The final report of the October 2023 session of the synod referred to "the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures."

The English-speaking church has an easy response to this request: the 1998 translation of the Roman missal done by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, known as ICEL.

Its work was rejected by the man who would become Benedict XVI, but the time has come to put it forward again.

Implementing liturgical translations has often been controversial, both recently and in the long ago past.

The first schism in Rome occurred early in the third century after Pope Callistus I translated the liturgy from Greek into vulgar Latin — the informal, popular version of the language at the time — so that the common people could better understand the celebration of the Eucharist.

Hippolytus, the first antipope and author of Eucharistic Prayer II, led a revolt to keep the Greek liturgy. The dispute became so bitter and violent that pagan soldiers arrested both men and sent them to the tin mines of Sardinia.

After the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic Church began translating liturgical texts from Latin into contemporary languages for the same reasons Callistus put the liturgy into Latin: so that people could participate more fully and actively in the liturgy.

The translations were supposed to be made by episcopal conferences and were subject to final approval by Rome.

ICEL's 1998 translation was supposed to replace the translation that had been done quickly after the council.

The group, which comprises 11 bishops' conferences from the U.S. and the United Kingdom to India, the Philippines to New Zealand and Australia, employed experienced translators, liturgical scholars and even poets.

They also added new prayers — for example, presidential prayers after the Gloria that picked up themes from the Sunday Scripture readings.

The 1998 translation followed the 1969 Vatican instruction, "Comme Le Prévoit," which stated, "The language chosen should be that in ‘common' usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithful who speak it in everyday use, even children and persons of small education."

The 1998 translation was well received by English-speaking episcopal conferences, who approved it and sent it to Rome for final approval.

However, by the time the translation got to the Vatican, the rules were changing. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, preferred a word-for-word translation of the Latin rather than one that was easily understood when it was proclaimed.

At first, the English-speaking conferences fought for their translations, but the Vatican was not interested in listening.

In one instance, the American bishops asked to send a delegation to Rome to talk about the translation, but the Vatican agreed only on the condition that Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk not be part of the delegation. Pilarczyk had a doctorate in classics and could run circles around Vatican officials.

In 2001, the Vatican issued new instructions about translations of the Roman missal in "Liturgiam authenticam," which directed "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."

Eventually, under new leadership, ICEL followed Ratzinger's directions and produced the flawed 2010 translation that we are now using in church.

Thus, one cardinal in Rome, whose native language was German, was able to overrule years of work by the English-speaking bishops and tell them how they should pray their own language in worship.

Times have again changed. In 2017, Pope Francis revised canon law to emphasize that the main responsibility for liturgical translations lies with episcopal conferences.

According to Francis, the Dicastery for Divine Worship should no longer impose a given translation on episcopal conferences.

Nor should it be involved in a detailed word-by-word examination of translations.

Under these new procedures, the 1998 ICEL translation would have been easily approved by the Vatican.

Because Francis told the synod delegates not to talk to the press, it is hard to know from where the recommendation on liturgical translations came.

Did the push come from the bishops or the lay delegates at the synod?

Was it from Africa? Asia? Latin America?

These parts of the church have certainly wanted more respect for "the diversity of cultures."

But given that the biggest recent fight over translation involved English speakers, the call may have come from one of the ICEL countries.

It certainly did not come from the American bishops, who have no interest in revising liturgical texts. But perhaps other English-speaking bishops want to revisit the translation.

Granted this history, what would be a good way forward for the English-speaking church?

First, since it takes years to do a new translation, ICEL should begin by resurrecting the 1998 translation and reviewing it for minor improvements.

This translation, the fruit of years of work, is much better than the one currently used. There is no need to start from scratch.

Sadly, ICEL, which holds the copyright, does not allow the 1998 translation to be posted on the web (although some creative searching on Google turns it up), so it is difficult for people to see how good it is.

Second, changing the people's responses would probably be a bad idea. Going from "And also with you" to "And with your spirit" and back to "And also with you" would cause whiplash among the laity.

On the other hand, if Christian denominations agree on common English texts for the Gloria, the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer, then adopting these texts would be worth the effort for ecumenical reasons.

Third, in the meantime, priests should be given permission to use the 1998 translation for the parts of the Mass that are said only by the priest: the presidential prayers, prefaces, Eucharistic prayers, etc.

