RIGHTS AND DUTIES ARISING FROM THE NATURE OF THE LITURGY Considerations in the light of the Magnum principium

Mario Lessi Ariosto, S.J.

While the Prooemium of the Constitution affirms that its aim is instaurandum atque fovendam Liturgiam1 it adds that the framing of this requires calling to mind “quae sequuntur principia”2. It is for this reason that in articles 5-13 the theological-pastoral basis of the Liturgy is summarised beginning from art. 11, where the fundamental pastoral principle level “active participation”3 appears, which is further clarified by the adverbs “scienter, actuose et fructuose”. In the articles that follow “participation of the people of God” at liturgical celebrations is specified by other noteworthy adjectives such as: “interna et externa” (art. 19), “plena/plenaria”, “communitatis propria” (arts. 21, 41), “pia” (art. 50), and also with: “facilis” (art. 79), where the Constitution speaks about the possibility of some sacramentals being administered by the laity, although the adverb “facile” was already used along with the verb “percipere” in art. 21.

Active Participation

The entire work of the reform of the liturgy is to be orientated towards conscious, active, communal, unhindered participation, as part of art. 21 says: “Qua quidem instauratione, textus et ritus ita ordinari oportet, ut sancta, quae significant, clarius exprimant, eaque populus christianus in quantum fieri potest, facile percipere atque plena, actuosa et communitatis propria celebratione participare possit”*.

To explain this text it is useful to recall what Dom Cipriano Vagaggini, OSB, wrote in 1964 in The Fundamental Ideas of the Liturgy Constitution, in a paragraph intended to explain “the principal dispositions of mind needed for reform”. This section was headed: “Not to impose unnecessary difficulties on the people”. There he writes: “In a word one can say that the fundamental wish of the Council in this material is once more to make the liturgy wholly unadulterated and authentic. This is to say that it not only responds well pastorally from an effective psychological,

1 Art. 1. “the reform and promotion of the liturgy”. 2 Art. 3. “the following principles”. 3 For active participation or other synonymous or equivalent expressions: cf. arts. 11, 14, twice, 21, 27, 30, 31, 37, 41, 48, 50, 53, 56, 79, 83, 85, 87, 90, 100, 113, 114, 118, 121, 124. For a reflection of a general nature cf. H. SCHMIDT, Il popolo Cristiano al centro del rinnovamento liturgico, in: La Civiltà Cattolica, 115 (1964) I, 123ss; J. Card. LERCARO, La participation active, Principe fondamentale de la réforme pastorale et liturgique de Pie X, in: La Maison Dieu, n. 37 (1954), 16-24; for a more doctrinal reflection cf. J. PASCHER, Das Wesen der Tätigen Teilnahme, Ein Beitrag zur Thelogie der Konstitution über die Hl. Liturgie, in: A. A. Miscellanea liturgica in onore di S.E. il Card. Giacomo Lercaro, Roma, 1966, vol. 1, 211-229. * In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

1

didactic and communal point of view, but also to the overall aims to which, by its nature it should respond. The liturgy is a complex set of signs – words, objects, gestures – that should express a sacred reality, in order that through them the people understand and are able to take full part in them. In practice, therefore, having an authentic liturgy means to have a liturgy in which the texts and rites, which are signs, clearly express for the people the sacred reality they signify and which the people, without unnecessary difficulties, can be fully immersed without unnecessarily obscuring the transcendence of the divine”4.

With the Motu proprio Magnum principium, and in particular its two programmatic opening words, Francis has recovered for the a greater faithfulness to the requirements of art. 36 of the conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium bringing back to mind what Blessed Pope Paul VI said in addressing the Members and Experts of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem Liturgicam on 19 April 1967. Expressing his dismay at an attack directed against Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro in a publication in which the authors intended to defend the conservation of the Latin language in liturgical celebrations, the Pope, while not entering into the question of Latin, expressed himself as follows: “quae certo est quaestio digna ad quam diligenter attendatur, sed non eiusmodi ut solvi possit qui magno illi principio adversetur, per Concilium confirmato, ex quo preactio liturgica, ad populi captum accommodata, intellegi quaeat et qui alteri repugnet principio dicimus ex quo animi sensus intimi et sincerissimi sermone qui in ipsa vulgi consuetudine viget exprimantur”5.

The conviction that guided Paul VI to grant, in a gradual way, the use of the vernacular to those who participate in liturgical celebrations is clearly apparent in this text in two convergent directions: that of the comprehension of texts and that of the possibility of expression in the language used in everyday life. They are two principles that refer to each other.

