Third Liturgical Instruction| Third Liturgical Instruction |
|
THIRD LITURGICAL INSTRUCTION
CONTEXT (Cont’d)
The second edition of the Missal with the 4th General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) in 1975 lasted until 2011, 36 years, but there were some significant stages that led to the third edition in 2011. Many developments took place since 1975. Truth be told, there were also some deviations that needed to be dealt with.
A decree came from the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS), 20 April, Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, in the year of the Great Jubilee 2000. I quote:
“At the outset of the third millennium after the Incarnation of the Lord, it has been decided to prepare a new edition of the Roman Missal, to take account of the more recent documents of the Apostolic See and especially of the new Code of Canon Law, and to meet the various needs for emendation and augmentation…and also recommended by pastoral experience…
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved by his authority this third edition of the Roman Missal on 10 April 2000, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments now publishes it and declares it to be typical…
Conferences of Bishops shall ensure that, within an appropriate period of time, new vernacular versions of the Roman Missal are faithfully and accurately prepared from this third typical edition…”
This was the second major document with which the Holy Father greeted the new Millennium. The other was his Apostolic Exhortation on Beginning the New Millennium. ICEL (The International Committee for English in the Liturgy) translated the 2000 GIRM in 2001. GIRM begins with the same powerful decree with which Paul VI introduced the first edition of the Missal in 1969.
The 2011 Roman Missal is thick and heavy. GIRM begins with an introduction followed by 9 chapters, a total of 75 pages, 399 paragraph numbers and 165 footnotes. Matters with specific reference to the celebration of Mass follow under 24 different headings. The last page bears the number 1,480. The colors of red and gold for the cover are traditional.
It was the sections dealing with the Mass that created the delay and not the GIRM that were the main source of the 11 year delay for the Missal’s implementation in Advent, 2011, in English Canada. And the main reason within this main source was to be found in the task of translating from the original Latin. Keep in mind, though, that 11 years in Vatican time is not even a nano second in our time.
With the word “translation” there came a new Document called Authentic Liturgy (AL) with the following title:
CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS
FIFTH INSTRUCTION “For the right implementation Of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, article 36)
AUTHENTIC LITURGY On the use of vernacular languages In the publication of The books of the Roman Liturgy
This Instruction was mandated by John Paul II on February 1, 1997, approved by him and published on March 28, 2001 by CDWDS. It is 29 pages long, plus 6 pages with 86 footnotes.
This was the document that was handed over to ICEL. “OK, folks, let’s have an English translation of the Roman Missal.” Just to make sure that AL is properly followed a new Committee called “The Clear Voice” will monitor your work. Besides that, the English speaking Bishops of the world will be the arbiters of your efforts before it reaches CDWDS and ultimately receives the approbation of the Pope. The task would prove to be easier mandated than done.
AL had several great concerns. One was to maintain the identity and unitary expression of the Roman Rite(5) and to safeguard the faith and unity of the whole Church. Secondly a more exacting and accurate translation was expected with stricter adherence and fidelity to the original Latin text.
If one wonders why we have the texts of the Mass that we now have in 2011, one has only to review this Instruction of 2001 called Authentic Liturgy. I can give only a few of the more significant directives, guidelines, principles and norms of the Instruction. I will reference the paragraph numbers.
“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(20).”
“So that the content of the original texts may be evident and comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation, the translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts’ dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision(25).”
The Instruction harbors the hope that a good vernacular translation might transcend usual and everyday speech and become capable of expressing heavenly realities. The translation might develop into a sacred style and become a liturgical language. A translation could facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship (27, 47). I would suggest that the people will be the judge of this and only after a long period of time.
“Since the rule of praying must always be in harmony with the rule of believing and must manifest and support the faith of the Christian people, the liturgical translations will not be capable of being worthy of God without faithfully transmitting the wealth of Catholic doctrine from the original text into the vernacular version, in such a way that the sacred language is adapted to the dogmatic reality that it contains. Furthermore, it is necessary to uphold the principle according to which each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only as regards the doctrine of the Faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards those practices universally received through Apostolic and continuous tradition(80).”
Translation is neither an exact science nor a refined art. Simultaneous translation can be a nightmare, written translation like a bad dream. Every language both oral and written has its own elusive genius, style, flavor, nuances, idioms and vocabulary. That the one Latin language with its own genius must find its way into the multiplicity of languages of the world and in each be precise in doctrine, eloquent and lofty in prayer and worship, reflect noble simplicity and be comprehensible to all is a dizzying enterprise.
Good liturgy is both gift and work. Without the full, active, and conscious participation of the community and the Grace of God, liturgy will fall short of its hoped for fruitfulness. Just as the fragile plant does not grow any faster by pulling on it so, too, for us in the praying community. Let us not be overly anxious about reaping abundant fruit from the 2011 implementation of the revised Missal by the end of the Advent/Christmas season, 2011/12.
To be continued. Questions and observations (aberrations if you insist) always welcome, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Fr Wilf, C.S.C. Feast of Christ the King
November 20, 2011
|
