sign in sign up
<<
Home , Concilium (journal), Liturgiam authenticam, Magnum principium, Sacred language, Vernacular

The as ?

A Study of the Principles of of Liturgical Texts

A thesis submitted to the of the

Athenaeum of Ohio/Mount St. Mary’s Seminary of the West

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts (Theology)

By

Andrew J. Hess

Cincinnati, Ohio

February 2019

Abstract

The ushered in an era of liturgical renewal in many ways unlike any renewal in the centuries that preceded it. Perhaps the most obvious and challenging expression of this renewal presented itself in the widespread introduction of the vernacular into the Liturgy. Throughout its history the Church has been honing its theology and worship through precise language within liturgical prayer, and with the of the work of liturgical theologians became yoked in a radical way to as they attempted to communicate this same theology in the vernacular. This thesis examines the ongoing process and development of the principles of translation theory that have governed the work of translators over the course of the past six decades. In doing so, it seeks to show that the Church’s preference for the principles of formal equivalence (adopted into the instruction Liturgiam

Authenticam) over those of dynamic equivalence (adopted into the document Comme le

Prévoit) is not rooted in opposition to the principle of participatio actuosa. Rather, this preference is deeply rooted in a philosophical and theological worldview that centers on the presence of the Logos. Undergirded by the philosophy of George Steiner, who argues for a fundamental Presence that makes all language intelligible, and the liturgical theology of Benedict XVI, which is shaped by the Word, this thesis argues for the primacy of the Logos over anthropos as the only manner in which to faithfully and adequately translate liturgical texts into vernacular tongues.

This thesis by Andrew J. Hess fulfills the thesis requirement for the master’s degree in

Theology and is approved by:

Advisor: Rev. Ryan T. Ruiz, S.L.D.

Readers: Msgr. Frank P. Lane, Ph.D.

Dr. Bradford W. Manderfield, Ph.D.

iii

Dedication

For my parents, in whose loving care I was both introduced to the Word and encouraged to abide by the Word: In thanksgiving for their fidelity and witness, and in honor of the Blessed Mother.

iv

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 1: Toward a Theory of Language ...... 7

1.1 A Theory of a Transcendental Tongue ...... 9

1.2 Language as Revelation of Truth ...... 12

1.3 From Theory to Translation ...... 16

1.4 The Language of Liturgy ...... 18

Chapter 2: The Second Vatican Council and the Implementation of the Vernacular ...... 21

2.1 Sacrosanctum Concilium and our Native Tongues ...... 22

2.2 Comme le Prévoit and Early Translation Theory in the Liturgical Renewal ...... 24

2.3. and Revisiting the Vernacular in the Liturgy ...... 28

2.4 Translation Theory in Liturgiam Authenticam ...... 30

2.5 The Import of Liturgiam Authenticam ...... 34

Chapter 3: Liturgy and Logos: Towards a Theology of Translation ...... 37

3.1 “Worship in Accord with the Logos” ...... 37

3.2 Translation in Accord with Comme le Prévoit ...... 42

3.3 Criticisms of Logocentrism and Formal Equivalence ...... 47

3.4 The Strength of Formal Equivalence for Liturgical Theology ...... 50

3.5 The Bride in Conversation with the Bridegroom ...... 56

Conclusion ...... 58

Bibliography ...... 61

v

Introduction

There are few things so mundane, so every day, so familiar as language. In language we form bonds, in language we communicate. And yet, we discover something truly transcendent in language in that, through words and symbols, humanity can discover truth, and ultimately can discover the Truth who is God, the ground of all being. This is because there is an intrinsic link between words and the things, creatures, and people they signify.1 Language affixes itself, in its form, to what is real in the world; it is a means for identifying and communicating the reality around us and thus is born a real association between language and truth. Because Truth Himself has been revealed to us as the Word, both in Divine Revelation2 and through the light of reason, “The Word is

[thus] a primal element or component of human language. Human language, in turn, is an expression and an instrument of the human spirit.”3 The Word precedes all human language and is the ground of all human language. In essence, words derive meaning from the Word as their source of Truth.

Language then becomes more than a mere tool; it is rather an avenue for an encounter with the Living and Creative God, because “any coherent understanding of what language is and how language performs…any coherent account of the capacity of human speech to communicate meaning and feeling is, in the final analysis, underwritten by the assumption of God’s presence.”4 If language is understood as such, it is raised above being a mere instrument of sociological and psychological convenience, but

1 Holger Zaborowski, “Of God and Men and the Miracle of Language,” 43 (Spring 2016): 7. 2Cf. John 3:16. All biblical citations in this paper are taken from the Revised Standard Version: Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004). 3 Johann Auer, A General Doctrine of the Sacraments and the Mystery of the Eucharist, Dogmatic Theology, n.6 (Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 137. 4 George Steiner, Real Presences (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), 3.

1

becomes for us something theological. Intelligible language does indeed require the presence of something true standing behind it, which is, in fact, not a thing but a Person, the Person of the living and incarnate Word of God. Nowhere else is His Presence more acutely encountered in this world than in the Eucharist. And nowhere else is this power of language to mediate divine meaning more evident than in the Liturgy. We are speaking here of a particular kind of language, liturgical language, which bears within itself an especial capacity for affecting the reality of the world into which it is spoken. There is reason now to address this question of liturgical language and its role in theology as society continues to render language impotent in signifying meaning and truth.5

Since the Second Vatican Council, with the promulgation of the liturgical norms of Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the vernacular, the nature and role of liturgical language has been discussed from various positions, sometimes opposed to one another.

The two schools that directly touch upon the relationship between words and meaning are those of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Each school has an operative philosophy of language guiding its proponents and each has waxed and waned in terms of its influence on liturgical theology. The former was widely considered to be the linguistic modus operandi immediately following the Council, but with the promulgation of

Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001 there was a Magisterial shift in favor of formal

5 Cf. Obergefell v. Hodges, 556 US (2014). This may at first seem extreme, but one need look no further in American society than the Supreme Court ruling Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling, which granted same-sex couples in their relationships the legal status of married couples, fundamentally altered the meaning of marriage. In order to use the same word to describe relationships of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, the justices of the Supreme Court needed to change the essential content of the definition of marriage. While the subject of this case is not our subject here, it is an apropos example of the danger of dissociating words from meanings. Because of this phenomenon, the word now being used in the case of marriage no longer means marriage in the sense of its former use but means something strikingly different. Such an approach adopted at the level of a nation’s highest courts is symptomatic of a broader societal shift towards a continued divorcing of words from their attendant meanings and definitions.

2

equivalence. Today much of the debate in textual translation regards whether or not formal equivalence can sufficiently render ancient texts in an intelligible manner for the

Faithful, and if the Church should adopt a linguistic hermeneutic in favor of a more dynamic philosophy of translation.6 To come to any useful conclusions it is necessary to investigate each school and determine its . Within the dynamic school of equivalence, this thesis will examine Comme le Prévoit,7 as well some of the thought of

Bishop Donald Trautman.8 In the school of the formal equivalists, the author will examine the magisterial document Liturgiam Authenticam9, as well as the contributions of Benedict XVI10 and Dennis McManus, as well as other participants in the various Fota

International Liturgical Conferences.

The purpose of this thesis is to aid the reader in acquiring a deeper understanding of the role of liturgical language in rendering the Faith intelligible by examining the nature and purpose of liturgical language. To what extent is the vernacularization of the liturgical texts capable of rendering these mysteries intelligible? How should we approach the language of the liturgy? And what problems do non-theological approaches

6 Dennis McManus, “Translation Theory in Liturgiam Authenticam”, in Benedict XVI and the Sacred Liturgy: Proceedings of the First Fota International Liturgy Conference, 2008, eds. Neil J. Roy and Janet Elaine Rutherford, Fota Liturgy Series (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2010), 116-131. McManus’ thoughts will be addressed in greater detail further on in this essay, but he summarizes the divisive reception of Liturgiam Authenticam as those who hail it as “a victory for traditionalists” on the one hand and those who reject it as “irrelevant, even harmful, to the reform of the liturgy mandated by the Second Vatican Council” on the other (Cf. 116). 7 Consilium for Constitution on the Liturgy. Comme Le Prévoit, January 25, 1969, accessed May 15, 2018. http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Information/Comme-le-Prevoit.pdf 8 Donald Trautman, “The Relationship of the Active Participation of the Assembly to Liturgical ” in Worship 80, no. 4 (July 2006), 290-309. 9 Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Liturgiam Authenticam [On the Use of Vernacular in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy], Vatican Website, March 28, 2001, Accessed June 12, 2018. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations /ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html. 10 Joseph Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Approaches to Understanding Its Role in the Light of Present Controversy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995); Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph, Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986)

3

to language pose for the translation of religious texts? These are some questions that the author seeks to answer, and this endeavor begins by presenting the two main thrusts of thought regarding the translation of texts into the vernacular following the Council, these being the schools of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence.

Dynamic equivalence is presented in Comme le Prévoit, the initial working document released following the close of the Second Vatican Council. In 1988, Pope

Saint John Paul II authored Vicesimus Quintus Annus,11 which effectively began the movement towards formal equivalence in the Church’s translation of liturgical texts. This linguistic philosophy was more or less fully adopted into the document Liturgiam

Authenticam, which was promulgated in 2001 and is now the word on liturgical translation in the Church. A brief synopsis of these texts and analyses will be provided, specifically focusing on the role each document attributes to liturgical language, as well as summarizing and exploring some of the contemporary contributions to this field of study in liturgical theology.

This thesis will champion the current mode of liturgical translation outlined in

Liturgiam Authenticam. While dynamic equivalence has merit in its own right, the author argues that the priority that it gives to the cultural and societal use of language over that of the clarity of theological expression is not the ideal method for translating liturgical texts.12 Rather, formal equivalence is preferable in that it approaches the original text

11 St. John Paul II, Vicesimus Quintus Annus [On the 25th Anniversary of the Promulgation of the Conciliar Constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium” on the Sacred Liturgy]. Vatican Website, December 4, 1988. Accessed December 17, 2018. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988 /documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_04121988_vicesimus-quintus-annus.html 12 Uwe Michael Lang, The Voice of the Church at Prayer: Reflections on Liturgy and Language (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012). The writings of Uwe Lang will likewise be of use in this study. He raises one issue with dynamic equivalence regarding its method of translating, which often seeks to find the message hidden in a received text that be uncovered and communicated in a way that is above all

4

with a reverence appropriate to the subject in question. Because liturgical language is , in that it is at its heart a dialogue between the Father and the Son – a dialogue into which we are privileged to be invited –it can never be approached in the same manner we approach purely human language.

To address this question of the role of language in the Liturgy this thesis will be divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, a brief overview will be given of the nature of language and a particular philosophy and theology to be adopted when discussing liturgical language. For this the author will examine some of the writing of the linguist

George Steiner, whose approach to language will be of use in our study of the nature and purpose of the language of the Liturgy. The next chapter will then commence with an examination and summary of the two documents Comme le Prévoit and Liturgiam

Authenticam, specifically seeking to find an underlying linguistic hermeneutic at work in each document. Finally, the third chapter will analyze in greater detail the movement of the Church towards formal equivalence since Vatican II, it will highlight positions for and against the directives of Liturgiam Authenticam, and it will note some strengths of

Liturgiam Authenticam in light of Steiner’s linguistic philosophy and the nature of liturgical language as rooted in the Logos.

While the process of linguistic development has always in some sense been connected to liturgy, and thus reaches deep into the history of the Church, some initial parameters and limitations must be put forth and acknowledged. The author’s particular interest in this field of study pertains to the period following widespread introduction of the vernacular, and so this subject as it is treated to the Second Vatican Council will culturally expedient in the receptor language, frequently setting aside formal structure in favor of cultural context. See Lang, The Voice of the Church at Prayer, 162.

5

not be addressed. There will also be no attempt made to address the question of other , attending only to liturgical language in the author’s native tongue, that being

English. While the transition from a unifying language in the Rite to a plurality of liturgical languages and the implications of this for a liturgical linguistic theology would prove a worthy subject of study, it is broader than the scope of the research provided herein and may only be taken up at another time. Yet it is a hopeful prospect that this thesis will provide some first principles for facilitating just such a study on this subject in the future.