Paul VI noted that, above all, the Council confirmed this first principle, which he referred to as the “magnum principium”. From the time of Pope Saint Pius X6 it

4 In La Sacra Liturgia rinnovata dal Concilio, Studi e commenti intorno alla Costituzione Liturgica del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II, a cura di G. Baraúna, OFM, Torino, 1964, 1965, 60-61. 5 AAS 59 (1967) 419 emphasis ours. “Latin is an issue certainly deserving serious attention, but the issue cannot be solved in a way that is opposed to the great principle affirmed by the Council, namely, that liturgical prayer, accommodated to the understanding of the people, is to be intelligible. Nor can it be solved in opposition to another principle called for by the collectivity of human culture, namely, that peoples’ deepest and sincerest sentiments can best be expressed through the vernacular as it is in actual usage”. Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1982, 228. 6 Pius X uses the term “active participation” in an general sense in which the accent seems to have fallen on the adjective “active” in as much as it is opposed to some ways of doing things that reduced the Christian people to a passive being. In the Motu Proprio of 22 November 1903 where it affirms: “Filled as We are with a most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the faithful, We deem it necessary to provide before anything else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church” AAS 36 (1903-4) 387-388 (the authentic Latin text translates active participation with “actuosa communicatio”). Note that such “active 2

had been repeatedly formulated in fact within the framework of the Liturgical Movement, whose aim was to give back to the Christian people an understanding and a love for the liturgy in such a way that their participation would involve them from their very depths. Pope Pius XI repeated it in 1928 in a new way in his Divini cultus7. The principle was taken up by Pope Pius XII in the Mediator Dei as the end to reach8 in the bilingual editions of the Rituals, regulated by norms9 and applied even if with a certain amount of caution in various concessions granted by the Holy See 10.

Prior to Mediator Dei it is evident that this desired and regulated “active participation” had not reached the level of vocal expression and so did not require the translation of liturgical texts. The first concessions of vernacular languages were in regard to the Rituals, the Biblical Readings in the Mass, and the prayers and chants of the people. In 1963 the Congress for Liturgical Studies in Lugano explicitly asked the Holy See: “Pour faciliter la participation plus fructueuse du peuple à la liturgie, le Congrès demande très humblement que les Ordinaires des lieux aient le pouvoir de permettre au peuple, selon les circonstances, non seulement d’entendre la Parole de Dieu dans sa langue, mais également d’y répondre en priant et en chantant dans la même langue y compris la messe chantée” 11 . The request was both broad and moderate regarding readings and prayers and chants of the people. The extension of this to sung Masses was based on the fact that Germany had been granted use of the vernacular also for the chants of the Mass, a from what had always been

participation” had to be implemented at the time of Pius X notwithstanding the fact that Latin was the only language permitted in liturgical celebrations. During his pontificate the Pope also uses “participation” in a more sacramental- theological sense when one reads “nec sacrae mensae participes fieri coeperunt infantes” in the of the S. Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments Quam singulari to indicate the time which Pius X wants to end by opening participation in the Eucharist to those who have reached the use of reason, AAS 2 (1910) 578. Certainly this latter sense is more specific and cannot but have its source in “participatio” employed in the Roman and in a good number of the prayers of the Roman Missal. Because the reform of the Breviary in 1911 with Laus perennis also became an invitation for many laity to pray with the Church, consequently the first versions of the text began to circulate in the vernacular. One can thus deduce that there was already a hidden link between “active participation” and the use of the spoken tongue even if it was not directly understood on the part of the interventions by Authority. The expression “active participation” can also be found in a letter from 1915, at the time of Benedict XV, which was sent from Cardinal P. Gasbarri to the Abbot of Monserrat regarding the liturgy. 7 AAS 21 (1929) 34. 39-40. 8 Cf. AAS 39 (1947) 545, 560-562. 9 Cf. S. Congr. Rituum, Instr. De Musica sacra et sacra Liturgia, 3 settembre 1958, nn. 22-27: AAS 50 (1958) 637- 641. 10 The use of vernacular language existed in the Roman Liturgy, “annuente Ecclesia Romana” even before the and it was also permitted by the Church of in the centuries following that Council. In 1921 Benedict XV permitted the preparation of translations into Slovenian, approved in 1932; in 1927 Pius XI had a new and more understandable edition of the Galgolithic Missal printed in the Vatican for the of Dalmatia, and Pius XII had permitted translations into Hebrew for neophytes. After Mediator Dei in April 1948 the Holy Office (taking up once again not the text, but the Decree of 26 March 1615, that had authorized the Chinese translation of the Missal) permitted a Missal in Literary Chinese. For other examples cf. A.-G. MARTIMORT, Essai historique sur les traductions liturgiques, in La Maison Dieu, n. 86 (1966) 75-105 ; and earlier : ID., La discipline de l’Eglise en matière de langue liturgique. Essai historique, in La Maison Dieu, n. 11 (1947), 50-54 ; cf. also n. 53 (1958) 34-47. 11 Cf. La Maison Dieu, n. 37 (1954) 15. “In order to facilitate a more fruitful participation of the people at the liturgy the Congress most humbly asks that Ordinaries of places be given the power to permit the people, according to circumstances, not only to understand the Word of God in their language, but also to be able to respond in prayer and song in the same language, including the sung Mass”. 3

