Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Interpreting Liturgical Norms
ROME, SEPT. 2, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Related to our commentary on the interpretation of liturgical laws (see Aug. 19) there were other questions regarding legal documents. A reader from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, asked:
"Is 'Liturgiam Authenticam' a doctrine of the Church, or just a changing opinion of the Vatican bureaucrats?
"After hearing so much about how 'Liturgiam Authenticam' called for a return to authentic liturgy and banned inclusive language, I was very much surprised that Pope Benedict XVI approved a revision of the Byzantine Mass that uses inclusive language. I was reading on their Web site at byzcath.org about people upset because Christ no longer becomes 'man' but becomes 'like us' and how words like 'mankind' are changed to 'all of us.' They also seem to have made positive changes to improve the Byzantine liturgy and make it more like the Roman Mass.
"What does this mean for regular Catholics? Was this reworking of the translation of the Roman Catholic Mass to be more authentic that we've been hearing about, all for nothing? If not, how can some Catholics have one standard and other Catholics have a totally different standard? Can a pope change this type of doctrine whenever he wants? I'm surprised at this because I thought Pope Benedict XVI was going to keep 'Liturgiam Authenticam.'"
First of all, "Liturgiam Authenticam" is neither the mere opinion of some officials nor, strictly speaking, a doctrinal document. It is an "instruction," a technical legal document that establishes binding rules regarding how to translate liturgical texts from Latin into any other language.
It is an authoritative document because it was expressly approved by the Pope as a law of the Church, and its provisions can only be abrogated or modified by another similar document duly approved by the present or a future pontiff. Thus far no such document has been published, and the norms of "Liturgiam Authenticam" are being rigorously applied for the translation of the liturgy into English and other modern languages.
Proof of this is the new, much improved English translation of the ordinary of the Mass that was recently approved by the Holy See. It is hoped that Catholics will be able to hear it in their parishes within two years or so, once the translation and approval of the entire missal is finished.
As we said, it is not a doctrinal document as such, although its provisions do touch upon some doctrinal questions such as the need to preserve certain theological nuances in translations. Thus, for example, after the document was published it became necessary for translators to avoid some uses of so-called inclusive language in English which could obscure the Christological references in some Old Testament or liturgical texts.
The document did not condemn the use of inclusive language per se, although this style could be considered as inflicting cruel and unusual punishment upon the syntax of the English tongue.
Second, "Liturgiam Authenticam" is a document that refers exclusively to the Latin liturgy. Therefore its norms have no legal force with respect to the translation of any Eastern liturgy. An Eastern translator would be wise to take its common-sense provisos into account but would not be legally bound to do so.
According to Canon 657.2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the authority that approves the translation of texts for liturgical use in those Eastern Churches that have patriarchs or major archbishops is the principal authority of each respective Church. All that he is required to do is to send a report to the Holy See.
Therefore it is possible (but not certain) that the translations of the Byzantine liturgy that reportedly upset some members of the faithful were actually never revised in Rome at all.
It is almost certain that they were not revised by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, the Vatican dicastery that issued "Liturgiam Authenticam," as this congregation deals almost exclusively with the Latin liturgy.
A reader from Dublin, Ireland, asked: "Now that the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal has been published, does this mean that adaptations approved to the old GIRM are abrogated? Specifically, some issues related to posture were the subject of approved adaptations here in Ireland; are these now done away with unless and until the bishops apply again for the same permissions? Liturgists I have consulted here are divided over the question, and we wish to start teaching people how to behave at Mass as there is widespread confusion and multiple practices on place."
I would say that the answer is yes and that any special permission would have to be asked for again.
If we see the example of the approval of the translation of the new GIRM in the United States, we can get an idea of the process involved. The U.S. bishops presented two documents to the Holy See: the translation of the GIRM and a request for approved adaptations for use in the United States.
The Holy See approved most of the proposed adaptations and modified some others. It also stipulated that rather than publishing them as a separate document, they were to be incorporated into the text of the GIRM itself.
As a result, some articles of the GIRM for use in the U.S. have the translation from the Latin and then an indication of the approved adaptation with the phrase: "In the dioceses of the United States "
This would also be the likely procedure involved if the bishops in Ireland had wished to incorporate any former or new adaptations when approving the translation.
Related to our commentary on the interpretation of liturgical laws (see Aug. 19) there were other questions regarding legal documents. A reader from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, asked:
"Is 'Liturgiam Authenticam' a doctrine of the Church, or just a changing opinion of the Vatican bureaucrats?