Lastly it must also be stated that the author is not a linguist by trade, nor a philologist. At best, this is a work of theology done by a theologian who considers himself a “linguaphile” or “logophile” seeking to know more about why the Church considers liturgical language important enough to offer regulatory and hermeneutical parameters pertaining to its translation into vernaculars. Ultimately, the import of language is rooted in its association to truth. When we say these words in the Liturgy it is not simply a cultural preference for certain symbols over others but is rather the recognition that in saying these words we are communicating certain truths that only these words can communicate, truths that would otherwise be lost if communicated in any other way.

6

Chapter 1: Toward a Theory of Language

Something of a relationship must be established as regards language and humanity. At first glance language is a series of signs and symbols ready at hand for the purpose of human communication. It is, indeed, a useful thing for mankind, and mankind makes use of it daily. Language seems to arise out of a mutually felt desire for understanding between persons. Even the mute, deaf, and those marked by stunted mental development create in their own manner communicative practices that function for them as means to understanding; they create for themselves, in other words, non-verbal language.

Perhaps one of the most famous instances of this fundamental drive towards communication is found in the person of Helen Keller, whose story is exemplified in

Peter John Cameron’s work Why Preach. Upon discovering the association between words and things, Helen did not receive something purely functional or conceptual in language. What she experienced in language was something existential: “the revelation of the significance of the word…restores to her her [sic] ‘I’”.13 The author Walker Percy parses out this phenomenon in the anthology The Message in the Bottle, a collection of his essays on language and . He approaches the phenomenon of Helen’s ability to grasp the meaning that exists between words and objects, countering what at his time was the prevailing attitude of behaviorists towards language. Having spent a long while trying to diagram in a scientific or mathematical way the language experience between Helen, words, and objects on the day she felt water and knew that it was water,

Percy reflects that:

13 Peter John Cameron, O.P. Why Preach (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009), 104.

7

What dawned on me was that what happened between Helen and Miss Sullivan and water and the word was “real” enough alright…as real as any S-R [stimulus-response] , as real as H2SO4 reacting to NaOH, but that what happened could not be drawn with arrows. In short it could not be set forth as a series of causal energy exchanges or causal relations. It was something new under the sun, evolutionarily speaking. It was a natural phenomenon but a nonlinear and nonenergic one.14

For Percy, Helen exemplifies the mysterious nature of language and its association to reality as something irreducible to modes of scientific enquiry and understanding, as something beyond the complete grasp of social science and psychology. It was on that day that, as Cameron observed, Helen received her “I”, and in that moment she became capable of communicating her “I” in a way that had until then been inaccessible for her.

This fundamental desire for meaning and communication of the self reveals to us that “language establishes relationships and opens up the world.”15 Some may regard language in purely functional terms, as a sort of means to an end, to be modified at will for the purposes of utility. But this would not do justice to the realist and transcendental nature of language, for

On occasion, it is true, language does indeed primarily serve the purpose of mediation. But words are never merely human instruments. For language is not only, not even primarily, something that man has or uses, or a means by which man establishes a relationship with another. Language is rather first a horizon, inside of which man is directed to what is. One speaks of the transcendental character of language. What this means is that language is not primarily an instrument, but rather a condition of possibility for knowing and experiencing the world.16

14 Walker Percy, The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do with the Other (Farrar, NY: The Noonday Press, 1975), 39. 15 Zaborowski, Holger. “‘Hallowed Be Thy Name’: Of God and Men and the Miracle of Language.” Communio, 43 (Spring 2016): 8. 16 Ibid, 8.

8

Language is ordered towards understanding and knowledge, and knowledge has as its object the truth. Through words we catch glimpses into the reality that preexists humanity and come to participate in the truth that precedes communication. It is a particular method of encounter, and we can say that every language contains within itself a particular way of engaging the world that is “not only a way by which men the world but also a way through which the world views man…as the space of diverse semantic relations, a place of hope, meaning, and truth.”17 Language is communication, yes; but what it communicates if it is to be authentic communication is the truth of the universe around us.

1.1 A Theory of a Transcendental Tongue

This theme is taken up in part by the French-American linguist George Steiner, who highlights the transcendental nature of language in his own work in linguistic philosophy. In his thought, the very meaning of mankind is essentially bound up with language.18 He argues against a functionalist view of language and instead favors granting language the dominant hand in its relationship with humanity, citing Heidegger who said “it is language that speaks. Man begins speaking and man only speaks to the extent that he responds to, that he corresponds with language, and only in so far as he hears language addressing, concurring with him.”19 The ubiquity of words and language is inescapable for humanity and language has proved to be a subject of great interest throughout the epochs of humankind and across the centuries and millennia of

17 Ibid, 8. 18 George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation (: Oxford University Press, 1975), 58. 19 Ibid, vii.

9

philosophical reflection, and this becomes clear from the assessment Steiner provides of the history of linguistics.

For a portion of Western and near-Eastern cultures there was a sense in which all language was universalized in a primordial Ursprache20 of original man, which he lost at the confusing of tongues and scattering of nations in the Genesis account of Babel, an image that is depicted in some form even in non-Judeo-Christian accounts of the world.21

Hence the title of Steiner’s tome After Babel, in which he handles this topic of the multiplicity of language and the difficulty and responsibility of translation. Steiner’s account of the linguistic schools’ treatment of this biblical story is a fascinating first look at a transcendental approach to language. Of this ancient Ursprache, Steiner writes that the occult tradition held that

This Adamic vernacular not only enabled all men to understand one another, to communicate with perfect ease. It bodied forth, to a greater or lesser degree, the original Logos, the act of immediate calling into being whereby God had literally “spoken the world.” The of Eden contained, though perhaps in a muted key, a divine syntax – powers of statement and designation analogous to God’s own diction, in which the mere naming of a thing was the necessary and sufficient cause of its leap into reality. Each time man spoke he re-enacted, he mimed, the nominalist mechanism of creation. Hence the allegorical significance of Adam’s naming of all living forms: “and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” Hence also the ability of all men to understand God’s language and to give it intelligible answer.22

As an element of anthropology, we can catch a glimpse into the power of language by looking at the Genesis account of Creation and Original Man’s participation

20 Steiner identifies the Ursprache as “being of divine etymology”, a tongue initially bestowed upon man in the beginning that was universal, that “had a congruence with reality”, a congruence and universality which no tongue “has had after Babel” (Cf. After Babel, 58). In essence, as all humanity has descended from one set of parents, the idea of the Ursprache is that all human language has likewise descended from this one, universal, now irretrievable parent tongue, lost at the second fall of Babel. 21 Ibid, 57. 22 Ibid, 58.

10

in that creation. The interplay between the oft-repeated phrase “and God said” and the subsequent materializations of the Divine’s various utterances (Cf. Gen 1:3-31) is at least one manifestation of this ancient understanding of the association between words and reality. In speaking, God calls creation into existence; His Word is truly “living and active” (Heb. 4:12). From a biblical standpoint we have no account of the presence of the world and created reality other than it having come forth from the creative power of the immanent language of God’s own trinitarian existence.

With the creation of man then comes the identification of the world into which mankind has been placed: “and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name” (Gen 2:19). In the biblical logic man’s own use of signs and symbols in the form of language is nestled within the creative and demonstrative power of God’s own

Word. This power of language is an essential differentiating trait of mankind over the rest of kingdom animalia.23 Humanity is born into an already-at-work linguistic system that has preceded it and aids it in giving the world and itself definite shape. The great of Babel, when the human tongue became twisted and confused, is then “a second Fall, in some regards as desolate as the first”, when humanity had already experienced the desolation of its own disintegration and was now “exiled from the assurance of being able to grasp and communicate reality.”24 Separation from the transcendental tongue of Eden is separation from the ability to completely articulate truth.

In the first utterances of Adam we see in this philosophy of the Ursprache the perfect unity between words and the objects they signify.25 We can then glean a theology of language that greatly influenced the subsequent centuries of Judaic thinking on the

23 Auer, A General Doctrine of the Sacraments 139. 24 Steiner, After Babel, 59. 25 Ibid, 58.

11

power of the word, which “is forever rooted in the reality of God,”26 as Johann Auer once wrote. This essential relationship between words and the Divine follows from the

“Hebraic thought [that] ‘Word’ (dabar) is etymologically connected with debir, which is the All-Holy, understood against the background of the Temple.”27 All this stands to show that the history of language is a history marked by the intrinsic link between words and God Himself, which would even have implications for its use in the worship of Him to Whom language is answerable, seen for the first time in ’s Temple liturgy.

1.2 Language as Revelation of Truth

Answerability is a major theme of the linguistic system of Steiner and is something he takes up in his more recent work entitled Real Presences. In his understanding of pre-modern linguistic theory, “truth, insofar as it was deemed accessible to the limited means of mortal supposition, was answerability to the meaning of the world.”28 In other words, to speak truly one’s words had to conform to the “given” of the world that surrounded them and into which their words would be spoken. This is how we distinguish lies from truths: a lie does not conform to the facts of the world, while truth necessarily conforms to those given, precedential facts. When we come to the threshold of the modern age, the divorcing of words from the world is for Steiner the very essence of modernity, and “constitute[s] one of the very few genuine revolutions of spirit in

Western history.”29 The retreat from answerability marks the paradigmatic shift in

26 Auer, A General Doctrine of the Sacraments, 140. 27 Ibid, 140. 28 Steiner, Real Presences, 90. 29 Ibid, 93.

12

linguistic theory in the West and functions as the sword that delineates two major phases in the history of language. Steiner identifies these phases thusly:

The first, which extended from the beginnings of recorded history and propositional utterance (in the pre-Socratics) to the later nineteenth century, is that of the Logos, of the saying of being. The second phase is that which comes after. Crucial configurations and operative modes in our moral, philosophic, psychological condition, in our aesthetics, in the formative interactions between consciousness and the pre-conscious, in the relations between the economics of need and desire on the one hand and those of social constraint on the other, must now be understood as coming “after the Word”.30

The idea of a revolution of language is striking. It seems untenable that language theory was more or less cohesively held across the intellectual spectrum for nearly all of western history, and then abruptly jettisoned in very recent memory. Yet Steiner maintains that

“until the crisis of the meaning of meaning which began in the late nineteenth century, even the most astringent scepticism [sic] remained committed to language.”31 Even the most strident of intellectual skeptics had not the courage – or rather perhaps the audacity

– to undermine the role of language. Steiner posits that “this contract [between words and meanings] is broken for the first time…in European, Central European and Russian culture and speculative consciousness during the decades from the 1870s to the 1930s.”32

This new speculative consciousness leads to a

New fabric of our culture…[that] can best be expressed by saying that our inward history, that the codes of perception and self-perception through which we situate our relations of intelligibility to others and to ‘the world’, have entered upon a second major phase.

This second phase is the phase identified above, the phase of the “Afterword.”

Though it is difficult to pinpoint the essential moment of this departure, there are

30 Ibid, 93. 31 Ibid, 92. 32 Ibid, 93.

13

identifiable moments that greatly contribute to this revolution.33 There are “Mallarme’s disjunction of language from external reference and…Rimbaud’s deconstruction of the first person singular.”34 These together, according to Steiner, “splinter the foundations of the Hebraic-Hellenic-Cartesian edifice in which the ratio and psychology of the Western communicative tradition had lodged.”35 This is of such profundity that, “compared to this fragmentation, even the political revolutions and great wars in modern European history are…of the surface.”36 While there are other contributors along the lines of this revolution such as Kant and Saussure, Mallarme achieves prominence as the one who takes “the ontologically critical step.”37 His disjointing of language from reality achieves the fundamental break between these two phases.