denied by the Sacred Congregation of Rites12 and which various other nations also wanted. By 1962, however, the seems to have adopted an approach of more openness, even in regard to the use of the vernacular, as we see in the typical text of the Ordo Baptismi adultorum13: “5. Omnes formulae dici possunt lingua vernacula, versiones tamen a Conferentiis episcopalibus cuiusque nationis vel regionis, vel ab Ordinario loci approbata …6. Versiones in linguam vernaculam parari curent Conventus episcopales pro variis regionibus, a Commissione peculiariter ad hoc deputata, in qua viri propriae cuiusque linguae apprime periti, sive sint clerici sive laici, textum conficiant, non tantum fidelem, sed et spiritui quoque linguae respondentem. Versiones demum a dictis Conferentiis episcopalibus debite approbentur, non tamen ultra spatium decem annorum, ita ut versiones praedictae continuo linguarum progressui aptari possint”14.

After the Liturgy Constitution of the had been approved and concessions relative to translations had also commenced, Paul VI during a General Audience in 1966 said, with regard to the faithful’s participation, that: “here is one of the ecumenical Council’s most often repeated and most forceful affirmations bearing upon divine worship, on the liturgy. So much so that this affirmation can be termed one of the distinguishing principles of the conciliar teaching and reform. The word recurs most explicitly many times: ‘…Pastors [to whom, above all others the Council addresses its words] must realise therefore that when the liturgy is celebrated something more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and lawful celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects’ (Cost. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 11). Later the Council turns to the faithful: ‘The Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be lead to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations called for by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Pt 2:9) is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.’ The liturgy is ‘the primary and indispensable source from which the people are to derive the true Christian spirit’ (Ibid., art. 14). Many other passages could be added to this, but what is clear is that the Church’s mind is unmistakeable: the Christian people must not be merely passively present at the rites of divine worship; they must grasp its meaning and join themselves to it in

12 Cf. B. FISCHER, Das “Deutsche Hochant”, in Liturgisches Jahrbuch, 3 (1953), 41-53, 108-110. 13 Cf. Cap. IV, 2 Ordo Baptismi adultorum per gradus Catechumenatus dispositus, Normae pro usu huius Ordinis, nn. 5- 6: AAS 54 (1962) 315. Cf. P.-M. GY, Le nouveau Rite du Baptême des adultes, in La Maison Dieu, n. 71 (1962) 15-27 especially 24-27. 14 The use of this Liturgical book, which did not in fact come into full force because of the opening of Vatican Council II, was brought to light by authoritative liturgists such as Fr. P.-M. GY. “5. All formulas may be said in the vernacular language once the translations have been approved by the Conferences of Bishops of each nation or region, or by the local Ordinary… 6. Translations into the vernacular language are to be prepared under the care of the Assembly of Bishops for different regions by a particular commission chosen for this purpose in which experts of the highest calibre in each language, either clerical or lay, prepare the texts not only faithfully but also responding to the spirit of each language. The texts must ultimately be approved by order of the Episcopal Conferences for a period not longer than ten years, in order that the aforementioned translations may be adapted to the continuous progress of languages”. 4

such a way that the celebration is full, alive, and communal (cf. ibid., art 21). On this point we can say rightly that the of the Council has meant a return to both the historical and interior fonts of Christian spirituality. We offer these two remarks for your reflection. The first concerns the qualities of liturgical participation as the Council proposes it. First, that it be fully aware, a quality that of itself would suffice to inspire a humanistic apologia for religion as the Church instils it into the faithful. The Church’s prayer is not esoteric, nor remote from people’s comprehension; rather it goes out to meet their capabilities and desire to know and to grasp. The Church’s prayer takes for its own the words of Christ: ‘They shall all be taught by God, Erunt omnes docibiles Dei’ (Jn 6:45). ‘Active and personal,’ this is a second quality of liturgical participation, and the third is that it be ‘communal.’ If only we may fully understand these realities! We will then say with Jesus: ‘If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them, Si haec scitis, beati eritis si feceritis ea’ (Jn 13:17)”.15

In fact from the very first Chapter of Sacrosanctum Concilium the Council, as emphasised above, had affirmed that principle both in the first part which deals with the nature of the Sacred Liturgy and its importance in the life of the Church once the faithful “scienter actuose et fructuose … participent” (take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. cf. art. 11) in the liturgical actions and where ex professo it deals with the liturgical formation of all the faithful to encourage their “plenam…, consciam et actuosam litugicarum celebrationum participationem” (fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations. cf. art. 14).

