6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 1

Recent Events and

Historical Antecedents

1

� ICEL

� The work

� The reversals

� A lectionary excursus

� Historical

precedents

� 1990’s parallels

� Back to ICEL

� The hostilities

� The Response

� Liturgiam Authenticam

� New Missal announced

� New Rules

� New Structures

� Revised ICEL

� Vox Clara

� New Process ?

2

3

� 17 October 1963

� Over a dozen bishops representing

English speaking countries met in Rome

� 6 weeks before promulgation of

Sacrosanctum Concilium

� Goal was to create liturgical texts

acceptable across the English-

speaking world

� SC granted to bishops conferences

the authority “to decide whether,

and to what extent, the vernacular

language is to be used” (36.3)

Venerable English

College in Rome, site of

the October meeting

4

� In January 1964 Paul VI promulgated

motu proprio “Sacram Liturgiam”

� a “restrictive document” according

to Pecklers, designed to facilitate

graduate implementation of SC

� One of most criticized sections:

� Translations could not be

approved by episcopal

conferences alone

� Had to be submitted to the Holy

See for official Vatican approval

(Recognitio)

5

� Bishops’ Conferences of Austria, Germany, Italy and Spain complained

� The French Bishops were the most critical (letter of 7 February 1964):

� “The Council did not decide … that the bishops’ conferences would submit translations for approval by the Apostolic See

� People are say that just two months after its promulgation, that the Constitution is beaten in the breach [and] that decisions made by episcopal assemblies may be effectively neutralized by the Roman Curia …

6

6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 2

� Given complexities and tensions

regarding translation

� Consilium for implementation of

liturgical reforms called a meeting in

Rome

� 249 bishops, translators, liturgical

scholars, composers from 69

countries and 5 continents

� Paul VI addressed the group:

� Translations “have become part of the

rites themselves; they have become

the voice of the church gathered in

prayer …. They are no longer merely

aids to understanding for those

untrained in Latin” 7

� Second meeting for translators held in 1967

� Drafted a document on translation [originally in French]

� Latin version presented to Consilium in 1968

� Final version approved by Paul VI in 1969

� Envisioned 3 stages for gradual

implementation of vernacular

1. Preliminary translation of typical

editions of liturgical books

2. Subsequent revision based evaluation

and pastoral experience in the

reception of the texts

3. New liturgical compositions

8

� Operative principle was “dynamic

equivalence”

� “faithful to the art of communication in all of

its aspects (7)

� “a faithful translation .. Cannot be judged on

the basis of individual words” (6)

� “the language chosen should be that in

‘common’ usage … suited to the great

number of the faithful who speak it …

everyday … even children … (15)

� 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.9

� 1972 - eight members of the International Theological Commission wrote to Paul VI

� Expressing urgent concern that the unity and purity of the Catholic faith

� Severely compromised by inaccurate and theologically suspect translations of liturgical texts

� Complained that the Congregation for Divine Worship was unwisely relying on local bishops’ conferences to judge the quality of translated texts

� Signatories included the future Cardinals Medina and Ratzinger

� Under Cardinal Media in 2001 Liturgiam Authenticam was promulgated

10

Cardinal Medina

At a

2006 Ordination

11

19731973• ICEL completes work on first edition of Sacramentary

• ICEL recommends Sacramentary be introduced ad

experimentum [e.g., 5 years]

19751975• Sacramentary approved without time restriction

19821982

• ICEL begins revision consultations, e.g., complete rewrite of collects and 3 year cycle

19841984

• Growing rift between ICEL and Congregation for Divine Worship

� Cardinal Thomas Winning, Archbishop of

Glasgow in 1990’s

� Criticized the Congregation for Divine

worship’s excessive intervention in ICEL’s work

� He argued it was an attack on the

fundamental principles of collegiality

� If bishops’ conferences approved liturgical

translations as doctrinally sound, properly

translated, and proclaimable [Pecklers, 57] it

was not the congregation’s place to deem

otherwise

� Korean and Japanese Episcopal

Conferences during Asian Synod (1998)

� Argued their situation is further complicated

because no one in the Congregation was

proficient in their languages12

6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 3

13

1990’s1990’s• ICEL continues work on revising the Sacramentary

19961996

• After 10 years of study, and 5 years of debate, US bishops approve new sacramentary with 2/3rds vote