This ontological step is a rather subtle one, unaccompanied by the blood and blasting of other contemporary political or military revolutions. In short, Mallarme bucked at the idea of linguistic realism, according to Steiner, and rather argued that “to ascribe to words a correspondence to ‘things out there’, to see and use them as somehow representational of ‘reality’ in the world, is a vulgar illusion. It makes of language a lie.”38 He simply does not think that such responsibility can be thrust upon language without abusing and demeaning it.39 The only thing that gives a word such as ‘rose’ any purpose or value, any meaning or content, is in the verbiage of Mallarme, “l’absence de toute rose,”40 the absence of any rose. It is not the word that has any realistic meaning; it

33 Ibid, 94. 34 Ibid, 94. 35 Ibid, 95. 36 Ibid, 95. 37 Ibid, 95. 38 Ibid, 95. 39 Ibid, 95. 40 Ibid, 96.

14

functions merely as a place-holder, stands in a place where substance should be but where in this new “reality” there is only absence.

Modern linguistic theory is now marked by a departure from Logocentrism into something akin to an anti-Logos. In literary terms, this stark juncture can be labeled as the transition from the Logos itself into an afterword, an “Epilogue.”41 With the absence of the Logos, “there is in words and sentences no pre-established affinity with object, no mystery of consonance with the world.”42 In fact, the linguistic theory of today “has placed language at the very centre [sic] of epistemology, of , of cognitive psychology, and of poetics.”43 Language is now centered on the human person and his inner reality, no longer answerable to the Logos, the objective Other against whom, in the former linguistic era, every word must justify itself in conformity with what is true in the world.

This transition naturally leads to a devolution in our very manner of speaking to one another and of speaking to God, or even speaking of one another and about God.

When the word is divorced from the Word, we begin to speak in non-realities, at least in our minds and in practice. Linguistic realism is the only remedy of this phenomenon, as a

“Logos-order entails . . . a central supposition of ‘real presence,’”44 which is to say that linguistic realism assumes that God exists, while Mallarme’s “repudiation of the covenant reference [between words and objects] . . .entail[s] a central supposition of ‘real absence’.”45 Without the Word, the Logos at the heart of language, there is nothing

41 Ibid, 101. 42 Ibid, 105. 43 Ibid, 105. 44 Ibid, 96. 45 Ibid, 96.

15

present behind the words we speak. There are two possibilities from a theological standpoint in light of this argument: either God exists and language has meaning and

Someone to whom it must answer, or He doesn’t and language is a purely anthropological mechanism at the mercy of the one who speaks, pulling words out of the abyss of meaninglessness and casting them back into the abyss once they no longer have meaning for us.

1.3 From Theory to Translation

Following from Steiner’s central supposition of linguistic realism, a Logos- centered linguistic theory should take precedence for us over an anthropocentric one.

This history of the mystic presence of the Ursprache of Eden is not verifiable from an empirical point of view, and this occult understanding of the mystery of language has fallen out of popular discussion within linguistics. Yet while this “Adamic vernacular” is perhaps too far removed from our day and is not thought of with great seriousness outside certain limited circles, Steiner locates within this group of pseudo-mystics a trend towards transcendentalism still alive and well in the linguistic circles of today, and even beyond the territory of academics.46 Linguists across the historical spectrum have grappled with this curiosity of a “mystical intuition of a lost primal or paradigmatic

46 Even in cinema this notion of the possibility of a once universal language is present. In the 2016 film Arrival, Dr. Louise Banks, doctor of linguistics, is tasked with translating the language of extra- terrestrials who have “landed” in twelve locations on earth. The creatures are communicating with each host nation, and Banks discovers that each nation is receiving a part of the language of these creatures. When put together, these parts become a means of communicating that results in peace between these various national powers. The transcendence of this language overcomes the division between differing tongues, bearing striking resemblance to the speculative themes already observed in the school of linguistics. Regardless of the various interpretations this film gleans, it is clear that the notion of a transcendent language is something fascinating even on the cultural level.

16

speech.”47 This fact brings us to the issue of translation theory, an issue at the heart of

Steiner’s After Babel. Following an extensive walk through the history of translation theory, Steiner draws the sobering conclusion that

Language is, at vital points of usage and understanding, idiolectic. When an individual speaks, he is effecting a partial description of the world. Communication depends on a more or less complete, more or less conscious translation of this partiality, on a matching, more or less perfunctory, with other ‘partialities.’ A ‘complete translation’, i.e. a definitive insight into and generalization of the way in which any human being relates word to object would require a complete access to him on the part of his interlocutor. The latter would have to experience a ‘total mental change’. This is both logically and substantively a meaningless notion. It could never be shown to have taken place. All discourse, all interpretation of discourse works at a word-for-word and sentence-for-sentence level. There is no privileged access to underlying totality.48

This conclusion brings with itself serious implications for our translation of any text, including liturgical texts. If it is true that one cannot ever adequately enter the mind of another person with whom one seeks to communicate, can never access the underlying totality of the ‘other’, then in translation we can make no claims at being able to perceive and communicate the implicit meaning of another’s words except by word-for-word, sentence-for sentence translation.

We are provided now with an apropos segue into a comparison between the two theories of translation in modern linguistics: dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Based on Steiner’s assessment that there has been a mysterious link between all languages that he roots in a Real Presence, and that, due to the idiomatic nature of particular modes of speaking and understanding, we come to two essential components of translation theory. Firstly, words have meaning and they are “backed-up,” so to speak, by the Logos. Secondly, the one who speaks, and the manner in which they choose to speak,

47 Steiner, After Babel, 73. 48 Ibid, 294.

17

with all the words and attendant structures therein, should be treated with sacred reverence as the “other” whose inner-workings we can claim no access to apart from their own self-revelation in speech.49

While we may not have access to the Ursprache of Original Man, there is a primal presence seemingly behind every tongue. In order to communicate now after

Babel, those who are tasked with translation can only achieve true communication between multiple languages by “tapping into” the Presence behind each tongue that unifies language. This is what makes language – all language – something theological. It is this Real Presence that Steiner identifies behind every true word that gives language meaning and purpose. And it is this Real Presence that makes the translator’s task one of serious theological import.

1.4 The Language of Liturgy

As we make our approach towards an examination of the liturgical documents regarding translation into the vernacular we must begin to grasp how such a theory of the transcendent Logos can shape our understanding of the nature and function of language in general and of liturgical language in particular. There are obvious difficulties when it comes to translating a text from the spoken tongue into the receptor tongue, since “a translation is always a betrayal” as the Italian expression reminds us: Traduttore, traditore.50 Considering what some linguists such as Steiner take the story of Babel to mean, we also see that “the need for translation is not the normal status of human society

49 Holger Zaborowski, Of God and Men and the Miracle of Language, 11. 50 Zaborowski, Of God and Men and the Miracle of Language, 8.

18

[but]…is the consequence of sin.”51 Liturgical theologians who have grappled with this portion of their theological work recognize that “the work of translation, most particularly translation of those texts which belong to God’s design for our …is rightly to be seen not merely as one practical task among others, but as a ministry.”52 This places a significant burden on translators to approach their work as ministers first and not as scientists.

If broken and fragmentary tongues are the order of the day, then any attempt to communicate the truth between various tongues can take on salvific proportions. This salvific purpose relies on translators taking a “transcendent view of the task of translation.”53 The liturgy is truly the locus of God’s saving work in Christ, and there should thus exist between the multiplicity of vernaculars as much sympathy as possible so that those saving truths are not lost in translation. In addressing the difficulty of translation from typical editions into vernacular ones,

We are called to promote some measure of unity not just synchronically, or, if you prefer, horizontally, but also diachronically, that is, vertically, by avoiding frequent revisions of any translation, difficult as this may be, for no translation is ever perfect. This…is likewise the consequence of Babel: that no language is totally co-extensive with any other. We are called, however, to engage in some anticipation of the definitive Pentecost, when earthly language will no longer be of any use.54

Translation understood theologically is in some way, shape, or form an attempt to undo the undoing of communication that happened at Babel. Understanding language as an emanation of the Logos and as something answerable to Him who is its author can be a

51 Jorge Maria Mejía, “The Problem of Translation: Some Linguistic and Other Considerations”, in Benedict XVI and the Sacred Liturgy: Proceedings of the First Fota International Liturgy Conference, 2008, eds. Neil J. Roy and Janet Elaine Rutherford, Fota Liturgy Series (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2010), 18. 52 Ibid, 18. 53 Ibid, 19. 54 Ibid, 23.

19

faithful guide in this ministry, because the Logos “is the ever-valid cosmic law, obedience to which is the task of the wise person.”55 Every science must have its first principles, its laws that grant stability in the ongoing pursuit of truth, and the Logos functions as just such a law in the field of language.

Bearing this in mind, we move on from our working theory of language, necessarily addressed up until this point in very broad terms, to a study of the liturgical documents regarding translation from the Second Vatican Council to our present day.

While “the Liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of the Church…It is, however, a source and summit.”56 Thus while the Church is interested in language for reasons beyond her liturgical works, the documents pertaining to language which have surfaced in the years and decades following Vatican II are ordered towards a linguistic renewal specifically within the Liturgy. Standing on these shoulders, we likewise turn our attention to language as a liturgical reality in our study of the ongoing development of the vernacular.

55 Auer, A General Doctrine of the Sacraments, 139. 56 St. John Paul II, Vicesimus Quintus Annus, 22.

20

Chapter 2: The Second Vatican Council and the Implementation of the Vernacular

As briefly noted in the introduction of this thesis, language and its use in the

Liturgy, most especially the , is not a modern topic, but rather extends deep into the history of the . This is evidenced in the infancy years of the Church, when cultic worship eventually shifted from a Greek Liturgy to a Latin one.57 While there was an intermittence of some years between Latin’s ascendance to the vernacular throne over Greek in the and its subsequent adoption as a liturgical language, nonetheless this definitive shift occurred at some point in the fourth century of the

Christian era once the tongue had developed sufficiently its sacred idiom.58 Permitting this gloss of a critical period in the history of the Catholic Church, at the very least we can deduct from this shift that the Church has had an interest in language and its purpose in liturgical worship from the very earliest centuries of her foundation and beyond.

This question of the Liturgy and vernacular languages was at the very heart of what has become known as the liturgical reform of the twentieth century. Pope Pius XII recognized this and saw a need to address the language of liturgy once more in the modern era. This is in part due to the natural evolution of language, which saw in recent centuries a greater separation between Latin and the languages spoken and understood in the world.59 This movement was definitively taken up at the Second Vatican Council with

57 Cf. Angelus A. De Marco, O.F.M., Rome and the Vernacular (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1961), 3-25. 58 Ibid, 20. 59 Ibid, Cf. 141-163. Fr. De Marco, in this concise work on Rome’s approach to the vernacular, outlines the basic movements of the that ultimately lead to the Second Vatican Council. However, published in 1961 this book obviously cannot be read in light of this Council and its wider admission of the vernacular tongues into the Liturgy, nor can it be viewed as a proof for the legitimacy of those adaptations if such a proof is sought. Nonetheless, Fr. De Marco gives us an adequate sense for the Zeitgeist of those years preceding the Second Vatican Council and how the Church was becoming increasingly warm to the idea of wider implementation of the vernacular in her liturgical worship.

21

the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium,60 the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

In order to begin our examination of this move towards the vernacular that has occurred over the last six decades we must briefly address this seminal document in the ongoing development of the vernacular in the Liturgy.

2.1 Sacrosanctum Concilium and our Native Tongues

While Sacrosanctum Concilium had more to say about the Sacred Liturgy than simply how it should be said, nonetheless language and the active participation of the

Faithful bore significant weight in the minds of the Council Fathers when it came to their discussions of the reform of the Liturgy. Stated in the opening paragraphs of the document, this concern for active participation was “the aim to be considered before all else” in the Council’s work of restoring and promoting the Sacred Liturgy.61 While the document states clearly “that use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites,”62 nonetheless permission was granted for extended employment of the vernacular when it proved beneficial to the people.63 This was not foreseen as a liturgical free-for- all, however, and such extensions were only to be carried out by “the competent ecclesiastical authority” whose “ are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the

Apostolic See.”64 It was also understood that translations were to be made from the Latin text (that is, the editio typica), and such translations were likewise subject to approval

60 Paul VI, Sacrosanctum Concilium [Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy], Vatican Website, December 4, 1963, accessed September 18, 2018, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist _councils/ii_vatican _council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html. 61 Ibid, 14. 62 Ibid, 36.1. 63 Ibid, 36.2. 64 Ibid, 36.3.