While article 11 uses the generic terms “sacram Liturgiam” and “fideles” twice; article 14 better specifies that this pertains to “universi fideles”, “totius populi”16, without distinction, extended to all the “celebrationes liturgicae”, based both on the principle of the right/duty deriving from baptism as well as on the fact that the Liturgy is the first and necessary source which permits the faithful to attain the true Christian spirit, as the Liturgical Movement had already been highlighting since the time of Pope Saint Pius X. One must also note the use either of the adverb “scienter” or the adjective “conscia” in articles 11 and 14 which, while alluding primarily to the specific formation of the people of God, also serve as a prelude to what will be said in the Liturgical Constitution about the comprehension of rites and texts, and therefore about the use of the vernacular by the faithful. Art. 21 alludes more directly to this when it says, “eaque populous christianus in quantum fieri potest, facile percipere atque … participare possit” especially when considering what is said later in art. 33: “Etsi sacra Liturgia est praecipue cultus divinae maiestatis, magnam etiam continet populi fidelis eruditionem. In Liturgia enim Deus ad populum suum loquitur; Christus adhuc Evangelium annuntiat. Populus vero Deo respondet

15 Paul VI, Address to a general audience, 6 April 1966; cf. Notitiae 17, 1966, 122-123 (Italian), Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1982, 126-127 (English). 16 Cf. SC art. 41: “plenaria et actuosa participatione totius plebis sanctae”. 5

tum cantibus tum oratione. Immo, preces a sacerdote, qui coetui in persona Christi praeest, ad Deum directae, nomine totius plebis sanctae et omnium circumstantium dicuntur. … Unde non solum quando leguntur ea quae ‘ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt’ (Rom 15:4), sed etiam dum Ecclesia vel orat vel canit vel agit, participantium fides alitur, mentes in Deum excitantur…”*.

Rights and duties in liturgical matters

We are faced with a clear declaration of the right of the Christian people to “facile percipere” and of the pastoral duty of the Church to meet this right. In terms of the spoken languages used by the Christian people in different parts of the world the Council, even while of the conviction that it would be one of the most effective and decisive elements for the participation of the people of God in the prayer of the Church, did not wish to impose it. Nevertheless, it did not close off the possibility of adopting the vernacular as is seen in the flexibility of the formulation of both art. 36 §2 and art. 54, which are to be read in the light of art. 22. The undisputed principle contained in art. 22 §1 is that “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio” depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, on the Bishop. In art. 22 §2 a new fundamental principle was introduced by a proposal of the Conciliar Liturgical Commission, which is valid for the entire work of the reform, namely “decentralisation”, which was drafted in a juridical formulation which responded to the actuality of the day in order to take account of different situations existing in various particular Churches. The principle reads as follows: “Ex potestate a iure concessa, rei liturgicae moderatio inter limites statutos pertinet quoque ad competentes varii generis territoriales Episcoporum coetus legitime constitutos”†. What we now call Episcopal Conferences did not in fact exist everywhere at the time of the Council and the terminology used by the Council applied not only to Episcopal Conferences in the proper sense, but also to plenary and provincial councils, and, if appropriate, to groups of bishops from different regions17. The repetition of the concept “rei liturgicae moderatio” in the second paragraph indicates a legislative power in the true sense, with a right not simply to propose but also to decide, save for the duty of then submitting their decisions for the confirmation of the Holy See, which recognises the force of law regarding the decision taken, giving it a new juridical vigour. “Inter limites statutos” means that the said authority can only act dependent upon the Holy See and that their decisions only have force only in their respective regions and that they have force only if they

17 Cf. Instruction Inter Oecumenici, n. 23. * “Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful. For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer. Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. … Thus not only when things are read "which were written for our instruction" (Rom. 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are raised to God…”. † “In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of legitimately established competent territorial bodies of bishops”. 6

do not go beyond what is sanctioned by the Constitution on the Liturgy or by successive laws, and finally, that they must be submitted to the Holy See before they are applied. Art. 22 of the Constitution however does not itself indicate how far these new powers extend. For this reason arts. 36, 54, 63 and 101 provided for the use of the vernacular and arts. 37-40 for adaptations.

The New Canonical Norm

Although the changes brought about by Magnum principium in can. 838 §2 and §3 touch upon the use of the vernacular, in particular as to who is responsible for the approval of translations and who is responsible for their confirmation, and on the adaptations introduced in rites and texts, I will limit myself for the moment to considering only what is said about translations in the light of art. 36 of the Conciliar Constitution.

While affirming in §1 that Latin should be conserved, this article immediately notes “salvo particulari iure” without saying if it means a right already acquired or if the future possibility of concessions like those already given is contemplated. In fact, the use of the mother tongue in liturgical celebrations is now a right proper to all the particular Churches. Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 36 §2 deals with the possibility of granting the use of the vernacular, indicating some parts in which to use it, without however limiting itself simply to the cases listed, which is evident in what the Relator, Msgr. I. Enciso Viana said in the Relatio circa emendationes propositas18. Paragraph 3 establishes that it is the responsibility of the territorial authority to authorise the use of the vernacular: “actis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatis” with the deliberate exclusion of the term “recognitis”19. Paragraph 4 was added by the Conciliar Commission and voted on in the Assembly and its purpose above all was to avoid the possibility of different translations of texts being used in a determined region, it was also introduced in order to have a greater guarantee of doctrinal exactness and a liturgical more controlled by the translated text, without however introducing or requiring a new level of revision.

