(Paper submitted in November, 2010)
The new Roman Missal (Latin: Missale Romanum), with updated translations of the Latin, will be implemented in less than a year on the First Sunday of Advent. The translation has been in the works for over fifteen years, and although the Order of the Mass will remain the same, it contains numerous substantive changes to the text. The Roman Missal was originally published following Vatican II according to the precepts of Sacrosanctum Concilium (hence forward, SC) to encourage greater participation in the liturgy by the congregation of believers. By and large, the first three editions of the Roman Missal were produced by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) according to the principles of dynamic equivalency. According to anthropologist and Catholic scholar, Michael Angrosino, this form of translation: “involves the replacement of an element of the Roman [Latin] form with something in the local culture that has equal meaning or value.” The principle of dynamic equivalence, which is rooted in SC and Paul VI’s “Evangelization in the Modern World,” takes a Latin text that if translated literally into English would not make sense to English speakers or would not flow with the eloquence and richness of the original Latin prose. Formal equivalence is the literal translation of the original Latin into the vernacular.
John W. O’Malley, in his book Four Cultures of the West, emphasized the importance of liturgical text to the Scholastic culture and to the Humanist Culture (cultures two and three respectively). To the Scholastics, the liturgical text, like all other texts in that era, should flow smoothly from one argument or point of emphasis to another with logical syllogisms. To the Humanists, there should be a human element of experience and compassion that makes the text comprehensible to all who read it. To some, text might not seem as important to the fourth culture: the arts and performance. Texts used in liturgy, however, must be especially formulated so that the people listening to them (as opposed to reading them as many of the texts in cultures two and three) would understand them and would understand the context and seriousness of them based upon their eloquence and deliverance. When describing culture four, the culture to which liturgy owes much, O’Malley puts emphasis on hearing: “it was through hearing that the Word of God was received. The ear was the sense that opened the soul to the divine.” Great carefulness must be used then, when preparing liturgical texts. Changing one or two words can affect the flow and rhythm of a particular sentence, which can affect the overall meaning of the sentence. Furthermore, even replacing one word with a synonym, if that second word is unfamiliar to the listener, can affect the meaning of the word and the sentence. If a person does not understand the meaning of one word in a sentence, a sentence that proclaims a fundamental belief about the Catholic faith to which that person professes, the overall meaning of the sentence can be lost.
Much of SC is dedicated to helping the faithful understand the liturgy better. The rites of the liturgy should have a “simplicity; they should be short, clear…they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension and normally not require much explanation.” The next text translations following Vatican II were made so that people could understand their meaning, while not loosing the eloquence of the liturgy. Part of this goal, as described in SC, is something Angrosino calls “inculturation.” According to SC, it follows that if people of different regions, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds were to understand the liturgy (the meaning of which should be universal), “provisions” needed to be made to adapt the text to suit the needs of the different people.
Angrosino defines inculturation as consisting of “encounters whose outcome is a convergence that does not replace either of the cultures from which it arose. They exchange internal transformation, but neither looses its autonomous identity.” In other words, the liturgical text of the Roman Rite carries the elements of the culture from which it arose (Latin). When integrating parts of various cultures into the liturgical translation so people of those cultures will fully understand the text, neither the culture of the Latin text nor the vernacular culture should be lost. In a sense, they should compliment one another. Paul VI, states that something “only reaches full development when it is listened to, accepted and assimilatd, and when it arouses a genuine adherence” In many cases, the liturgical text, translated from the Latin rite, will only reach this “full development” if the people can understand it. Understanding comes from relationships and experiences. Thus, the idea of inculturation and evangelizing a culture gained prominence in the decades following Vatican II. Paul points out that Christ was the first evangelizer and he appointed twelve Apostles who became evangelizers by proclaiming the Gospel to all nations in people’s native tongue (with the power of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost). People live in a certain culture, understand things according to that culture, and see things (and believe things) through the lens of that culture. Therefore, it is necessary to evangelize in the words and terms of that culture so people may see the Light of Christ.