22

from the competent authority.65 Such measured allowances for the vernacular were made in numerous other paragraphs throughout Sacrosanctum Concilium.66

Yet once the movement towards broader use of the vernacular commenced, the subsequent question related to the manner of translation. For this Sacrosanctum

Concilium did not give clear parameters or expectations, and such discussions were left in large part to the Consilium, a commission established by Paul VI which would parse out the concise statements of Sacrosanctum Concilium.67 There was a great debate on the legitimacy of extending the vernacular into all parts of the Mass, specifically the

Roman ,68 and this dialogue raised many questions regarding the adequacy and legitimacy of early translations from the editio typica of the liturgical documents.69 Some sort of first fruits of translation were reaped from these discussions, but “the first translations of the Canon submitted to the were rejected as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith insisted on a complete and faithful translation and considered the translations submitted loose.”70 Completeness and fidelity were the benchmarks of translation into the vernacular, but what constituted “complete” and “faithful?” Exactly what it meant to say a translation was marked by completeness and fidelity would become the topic of debate for the successive decades as the Church grappled with this task of translating her liturgical language into the vernacular.

65 Ibid, 36.4. 66 Cf. ibid, 54; 63; 101.1,2; 113. 67 Paul VI, Sacram Liturgiam, Vatican Website, January 25, 1964, accessed October 15, 2018, https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motuproprio_19640125_sacram- liturgiam.html 68 Helmut Hoping, “The Hermeneutic of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Liturgical Renewal” in Sacrosanctum Concilium: Sacred Liturgy and the Second Vatican Council: Proceedings of the Sixth Fota International Liturgical Conference, 2013, ed. John M. Cunningham, O.P., Fota Liturgy Series (Wells, England: Smenos, 2015), 100. 69 Ibid, 101. 70 Ibid, 101.

23

The liturgical renewal outlined in Sacrosanctum Concilium is clear that admission of the vernacular into the Sacred Rites is not inherently problematic nor is it demonstrative of a fundamental break in Tradition. At its heart it is a recognition of the possibility of adapting some of the elements of the Liturgy while holding sacrosanct certain other, unchangeable elements. In 1969 the Consilium published, with the permission of Saint Paul VI, its first attempt at orienting the universal Church around this movement towards incorporation of the vernacular in a document entitled Comme le

Prévoit.71 In this document some of the first elements of a concrete theory of translation begin to emerge in the Church’s thinking during this period and it marks the next major step in the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council regarding the development of the vernacular.

2.2 Comme le Prévoit and Early Translation Theory in the Liturgical Renewal

The document Comme le Prévoit is brief in its treatment of translations. The entire text is only forty-three paragraphs in length, and the statements made therein are concise. The document begins by highlighting some of the aforementioned articles from

Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the desire of the Council Fathers to introduce the vernacular tongues into the liturgy, as well as the paragraphs granting this responsibility to the competent ecclesiastical authority.72 Recognizing, however, that the Liturgy should still be an expression of the universality of the Church, the Consilium saw “fit in this

71 Ibid, 101. 72 Consilium for Constitution on the Liturgy, Comme le Prévoit [On The Translation of Liturgical Texts for Celebrations with a Congregation], January 25, 1969, English translation found on Liturgy Office of England and website, 1982, accessed on September 21, 2018, http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/ /Information/Comme-le-Prevoit.pdf, 1-2.

24

declaration to lay down, in common and non-technical terms, some of the more important theoretical and practical principles for guidance”73 of those who would be responsible for formulating and approving these adaptations.

The fundamental point to be kept in mind under the directives of Comme le

Prévoit is that “a word is itself a ‘mystery’” and through words that are spoken in liturgical prayer “Christ himself speaks to his people and the people, through the Spirit in the Church, answer their Lord.”74 Because of this unique emphasis on the worshipping people collected in liturgical prayer, “it is not sufficient that a liturgical translation merely reproduce the expressions and ideas of the original text.”75 That original text was intended for a people in another time, and in the process of translation the new text “must faithfully communicate to a given people, and in their own language, that which the

Church…intended to communicate” to that people who received the original text.76

Comme le Prévoit thus foresees translations that are not constituted on “the basis of individual words” but rather on “the total context of this specific act of communication...”77 There is significant weight given to the quiddity of the receiving party in the directives of Comme le Prévoit, which holds in equal balance and weight the message, the intended audience, and the unique manner of expression inherent in the language at hand.78

In this early document on textual translation of liturgical documents, those who translated were encouraged to “discover the true meaning of [the] text” by utilizing “the

73 Ibid, 4. 74 Ibid, 5. 75 Ibid, 6. 76 Ibid, 6. 77 Ibid, 6. 78 Ibid, 7.

25

scientific methods of textual study as used by experts.”79 Connected to this are four main points to bear in mind in the process of discovering the true meaning of the liturgical texts: first, all translations into the vernacular should come from an established critical text;80 second, Latin terminology is to be understood in its proper historical and cultural usage;81 third, translators “must keep in mind that the ‘unit of meaning’ is not the individual word but the whole passage;”82 and fourth, words must be used in their various proper meanings – historical, cultural, and – to maintain “correct signification.”83

From these principles of translation Comme le Prévoit maintains that the

“accuracy and value of a translation” is seen “in terms of the purpose of the communication.”84 To adequately formulate that communication in the vernacular tongue and so that the translation may “serve the particular congregations who will use it”85 several further points are to be kept in mind. Comme le Prévoit emphasized the importance of “common usage” of terms “suited to the greater number of the faithful who speak it in everyday use…”86 This use of “common” was not intended to mean mundane or vulgar, “but ‘worthy of expressing the highest realities.’”87 Yet in expressing these realties the translation “should normally be intelligible to all, even to the less educated.”88

The principle of active participation underscored in Sacrosanctum Concilium is here addressed in Comme le Prévoit and this active participation is enfleshed, in the mind of

79 Ibid, 9. 80 Ibid, 10. 81 Ibid, 11. 82 Ibid, 12. 83 Ibid, 13. 84 Ibid, 14. 85 Ibid, 14. 86 Ibid, 15. 87 Ibid, 15, citing the address of Paul VI to participants in the congress on translation of liturgical texts, 10 November 1965. 88 Ibid, 15.

26

the Consilium, in the accessibility of the liturgical text to the mind of the everyday man and woman.

In the final paragraphs of Comme le Prévoit regarding principles of translation, the Consilium urges translators to be mindful that

The prayer of the Church is always the prayer of some actual community, assembled here and now. It is not sufficient that a formula handed down from some other time or region be translated verbatim, even if accurately, for liturgical use. The formula translated must become the genuine prayer of the congregation and in it each of its members should be able to find and express himself or herself.89

Various principles regarding adaptation of terms are then given,90 as well as some aspects of literary genre of which the translators should be mindful.91 Finally, the section of

Comme le Prévoit on translation closes by stating: “if any particular kind of quality is regarded as essential to a literary genre (for example, intelligibility of prayers when said aloud), this may take precedence over another quality less significant for communication

(for example, verbal fidelity).”92 Here we see a preference for the intelligibility of the listening party (i.e. the congregation here and now) over strict fidelity to the given text being translated.

Comme le Prévoit thus began the working process of the Second Vatican Council in translating the texts of the Church’s liturgical arm into the various vernacular tongues.

Such a shift in liturgical praxis would necessarily entail multiple and frequent attempts and revisions in the process of translation. Following thirty-two years of such discernment the Holy See promulgated yet another document dealing explicitly with

89 Ibid, 20. 90 Ibid, 22-24. 91 Ibid, 25-27. 92 Ibid, 29.

27

language and the translation of liturgical texts, a document entitled Liturgiam

Authenticam.

2.3 Liturgiam Authenticam and Revisiting the Vernacular in the Liturgy

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments released, under the authority of Saint John Paul II, the liturgical instruction Liturgiam

Authenticam on April 25th, 2001. Following the principles outlined in Sacrosanctum

Concilium regarding active participation, the first paragraph highlights that Liturgiam

Authenticam is sympathetic with this objective of the Second Vatican Council. The document asserts that the intention of the Council Fathers to renew the liturgical books and translate them into vernacular tongues was, indeed, a “great work.”93 Affirming the positive results of the liturgical renewal, Liturgiam Authenticam goes on to reaffirm that

[…]The greatest prudence and attention is required in the preparation of liturgical books marked by sound doctrine, which are exact in wording, free from all ideological influence, and otherwise endowed with those qualities by which the sacred mysteries of salvation and the indefectible faith of the Church are efficaciously transmitted by means of human language to prayer, and worthy worship is offered to God the Most High.94

Three guidelines for translating stand out in this paragraph: first, soundness; second, exactness; and third, efficaciousness. These should be appended to the guidelines of completeness and fidelity highlighted in Comme le Prévoit.

The subsequent paragraphs in the opening section of Liturgiam Authenticam offer a sense for the necessity of this revisiting of the vernacular question. In the mind of the

Holy See, translations should not be a source of division in the of the Church

93 Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Liturgiam Authenticam, 2. 94 Ibid, 3.

28

but should be a “manifestation of the realities of ecclesial and unity.”95 As an act of inculturation translations are not to be seen as developments of various new rites within the , because such culturally or pastorally necessary adaptations to culture “become part of the Roman Rite, and are to be inserted into it in a harmonious way.”96 Yet it appears that such attention to unity and ecclesial communion have not always been at work while implementing the vernacular. The process of inculturation undertaken in this one form of introducing the vernacular has been impeded by “the omissions or errors which affect certain existing translations…”97

Thus Liturgiam Authenticam was promulgated in order “to prepare for a new era of liturgical renewal, which is consonant with the traditions of particular Churches, but which safeguards also the faith and the unity of the whole Church of God.”98 In the nearly four decades between the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam various attempts at producing not simply adequate but also theologically sound editions of the vernacular books for the Church’s liturgical prayer were made with greater or lesser prowess. With the advent of Liturgiam

Authenticam, the Holy See provides a clear instruction on the vision of the Church in this regard as seen in the section on translation of texts into the vernacular in the liturgical renewal.

95 Ibid, 5. 96 Ibid, 5. 97 Ibid, 6. 98 Ibid, 7.

29

2.4 Translation Theory in Liturgiam Authenticam

In apparent haste this section on theory in Liturgiam Authenticam draws our focus towards the transcendent nature of language, in this case liturgical language. This is important because it gives the translators a framework within which they should continue their work of implementing the vernacular. Paragraph nineteen states that “the words of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as the other words spoken in liturgical celebrations, especially in the celebration of the Sacraments, are not intended primarily to be a sort of mirror of the interior dispositions of the faithful…”99 More than reflecting these immanent dispositions of the faithful, these words “express truths that transcend the limits of space and time.”100 The reason Liturgiam Authenticam takes this transcendent view of liturgical language is because “by means of these words God speaks continually with the Spouse of his beloved Son, [and] the Holy Spirit leads the Christian faithful into all truth and causes the word of Christ to dwell abundantly within them…”101 Words, in others words, when used liturgically have a distinctly theological and transformative purpose.

This affects the way translations are made insofar as “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.”

The editiones typicae are in a sense their own transmission and artform, not specimens to be disassembled and reassembled by translators but a dialogue between Bridegroom and

Bride that “must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions

99 Ibid, 19. 100 Ibid, 19. 101 Ibid, 19.

30

or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.”102 When this method is maintained, no adaptation of , arrangement of words, or syntax is precluded in the process of translating, so long as such adaptations are “sober and discreet,”103 sobriety and discretion being the hallmarks of the Roman Liturgy.104

Further on Liturgiam Authenticam addresses the problem of secondary and tertiary liturgical texts as sources used for translating vernacular editions. Use of texts that are in any way removed from the original texts of the Church (that is, the editio typica) for translation purposes “is not permissible…rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts…”105 This means use of the Latin for translations of liturgical books and use of the Hebrew, , or Greek for translations of Scriptural texts into the vernacular is not simply preferred, but mandated.106 It is in using these editiones typicae without exception that the Church can ensure the fidelity of her liturgical prayer no matter into which tongue it is being translated.