Let priests have the option of using the 1998 version or the current version, and see which one promotes fuller participation in the liturgy.

It would be instructive to see which version becomes more common after five or 10 years of allowing them both.

Which translation do priests find easier to proclaim, and which version do people more easily hear and understand?

One of the problems with how the church does liturgical translations is that they are not tested in the real world before they are imposed throughout the church.

The hierarchy does not believe in market testing translations to see what works.

Allowing priests to use the 1998 ICEL translation would be a good way to test its value.

Sadly, practical problems will foster inertia in liturgical translations.

Publishers have warehouses full of the current missal that they want to sell. Pastors don't want to spend money on new missals.

Bishops do not want to risk backlash from conservative Catholics who oppose any change in the liturgy.

All of this makes it likely that we will have to endure the current translation unless liturgists, priests and people in the pews support the synod's call for change.

If the United States is going to experience a true Eucharistic revival, then it needs liturgical texts that promote the full and active participation by all people in the liturgy. The current text does not do that.

The 1998 ICEL translation is a step in the right direction.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Improved translations for the opening and post-Communion prayers are also under consideration.

The initiative was confirmed by Bishop Stephen Lowe, president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and the bishops' representative on the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

The revised inclusive lectionary, a joint venture among the bishops' conferences from Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, will incorporate the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB).

Lowe cited the RNJB's affinity with the well-established Jerusalem Bible translation, currently approved for New Zealand, and for its embracing inclusive language.

The New Zealand Bishops' Conference has endorsed the project. "We await the same from our Australian and Irish counterparts," said Lowe.

The undertaking of the new lectionary is expected to span approximately three years.

During this phase, the conferences will spearhead a programme aimed at acquainting parishes and schools with the new edition.

New priest's prayers too

Since its introduction in 2011, New Zealand's Catholics have voiced concerns about the English used in the prayers of the Mass.

In 2011, Vox Clara a Vatican committee, pushed through an English translation that was more in line with the original Latin.

Direct translations from Latin, maintaining Latin syntax, have occasionally muddled the meaning in English, and the 'muddled meanings' is a prominent point emerging from New Zealand's Synodal feedback.

Reflecting on the potential of the improved Mass prayer translations as a solution to the existing translation's critiques, Lowe hinted at a solution with the release of a revised book of prayers the priest uses at Mass.

Welcoming the intent of the move, New Zealand liturgical theologian Dr Joe Grayland said the facility has been available to all bishops since September 3, 2017, when Pope Francis published Magnum Principium (The Great Principle).

In releasing Magnum Principium, Pope Francis emphasised the need for translations to

• remain loyal to the original text
• loyal to the language it is translated into, and
• be comprehensible to congregants

The Australian, Ireland and New Zealand bishops' solution keeps the status quo for the congregation's prayers and responses.

1998 Roman Missal translation

From 1983 - 2003, New Zealand Bishop Peter Cullinane was a respected member of the Episcopal Board of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

It was a time when the 1998 Sacramentary was developed.

In 1998, all the bishops of the English-speaking world agreed on a translation of the Roman Missal.

However, also in 1998, the prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, blocked ICEL's work.

Medina, a Chilean, spoke no English and set up Vox Clara, a group of senior bishops from English-speaking countries.

Vox Clara held its inaugural meeting in Rome in April 2002 under the chairmanship of then-Archbishop George Pell of Sydney.

According to columnist Robert Mickens, Medina mercilessly bullied ICEL officials.

The universally acceptable and inclusive translation is not lost and is still available:

• The Sacramentary - Volume One - Part 1
• The Sacramentary - Volume One - Part 2
• The Sacramentary - Volume Two - Part 1
• The Sacramentary - Volume Two - Part 2

Sources

• NZ Catholic
• CathNews NZ
• CathNews NZ

Sadly, this request reads as if this change were not already possible.

It has been available to the New Zealand Church since September 3, 2017, when Pope Francis published Magnum Principium (The Great Principle).

In Magnum Principium, Pope Francis gave the local bishops' conferences permission to work on and issue modifications to liturgical texts.

Although Magnum Principium concerns liturgical texts, it is part of a more extensive programme of curial reform, of which the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium (To Preach the Gospel), March 19, 2022, is the most recent.