Gilbert Ostdiek, in the midst of the process to find an adequate translation for the new Roman Missal by the ICEL and USCCB, wrote a book consisting of different theologians’ viewpoints on the nature of liturgical translation titled, The voice of the church: a forum on liturgical translation. Literally, Ostdiek assembled the papers submitted at a 1998 forum on liturgical translation and included his own papers in the collection. Many of the presenters, including Br. Stanislaus Campbell, OSB, emphasized the same ideals set forth in SC. The texts should engage all those present at the liturgy, while respecting the narrative form of liturgical prayer and preserving the appropriate metaphors from the original. Br. Campbell believes, “full, conscious, and active participation is a key point if the success of liturgical translation is to be judged.” Br. Campbell’s words read like a millennium version of SC’s sections 20-30. All of the faithful are to be engaged, not just repeating memorized phrases or reading prayers from a missal. The prayers are to be understood and written on the hearts of all the faithful. Additionally, when “untraditional and overly precise language is used in Latin” to paint a metaphoric picture, the same metaphor is to be translated into English in conventional English language. The metaphor is to be preserved, but the language of the metaphor need not be preserved. Campbell concludes that the committee should decide on a case by case basis which translation method should be used. The translators should choose “whichever presents the original texts in a way that allows hearers, better, more direct access to their meaning.”
Ostdiek takes Br. Campbell’s ideas a step further in providing the people with better access to their prayer texts: “they [the texts] must provide images that connect with modern life in a way that is both beautiful and memorable.” People will understand the text better if it provides metaphors and images they can relate to. Even if a parable from the Gospels is translated in a way into English that flows and makes sense, if the parable is set on a wheat farm in the early days of Christianity, people in the 21st Century, might not properly understand it. Therefore, the images provoked from the texts that are translated must connect with the modern people they are aimed for. Echoing O’Malley, Ostdiek criticizes the proponents of formal equivalency for paying “too much attention to questions about fidelity and precision, and too little attention to [their] suitability for oral proclamation and hearing.” Liturgical texts are meant to be proclaimed to the congregation of the faithful in a way that is eloquent and emphasizes their importance to the congregation and in a way that the congregation can understand their meaning. Many of the texts translated in the way of formal equivalency may flow eloquently in Latin, but are caustic to the ear in English. Fr. Jeremy Driscoll, OSB, brings tone into the translation equation by stressing the “importance of recreating the unique tone of the…Latin in the tone of an English vernacular.” Like Ostdiek and Campbell, Driscoll does not think a word for word translation best suits liturgical texts. In order to recreate the tone of the original Latin, which exudes the prayer’s integral rightness in the liturgy and defines its importance in the liturgy, English words must be chosen not on their literal translation, but on their ability to recreate that original tone. In essence, keep the tone, change the words.
In 2001 (just three years after the aforementioned forum), John Paul II signed Liturgiam authenticam, a new guide for translating the text, in which translation is to occur: “in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.” Article 39 of SC grants the authority to update the norms of liturgical text to the “competent territorial ecclesiastical authority.” The ICEL, in accordance with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), was responsible for the Roman Missal updates using dynamic equivalence. This decree from the Roman Curia outlined the new guidelines to translating the next set of updates for the ICEL. Significant portions of the Mass are set to be changed in the new Roman Missal, but by and large, the changes do not affect the meaning or comprehension of the particular prayer. In some cases, such as the change from “Holy, Holy, Lord, God of power and might” in the Sanctus to “Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts” better reflect scripture and flow with the beauty of the original Latin. Still others, such as the Invitation to Holy Communion and changes in the Nicene Creed are baffling (the changes in the Invitation are also scripturally based). In the Nicene Creed, “one in Being with the Father” is now “consubstantial with the Father.” In the original Greek, the word homoousios was used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. Many English speakers are familiar with the root “homo,” loosely meaning “the same” or “with.” As far as I can tell, few if any English speakers are familiar with the term “consubstantial.” The root “con” may be familiar to some as meaning “with,” but the word “consubstantial” is likely to confuse many as to its true meaning. Br. Campbell, from Ostdiek’s book, believes a translation is a failure if it contains “distracting elements.” Any multi-syllable word, such as consubstantial, that is difficult for the average English speaker to pronounce and which flows (in English) like molasses in the winter time (or moves like Fred Flintstones’ car) seems to fit Campbell’s criteria.
