Worship Times

This past spring, liturgists were abuzz with the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam (The Authentic Liturgy), an instruction from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. The subtitle gets a bit more into the content: On the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy. There is actually little that is new in this instruction; most guidelines have been in effect for selective portions of the church’s publications for many years, dating back at least to the appearance of the English-language catechism several years ago.

Inclusive language does take a big hit from Cardinal Estevez and his congregation. The Vatican also expects each national bishops’ conference to submit a list of vernacular-language hymns in five years. It is also no news that the CDWS holds a very conservative line with a literal translation of biblical texts and liturgical prayers. Rome is genuinely concerned with issues of divisiveness, language, unity and the centralization of power. They trample a bit on the responsibilities of bishops’ conferences while handing them rather substantial busy work for the next five years.

What the bishops are saying about Liturgiam Authenticam

Bishop Donald W. Trautman expressed cautious disappointment. He finds the translation norms as “confining and not realistic in terms of present standards used by translators.” He also offered, “The way we pray should be the way we speak to God in an ordinary way. The liturgical prayer of the church, I think, should reflect the values of the individual who prays to God each day.” Bishop Richard J. Sklba echoed concern with two of the document’s translation norms: its preference for the neo-vulgate Latin Bible over the actual biblical languages, and “the issue of literal versus conceptually equivalent translations.”

“It is now our hope and expectation that there will be a much quicker approval of liturgical texts,” said Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, the NCCB president. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” according to Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. “When you get an actual translation, then you’ll see if it’s acceptable or not. Rules are only rules until they’re put into practice.” George mentioned the instruction’s emphasis on inculturation as the bishop’s responsibility, but that is not a novel idea; it was set forth nearly 40 years ago in the Second Vatican Council.

Bishop Maurice Taylor of Scotland was critical, finding that the document threatens to undermine the values of liturgical renewal. Indeed, more power and authority would be centralized with the CDWS. Taylor commented that this “seems to go against some of the principal values that were stated in the Second Vatican Council, notably the principle of subsidiarity — that decisions should be taken not at the top, but at the lowest possible level.”

Bishop Peter Cullinane of New Zealand comes down hard on Liturgiam Authenticam. The CDWS wants the development “of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language [even if this involves] a certain manner of speech that is obsolete in daily usage” (LA 27). Bishop Cullinane points out that Vatican II decried “the split between religious faith and daily life” as one of the worst errors of our time. “Do we want the language of our faith to be a language that we ‘put on’ for occasions? Aren’t we trying to bring about a realization that the whole of life is holy?”

The bishop also comments, “We should not have to depend on a manner of speech that is obsolete in order to create a sense of the holy.” Good writers can be artistic with any language. If the question is one of quality, the CDWS has dodged that issue ably. By insisting on the use of Latin syntax and outdated modes of expression, they attempt to impose obedience for its own sake. They miss the point: It’s about the sanctification of people, not their syntax. Bishop Cullinane, the New Zealand representative on ICEL, also reports that the CDWS avoided attempts to meet with English-speaking bishops for more than two years, even after the pope had asked the congregation to collaborate with the bishops. “The present law of the church entrusts to bishops’ conferences the work of preparing and approving translations of the liturgy,” says Cullinane. “These are then submitted to the Holy See for its confirmation.” Even though the new document provides for a more involved role for the CDWS, one can’t help but notice a power play for what it is.

What you will be saying about Liturgiam Authenticam

If this instruction is implemented with absolute rigor, you will have your own say, as it were. The Latin et cum spiritu tuo will be rendered more accurately as “and with your spirit” instead of “and also with you.” You’ll no longer be able to tell the Nicene Creed and Apostles’ Creed apart by the first word. You’ll have to remember that Credo will be rendered “I believe.” No more “We, the church” either; the preference is to retain the abstract third person “she” when speaking of the people of God. No doubt some enthusiastic pastors are already implementing changes. Officially we have until the publication of the new sacramentary (which will now be called the Roman Missal even though the readings are published separately in the lectionary). 

What the document says on inclusive language

Liturgiam Authenticam hopes for the creation by “gradual development, in each vernacular, of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language” (27). This worthy goal is undermined by a pronouncement in the same paragraph that “it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context.” A passing fashion of the past is deemed acceptable in this circumstance, but efforts to utilize contemporary inclusive forms are rejected wholesale, even if they are part of scholarly usage and natural development of the language.

Concern that the church “should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms” (30) is an empty complaint; the movement for inclusive language has been strongest within the church. The document prefers to lean on the “classics” as a guide to language (32) rather than be part of an initiative to change culture for the better. Although a proud hope that liturgical language “itself contributes to the development” of culture (47), it is hard to see how a regurgitation of Whitman or Dickinson, Bronte or Dickens would add anything of Christ to the prevailing culture of our times.

Paragraph 42 does have a fine thought that the biblical translator “should also bear in mind that the word of God proclaimed in the Liturgy is not simply an historical document. For the biblical text treats not only of the great persons and events of the Old and New Testaments, but also of the mysteries of salvation, and thus refers to the faithful of the present age and to their lives.” However, the literal approach must supersede “choices that will enable the hearer to recognize himself (sic) and the dimensions of his (sic) own life as vividly as possible in the persons and events found in the text.”

ML
What do YOU Think?
Send an e-mail to ML Editor or post an entry on the ML Current Issue Discussion Board. (All submissions become the property of RPI and may be edited for length.)