Magum principium has thus brought the on translations back into line with the Council on the basis of the right of the faithful and the duty of Pastors. Even if at first it may seem to have been done because of the need for ecclesial decentralisation, the restoring of a right was a decision given by the Council on the basis of the nature of the Liturgy as laid out in Sacrosanctum Concilium chapter 1. Christian faithful are entitled to have the Liturgy in a form which renders it easy to understand so that as baptised Christians inserted into the priesthood of Christ, they

18 Cf. Acta Synodalia Concilii Vat. II: “Pro diversis vero missae partibus, in quibus lingua vernacula adhiberi potest – et nullam partem expresse excludimus, quamvis consideratione digni sunt illi Patres qui canonem excludunt – modum statuimus, quo talis usus obtineri poterit”, vol. II, periodus II, pars II, 291. 19 This term remained in one of the articles of the Liturgy Constitution, art. 63 b). However, in the Assembly the Relator, Msgr. P.J. Hallinan, also affirmed that even that article must be understood according to what was already laid out by art. 36. Cf. Acta Synodalia Concilii Vat II, vol. II, periodus II, pars II, 564. 7

can in body, mind, will, faith, hope and infused charity, be participants - which is derived from the Liturgy in itself. This applies to the entire Church, in every region and language and is a duty incumbent on Pastors to offer the faithful a Liturgy that is not only valid and licit but in a form that allows them to have conscious, active and fruitful participation20.

Liturgiam authenticam was written with the intention of resolving problems arising in relation to versions of liturgical texts by annunciating principles and norms for translation. Canon 838 speaks about translating liturgical books by the competent authority and adds the adverb “fideliter”. This was not done to summarise the whole of in a single word, but to recall and reinforce directives given by the Holy See on many occasions concerning matters pertaining to liturgical translations.

A closer inspection of the word “fideliter” does not limit itself to what has been said above, but extends along the lines of the felicitous expression previously used in the Ordo Baptismi adultorum of 1962, cited above, where it speaks of a translation: “non tantum fidelem, sed spiritui quoque linguae respondentem”.

Translating fideliter

When, on 10 November 1965 Blessed Pope Paul VI addressed21 the meeting of translators of liturgical books held in Rome, from 9 to 13 November,22 he indicated the importance of having versions of texts which started from the principle that they should become “partes ipsorum rituum” and thus the “vox ipsius Ecclesiae” standing alongside Latin. Being aware of the existence of translations which had already been made, in particular for “Missalettes” as an aid for the faithful so that they could understand the liturgical texts, he underlined that the new versions would need to be made with a worthy, elegant, literarily valid language which was adapted for proclamation and singing, comprehensible to all, even to children and the less well educated.

The Pope openly chose to speak of these versions as a means of communication without entering into questions relative to the method or art of translating. Perhaps it is for this reason that one does not find a call to faithfulness of translation in relation to Latin in his speech. The art of translating touched upon at the beginning is only in relation to its difficulty with words: “Quantae molis id negotium esset. Expertus est Sanctus Hieronymus, in hac arte peritissimus; ait enim: ‘Si ad verbum interpretor, absurdum resonat ; si ob necessitatem aliquid in ordine et

20 Cf. SC art. 11. 21 Cf. AAS 57 (1965) 967-970. 22 Ibid., 968. 8

in sermone mutavero, ab interpretis videbor officio recessisse’23” The text quoted from Saint Jerome is the final part of the following text: “ut quae in aliena lingua bene dicta sunt eundem decorem in translationem conservent. Significatum est aliquid unius verbi proprie tale, non habeo meum, quod id effram; et dum quaero implere sententiam, longo ambitu vix brevia spatia consumo. Accedunt hyperbatorum anfractis, dissimilitudines casuum, varietates figurarum, ipsum postremo suum est, ut ita dicam, vernaculum linguae genus”24.

The quotation form Jerome could simply be a convention, but the context for the audience with Paul VI and the kind of work that he expected from this group can also be seen as an invitation to study the art of translation by starting with the example of Saint Jerome25. In a polemic manner Saint Jerome, in his Epistola 57 ad Pammachium, also said: “Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor, me in interpretatione Graecorum, absque Scripturis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu”26. Equally, without theorising on the correct method of translating, he clearly wishes to express “sensum magis quam verbum”27 since the understanding of the text could be lost: “Ex alia in aliam linguam expressa ad verbum translation sensum operit”28 even if in the Praef. In lib. Job he says that his version reflects: “nunc verbum, nunc sensus, nunc simul utrumque” 29 . This is because both “in verbis singulis multiplices latent sententiae”30 and because the characteristics and the elegance of the language into which one translates at times requires that something is left out or added or changed in order to preserve the “proprietates alterius linguae”31 alongside the characteristics