Regarding the power of the liturgical texts to instill “in the lives of the Christian faithful the elements of faith and Christian morality,”107 Liturgiam Authenticam urges translators to be mindful of translating texts “in accord with sound doctrine.”108 Liturgical prayer is, in fact, indoctrination in the highest, best, and purest sense of the word.

Deviation from sound doctrine in translating risks the loss of the formational character of the texts. Acknowledging that such attention to the received text could result in some

102 Ibid, 20. 103 Ibid, 20. 104 Ibid, 57. 105 Ibid, 24. 106 Ibid, 24. 107 Ibid, 26. 108 Ibid, 26.

31

difficult or awkward expressions in the translation, Liturgiam Authenticam nonetheless poignantly reminds translators that

The liturgical texts should be considered as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals; thus, they should be free of any overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression. If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities.109

Viewing the texts in this way protects the Liturgy from becoming transient when certain

“modes of expression have passed out of popular usage.”110 In fact, such an approach to the texts lends itself to aiding the faithful in transcending some of the transience with which life in the world is afflicted. To enter the Liturgy is to leave the passing time of this world and bask in the timelessness of God.

The authors of Liturgiam Authenticam desire to clarify the reality of the Church’s autonomy in the midst of a given and concrete society. Translators are encouraged to free themselves from any undue attentiveness to current and secular methods of translating liturgical texts, because “the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively…”111 In order to accomplish this, the Church “should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.”112 Several examples of such externally imposed norms are given and regarded as imprudent for liturgical translations. These are: mechanically substituting words; changing singulars to plurals; splitting unified terms

109 Ibid, 27. 110 Ibid, 27. 111 Ibid, 30. 112 Ibid, 30.

32

into masculine and feminine parts; or introduction of words deemed impersonal or abstract.113

These erroneous aspects of translating are to be avoided because they “introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation.”114 Six definitive norms are listed in order to avoid these confusions, pertaining to the prohibition of blurring gender distinctions in the vernacular translations when the typical editions clearly maintain certain linguistic norms of gender. These include such directives as maintaining the faithful use of the word “Father” for the first person of the and always referring to the Church by the feminine pronouns,115 as has been the Church’s perennial tradition, and which likewise manifests through language the matrimonial nature of the Church as Bride and the Lord as Bridegroom.

In the third section of this Instruction on translating liturgical texts, the Holy See emphasizes the need for the recognitio, that is, the official stamp of approval the Holy

See gives to a worthy translation of the editio typica into the vernacular.116 While the emphasis is certainly on the importance of communion with the universal Church as regards our liturgical worship and the rightful authority of the Holy See to regulate that worship, paragraph eighty speaks of the interplay between the Church’s lex orandi and

113 Ibid, 31. 114 Ibid, 31. 115 Ibid, 31. 116 Cf. Francis, , Vatican Website, September 9, 2017, accessed January 14, 2019, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/09/09/170909a.html. It should be noted that this particular instruction of Liturgiam Authenticam has been recently updated with the promulgation of the Magnum Principium. Effectively, Magnum Principium revised canon 838 in the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici in order to more clearly state the relationship between the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences as regards the adaptation of liturgical texts into vernacular languages. For more information, see Maurizio Barba, The Motu Proprio Magnum Principium on the Edition of Liturgical Books in the Vernacular Languages, Antiphon, v.21, n.3, 2017.

33

lex credendi. In local Churches, it is not permissible to publish or use texts without the recognitio, because

The lex orandi must always be in harmony with the lex credendi and must manifest and support the faith of the Christian people, [thus] 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 is adapted to the dogmatic reality that it contains.117

The primary entity in translating under the directives of Liturgiam Authenticam is the dogmatic reality, the given text, to which the recipient language is docile. Through this docility the recipient vernacular language becomes “sacred language” as it conforms to the truth of the sacred texts being communicated through the vernacular.

2.5 The Import of Liturgiam Authenticam

Much evidence points to the fact that in comparison to Comme le Prévoit the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam bears greater theological import. The turn from

Comme le Prévoit began in 1988 with the publication of Vicesimus Quintus Annus, in which Pope Saint John Paul II observed “that the quality of vernacular translations of the liturgical books was not satisfactory.”118 The nature of Comme le Prévoit as a somewhat provisional document lent itself to a certain amount of liberty when it came to translation, but “translation is not a superficial business of reinventing the wheel…but of carrying across into the language of today a well-honed, well-defined and vital content…,”119 the word “translate” meaning “to carry across” rather than “to change.”

117Liturgiam Authenticam, 80. 118 , “Liturgical Translations and Two Perspectives in Translation.” In Sacrosanctum Concilium: Sacred Liturgy and the Second Vatican Council: Proceedings of the Sixth Fota International Liturgical Conference, edited by John M. Cunningham, O.P. (Wells, England: Smenos, 2013) 52. 119 Ibid, 55.

34

The earliest vernacular translations suffered in that they had not been given the linguistic shoulders, so to speak, to carry across this content; the language could not bear the doctrinal burden. In fact, many of these translations are seen to “have hindered effective in some important language areas.”120 Under the directives of Comme le Prévoit, translators were working within a dynamic equivalence model, which advocated for a translation accessible to everyone present at the Liturgy in a mode of expression functional for the congregation “here and now.” Liturgiam Authenticam is not essentially opposed to this ideal and sees that “the translated text must be accessible to the listener, but not by dumbing down the original text. The theological and linguistic richness of the original texts must be uncovered and retained.”121 For these reasons and others Liturgiam Authenticam was promulgated in order for a real liturgical renewal to begin alongside “a new era of liturgical translations.”122 In the Liturgy, language and theology must dovetail and this document provides a robust theology and purpose of language and its role in the celebration of the Liturgy.

While Comme le Prévoit was developed within the framework of dynamic equivalence, which was the contemporary framework in linguistics during that time,

Liturgiam Authenticam seeks to relocate the Church’s method of translation within a framework of formal equivalence. In the next chapter we will examine these two documents in light of what was observed in the writings of George Steiner as recorded in the first chapter. Particular focus will be given to the nature of the two schools of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence in light of the logocentric model outlined therein. In worship the Logos is central and so understanding how best we can

120 Ibid, 56. 121 Ibid, 58. 122 Ibid, 56.

35

communicate Him in our liturgical prayer is a task eminently worthwhile in the ministry of translation.

36

Chapter 3: Liturgy and Logos: Towards a Theology of Translation

The Logos has a particular claim to our liturgical worship as the source of all meaning and communication. In liturgical worship we are invited into the dialogue of the living God, and at the same time we are engaged in the dialogue of Christ the

Bridegroom with His Bride the Church.123 This is a notion that Pope Benedict XVI touched upon in two of his works on the Sacred Liturgy: Feast of Faith and The Spirit of the Liturgy. In Feast of Faith, Pope Benedict estimates that “the basic reason why man can speak with God arises from the fact that God himself [sic] is speech, word. His nature is to speak, to hear, to reply…”124 He continues by stating that “only because there is already speech, ‘Logos’, in God can there be speech, ‘Logos’, to God. Philosophically we could put it like this: the Logos in God is the ontological foundation for prayer.”125 This ontological foundation for prayer in general necessarily includes and shapes liturgical prayer in particular. We turn now to examine this interplay between Logos and liturgical prayer in order to attempt an understanding of how the Incarnate Word of God shapes the way in which we address the Divine Godhead within the Liturgy.

3.1 “Worship in Accord with the Logos”

The heading of this section is borrowed from a journal article authored by Father

Robert Pesarchick and published in Antiphon, which is in fact inspired by the writings of

Benedict XVI.126 This heading captures well the idea into which we are inquiring about the essence of liturgical worship and what that essence has to say about translation of

123 Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000), 208. 124 Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, 25. 125 Ibid, 25. 126 Robert A. Pesarchick, “Worship in Accord with the Logos – Incarnation, Liturgy, and Inculturation” in Antiphon 13.1, 2009.

37

liturgical texts. While Fr. Pesarchick’s article will be of use to us later on in this paper, it is important to note here that he captures the heart of Pope Benedict’s theology found in

Feast of Faith, a work that provides us with several useful insights in this regard. The

Pope Emeritus speaks of the fundamental place that the Logos has in our concept of prayer. This concept is already implicit in the opening sentence of St. John’s , which, when rendered more precisely from the Greek, says that “In the beginning was the

Word, and the Word was in communication with God” (John 1:1).127 When translated this way, this passage “expresses the act of turning to God, of relationship. Since there is relationship within God himself, there can also be a participation in this relationship.”128

Being able to relate to God is at the heart of liturgical prayer, which has as its supernatural end our union with God.

In communicating with God Who is in constant communication with Himself, we do not understand the communication to be about mutual self-revelation; God knows

Who He is, and He knows who we are better than we do ourselves. More than anything prayer and worship reveal to man who God is and to man by God who he (man) is, and this takes place precisely by identification with Christ and sharing in the life of the

Trinity into which He invites us.129 This identification occurs in a concrete community of persons, “which necessarily implies that those involved are also identified with one another in Christ, [and this] is what we call Church.”130 It is in this community that man

127 Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, 25 128 Ibid, 25. 129 Ibid, 26. 130 Ibid, 26.

38

enters into liturgical worship and it is here that he discovers “his identity through identification with Christ which is its source.”131

This process of discovery is ultimately discovery of the truth and happens in worship because for Pope Benedict “worship is truth.”132 This leads to his reflection on the “givenness” of liturgical worship, which is something not crafted but received. To understand the “cosmic and universal dimension”133 of the liturgy is to understand that

“the community does not become a community by mutual interaction. It receives its being as a gift from an already existing completeness, totality, and in return gives itself back to this totality.”134 There is a “form” to the liturgy that precedes every community, which is “binding on the whole Church, committed to the local congregation in the form of the ‘rite.’”135 By accepting the precedential nature of the rite of the Church, actual participants in the liturgical act are introduced “to the realm of the given, living reality, which communicates itself to us.”136 Only in respecting the space of the liturgy for God’s own self-revelation do we really come into contact with God’s Word as the Logos.137

Pope Benedict’s idea of the centrality of the Logos to liturgical worship is summarized in the aforementioned article by Fr. Pesarchick. The title of the article is

Worship in Accord with the Logos – Incarnation, Liturgy, and Inculturation, and the title is received from Benedict’s work Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith.138 Pesarchick highlights that the liturgical theology of Benedict is contingent upon the conviction that “Christian

131 Ibid, 26. 132 Ibid, 33. 133 Ibid, 66. 134 Ibid, 66. 135 Ibid, 66. 136 Ibid, 66. 137 Ibid, 73. 138 Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 115.

39

liturgy is a participation in the incarnate Logos/Son’s perfect worship of the heavenly

Father in the Holy Spirit, which reaches its full expression in the Paschal Mystery.”139 In the liturgy we “step into” an action that is already taking place, and “in , the real action in the liturgy is the action of God.”140 Because of this, formalized are an expression of “the ‘givenness’ of Christian liturgy.”141 Understanding liturgical worship in this way has implications for us in the work of inculturation, a work within which translation of the liturgical texts is situated. The Church already turned her attention to the implications of vernacular translations for adequate inculturation of orthodoxy with the promulgation of the instruction Varietates Legitimae in 1994.142

Among other things, this document urges the one who translates to have a firm grasp on what it means to “inculturate” the liturgy, always with a mind to the lex orandi/lex credendi.143 In sharing insights gleaned from the liturgical theology of Benedict XVI,

Pesarchick notes that

to understand the scope and limits of the creativity and dynamism of the process of inculturation one must first realize that the Christian faith is not a ‘culturally naked faith’ that somehow can be transferred to a culture that is religiously indifferent…Given this reality Benedict prefers to speak of ‘inculturality’, or a dialogue of cultures, rather than inculturation of the faith.144

139 Pesarchick, Worship in Accord with the Logos, 29. 140 Ibid, 44. 141 Ibid, 49. 142 Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Varietates Legitimae [Fourth Instruction for the Right Application of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy], Adoremus Website, March 29, 1994 accessed January 21, 2019, https://adoremus.org/1994/03/29/ instruction-inculturation-and-the-roman-liturgy/#anchor840498 143 Pesarchick, Worship in Accord with the Logos, 27. 144 Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World , trans. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2004), 64, quoted in Robert A. Pesarchick, Worship in Accord with the Logos, 48.