Magnum Principium follows Francis' 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium where he addressed the need to rebalance the relationship between the Roman Curia and bishops' conferences.

In referring to the Second Vatican Council, Francis said that the contribution of bishops' conferences brought a ‘collegial spirit' to the task.

Unfortunately, the ‘juridic status' of conferences, complicated by the then Cardinal Ratzinger and the Curia's ‘excessive centralisation' all ‘complicates the Church's life and her missionary outreach.'

In Magnum Principium, Francis shifted the responsibility and the authority for translating liturgical texts to the episcopal conferences by modifying clauses two and three of canon 838 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

He also redefined and limited the role of the then Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, now the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Beforehand the passages read:

§2. It is the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.

§3. It pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare vernacular translations of liturgical books, with appropriate adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of the Holy See, to publish these translations.

The revised text now reads (my italics):

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

Vernacular languages

To understand Magnum Principium, we must look at the larger context of the Second Vatican Council and the central principle of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of 1963, Sacrosanctum Concilium, active participation.

Local or vernacular language in Mass and other rituals predates Vatican Two.

Local vernacular language in worship has been the constant practice of the churches of Orthodoxy.

In the Western Church in the centuries before Vatican Two, Latin was undoubtedly the dominant liturgical language, but not the only one.

In the twentieth century, the Sacred Congregation of Rites permitted the use of vernacular languages in several missionary countries, including China in 1949 and India in 1950. It allowed for local languages in the Mass, except in the Roman Canon or Eucharistic Prayer.

Similarly, bilingual missals and the dialogue Mass became popular in France and Germany.

Other non-eucharistic French (1948) and German (1951) texts were also permitted.

Sacrosanctum Concilium discusses the use of vernacular languages, the need for enhanced lay-formation and participation in liturgy and the process of inculturation and issued in a period of liturgical reform and translation of texts.

Writing from Rome after the Sacrosanctum Concilium, John Kavanagh, Bishop of Dunedin, noted that it was the first Constitution approved because its ‘pre-conciliar preparation proved far more satisfactory than that of other comparable important texts'.

In New Zealand, the seven years between 1963 and 1970 saw the implementation of new rites and the introduction of new translations.

In May 1967, Peter McKeefry, Archbishop of Wellington, petitioned Rome for permission to use English in the ordination rite and received an affirmative answer on June 9 that year.

The most significant change was using vernacular in the Canon of the Mass.

In his letter, Concilium ad Exsequendam Constiutionem de sacra Liturgia od June 21, 1967, Cardinal Lecarno, President of the Concilium, wrote of the place of the vernacular in the Canon as the ‘last step in the gradual extension of the vernacular'.

Towards the end of 1969, the Apostolic Delegate put pressure on the New Zealand bishops to ‘adopt as soon as possible the new liturgical text for the Mass as issued by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy'.

The Vatican had directed that only one liturgical text could exist for the same language group.

All the English-speaking churches shared a single organisation or mixed commission for translations called the International Committee for English in the Liturgy or ICEL.

The English-speaking bishops created ICEL as their official mechanism for translations at their first meeting at the venerable English College in Rome on October 17, 1963.

Geotheological politics

Fast forward to the 1990s and the division in the Church over what has become known as the "liturgy wars".

These wars are not about liturgy but how power operates in the Church.

The growing centralisation of liturgical control during the reign of Pope John Paul II came at the expense of the authority of conferences of bishops, and New Zealand was not immune.

The process that began under John Paul II became calcified during the pontificate of Benedict XVI, who promoted the use of the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly and incorrectly referred to as the Tridentine Rite.

Further centralisation came with revising mixed commissions and ICEL's statutes by the Vatican.

Now, bishops' conferences were less able to control ICEL's work.

At a similar time, in July 2001, a rival committee to ICEL called Vox Clara was set up by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CWD).

Vox Clara was a tool to provide advice to the Holy See concerning English-language liturgical books, but unlike ICEL, it was not a representative group of English-speaking episcopal conferences.

Within this context came the new liturgical translation tool, Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) and the reintroduction of the 1962 Roman Missal in Summorum Pontificum (2007).

Translation tools differences

Following the Council, translators used a philosophy of translation called dynamic equivalence or a sense-for-sense translation.

This translation philosophy was given in the Instruction, Comme le prévoit (January 25 1969). Translations were done hastily following the Council.