23 Interpret. Chron. Euseb. Pamph. Praef.: PL 27, 35. “St. Jerome, easily the ablest in this art, experienced the magnitude of this task: ‘If I translate word by word, it sounds absurd; if I am forced to change something in the word order or style, I seem to have stopped being a translator.’” Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1982, 273. 24 Ibid.: PL 27, 34. “It is an arduous task to preserve felicity and grace unimpaired in a translation. Some word has forcibly expressed a given thought; I have no word of my own to convey the meaning; and while I am seeking to satisfy the sense I may go a long way round and accomplish but a small distance of my journey. Then we must take into account the ins and outs of transposition, the variations in cases, the diversity of figures, and, lastly, the peculiar, and, so to speak, the native idiom of the language”. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Eds Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Christian Literature Publishing Co., Buffalo, NY, 1893. 25 G. HOBERG, at the end of his De S. Hieronymi ratione interpretandi, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1886, defends Saint Jerome’s method of translation from various protests by affirming: “Satis Hieronymi interpretatio diserta et excussa esse videtur, ut qua ratione sit reddita, appareat. Quam in priore opusculi nostri parte interpretandi rationem ex Hieronymi operibus exhaustam descripsimus, in libro Danielis prophetae a Sancto Patre latine reddito occurrere is videbit qui leviter librum illum attigerit. Eum non verbum pro verbo expressisse omnis fere, quicumque libri versus inveniri potest, docet. Eadem vocabula varie attamen iuste translata, voces additae omissaeque, ex aliis interpretibus mutata, varium ad diversum genus, quo interpretationis difficilia superavit, obscura dilucidavit, orationis partes ad latinorum leges formatae nullam rem fuisse declarant in ratione positam interpretandi, quae Hieronymi diligentia fugerit”. 26 N. 5: PL 22, 571. “For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word”. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Eds Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Christian Literature Publishing Co., Buffalo, NY, 1893. 27 Epistola 106. n. 57: PL 22, 857. “The sense more than the letter”. 28 Epistola 57, n.6: PL 22, 572. “A literal translation from one language into another obscures the sense”. 29 Cf. PL 38, 1081. “now words, now meanings, now both together”. 30 Epistola 53 ad Paulinum, n. 8; PL 22, 548-549. “manifold meanings lie hidden in its every word”. 31 Epistula 57 ad Pammachium, n. 5: PL 22, 571. “the characteristics of one language”. 9

and elegance of one’s own language. In fact he openly maintains that “unaquaeque lingua … suis proprietatibus loquitur”32. To anyone who objected to him having added or subtracted something he said: “Et quaeso vos, ut huiusmodi ineptias, et superfluas contentiones, ubi nulla est sensus inmutatio declinetis” and again “et nos sequimur, ut ubi nulla est de sensu mutatio, latini sermonis elegantiam conservemus”33. Affirmations which were preceded by a categorical: “a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est”34.

More than a year before the meeting of translators the Instruction Inter Oecumenici of 26 September 196435 had given the first norms on the translation of liturgical texts in n. 40, starting from the obvious fact that they would have to be made “e textu liturgico latino” by experts “linguis biblicis et lingua latina, lingua vernacula” because only thus would it be possible to make a “perfecta … textuum liturgicorum interpretatio popularis”36. There is no mention of faithfulness, only what is implied by the indication of the Latin text as the terminus a quo and the perfecta interpretatio popularis as the terminus ad quem.

It cannot be denied that because the Instruction had abandoned the term “versio” in preference for “interpretatio” an opinion came about among some of those involved in the work of translation that they should move away from literal translation in order to offer the Christian people translations that would facilitate the understanding of texts. This was along the lines of what Pius XII had said in 1943 in about the interpretation of the Sacred Books and now applied to liturgical texts. This meant taking the literal sense as the point of departure but preferring a form of translation which would make the doctrinal aspect of the texts standout. But at the very beginning of the meeting of translators Msgr. René Boudon laid down two cardinal principles for the translation of liturgical texts by using two terms that are complementary, not antithetical: faithful and pastoral.

Particular fidelity to the Word of God but also fidelity to the texts of the Church’s prayer: “Toute une richesse de tradition, toute une valeur de catéchèse sont inclus dans cette langue (le latin liturgique) avec laquelle l’Eglise prie et enseigne en même temps. Une traduction vraie et authentique dans des langages nouveaux doit server la même tradition, faire vivre le même message, transmettre le même enseignement. La fidélité et la vérité des traductions ont un rôle important à jouer: par elles doit se réaliser dans des nouvelles conditions l’unité qu’assurait jusqu’à ce jour l’usage d’une même langue. Par-delà la variété des langues, doivent se retrouver

