SC no. 36 indicates that it is the responsibility of the conferences to approve translations.

In the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law, it is clearly stated in canon 838 §3: “It pertains to the conference of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined.”

More specific reference is made to the role of the Conference of Bishops in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). Paragraph 389, referring to canon 838 §3, explains that it is within the competence of Conferences of Bishops to propose and approve a complete edition of the Roman Missal in the vernacular language and to submit it for the recognition of the Apostolic See.

Paragraph 392 of the GIRM gets even more specific. The translation of other liturgical texts must be executed “in such a way that, even though the character of each language is respected, the meaning of the original Latin text is fully and faithfully rendered.” In pointing this out, however, it is important to note the different literary genres which are employed in the Missal, such as the presidential orations, the antiphons, acclamations, responses, and the litanies of supplication. While underlying the necessity to keep in mind the proclaimability dimension of such texts, it is also noted that the language should be accommodated to the faithful, but it should also “be noble and marked by literary quality.”

This issue is further clarified by Liturgiam authenticam (LA) in no. 114, which indicates that the right of translating liturgical books “remains uniquely that of the Conference of Bishops, with due regard, however, to the right of recognitio and the proprietary rights of the Apostolic See, also set forth in this Instruction.”

Frequently, the Secretariat of Divine Worship receives letters from interested parties who plead with the Chairman of the Committee on Divine Worship or the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to stop or forward some particular part of a translation. It is clear from what has been noted that while each and every bishop has a contribution to make, this always is done in collaboration with the entire Conference of Bishops who must vote on the particular translation. A two-thirds vote of the Latin Rite Bishops of the Conference is required before a translation is forwarded to the Holy See. Each Conference of Bishops is independent, but in reality a consultation is going on in the entire English-speaking world. Thus from the outset, it is clear that no one small group alone is addressing the question of translation, but it is an international endeavor as well.

When a final translation has been agreed upon by a Conference of Bishops, LA indicates the procedure that must be followed to obtain the recognitio by the Apostolic See. LA no. 80 reminds us that “it is not possible to publish, for the use of celebrants, or for the general public, any liturgical text that has been translated or recently composed, as long as the recognitio is lacking.”

International Commission on English in the Liturgy
For the USCCB to fulfill its mandate with regard to translation, it uses the services of a “mixed commission” whose statutes are approved by the Holy See. The “mixed commission,” called the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has bishops as its members. Each country elects a bishop to represent it; Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, New Jersey currently represents the United States. Presently there are eleven Conferences of Bishops that are full members of ICEL: Australia, Canada, England and Wales, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, and the United States of America. Other Conferences of Bishops in whose countries English is used in the Liturgy may, on request, be admitted to associate membership in ICEL. At present these are: the Antilles, Bangladesh, the Episcopal Conference of the Pacific (CEPAC), Gambia–Liberia–Sierra Leone, Ghana, Kenya, Malaysia–Singapore, Malawi, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

This body of bishops is assisted by a professional staff located in Washington, DC. The staff coordinates the work of specialists located throughout the English-speaking world in the development of translations.

The Process from Start to Finish
The Latin text of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia is divided up and given to experts who provide an initial text. This text is then given to outside critics and consultants to be reviewed. At this stage there is ample opportunity for extensive revision when necessary. Different translators and consultants are engaged for texts in prayer form, for antiphons, for prose readings, and for secondary material such as introductions and rubrics.

At the completion of this stage, the material is submitted to the Roman Missal Editorial Committee, which is a standing committee of ICEL, and has bishop-experts as its members that carefully review all the material. Having then submitted its review to the full Episcopal Board of ICEL, the “Green Book” version of that part of the translation is produced. The colors Green and Gray simply refer to the book covers of the material that is submitted. The Green Book goes to all the participating Conferences of Bishops, and through them, or directly, to national and diocesan liturgical commissions, to general ICEL consultants, ICEL correspondents, and to editors and publishers. The very purpose of such a document is to ask for critique and suggestions. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as well the Vox Clara Committee are also involved.

We may consider, as an example, the Green Book for the Proper of Seasons. The critique was quite extensive; from the United States alone some 538 particular suggestions were submitted from individual bishops. The then-Committee on the Liturgy reviewed these comments and formulated its own comments. All of these were sent to ICEL. Among the concerns expressed were the form of English-language conclusions, the use of certain arcane words and phrases, and the difficulties for proclamation and memorability which result from the translation of single-sentence Latin prayers. The consultation from the entire English-speaking world was then reviewed by the ICEL Roman Missal Editorial Committee as it prepared the “Gray Book” for review by the entire ICEL Episcopal Board.
Finally, the Gray Book is submitted by ICEL to the Conferences of Bishops. For ICEL, this is the final version of the text, and each conference must vote on this text. After a two-thirds vote of the Latin Rite bishops, the approved text is then submitted to the Holy See.

Together with the text that is submitted to Rome, the minutes of the USCCB meeting referring to the particular text are required. The names of the Bishops who attended the meeting as well as the outcome of the formal vote must also be submitted. A list of all those who worked on the text is submitted and an explanation given for any changes that were made to the text. Only after the Apostolic See has reviewed the text and formally issued the recognitio may the text be published.

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Vox Clara Committee
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is responsible for providing the approval of the Holy See at the end of the process. The technical term for this process is the recognitio. To help the Congregation in the immense task of reviewing the work, an advisory committee called Vox Clara was formed. Bishops from the English-speaking countries of the world serve as members of this committee. It is chaired by His Eminence George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia. The First Vice-Chairman is the Archbishop Emeritus of Mobile, Alabama, Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb. The secretary is Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans, and the treasurer is His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia. This committee helps the Congregation, particularly when there might be need for resolution of different translations submitted by the Conferences of Bishops.

The End Product
Never before in the Roman Church has there been so much consultation on a ritual text. One of the lessons that has been learned is that no matter how hard people try, not everyone will be pleased with one or another aspect of the translation. Some may not agree with the principles of translation provided by Liturgiam authenticam. It will be for another generation to revisit this translation after it has been used for a number of years.

What is most important is that the Church in the English-speaking part of the world be ready to receive the final text with open and generous hearts. Bishops will have to rely on their priests to be ready and willing to prepare these texts carefully so that they can be proclaimed in the most effective way possible. There is much in the new translation that will be spiritually enriching, and that should be highlighted for the members of the community. Receiving the new translation with open hearts can provide an opportunity for spiritual growth and development for the whole Church.