But, after the initial translations were ratified, most major language groups then worked on refining and improving their translations. They worked through all the ritual books (baptism, confirmation, funerals, etc.).

Quoting St Jerome, Pope Paul IV told liturgical translators on November 10 1965: ‘If I translate word by word, it sounds absurd; if I am forced to change something in the word order or style, I seem to have stopped being a translator.'

Nevertheless, the Pope proposed that translations should enable the faithful ‘to share actively in the liturgical prayers and rites'; therefore, the Church permitted ‘the translation of texts venerable for their antiquity, devotion, beauty, and long-standing use.'

In this short excerpt, the Pope drew the translators' attention to the liturgical principle of actuosa participation as a principle of liturgical translation, or what Francis has called the Great Principle.

On March 28, 2001, Pope John Paul II replaced Comme le prévoit with a new instruction for translations called Liturgiam authenticam.

As the name suggests, the object was correctness.

Texts "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."

Comme le prevoit had understood that a liturgical text is ‘a ritual sign... a medium of spoken communication', the purpose of which is to ‘proclaim the message of salvation to believers and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord'.

By contrast, Liturgiam authenticam was less concerned with the comprehension of language and more with creating a distinctive liturgical language.

For example, where difficult or archaic expressions ‘hinder comprehension because of their excessively unusual or awkward nature', they should not be avoided but considered ‘as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals', thereby ensuring that the texts are ‘free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression.'

Liturgiam Authenticam was the corrective to Comme le prevoit with the object to ‘create in each vernacular…a sacred style that will come to be recognised as proper to liturgical language' that many would call a staid, clumsy rendering, using words like ‘oblation' and ‘consubstantial with' and ‘man' as the collective noun for all human beings.

The translations were not without controversy nor always honest in their approach to the texts.

In the Second Eucharistic Prayer, the phrase ‘astáre coram te et tibi ministráre', which means to ‘stand as one or as a body and minister [to you]', was translated as ‘to be in your presence and minister to you' as a way of ensuring people remain kneeling for the Eucharistic Prayer.

Interestingly, the episcopal conferences of France, Spain, Italy and Germany rejected their translations using Liturgiam authenticam.

The bishops of Japan contested the Vatican's right to judge the quality of a translation into Japanese, questioning both the quality of the review and the subsidiary position in which the CDW's review placed them.

Magnum Principium

For Pope Francis, the liturgical text and its translations are about the mission.

Their goal is to ‘announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord.'

Following the thinking of Pope Paul IV, Francis writes that ‘individual words must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act'.

Liturgical language belongs to the experience of communication and which gives freedom and the responsibility that some ‘texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.'

Francis hopes vernacular languages will share the ‘elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts' as liturgical Latin and become the languages of authentic liturgy again.

He is inviting local churches, like New Zealand, to work on improving the texts.

In this process, the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments' role is to promote a ‘vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust' between themselves and episcopal conferences.

Cardinal Arthur Roache, then secretary of the Congregation, outlined this in an Accompanying Note where he explained that the Congregation's (Dicastery's) role was to confirm translations but leave the ‘responsibility for the translation…to…the bishops' conference'.

The Dicastery still has a role in reviewing enculturated "adaptations", that is, additions or modifications introduced into a liturgy to incorporate or reflect local culture, which can include practices, movement, costume, and music as well as text.

The Synod's call

The onus has been on the local bishops to take the initiative.

However, this work can only be done by a team of professional liturgical theologians and assisted by other professionals.

Sadly, this work will probably not be undertaken because New Zealand is such a small country without these resources.

Nonetheless, the bishops' conference could easily permit using the ICEL 1998 presidential prayers and propers. It would bring a higher standard of written and proclamatory English into the Mass and other sacraments again.

• Dr Joe Grayland is a theologian and a priest of the Diocese of Palmerston North. His latest book is: Liturgical Lockdown. Covid and the Absence of the Laity (Te Hepara Pai, 2020).

The pope normally celebrates Mass in Italian.

The approved Italian translation from Latin of the new Roman Missal comes nine years after the English version was controversially released.

The English translation of the missal, uses the phrase "for many," suggesting, on the face of it, Jesus did not shed his blood for all.