"After hearing so much about how 'Liturgiam Authenticam' called for a return to authentic liturgy and banned inclusive language, I was very much surprised that Pope Benedict XVI approved a revision of the Byzantine Mass that uses inclusive language. I was reading on their Web site at byzcath.org about people upset because Christ no longer becomes 'man' but becomes 'like us' and how words like 'mankind' are changed to 'all of us.' They also seem to have made positive changes to improve the Byzantine liturgy and make it more like the Roman Mass.
"What does this mean for regular Catholics? Was this reworking of the translation of the Roman Catholic Mass to be more authentic that we've been hearing about, all for nothing? If not, how can some Catholics have one standard and other Catholics have a totally different standard? Can a pope change this type of doctrine whenever he wants? I'm surprised at this because I thought Pope Benedict XVI was going to keep 'Liturgiam Authenticam.'"
First of all, "Liturgiam Authenticam" is neither the mere opinion of some officials nor, strictly speaking, a doctrinal document. It is an "instruction," a technical legal document that establishes binding rules regarding how to translate liturgical texts from Latin into any other language.
It is an authoritative document because it was expressly approved by the Pope as a law of the Church, and its provisions can only be abrogated or modified by another similar document duly approved by the present or a future pontiff. Thus far no such document has been published, and the norms of "Liturgiam Authenticam" are being rigorously applied for the translation of the liturgy into English and other modern languages.
Proof of this is the new, much improved English translation of the ordinary of the Mass that was recently approved by the Holy See. It is hoped that Catholics will be able to hear it in their parishes within two years or so, once the translation and approval of the entire missal is finished.
As we said, it is not a doctrinal document as such, although its provisions do touch upon some doctrinal questions such as the need to preserve certain theological nuances in translations. Thus, for example, after the document was published it became necessary for translators to avoid some uses of so-called inclusive language in English which could obscure the Christological references in some Old Testament or liturgical texts.
The document did not condemn the use of inclusive language per se, although this style could be considered as inflicting cruel and unusual punishment upon the syntax of the English tongue.
Second, "Liturgiam Authenticam" is a document that refers exclusively to the Latin liturgy. Therefore its norms have no legal force with respect to the translation of any Eastern liturgy. An Eastern translator would be wise to take its common-sense provisos into account but would not be legally bound to do so.
According to Canon 657.2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the authority that approves the translation of texts for liturgical use in those Eastern Churches that have patriarchs or major archbishops is the principal authority of each respective Church. All that he is required to do is to send a report to the Holy See.
Therefore it is possible (but not certain) that the translations of the Byzantine liturgy that reportedly upset some members of the faithful were actually never revised in Rome at all.
It is almost certain that they were not revised by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, the Vatican dicastery that issued "Liturgiam Authenticam," as this congregation deals almost exclusively with the Latin liturgy.
A reader from Dublin, Ireland, asked: "Now that the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal has been published, does this mean that adaptations approved to the old GIRM are abrogated? Specifically, some issues related to posture were the subject of approved adaptations here in Ireland; are these now done away with unless and until the bishops apply again for the same permissions? Liturgists I have consulted here are divided over the question, and we wish to start teaching people how to behave at Mass as there is widespread confusion and multiple practices on place."
I would say that the answer is yes and that any special permission would have to be asked for again.
If we see the example of the approval of the translation of the new GIRM in the United States, we can get an idea of the process involved. The U.S. bishops presented two documents to the Holy See: the translation of the GIRM and a request for approved adaptations for use in the United States.
The Holy See approved most of the proposed adaptations and modified some others. It also stipulated that rather than publishing them as a separate document, they were to be incorporated into the text of the GIRM itself.
As a result, some articles of the GIRM for use in the U.S. have the translation from the Latin and then an indication of the approved adaptation with the phrase: "In the dioceses of the United States "
This would also be the likely procedure involved if the bishops in Ireland had wished to incorporate any former or new adaptations when approving the translation.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
3:03 PM
1 Comments:
"I was reading on their Web site at byzcath.org about people upset because Christ no longer becomes 'man' but becomes 'like us' ..."
You may have read this, but whoever wrote it was grossly misinformed. At two points in the liturgy (Monogenes, Creed) - both in the previous and new translation - it is stated that Christ became man.
"They also seem to have made positive changes to improve the Byzantine liturgy and make it more like the Roman Mass. "
While I agree with the first part of your sentence, I am not at all certain about what you mean by thes econd.
By
Anonymous, at 12:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home