One change to the Nicene Creed that may seem minute is the change from “We” to “I” as the first word. I is the first word in the Apostles’ Creed and those familiar with the Tridentine Rite will remember the first word of the Nicene Creed, credo, is I. The switch, however, changes the entire perspective from which the Creed is delivered. The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, and edited and reaffirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. The Nicene Creed is a form of dogma, defined solemnly by the bishops at an ecumenical council, which with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is infallible. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologiae, writes that “a new edition of the symbol [act of faith, creed] becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise.” There were a number of heresies, scandals, and errors of faith in the history of the Church. To Aquinas, the Creeds might need to be updated in order to correct any of these errors. In response to the three objections, Aquinas writes that since the pope has the authority to convene an ecumenical council and the symbols of faith were drawn up at such councils, the pope has the authority to update the symbols of faith. These recent changes to the Nicene Creed may seem minor enough that the territorial authority convened by the pope and allowed under SC can do so and still be in accord with the spirit of SC in that they are changing a word only to clarify its meaning to the faithful. Ostdiek writes of the importance of context in liturgical translation. “Discerning the meaning to be brought forward in translating a Latin text requires locating it in its original context.” In the case of the Nicene Creed, a symbol of faith formulated over a century in the context of that century and altered at least once when translated into Latin in the form of the Credo, one must ask as Ostdiek does: “what stage of meaning is to be taken as the authentic one?” Even Thomas Aquinas references the need for growth and correction of errors with regard to symbols of the faith. Do the teachings of Vatican II and SC affirm the context of the original Greek or do they and the current circumstances affirm that of the Credo? Another question arises then, as to whether or not the changes to the Nicene Creed overstep the authority of a territorial authority and would require an ecumenical council to revise. If one believes the changes to the Creed are merely superficial and are only going to illuminate the true meaning of the Creed (in accord with SC) then no ecumenical council seems necessary. But, if the change to the Creed changes the meaning and the perspective from which one proclaims the Creed, it seems as though an ecumenical council is necessary.
The original Nicene Creed was composed by the Church Fathers in Greek (Nicaea was in the Hellenistic area). The original creed uses the plural of the word pistevo, which is Greek for “to have faith” or to place trust in. The verb derives from the noun pistis, which is a persuasion or assurance of belief. Hence, the Nicene Creed was originally formulated as a statement of faith by a collection of believers. The Creed was altered when translated into Latin as the Credo. The Creed now became singular like the interrogatory form of the baptismal promises. To people of the Tridentine Mass, the Creed was now a personal profession of faith confessed by everyone. Not a representation of the collective faith of the Church. The Greek word for symbol (the Creed is commonly referred to as a symbol of faith) is symbolon. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the word can be defined as half of a broke object. Just as the broken parts of a seal were placed together (on a letter) and presented as a token of recognition and the “bearer’s identity,” the symbol of faith is a sign of recognition and communion between believers.