The change of just two words in the Italian translation is a hallmark of Francis' papacy according to Christopher Lamb, the Rome Correspondent for The Tablet.

In 2006, Rome ruled that "pro multis" should be translated as "for many" with Benedict XVI insistent on this point, however the Italian bishops held out, resisting Rome and voted overwhelmingly to keep the "for all" phrase.

The consistent theme of the Francis pontificate is that God's mercy is all-embracing, and the Church is a field hospital welcoming all sinners. No one is excluded, says Lamb.

"Although a less literal translation of the Latin, the phrase 'for all' better reflects the teaching that Christ's sacrifice was for the whole of humanity, and is in keeping with Vatican II.

"As the old Latin motto explains: lex orandi, lex credendi. The rule of prayer is the rule of belief," comments Lamb.

Bishop Claudio Maniago, president of the Italian bishops' liturgy commission, said the commission worked hard to remain faithful to the Latin text.

There was "also, and most of all, an effort to render the text as usable as possible and, so, also make it an instrument of growth for the Italian church," he said.

Admitting there were also some changes to the Our Father and Gloria, Maniago said the bishops worked hard to keep changes to the people's prayers to a minimum.

He said the differences in the Italian translation have been thoroughly discussed with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

This is the same body the English translation was discussed with.

Controversy and confusion

Controversy surrounded the 2011 release of the English translation, some calling it "wooden", "archaic" and "inflated".

Others accused the translators of producing convoluted syntax.

In 2015, Emeritus Bishop of Palmerston North, Peter Cullinane, called for an overhaul of the new English Missal.

Cullinane told the London Tablet the translation was clunky, awkward and a too literal translation of the Latin original.

In 2017 the New Zealand Bishops' Conference responded to widespread criticism of the translation saying it hoped for liturgical texts that are both accurate and that speak to the heart.

Later in 2017, in "Magnum Principium" Francis removed the requirement that Rome authorise every aspect of translations; instead, its role is to review translations that have been commissioned and approved by the bishops' conference.

Removing Rome's authorisation mandate is consistent with Francis "manifesto" document number 32 in Evangelii Gaudium, where he writes "Excessive centralisation complicates the Church's life and her missionary outreach."

"When it comes to the wordings of prayers, it is the bishops on the ground, not curial officials in Rome, who are the best judges of what is going to most effectively aid evangelisation," explains Lamb.

Twenty years after the work of the Italian translation began and ten years after the English edition was released, priests in Italy will use the new Italian translation from Easter 2021.

Sources

• The Boston Pilot
• CathNews NZ

Conference president Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti says Pope Francis authorised the publication of the revised translation of the third edition of the Messale Romano, which the bishops had approved last November.

It will be some months before the books are printed and available for liturgical use.

One of the changes involves the Lord's Prayer.

It will no longer say "and lead us not into temptation" (e non ci indurre in tentazione), but will become "do not let us fall/be abandoned into temptation" (non abbandonarci alla tentazione).

The change will bring the prayer in line with the translation of this passage in the Italian translation of the Bible the bishops approved in 2008.

The Gloria will also be revised. "Peace on earth to people of good will" (pace in terra agli uomini di buona volontà) will become "Peace on Earth to people beloved by God" (pace in terra agli uomini, amati dal Signore).

The changes will be implemented to the Italian missal only and will have no effect on the English speaking world.

Francis has often spoken of his desire to update the "lead us not into temptation" part of the Lord's Prayer.

He argues it portrays God in a false light.

"A father does not lead into temptation, a father helps you to get up immediately," he commented.

"It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation."

Francis also said other translations had already been changed to correct mistakes and to modernize the language.

"The French have modified the prayer to 'do not let me fall into temptation,' because it is me who falls, not the Lord who tempts me to then see how I fall," he said.

One source says the change to the Lord's Prayer comes after 16 years of research by experts who found a mistake in the current translation "from a theological, pastoral, and stylistic viewpoint."

It has been translated into literally hundreds of languages from the original texts in ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

In 2017 Francis issued Magnum principium, which called for translations which are both faithful to Latin and respectful of the characteristics of the receptor language.

It is this second quality which was seen to suffer in the overly literalist translations prepared since Liturgiam authenticam.

He also restored authority over translations to bishops' conferences, as the Second Vatican Council had decreed, and rolled back the creeping centralism of previous decades at odds with the Council's decisions.

