Liturgy Again
BY THE TIME that this issue of Emmanuel appears, the American Bishops will
have had their June meeting, and we will know the fate the of proposed new
translation of the Sacramentary. It is unfortunate that matters liturgical
can generate such heat, and appear to be divisive rather than a source of unity.
But the translation is seemingly in that category, inasmuch as it was based
on new norms that were imposed in a recent document (Liturgiam authenticam)
that changed the ground-rules that had been in place for biblical and liturgical
translations since 1969.
Back in that hoary age, we were told (in “Comme le prévoit”)
to use the principle of “dynamic equivalence.” In other words, we
were to try to capture the inner meaning of any text in the best possible equivalent
in the receptor language. Liturgiam authenticam, on the other hand wants us to
reverse that practice—one employed by all mainline biblical translations
these days—and try for more literal translations. The emphasis in this
instruction is on exact translations. Explicit mention is made of translation
being done “as literally as possible.”
In a lecture made last March 27 at St John’s in Collegeville by the
Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, Chairman of the Bishops’ Commission on
the Liturgy, the good bishop voiced his displeasure at the proposed translation,
and spelled out his reasons for deeming it inopportune. Because of his position
in the conference, it is obvious that the American hierarchy is divided on
this issue. It seems likely that it may not receive the two-thirds number of
votes needed for passage.
Be that as it may, what are the issues here? If I may be excused from borrowing
from Bishop Trautman, what is at stake is how best to achieve what Vatican II
insisted was the basic aim of all liturgical renewal: bringing about “full,
conscious, active participation on the part of the assembly.” Liturgical
texts must be conveyed in a living language, insists the bishop. “The assembly
needs prayer texts—words and forms—that are intelligible and able
to lift the heart and mind to God. The translator needs to keep one eye on the
original text and the other eye on the intended recipients. Scholarship and pastoral
reality go hand in hand.”
The basic question, then, is what makes a good translation. One of the church’s
most famous translators, St. Jerome, once said, “If I translate word by
word, it sounds absurd.” This is the point insisted on by those who favor
dynamic equivalence. Does fidelity to the original require a literal translation
of its form or component words and phrases, or is it not better rendered by trying
to express the content or meaning of the text in the genius of whatever language
it is being rendered?
Of course, we are dealing here with translations. In that sense, we do not
yet have a truly vernacular liturgy. What we do have is vernacular translations
of a Latin liturgy. However, the importance of having liturgical language
that is simple and speaks to the minds and hearts of the people was borne
home to me in a more personal way after my experience in the Philippines,
where I was privileged to serve for ten years. While there I taught theology
and liturgy at Maryhill School of Theology, a consortium where some 25 religious
congregations and 11 dioceses were sending students. We had as chair of the
liturgy department at one time Anscar Chupungko, OSB, who went from Maryhill
to be Director of the Anselmo in Rome. Author of several books on liturgical
inculturation, he is now Executive Secretary of the Bishops’ Commission
on the Liturgy of the Philippine Bishops’ Conference.
While at Maryhill, Fr. Chupungko had over the years developed an indigenous “Mass
for the Filipino People.” Vetted for several years, this was unanimously
approved for use by the Filipino bishops. This Mass used Tagalog as its language
of origin. It also incorporated several gestures and customs drawn from the Filipino
culture. In my last year in the Philippines, shortly before returning to the
States, I was teaching a summer survey course on the sacraments to a class composed
mainly of catechists and religion teachers working of Master’s degrees
in theology. When teaching the Eucharist, I happened to mention the “Mass
for the Filipino People.” One woman in class asked me if I could celebrate
it for the class.
I had never thought to do this before, surprisingly, but I accepted to do
so, and the next day the class gathered in our chapel, where I explained the
procedures and practiced the chants, then proceeded to celebrate the liturgy
with them. Afterwards, when back on class, one woman exclaimed, with tears
in her eyes, “I
felt like I was celebrating the Mass for the first time in my life!” It
had spoken to her heart. This is what good liturgy should do.
While it is difficult for translations—no matter how well done—to
achieve this, I am convinced that it is much easier to accomplish if an effort
is made to speak in the language of the people, and not strive after some exalted “liturgical
language” that we hear only in church. It is so much easier to separate
liturgy and life when both are rendered in different discourses. Would it not
be nice if our liturgies were so alive and fresh that people could feel that
they were celebrating for the first time?
Paul J. Bernier, SSS