32 Epistola 106, n. 30: PL 22, 847. “every language … has its own idiomatic way of expressing itself”. 33 Ibid., n. 54: PL 22, 856. “Let me request you to avoid this type of nonsense and useless questions where there is no difference in the sense” “so that I follow the rule that, where there is no change of sense, I write as it sounds best in Latin”. 34 Ibid., n. 2: PL 22, 838. “translated by me faithfully into Latin”. 35 AAS 56 (1964) 877-900. 36 Ibid. 885-886. 10

la même foi et la même louange”37. At the same Conference Msgr. J. Pascher dealt with the relationship between Translation and Tradition, distinguishing exterior tradition “concerning the style and form of texts” from interior tradition “concerning the sense, above all the dogmatic sense and the Christian faith”. Pascher observes that exterior tradition which “in the Roman Liturgy also extends to each of the words, to phrases, to the structure of the prayers and to chants” should be conserved in translation, but because the translation must be made into a language that has its own style, and above all must be pastorally adapted to the capacity of the faithful, it will sometimes be necessary to abandon the exterior tradition in favour of the interior tradition, given that the aim of translation had to be “ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi”38. For translators of liturgical texts this text should be “a rule of great importance, above every other rule relative to Latin style or to any other thing”39. With these premises it seems evident that together with the clarifications offered to the Conference by Dom S. Marsili, O.S.B. on Christian Latin, and by J. Gülden, C.O. on The Style of Liturgical Language, and by H. Schmidt, S.J. from the Bibliografia commentata, where authors who advocate a translation method very different from the literal method appear in first place, and from other Relators, the mentality of translators was directed less along the lines of a fidelity which was above all literal, exterior, terminological and more along pastoral lines, with the accent placed on the difficulty of the task which had be intrusted to them, both for the source language, and for the different modalities that they would have to take account of, such as: prayer, proclamation, chant. This also appears clearly from what Msgr. Boudon said at the conclusion of the Conference which dedicated: ten lines to Latin (terminus a quo), 57 lines to the vernacular (terminus ad quem intermedio) and which, around the relationship between translation and celebration (terminus ad quem finale), spoke of “greatest fidelity” for biblical texts, in the texts of the Order of Mass taken from Sacred Scripture, while allowing the possibility of a “certain adaptation” which could be made up of “changes, additions, variations” for texts coming from ecclesial tradition40.

Given these premises it was certainly not foreseeable that translations of liturgical texts would be presented and approved with an excessive attention to words, phraseology and to Latin style.

37 R. BOUDON, Langue vivante et participation active, in La Maison-Dieu, n. 86 (1966), 26. “The whole richness of tradition, the whole value of catechesis are encapsulated in this language (liturgical Latin) with which the Church prays and teaches at the same time. A true and authentic translation into new languages must serve the same tradition, bring the same message to life, transmit the same teaching. The faithfulness and truthfulness of translations have an important role to play: through them that unity must be attained in new conditions, which up until now was assured by the use of a single language. Beyond the variety of languages the same faith and the same praise must be found”. 38 CELESTINE Pope (422-432), Indiculus, DS 246. 39 Cf. J. PASCHER, Rapporto tra la traduzione e la tradizione, cited in the text. 40 Cf. R. BOUDON, Synthèse et conclusion, in La Maison-Dieu, 86 (1966) 194-200. 11

Different Ways of Translating?

In March 1967 Paul VI granted the possibility of translating the . Cardinal Lercaro, communicating this decision in a long letter to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences added: “On doit préparer une traduction nouvelle, faite avec soin: En outre cette traduction doit être littérale et intégrale”*. And he further wrote; “Il faut prendre les textes tels qu’ils sont, sans les amputer ni les simplifier d’aucune manière. L’adaptation au génie des langues vivantes doit être sobre et discrète”41†. This is the first and only time until the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam that a translation method was indicated which was different from the one already put in place for the translation of liturgical texts that were in the pipeline, and rightly so given the delicacy of translating the Canon into the vernacular.

On the eve of the publication of the Missale Romanum and the Liturgia Horarum in 1969 the Instruction Comme le prévoit, of 25 January 1969, gathered together outline principles and directions to help translators42. The communicative aspect of translation prevails in this Instruction but the call to fidelity in translation is present both in the general principles and in some of the particular provisions.

Among the general principles we read at n.6: “ne suffit pas, lorsqu’on fait une traduction destinée à la liturgie, d’exprimer dans une autre langue le contenu et les idées du texte original. Mais il faut s’efforcer aussi de communiquer fidèlement à un peuple donné et dans son propre langage ce que l’Eglise a voulu communiquer par le texte original à un autre peuple et dans une autre langue. La fidélité d’une traduction ne peut être jugée seulement à partir de chaque mot ou de chaque phrase, mais elle doit l’être d’après le contexte exact de la communication liturgique en conformité avec sa nature et ses modes propres”43.

The following article speaks about “fidelity” in communicating the message under its multiple aspects, and in a particular way: “A) par report à ce qui doit être

* “It will be necessary to prepare a new translation, and one that is made with care. Moreover, this translation should be accurate and integral”. 41 Cf. Notitiae 3 (1967) 289-296. The cited text is found on p. 296. Cf. also the other communications about the translation of the Canon in Notitiae 3 (1967) 326-327 and in particular: “Que la version … rende fidèlement le texte du Canon Romain, sans variations, ni omissions, ni insertions, qui la rendent différente du texte latin”, p. 327 (“The translation…should faithfully render the text of the Roman Canon, without variations, omissions or insertions, which would make it different from the Latin text”). † “The texts should be taken as they are, without mutilations or simplifications of any kind. Adaptations to the character of the spoken tongue should be sober and prudent”. 42 Cf. Notitiae 5 (1969) 3-12. 43 Ibid., n. 4. “It is not sufficient that a liturgical translation merely reproduce the expressions and ideas of the original text. Rather it must faithfully communicate to a given people, and in their own language, that which the Church by means of this given text originally intended to communicate to another people in another time. A faithful translation, therefore, cannot be judged on the basis of individual words: the total context of this specific act of communication must be kept in mind, as well as the literary form proper to the respective language”. 12

communique; B) par rapport à ceux auxquels est adressée la communication; C) par rapport au mode et à la forme de communication”44.