Source

• Pray Tell
• Daily Wire
• Image: Catholic News Agency

The conference's president, Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn, told the NZ Catholic their request seeks to balance demand for use of the missal while ensuring "unity is preserved with the Roman Rite".

The 1998 draft translation was the result of 15 years of collaborative work that took place between 1982 and 1997.

This draft version had received the approval of all the English-speaking conferences of the world.

But in 2002 the Congregation for Divine Worship refused to give an imprimatur.

It was replaced by a revised translation in 2010 and introduced into parishes in November 2011.

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 translation.

He said it was not 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)."

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

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

He said at ICEL's February meeting that 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.

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.

Source

• NZ Catholic
• LaCroix
• Liturgy
• Image: America Magazine

Sarah, a 72-year-old Guinean is the prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which traditionally has had authority over liturgical translations.

In a letter dated October 15, Pope Francis very directly corrected a commentary by Sarah on the implementation of the motu proprio Magnum Principium (MP)

In his commentary, Sarah argued that the new process for the translation of liturgical texts still follows the rules put into place with the 2001 Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam (LA), which said the vernacular versions must faithfully reflect the language and structure of the Latin texts.

In his letter, Pope Francis said MP "abolished" the process for translating used by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments after LA was published in 2001.

He said that in the past, it was the task of the Vatican's liturgical office to judge whether or not a translation is faithful to the original Latin.

Now episcopal conferences themselves have been given the faculty of "judging the goodness and consistency of one and the other term in the translations from the original, in dialogue with the Holy See."

Sarah suggested that the words recognition (recognitio) and confirmation (confirmatio) are "interchangeable with respect to the responsibility of the Holy See".

But the Pope said these two words cannot be said to be "strictly synonymous or interchangeable or that they are interchangeable at the level of responsibility of the Holy See."

The distinction between recognition and confirmation he said, emphasises the different responsibility that the Apostolic See and episcopal conferences have in liturgical translations.

He said recognition by the Vatican "no longer supposes a detailed word-by-word examination" except in obvious cases which can be brought to the bishops for further reflection.

Recognition indicates verification and certainty of conformity into law and the communion of the Church.

It is granted after the text confirmed by the local bishops has been submitted to the Apostolic See.

While he conceded that "the recognitio was not a simply formal act", Pope Francis also insisted on "the spirit of dialogue" between Rome and bishops' conferences that his motu proprio required.

Pope Francis closed his letter noting that Sarah's commentary had been published on several websites, and asked that the cardinal transmit his response to the same outlets, as well as to members and consultors of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Read the full text of the Pope's Letter

Source

• CNA
• NCR
• La Croix
• The Holy Trinity Church
• ICN
• Image: National Catholic Register

They say they will be working in collaboration with English speaking Bishops' Conferences around the world as they seek to explore prudently and patiently the possibility of an alternative translation of the Roman Missal and the review of other liturgical texts.

The following is the statement they released at the conclusion of their meeting.

During our recent meeting in Wellington, we discussed Magnum Principium (the great principle), Pope Francis' September 2017 edict concerning the translations of liturgical texts.

The Holy Father has shifted the responsibility of liturgical translations from a Vatican department back to national Conferences of Bishops.

Thus he has reaffirmed the teaching of the Second Vatican Council which states that it is local groupings of Bishops who oversee then approve translations into the language of the land, before seeking final acceptance of this work by the Holy See.

The New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference (NZCBC) gratefully welcomes this directive from Pope Francis. We appreciate the bold step he has taken to ensure translations of liturgical texts are of the highest standard.

Pope Francis has stated that three principles should guide the work of liturgical 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. Therefore respect for a language's own syntax, structure, and turns of phrase are to be upheld.

Like many priests and parishioners, we share in the frustration concerning some aspects of the current translation of the Roman Missal and we reiterate our desire for beauty, comprehensibility, and participation in and through the sacred liturgy.

We 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.

✠ Patrick Dunn, Bishop of Auckland and NZCBC President
✠ Charles Drennan, Bishop of Palmerston North and NZCBC Secretary
✠ John Dew, Cardinal Archbishop of Wellington
✠ Steve Lowe, Bishop of Hamilton
Rev Michael Dooley, Vicar General, Diocese of Dunedin
Rev Rick Loughnan, Diocesan Administrator, Diocese of Christchurch

Source

• Supplied
• Image: Slideplayer

The 2001 Vatican instruction on translation, Liturgiam authenticam, had strongly centralized authority in Rome and diminished the role of the bishops' conferences.