40

For Benedict, inculturality is the only way in which authentic adaptation can occur while preserving the “general framework of a fundamental form.”145 This form is the divine

Logos, and attentiveness to the Logos is the only way in which we can say our is carried out in accordance with the Logos.146

Adequate inculturation of the Liturgy is closely tied to our question on translation of liturgical texts, because just as the formal structure of the rite expresses the

“givenness” of the Liturgy, so too does the formal structure of language express the

“givenness” of the linguistic ethos from which our translations should bloom. In other words, the rite precedes our carrying out of true worship in a way quite similar to language preceding our ability to communicate in truth. Pope Benedict has articulated a fundamental notion of what inculturation is for the in his idea of the dialogue of cultures, in keeping with the principle of logocentrism at work throughout this thesis: when we pray we (as the Church) are speaking to and being spoken to by the

Logos, the creative and efficacious power of God Himself. In other words, we do not speak first – He does. They are not our words, but His.147

145 Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000), 169, quoted in Robert A. Pesarchick, Worship in Accord with the Logos, 50. 146 Pesarchick, Worship in Accord with the Logos, 50. 147 The position taken here of the primacy of Logos-centered theology in the work of inculturation has its critics. Ansgar Chupungco disagrees with this section’s understanding of the principle of lex orandi/lex credendi and its relationship to inculturation. He writes: “Ritual language is not a bearer of dogmatic statements of the faith. Although lex credendi sometimes weighs heavily on lex orandi…it is not normal to construct ritual language with elements derived from dogmatic statements…The Liturgy communicates to the assembly the Faith of the Church. However, it does so not in the language of systematic theology and speculative philosophy but in the language used for acclamations and narrations. The liturgy is not exposition, but persuasion: in the prayers we, as it were, remind God about his divine deeds () in order to persuade God to renew them in our day ().” For more information, see Ansgar Chupungco, What, Then, Is Liturgy? Musings and Memoirs (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2010), 179. For a particular critique of the principles of Varietates Legitimae, see Peter C. Phan, “Liturgical Inculturation: Unity in Diversity in the Postmodern Age” in Liturgy in a Postmodern World, ed. Keith Pecklers (London: Continuum, 2003), 55-86.

41

From this examination of the nature of liturgical prayer it becomes clear that the provisional guidelines of Comme le Prévoit would render our liturgical texts in such a way that this notion of the primacy of the Logos is lost. Indeed, just such an outcome occurred and, in many ways, prompted the development of the magisterial directives found within Liturgiam Authenticam. It is useful in our study to understand in greater detail how Comme le Prévoit fell short of the mark of communicating the Logos, from both a theological and philosophical point of view.

3.2 Translation in Accord with Comme le Prévoit

From our treatment of the instruction Comme le Prévoit in Chapter Two we saw that dynamic equivalence was the operative linguistic philosophy in its formulation.

Dennis McManus weighed Comme le Prévoit against Liturgiam Authenticam from the perspective of translators in his article Translation Theory in Liturgiam Authenticam, which was published in the anthology Benedict XVI and the Sacred Liturgy: Proceedings of the First Fota International Liturgy Conference. McManus points out to his readers that those who call into question the translation theory present in Liturgiam Authenticam

“have limited their questions regarding translation theory to that of dynamic equivalency alone.”148 These critics would be in favor of maintaining the dynamic equivalency of

Comme le Prévoit and we can see then that these two schools of translation theory continue to dominate the conversation on translation of liturgical texts. Furthermore, the questions raised regarding Liturgiam Authenticam show that the criticism “appears to have been done essentially by liturgists and musicologists who have advocated in favor

148 McManus, “Translation Theory in Liturgiam Authenticam”, 117.

42

of dynamic equivalency.”149 In answer to these criticisms McManus sets out to highlight the philosophical suppositions of the dynamic equivalency school.

He begins by contrasting oratorical methods of communication against literary methods of communication. Historically, notes McManus, “the goal of the orator was persuasion and his method was, therefore, political; the goal of the scribe, by contrast, was the preservation of ideas and thoughts, with less concern for public persuasion.”150

Through various historical developments, there emerged “a school of thought which insists that the response of the listener is the primary effect upon which translation must focus…”151 Due to a complex of movements in linguistics during the twentieth century, which included such developments as literary deconstructionism,152 translators placed

The primary emphasis on the meaning-response of the reader or hearer of a text, with the result that a translation is considered a failure if the derived meaning of the source text is not communicated immediately, rather than through some linguistic mediation, in the text of the target language.153

Such a theory naturally tends towards a devaluation of “the connection between ‘content’

(or what is said or claimed in a text), ‘form’ (the poetics of a text), and ‘meaning’ (or

149 Ibid, 117. 150 Ibid, 120. 151 Ibid, 121. 152 While there are other elements to this “linguistic complex” that arose in the twentieth century, literary deconstructionism highlights the anti-Logos order of the age, because “the very meaning and mission of deconstructionism is to show that things – texts, institutions, traditions, societies, beliefs, and practices of whatever size and sort you need – do not have definable meanings and determinable missions, that they are always more than any mission would impose, that they exceed the boundaries they currently occupy…Every time you try to stabilize the meaning of a thing, to fix it in its missionary position, the thing itself, if there is anything at all to it, slips away.” In the field of language, this would mean that there can be no essential correspondence between words and the meanings they signify, and so the meanings must be “broke free” from the confines of the symbolic structures that contain them. For more information, see Jacques Derrida and John D. Caputo, “Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida” in Perspectives in Continental Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 31-32. Accessed 21 November 2018 http://at.opallibraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?Direct =true &db=nlebk&AN=16261&site=eds-live 153 McManus, “Translation Theory in Liturgiam Authenticam,” 122.

43

sense made from a text).”154 What tends to happen in dynamic translations is that “the connection between form and meaning is almost completely sacrificed in favor of the immediacy of communicating the meaning derived from the source text.”155 Essentially this means that in a dynamic theory of equivalence meaning must be derived and translated rather than existing as an already “given” quality of the original text. The goal of the “scribe” in this context would then be persuasion of the listener rather than the preservation of ideas or forms, or in the terms outlined by McManus the goal of the scribe would be political rather than preservative. This raises questions about where exactly the meaning of language can be found when it comes to language and communication.

This question of meaning is at the heart of the dynamic equivalence/formal equivalence debate. As we have seen, the theory of dynamic equivalence present in the document Comme le Prévoit places the meaning in the local community of recipients, within the act of communication as an act communicated to this community here and now. There is no denying the importance of communicating in a manner that is accessible to the recipient as communication should always in some way do “justice to the rules and conventions of the receptor language.”156 This is important especially for liturgical prayer, which seeks to be transformative in the life of the recipient. Yet balance, as in all things, is necessary with regard to translation and it is evident that dynamic equivalence does not always attend to justice in translating. The difficulty of dynamic equivalence, particularly in the process of translating liturgical prayers, is that

154 Ibid, 122. 155 Ibid, 122. 156 Lang, The Voice of the Church at Prayer, 162.

44

It abstracts the content of the text from its linguistic and cultural form and no longer aims at a translation that would reproduce the formal structure of the original as closely as could possibly be done in a . Rather, the purpose of this approach is to identify the message contained in the original text apart from its linguistic form, which is considered a mere vesture that can be changed according to different cultural contexts.157

Too great an emphasis on the cultural context into which the words of the prayers are spoken begins to render the language an entirely immanent entity, an entity without transcendent form. While there are several qualities of Comme le Prévoit that underscore its provisional nature and relatively low magisterial authority from a juridical standpoint,158 the fundamental assumptions about the nature of language and the locus of meaning that are at work in the document are themselves ill-equipped for the gravity of the task they are assigned, that is, translation of sacred texts. Texts are not simply composites of various symbols which have meaning only within the context of the group, but rather each word is itself a carrier of meaning and so each word has value as an individual entity in addition to having “an associative sense” with the words surrounding it.159 Within the Liturgy this is especially clear when we consider the efficacy of particular words to communicate truth that transforms. Phrases such as “I absolve you”,

“I baptize you”, or “this is My Body” are clear examples of the importance of using certain particular words within the Church’s liturgical activity. It is, in fact, these types of

157 Ibid, 162. 158 In The Voice of the Church at Prayer, Fr. Lang highlights three of these juridical qualities that are lacking in Comme le Prévoit: it was published in six languages, none of which were Latin (the of the Church); it had no official signature; and it was not published by the , the official publisher of magisterial materials. For more on this, see Lang, The Voice of the Church at Prayer, 161. 159 Auer, A General Doctrine of the Sacraments, 139.

45

sacramental formulae that convey to us the power of God’s Word to produce effects in our world even today.160

These words and others show that the great gravity of the task is due to the fact that the language of the Liturgy by its nature does something, the mode of language in the

Liturgy is that “’what is said’ is ‘as it is said,’”161 as Fr. Silvano Maggiani wrote in his essay The Language of Liturgy. Fr. Maggiani begins to capture for us some of the synthesis between the transcendental nature of language we see in the writings of George

Steiner and the formal quality of language underscored in Liturgiam Authenticam. We have seen in Chapter One that language is the manifestation of Presence, the communication of a Real Presence. What is clear from the “verbal code of the Liturgy”162 is that this “mode is the most fundamental aspect of the performativity of liturgical language: making present.”163 The ability of language to “make present” achieves its greatest fecundity in the “sacramental aspect of language,”164 when it is used in the action of celebrating the Sacraments. In the Liturgy what is being made present to us through the use of language is not, in the final analysis, a “what,” but rather a “Who,” Who is

Jesus Christ Himself. The operativity and performativity of language in liturgical celebration is achieved “precisely because, although [language is] proper to the human person and to his or her life…it attains its ultimate meaning and the efficacy of the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus…who communicates himself to us through human

160 Ibid, 147. 161 Silvano Maggiani, “The Language of the Liturgy,” in Handbook for Liturgical Studies, vol. 2, edited by Anscar J. Chupungco, O.S.B. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 246. 162 Ibid, 246. 163 Ibid, 246. 164 Ibid, 247.

46

languages.”165 God, the Presence above all presences, communicates Himself through liturgical language, He makes Himself present to us by the power of language.

This, finally, is the great import of liturgical language. Yet the debate for or against formal equivalence in translating documents is by no means settled. In fact, the promulgation of the Third Edition of the in 2010 for the English-speaking world made clear that the questions of the role and responsibility of language were for some not adequately answered by the revisions found therein.166 In order to adequately deal with this question, and before we finally examine some of the strengths of formal equivalence, we must briefly turn to address some criticisms of the current translation theory adopted by Liturgiam Authenticam.

3.3 Criticisms of Logocentrism and Formal Equivalence

By and large, Pope Benedict XVI is seen as the icon of the reform of the Liturgy for which Liturgiam Authenticam is at least in part responsible. Yet in the English- speaking world, specifically the United States, another figure stands as an icon of the reforms ushered in under the directives of Comme le Prévoit: Fr. Godfrey Diekmann.

Individuals such as Fr. Lang would look to Benedict for guidance, while others, such as

165 Ibid, 255. 166 Michael G. Ryan, “What if We Said, ‘Wait’? The Case for a Grass-roots Review of the New Roman Missal” in Antiphon 14.1 (2010): 137-141. Reprinted from America 14 December 2009, with permission of America Press, Inc., 2009. In this essay, Fr. Ryan holds that the implementation of this Missal “seems more and more like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council’s ” (137). He admits that his purpose is not “to discuss in detail the flawed principles of translation” (139) behind the Missal, but rather to inspire a movement: “what if we,” he says, “the priests of this country who will be charged with the implementation, were to find our voice and tell our bishops that we want to help them avert an almost certain fiasco? What if we told them that we think it unwise to implement these changes until our people have been consulted in an adult manner that truly honors their intelligence and their baptismal birthright? What if we just said, ‘Wait, not until our people are ready for the new translations, but until the translations are ready for our people’?” (139). While this writer does not approach the subject at hand from an academic standpoint, he stands as an example of the unfavorable reception with which these changes were met on the part of some in the Church.