The change, however, is more than just the replacement of one word for another. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes the differences between the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed starting from the perspective of the person professing the: “ ‘I believe’ (Apostles’ Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer.” The profession acts as literally a personal commitment to a relationship with God. Furthermore, “’we believe’ is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled…[and] by the liturgical assembly of believers.” In 1 Corinthians, Paul affirms the body of Christ to be made of not a single part, but many, “there are many parts, yet one body.” The change from “We” to “I” completely ignores the joined prayer of the community of believers gathered in the Eucharistic celebration. The Nicene Creed is a prayer professed, not confessed, in public by the faithful. To use Paul’s symbolism, if they were all one Body, but composed of only one part, then it follows that “I” should be used. According to Lumen Gentium (LG), everyone bears witness to this unity Paul discusses in the Body of Christ. The very gifts, varied and splendid, that the faithful bring to the Church, bring everyone into God because “all these things are the work of the same spirit.” The liturgy brings the faithful into “communion” with other believers all around the globe who are gathered at the “Eucharistic assembly.” The Catechism continues: “Faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others.” SC reiterates that “liturgical services are not private functions.” The Mass is the public celebration of the Church, the “sacrament of unity” between believers. If the Nicene Creed and the other prayers of the Mass were meant to be said in first person, the Mass could and should be said in private. Each believer contributes something to the “faith consciousness” of the Church, (if we define Church as the united community of believers like the original Greek) each believer is contributing something to each other. The Church, as brought to light in LG, is the holy people of God. Later in SC, the bishops of the council reiterate the importance of community during the liturgy stressing the need for: “communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful.” The faithful, both laity and clergy, are called to participate with there many gifts in the liturgy as they are the Body of Christ. Ostdiek, when referring to translations, believes that prayer text is “the prayer of the assembly” and is “to become the genuine prayer of the congregation.” The prayers expressed at Mass (including the Profession of Faith) are that of the entire body of believers. To borrow words from the Order of the Mass, “this is the faith of the Church.” The Church is the community of believers who proudly profess that “we believe in one God.” Paul VI, in Missale Romanum, writes of his hope for the Missal to “affirm the common unity of all. Thus…one unique prayer will rise.” How can one prayer arise if everyone is praying individually? The meaning of the Nicene Creed will be skewed to that of a personal prayer (such as the Confiteor) and the communion with other believers will be lost.
Vatican II and SC, as I have repeated several times previously, opened the windows of the Church to the modern world and to the faithful. Lay participation increased as a whole and the Mass was changed to encourage their participation in the liturgy. The principles of SC, including increased participation, clarity of liturgical texts, and the need for a better understanding of the texts by the faithful rest at the heart of liturgical translation—especially dynamic equivalency. New changes to the Roman Missal, including the changes to the Nicene Creed, are formulated more along the lines of John Paul II’s formal equivalency and do not flow as well as the previous editions. Furthermore, some of the changes (if even legitimate in the case of the Nicene Creed) cloud the true meaning of the liturgical text. Catholics may ponder: what roof is the Lord coming into? My mouth? My home? To many familiar with the impersonal, private nature of the Tridentine Rite, the change to the Nicene Creed may represent a step backwards to a time when the faithful sat in the pews, unresponsive, reciting the rosary. The Church is composed of the faithful believers joining together in the Eucharistic feast to become the Body of Christ. Therefore, we profess our faith together in the words of the original Greek: We believe in One God…”
Works Cited:
1. 1 Corinthians 12:14, 20 New American Bible, USCCB, www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.html
2. Agnoli, Deacon Frank. “In the New Missal, Nicene Creed would go from plural to singular.” The Catholic Messenger. Wednesday January 20, 2010, http://www.catholicmessenger.org/articles/2010/01/26/diocesan_news/doc4b57275dc3525594872994.txt
3. Angrosino, Michael V. “The Culture Concept and the Mission of the Roman Catholic Church.” American Anthropologist, 96 (1994).
4. Aquinas, St. Thomas. “The Object of Faith.” Summa Theologiae. From New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Archives. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm.
6. Complete Greek-English Dictionary, ed. Arnold Mandeson, 1960.
7. Dei Verbum, Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
7. Gaillardetz, Richard. By What Authority? Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.
8. Liturgiam Authenticam. Vatican: Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2001: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html
9. Lumen Gentium, Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
10. O’Malley, John W. Four Cultures of the West. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2004.
11. Ostdiek, Gilbert. The Voice of the Church: a forum on liturgical translation. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2001.
12. Paul VI, Pope. Missale Romanum, 1969.
13. Paul VI, Pope. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 1975
14. Sacrosanctum Concilium Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
15. Turner, Rev. Paul. Understanding the Revised Mass Texts, 2nd Ed. Chicago, IL: Archdiocese of Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2009.