So it was big news that Pope Francis reaffirmed authoritatively the Vatican II vision expressed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy 36.4, restoring to the bishops their proper role in both preparing and approving translations.

As important as the question of oversight is, however, the portions of the motu proprio that are directly concerned with translation itself are worthy of the most careful consideration.

Francis says a lot about the values underlying the production and reception of liturgical texts in vernacular languages.

He has provided us with an interesting commentary that touches on many of the neuralgic issues of the "translation wars" and reframes our understanding of them.

He did not merely move around the players. He has spoken helpfully about the task.

The first thing to notice is how frequently Francis draws on the first instruction on liturgical translation, approved by Paul VI in 1969 and generally known by its French name, Comme le prévoit (CLP).

(This instruction was replaced by Liturgiam authenticam in 2001.)

The 1973 missal translation produced according to Comme le prévoit was relentlessly criticized in the run-up to the most recently published English translation of the Roman Missal, issued in 2011.

Liturgiam authenticam, in fact, includes an unusual scolding: "The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations - especially in the case of certain languages - have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place.

"Consequently, the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier and more authentic renewal."

For those in the know, this harsh assessment pointed the finger of blame directly at Comme le prévoit and those who were guided by it. Continue reading

Sources

• Le Croix International article by Rita Ferrone, the author of several books about liturgy, including Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (Paulist Press).
• Image: Pray Tell

Sarah, who is the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, says the Vatican will continue to safeguard any changes and any new liturgical translations to ensure they remain faithful to the original Latin.

He says the change does not replace a 2001 Vatican instruction called Liturgiam Authenticam, issued under St. Pope John Paul II, which calls for a more faithful translation from the original Latin of the Roman Rite.

"There is therefore no noticeable change regarding the imposed standards, and the result which must follow from them for each liturgical book," he says.

Approving new translations "is by no means a formality, that is to say, a sort of approval which would be granted after a rapid review of the work," Sarah says.

He points out the new law still presupposes a "detailed review" on the part of the Vatican. The Vatican decision is binding, and liturgical texts can't be published without this approval.

Having said that, Sarah noted the Vatican would "not … ordinarily intervene" in the work of a bishops' conference before it submits the translation for approval, although it might still be "desirable" for episcopal conferences and the Congregation for Worship to have "preliminary exchanges" and "mutual consultation."

Source

• National Catholic Register
• Crux
• Image: LifeSite

For this reason it deserves an analysis that is not only one of historical-theological context—and not just from the point of view of its possible consequences for the liturgical texts in English—but also an analysis of the institutional context in which it was decided and published.

The establishment of national bishops' conferences, to which the apostolic letter gives back authority in matters of translations of liturgical texts, was the most important and effective institutional reform of the Second Vatican Council.

Even before the council's "Decree on the Bishops' Pastoral Office in the Church" (1965), which mandated the creation of national bishops' conferences in all nations, the "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy," approved in December 1963, relied on this new (though certainly present in different forms in the early centuries of Christianity) governing structure in the Catholic Church.

This was part of the council fathers' larger vision for a new relationship between Rome and the local churches.

In this sense, Francis addresses the issue of the translations of liturgical texts in the context of his vision for the church and the role of the Roman Curia.

"Magnum Principium" also continues a pattern that has proven one of the most interesting elements of this pontificate.

Francis' efforts to reform the Roman Curia and decentralize the government of the Roman Catholic Church have tended to bypass and evade the role of the congregations of the Roman Curia.

For example, "Magnum Principium" was issued by the pope motu proprio ("on his own initiative"),not as an instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments or a joint document of more than one congregation.

It is also notable that "Magnum Principium" was published during a papal trip abroad.

It was published the day Francis was in Medellín, Colombia, where the foundational event for the post-Vatican II church in Latin America took place: the continental conference of CELAM (the council of the Roman Catholic bishops of Latin America) in 1968.

If it was a coincidence, it was a very interesting one. Continue reading

Sources

• America magazine article by Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University.
• Image: Catholic Herald