47

Bishop Donald Trautman, look to Diekmann. In an article written by Bishop Trautman,

The Relationship of the Active Participation of the Assembly to Liturgical Translations, he attempts to highlight some of the contributions of Diekmann in the field of liturgical theology in the United States. Trautman’s basic premise, building on the work of

Diekmann, is that

A translated text must be more than exact and faithful to the original; it must become the authentic prayer of the liturgical assembly. That means the worshipping community must own the prayer, its contents, its vocabulary, its style, its idiom, its cadence, its rhythm. The believer must be able to make the prayer his or her own.167

Trautman sees Liturgiam Authenticam as fundamentally out of step with this understanding of what makes liturgical prayer authentic, and because of that it is out of step with the instructions of Sacrosanctum Concilium.168 What must happen if prayer is to be authentic is that the community take ownership of the texts. It must be my prayer, or it must be our prayer. There is an undeniable tension for linguists when translating into modern tongues, and Trautman believes that “there must be a balance between preserving the received liturgical or biblical message and expressing it in a relevant and understandable way.”169 The balance is well-struck, in his estimation, through the principles of dynamic equivalence, but what Liturgiam Authenticam adopted was formal equivalence and herein lies the trouble of that document for its critics.170

Specific issue is taken with the insistence of formal or sacral terminology because

“the first did not need liturgical or biblical commentaries to

167 Trautman, The Relationship of the Active participation of the Assembly to Liturgical Translations, 291. 168 Ibid, 301. 169 Ibid, 303. 170 Ibid, 303.

48

understand the message.”171 So too should the Faithful of our own time be able to hear the prayers of their worship with relative ease of comprehension. Moreover, says

Trautman, American culture is so distinct from the culture of Rome that literal translations cannot do justice to the speech of contemporary American society, especially with regard to inclusive language.172 This is especially problematic with regard to gender terminology. As we have seen, Liturgiam Authenticam insisted that any glosses in gender terminology be revised and gender-specific pronouns were to be restored. However, as

Trautman observes, “to exclude inclusive language in liturgical and biblical texts is a serious problem since it fails to recognize the reality of contemporary culture.”173 The

Liturgy should at least in part be an expression of the community and in order to be an expression it must be expressed with the community’s voice and tongue, with the community’s preference for certain modes of speech and usage of symbols. When the community cannot honestly claim the texts as its own, the texts have fallen short of their responsibility as expressions of the community’s faith and worship.

The primary critiques of both Liturgiam Authenticam and the liturgical theology of Pope Benedict XVI center on this issue of whether or not Liturgiam Authenticam effectively allows for the community to worship with its own voice and mind in the

Liturgy. For the critics, adopting the linguistic methods of formal equivalence “overlooks the fact that liturgical translations are not best when they are as literal as possible, but when they are understandable for contemporary participants who live in their ‘here and

171 Ibid, 303. 172 Ibid, 304. 173 Ibid, 304.

49

now’ and use the language which belongs to it.”174 Dynamic equivalence would for such proponents of the Liturgy be the only method of translation that befits the local prayer of a particular community of worship.175

These criticisms have their merit. We do not wish to see in our liturgical books such prayers as would be virtually unintelligible to anyone who has never partaken of a course in theology. But to assume that this is the only outcome of translations done in accord with the formal equivalence of Liturgiam Authenticam is a hyperbole. The Church wants to convert her people to her Spouse, and she does so precisely within the act of liturgical worship. We should consider how some of the criticisms of formal equivalence theory are in fact areas of strength when it comes to drawing the community out of itself and into the Lord. For this, we finally turn to look more specifically at how we can interpret Liturgiam Authenticam in light of the linguistic philosophy of Presence of

George Steiner and the liturgical theology of the Logos of Pope Benedict XVI, both scholars having a fundamental option for the presence of the Logos as central to their work in their respective fields, an option likewise fundamentally undergirding the instructions of Liturgiam Authenticam.

3.4 The Strength of Formal Equivalence for Liturgical Theology

It behooves us to begin this section with a poignant observation of Dennis

McManus regarding the relationship between dynamic equivalency and formal equivalency as regards their presentation in our two primary translation documents.

Liturgiam Authenticam is not concerned with addressing Comme le Prévoit on linguistic

174 Mariusz Biliniewicz, The Liturgical Vision of Pope Benedict XVI: A Theological Enquiry (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2013), 255. 175 Ibid, 256.

50

terms per se.176 This document is rather concerned with making schools and workers of translation aware of “the possibility that there is a theology of liturgical language whose first principles have not adequately been considered by modern linguistic theorists.”177

McManus posits that this is most likely due to the reality that these theorists, who are working primarily within a framework of logical positivism, cannot comprehend the type of “language claims made by the Church regarding her liturgical speech acts.”178 This suggests that what the Fifth Instruction is actually attempting is the reassertion of “a theological basis for the discussion of liturgical language and its interpretation,” which in turn suggests “the need for an entirely new approach to its reading and translation into vernacular languages.”179 All of this is to say that, while no system adequately accomplishes everything the Church’s mysterious use of language would necessitate, formal equivalence, in its own limited way, serves her purposes best.180

The need for an altogether unique theory of the nature and role of language is fundamental in comparing the essential premises of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. In this comparison we have found that both schools are predicated upon an essentially opposed concept of meaning. Dynamic equivalence, as we have seen, divorces form from matter in the sense that a word spoken can in some way be separated from the reality it signifies. It is, in the end, fundamentally immanent, anthropocentric. It has meaning so long as it means something to us here and now. But is not this the intention of the reforms of the Council: that the Liturgy now means something to us? It may be argued that dynamic equivalence and anthropocentrism are the surest methods of

176 McManus, Translation Theory, 130. 177 Ibid, 130. 178 Ibid, 131. 179 Ibid, 131. 180 Ibid, 129.

51

enacting the great principle of reform known as participatio actuosa. Yet the principle of active participation highlighted in Sacrosanctum Concilium is about far more than the intelligibility of the rite on the part of the Faithful. In his essay : Word and Rite in Ratzinger’s Sacramental Theology, D. Vincent Twomey interpreted the notion of participatio actuosa in light of the writings of Pope Benedict XVI.181 Dynamic equivalence is introspective by the fact that the locus of meaning rests – at least with regard to its use in liturgical translations – in the community of worship and its subjective understanding of the words and actions being spoken and performed. Two strengths of

Liturgiam Authenticam with regard to meaning that are worth paying attention to are its preference for literality and its predilection for the use of analogy. These, as we will see, are a gateway out of the self-centric trajectory of dynamic equivalence that enters out into a Logocentric experience of liturgical prayer.

Twomey provides us with a sense for the benefit of the literality of formal equivalence. As we saw in Chapter Two, the primary motivation of Comme le Prévoit was to render the texts as simply as possible so that the greatest number of people could understand the communications of the orations. In theory this idea is meritorious, but in practice it became problematic as it “tended to reduce the text to what could be immediately understood by all – and so fostered banality as it sought the lowest common denominator.”182 But the understanding with which the principle of participatio actuosa is concerned goes beyond mere sense understanding or sense participation. As Benedict

XVI highlighted in his theological writings, the happenings of the Liturgy take “place in

181 D. Vincent Twomey, “Verbum Domini: Word and Rite in Ratzinger’s Sacramental Theology” in Benedict XVI and the Roman Missal: Proceedings of the Fourth Fota International Liturgical Conference, 2011 (New York: Scepter Publishers, 2013) 9-20. 182 Ibid, 19.

52

the depth [of the soul] where it is raised up to the heights. ‘See the Lamb of God’ – refers to a particular kind of seeing that does not take place simply by seeing the visible

Host.”183 The literality of the word “see” has a different, albeit complementary, literality within the liturgical and “orational” ethos. It follows that understanding through the words spoken does not follow simply from having heard the word that was spoken, but by letting the words do work on the soul.

There is perhaps a blurring of the difference between actuosa and tota at work here, which is a distinction it would be useful to maintain. The Faithful are called to enter as fully as possible into the liturgical celebrations, to be actually aligned with the mysteries celebrated therein. Yet one cannot participate totally in the sense that everything is revealed and ascertained as regards the mystery of the thing. If we were to focus on the translation of words and rituals for the sake solely of ensuring full comprehension on the part of the recipient, we would be entertaining a “superficial rationalism that assumes that we can actually understand what the liturgy (or indeed the

Faith) is all about.”184 Dynamic equivalence can tend towards a misunderstanding about how much we are, in fact, understanding. What we are attempting in liturgical prayer is active participation of the whole self, but not a complete understanding of the whole act in which we are participating. There must be room for the mystery.

At its heart, Liturgy – indeed, all of theology – is a mystery. Because formal equivalence is content to allow for the “archaisms” of the editio typica, and to translate them literally, it opens us to a sense of mystery that the oftentimes banal translations based on dynamic equivalence sanitize in an attempt to render them as intelligible as

183 Ibid, 19. 184 Ibid, 19.

53

possible. While the literalness for which Liturgiam Authenticam is often criticized may result in sentences that strike us as abnormal, this “very awkwardness of the more …can be an invitation to ‘go beyond’ the letter to the spirit of the written word.”185 And from here we can turn to the notion of analogy and metaphor as a manner of going beyond the letter and entering into the spirit of the prayer. In Daniel Gallagher’s essay, published in the same Fota Conference anthology, entitled What Has Language to do with Beauty? The Philosophical Foundations of Liturgical Translations,186 he stresses the capacity of analogy and metaphor to spark deeper theological enquiry on the part of those who hear the prayers.

Analogy and metaphor are valuable on many levels, including but not limited to the intellectual and spiritual dimensions of human personhood, both of which aspects of the person are at play in liturgical prayer. Gallagher notes,

An important aspect of analogy is that it prompts us to see things in their wider context. It helps us to resist the modern tendency – clearly present in the analytic philosophy of language – to break things down into discreet particulars and to think we have explained an entity when we have arrived at the ultimate pieces that make it up.187

Analogy prompts us to enter into broader horizons of understanding that are “off-limits” within a worldview limited by particulars and essential pieces that we do not allow to be related to things beyond us or our understanding. Yet to be useful to the Christian who seeks to understand something of the Divine, analogy itself must be understood analogously.188 Understanding in the Christian (meaning theological) context is

185 Ibid, 20. 186 Daniel B. Gallagher, “What Has Language to do with Beauty? The Philosophical Foundations of Liturgical Translations,” in Benedict XVI and the Roman Missal: Proceedings of the Fourth Fota International Liturgical Conference, 2011 (New York: Scepter Publishers, 2013) 226-244. 187 Ibid, 241. 188 Ibid, 241.

54

analogous to the way in which we understand things in the natural context.189 Within the

Judeo-Christian narrative use of metaphor has been a primary means of understanding how it is that God relates to His creation as both transcendent and immanent.190 However, for these metaphors to be more than simply “pretty language” they must be linked closely with analogy if they are to be intelligible in any sense and thus useful for doing theology in the Liturgy.191

This applies to the translation of liturgical prayer because the Liturgy is essentially the glorification of God and so the analogies of the euchologies serve to

“display, make perceptible, and bring out the glory or doxa of the divine.”192

Furthermore, analogy helps us to enter the dialogical and transformative capacity of liturgical prayer, because “we might think…that analogy in the Christian context only functions as a way of helping us understand or appreciate something about God,” but as

Gallagher claims “analogies work in both directions. The world takes on a new intelligibility when seen against the background of the Christian God.”193 This hearkens to what we saw in the early pages of this thesis when Holger Zaborowski claimed that language was a horizon inside which man views the world and the world views man.194

Within the Liturgy, language is a horizon within which man views God and God views man. It is not simply about us.

189 Ibid, 241. 190 Gallagher highlights how analogy is of use in the Christian context especially as a tool for holding paradoxes together. See ibid, 243. 191 Ibid, 242. 192 Ibid, 240. 193 Ibid, 242. 194 See p. 6 above.