In dealing with what must be communicated the Instruction concerns itself with the “contenu du message, pour lui donner une nouvelle forme, exacte et heureuse”45.

Then in the part relevant to some particular cases the principle enunciated on the occasion of the translation of the Roman Canon is broadened in a vague way to take in other texts: “Certaines formules euchologiques et sacramentelles – par example les prières consécratoires, les anaphores, les préfaces, les exorcismes, celle qui accompagnent une actions, comme l’impositions des mains, les onctions, les signes de croix, etc. – doivent être traduites integre et fideliter, sans variantes, omissions ou insertions”46.

While admitting that the Instruction was directed at Bishops and Liturgical Commissions one can at least ask if it was clear to everyone what that “etc.” contained. It is not to be ruled out that this arrangement instead made it clear that in all the other texts variations, omissions, and additions could be made. It has to be said that in the history of the Church such things were not infrequent. To give some examples it is possible to return and consider the addition of the Filioque on the part of the Churches of the West to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which was defended on the grounds of wishing to make explicit a doctrine believed by everyone but not sufficiently expressed in the brevity of the formula in the Creed. In 796 Paulinus of Aquilea, after affirming that he did not wish to offer a new Creed, defends the right of the hierarchy not only to conserve the deposit of the faith but also, as is well put by A. Palmieri: “de le rendre plus accessible aux fidèles par les moyens d’éclaircissements insérés au symbole”47*. Another example can be drawn from the history of the formation of the Roman Canon, which circulated and was used for centuries with many variants, additions, and omissions before its crystallisation at the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great. The story of the Psalter, the basis of the Church’s prayer, is equally instructive: from the first versions from the LXX to Saint Jerome’s Gallican Psalter, which he himself found inadequate, from the attempt made in 1944 by Pius XII for a more faithful and comprehensible translation, which was already disputed at the time of the Council with the request that a new one be made, the one in fact that we now use in the Liturgy of the Hours.

44 Ibid., n. 7. “In regard to the message itself, in regard to the audience for which it is intended, and in regard to the manner of expression”. 45 Ibid., n. 8. “The content of the message, in order to give it a new, exact and felicitous form”. 46 Ibid., n. 33. “Some euchological and sacramental formularies like the consecratory prayers, the anaphoras, prefaces, exorcisms, and those prayers which accompany an action, such as the imposition of hands, the anointing, the signs of the cross, etc., should be translated integrally and faithfully, without variations, omissions, or insertions”. 47 Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, V. FILIOQUE, col. 2314; cf. PAULINUS of Aquileia, in MANSI, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova amplissima collectio, t. XIII, 835 “propter simplicium mentes” – 836 “Suppleverunt … quasi exponendo … sensum”. * “to render it more accessible to the faithful by means of clarifications inserted into the Creed”. 13

The situation of the use of Scripture in Latin in the liturgical books is equally instructive. In some books the Nova vulgata ad interim is still used, in others the official Nova vulgata from the typical edition approved by John Paul II is used48. The Council certainly did not expect a reform that would be carried out in a short space of time. Although a half-century has passed there is still much to be done. One cannot help but think along with Dante: “The laws exist, but who sets the hand to them?”*.

During the meeting of translators the voice of the missionary representatives, both at the level of Relators and of participants, was clearly heard to underline the difficulties they would meet and their request for concrete aid and assistance to overcome them. At the conclusion of the Conference Msgr. R. Boudon said that their problems profoundly touched all the participants, and that he hoped that they would be offered the requested aid and assistance. One gets the impression that neither Comme le prévoit nor Liturgiam authenticam are in fact able to answer all the demands that have been made of them.

The spirit that moved to promulgate the Motu Proprio should drive the Holy See to do more along this line, and not just that, in order to fulfil its own duty and to respect the rights of the faithful and those of their Bishops.

48 A more delicate question is that of the sacramental formulas already approved by the Pope, with additions and variations between different languages and which, according to the principles of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, should be modified and reapproved according to the norm set out in the Letter of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship De interpretatione textuum liturgicorum, 25 March 1973: AAS 66 (1974) 98-99. Analogously we can ask if an can be obliged to present new translations of liturgical books approved before the aforementioned Instruction in light of the new canonical norm. For the Roman Missal it is necessary to take account of the prescriptions in the Decree of the editio typica tertia. * Purgatorio, Canto XVI. 14