55

3.5 The Bride in Conversation with the Bridegroom

The notion of the Liturgy as something essentially nuptial has been only briefly mentioned throughout this thesis. Ultimately, in asserting the need for a heretofore unthinkable theory of language, Liturgiam Authenticam showcases that “liturgical language is always the dialogical counterpart to biblical language in which the Church, as

Bride, answers the call of her beloved, who is Christ the Word.”195 Understanding the

Liturgy as something essentially nuptial in nature reveals to us “most plainly that it is the relationship of the Church to Christ which defines the language that together they generate and share.”196 Capturing bridal imagery is at the heart of the Church’s concern for her liturgical language and showcasing her love for her Spouse and His love for her within the Liturgy demands “a certain transcendence or ‘other worldliness’ [that] must characterize” the components and functions of its language.197 It is an entirely new way of speaking, and we cannot do it without faith in what the Church professes herself to be.198 It is a mystery difficult to convey, but one the Church has found best expressed through the principles of formal equivalence outlined in the instruction Liturgiam

Authenticam.

Metaphor and literality are just two aspects of language best preserved by formal equivalence that serve these purposes of the Church. While maintaining the mystery of analogy and metaphor and allowing for the difficulty of literal translations are areas of contention for those who have criticized the formal equivalence method of Liturgiam

Authenticam, these things open us up to something grand if we allow them. For the

195 Dennis McManus, Translation Theory, 129. 196 Ibid, 129, emphasis added. 197 Ibid, 129. 198 Ibid, 130.

56

Liturgy to transform us we have to look away from ourselves, we must get out of our own methods and techniques, out of our preferences and predilections and enter into the

Logos. Perhaps Romano Guardini said it best when he wrote that

The Church has not built up the for the pleasure of forming beautiful symbols, choice language, and graceful, stately gestures, but she has done it – in so far as it is not completely devoted to the worship of God – for the sake of our desperate spiritual need.199

The lex credendi shapes our lex orandi, which in turn expresses the lex salvificandi. If we worship in accord with the Logos, if the Liturgy is shaped by the form of the Logos, “those who live by it will be true and spiritually sound, and at peace to the depths of their being; and when they leave its sacred confines they will be men of courage.”200 To worship in accord with the Logos is to leave behind the notion that the language of the Liturgy is merely words and instead allow ourselves to encounter “the

Logos, the word of love, crucified and risen, who brings us life and joy.”201 If translators can achieve this in their ministry, they have indeed done the Church a great service.

199 Romano Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), 86. 200 Ibid, 95. 201 Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, 73.

57

Conclusion

We have covered a great deal of ground in this thesis, and certainly there have been roads untraveled and rooms unexplored along the way. Language is a mysterious thing. As an old once said, it is impossible for us to define exactly what life is, because life is bigger than any one of us, and how can someone completely explain something within which they exist, something which is above and beyond them?202

Language is much the same as life in this regard. Despite its familiar nature it is something which is before and beyond each of us and therefore poses great difficulties for explanation. Yet as a mystery it must be explored, and that has been the goal of this thesis all along.

In Chapter One we examined what we can now call a theory of Presence in the linguist George Steiner’s writings on the nature of language and the method and manner of translating texts. The Tower of Babel figured heavily for us because it was there – from a Judeo-Christian standpoint – that man experienced the second fall of losing his ability to communicate integrally. All translation from then on would be in an effort to anticipate the “definitive Pentecost,” as Cardinal Mejía so poignantly asserted.203 While the Church has always been interested in her own language of worship this question of how best to speak the language of worship necessitated a revisit following the liturgical norms promulgated in Sacrosanctum Concilium at the Second Vatican Council.

Chapter Two outlined the two primary documents subsequently developed and published during the last sixty years of the liturgical reform. Yet the provisional nature of

Comme le Prévoit and its preference for the contemporary translation theory of dynamic

202 Dom John Eudes Bamberger, OCSO, conversation with author, January 18, 2017. 203 See p. 19 above.

58

equivalence rendered it unsatisfactory as a long-term solution for the Church’s problem of how best to “inculturate” her liturgical prayer. Primarily the issue resided in the fundamental preference for anthropocentrism at work within dynamic equivalence theory. The results of this from a liturgical standpoint were texts that lacked the vigor and theological richness with which the Church had heretofore been accustomed. St. John

Paul II understood this and commenced the process of renewing the liturgical renewal through the directives of Liturgiam Authenticam. With this the Church adopted the theory of formal equivalence as the appropriate manner by which to translate the dogmatic and doctrinal content of her liturgical prayers.

Chapter Three set out to synthesize the philosophy of Presence found in the writings of Steiner with the theology of the Logos present in the liturgical theology of

Pope Benedict XVI. This was done in such way as to show how Liturgiam Authenticam has made possible this communication of God’s presence by fidelity to the Logos. When we speak certain words, we are communicating certain truths that would not be communicated if these words are not used. This is especially important within the Liturgy which is making use of language as performative and demonstrative, because what happens in the Liturgy happens as it is said to happen. In we are cleansed through the words and the water, in Confession we are forgiven through the words and acts of penance, in the Mass we feast on the Body of the Lord through the words and the elements. While it is true that some modes of speech and choices of terminology that have been adopted under the instruction of Liturgiam Authenticam are not always easy or familiar to modern ears, this opens us up to an experience of prayer that can draw us out of ourselves and into the saving mystery of God’s work in our lives.

59

Certain words open us up to mystery, and in the mystery there is room for silence and contemplation, the delectable fruits that grow from an encounter with the Word of

God in the Liturgy. In the Liturgy we do not express ourselves, but rather we meet the

Almighty. This is ultimately what it means to participate in the Liturgy, and to close with one final thought from Pope Benedict XVI:

If there is to be a real participatio actuosa, there must be silence. In this silence, together, we journey inward, becoming aware of word and sign, leaving behind the roles which conceal our real selves. In silence man ‘bides’ and ‘abides’; he becomes aware of ‘abiding’ reality. Liturgy’s tension, tautness, does not come from ‘’…but from the fact that it creates a space in which we can encounter what is truly great and inexhaustible, something that does not need ‘variety’ because it suffices, namely, truth and love.204

This is what language within the Liturgy is to do for us: it leads us into this mystery, to find a place for silent contemplation of the Truth that has been communicated to us through worship of the Logos, by speaking and praying in accordance with the Logos. In using precise language, the Church recognizes that it is by using these words she best expresses her faith and identity as Bride. The Bride seeks to speak with her Spouse in the

Sacred Liturgy, but as perfect Bride she desires to express herself with perfect fidelity. If the fullness of this reality is to be communicated, if the fullness of the presence of the

Word is to be encountered, translations guided by the principles of formal equivalence are the only adequate means by which she can and will speak with her Spouse, the Logos, the incarnate word of God.

204 Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, 72.

60

Bibliography

Auer, Johann, A General Doctrine of the Sacraments and the Mystery of the Eucharist, trans. Hugh M. Riley. Dogmatic theology / Johann Auer, Joseph Ratzinger 6. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1995.

Barba, Maurizio, The Motu Proprio Magnum Principium on the Edition of Liturgical Books in the Vernacular Languages, Antiphon, v.21, n.3, 2017.

Biliniewicz, Mariusz. The Liturgical Vision of Pope Benedict XVI: A Theological Enquiry. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2013.

Cameron, O.P., Peter John. Why Preach. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009.

Chupungco, Ansgar, What, Then, Is Liturgy? Musings and Memoirs (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2010).

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. Liturgiam Authenticam [On The Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy]. Vatican Website, March 28, 2001. Accessed June 12, 2018. http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturg iam-authenticam_en.html.

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Varietates Legitimae [Fourth Instruction for the Right Application of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy], Adoremus Website, March 29, 1994 accessed January 21, 2019, https://adoremus.org/1994/03/29/instruction-inculturation-and- the-romanliturgy/#anchor 840498

Consilium for Constitution on the Liturgy. “Comme Le Prévoit [On The Translation of Liturgical Texts for Celebrations with a Congregation].” English translation found on Liturgy Office of England and Wales website, January 25, 1969. Accessed September 21, 2018. http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/ Missal/Information/Comme-le-Prevoit.pdf.

DeMarco, O.F.M., Angelus A. Rome and the Vernacular. Westminster, MD: Newmann Press, 1961.

Derrida, Jacques, and John D. Caputo. “Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida.” In Perspectives in Continental Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press USA, 1997. Accessed November 21, 2018. http://at.opal- libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=n lebk&AN=16261&site=eds-live.

61

Francis, Magnum Principium, Vatican Website, September 9, 2017, accessed January 14, 2019, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/09/09/170 909a.html.

Gallagher, Daniel B. “What Has Language to Do with Beauty? The Philosophical Foundations of Liturgical Translations.” In Benedict XVI and the Roman Missal: Proceedings of the Fourth Fota International Liturgical Conference, 226–244. New York: Scepter Publishers, 2011.

Guardini, Romano. The Spirit of the Liturgy. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997.

Hoping, Helmut. “The Hermeneutic of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Liturgical Renewal.” In Sacrosanctum Concilium: Sacred Liturgy and the Second Vatican Council: Proceedings of the Sixth Fota International Liturgy Conference, 91–107. Wells, England: Smenos, 2015.

John Paul II. Vicesimus Quintus Annus [On the 25th Anniversary of the Promulgation of the Conciliar Constitution ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’ on the Sacred Liturgy].” Vatican Website, December 4, 1088. Accessed December 17, 2018. https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp- ii_apl_04121988_vicesimus-quintus-annus.html.

Lang, Uwe Michael. The Voice of the Church at Prayer: Reflections on Liturgy and Language. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

Maggiani, Silvano. “The Language of the Liturgy.” In Handbook for Liturgical Studies, edited by Anscar J. Chupungco, O.S.B., 2:227–262. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

McManus, Dennis. “Translation Theory in Liturgiam Authenticam.” In Benedict XVI and the Sacred Liturgy: Proceedings of the First Fota International Liturgy Conference, 116–131. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2010.

Mejía, Jorge Maria. “The Problem of Translation: Some Linguistic and Other Considerations.” In Benedict XVI and the Sacred Liturgy: Proceedings of the First Fota International Liturgy Conference, edited by Neil J. Roy and Janet E. Rutherford, 17–23. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2008.

Paul VI. Sacram Liturgiam, January 25, 1964. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p- vi_motuproprio_ 19640125_sacram-liturgiam.html.

62

———. [Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy].” Vatican Website, December 4, 1963. Accessed September 18, 2018. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist _councils/ii_vatican _council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum- concilium_en.html.

Pell, George. “Liturgical Translations and Two Perspectives in Translation.” In Sacrosanctum Concilium: Sacred Liturgy and the Second Vatican Council: Proceedings of the Sixth Fota International Liturgical Conference, edited by John M. Cunningham, O.P., 37–59. Wells, England: Smenos, 2013.

Percy, Walker. The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do with the Other. Farrar, NY: The Noonday Press, 1975.

Pesarchick, Robert A. “‘Worship in Accord with the Logos’ - Incarnation, Liturgy, and Inculturation.” Antiphon 13, no. 1 (2009): 28–50.

Phan, Peter C., “Liturgical Inculturation: Unity in Diversity in the Postmodern Age” in Liturgy in a Postmodern World, ed. Keith Pecklers (London: Continuum, 2003), 55-86.

Ratzinger, Joseph. Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005.

———. The Feast of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986.

———. The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995.

———. The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000.

———. Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions. Translated by Henry Taylor. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

Ryan, Michael G. “What If We Said, ‘Wait’? The Case for a Grass-Roots Review of the New Roman Missal.” Antiphon 14, no. 1 (2010): 137–141.

Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.

———. Real Presences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Trautman, Donald. “The Relationship of the Active Participation of the Assembly to Liturgical Translations.” Worship 80, no. 4 (July 2006): 290–309.

Twomey, Vincent D. “Verbum Domini: Word and Rite in Ratzinger’s Sacramental Theology.” In Benedict XVI and the Roman Missal: Proceedings of the Fourth

63

Fota International Liturgical Conference, 9–20. New York: Scepter Publishers, 2013.

Zaborowski, Holger. “‘Hallowed Be Thy Name:’ Of God and Men and the Miracle of Language.” Communio 43 (Spring 2016): 7–15.

64