19961996

• The 10 other bishops’ conferences in ICEL approve the new sacramentary

19981998

• Each of the 11 conferences of bishops submitted the new sacramentary to Rome for approval

• Approval never was given

14

19941994

• Vatican withdraws its 1992 permission to employ the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for liturgical use

19941994

• permission for liturgical use of Psalter from Revised New American Bible, approved by the US bishops (1991) denied

• the lectionary that the US bishops had submitted in 1992 as reliant upon these translations was thus rejected

19961996

• Rome required USCC President to withdraw the imprimatur US bishops had given to the ICEL Psalter

19971997

• Rome rejected ordination rite approved by US Bishops in 1996 for its “flawed English Translation”

15

� The Council of Trent required the use

of the Vulgate in Worship, but said

nothing about biblical translations

� 1564 the post-conciliar Rules of the

Index warned against indiscriminate

distribution of vernacular translations

� Recognized that the bishop or inquisitor

could permit the reading of vernacular

translations done by Catholic authors;

� Yet the magisterium said nothing about

the base for the vernacular translation

16

� 1936 Bishop Edwin Vincent O'Hara of Great Falls

� Chair, bishops committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (C.C.D.),

� called for new translation of the New Testament

� From the Vulgate [not from Greek as Rome was directing]

� This proposal led to the founding of the Catholic Biblical Association

� Confraternity version was published in 1941

� With a frontal letter from Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, president of the Roman Biblical Commission

17

� Especially from Charles J. Callan, O.P.

� Editor of Homiletic and Pastoral Review

� Only US consultor to Rome’s Biblical

Commission

� In 1937 published a revised translation of the

NT from the Greek

� Callan informed Bishop O’Hara

� that he was authorized to state that the

Roman commission had given no approval to

the translation

� the letter from Tisserant was not "to be

construed into meaning a formal approval by

that authoritative … body of the Confraternity

New Testament.18

6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 4

� O’Hara’s response:

� “[I am] surprised that you should deem it necessary to … to make known that the Biblical Commission has given no official approval …

� Whoever supposed it had!

� No one to my knowledge asked the Biblical Commission to give such official approval."

19

� Enter Cardinal Tisserant (at Callan’s bequest)

� Concerned about “certain stylistic divergencies” from Callan’s edition;

� recommended a serious revision, which should be entrusted to the representative of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in America, the Very Reverend Father Charles J. Callan, O.P

� In preparing the response Bishop

O’Hara enlisted the help of Archbishop John T. McNicholas, O.P.O.P.O.P.O.P.

� Student Master when Callan was a

student

� Besides exploding the delusion that

Callan was a US leading biblical

scholar

� McNicholas recommended was

that the episcopal committee

should frankly tell Tisserant: "that

we as Bishops [are] charged by the

whole U.S. hierarchy to undertake

the work of the new translation”20

� The committee was "correct,“ in stating that the Biblical

Commission did "not wish to be associated officially with

the work of revision," for:

� It is the unquestioned privilege of the Episcopal

Hierarchy to procure for the faithful committed to

their care suitable translations in the vernacular of the

Sacred Scriptures …. we cordially thank for [you] the

frankness of [your] statement in his regard.

� Tisserant concluded

� "it is enough for me to know that the Members of the

Episcopal Committee are personally supervising the

preparation of the revised English Translation of the

Sacred Scriptures: I had never doubted their capacity

and zeal." 21

� There are numerous parallelsbetween Callan’s efforts to undermine the publication of the Confraternity edition and the 1994 decision of the C.D.F. to have the NCCB withdraw its approval of the NRSV and the revised NAB.

� On both occasions, the translations had the approval of the competent episcopal authority,

� In both instances someone bypassed the bishops to appeal to Rome.

� In 1942 the bishops were bold and successful in asserting their rights

22

� In 1990, the NCCB approved criteria for inclusive language drawn up by the bishops' Committee on Doctrine and their Committee on the Liturgy.

� With the approval of the NCCB, the new lectionary, based on the revision of the NAB, was sent to the Congregation for Worship in Rome for approval.

� The bishops subsequently approved a lectionary derived from the NRSV, as their counterparts in Canada had already done.

� This was the decision that the C.D.F. told the Congregation for Worship to have the bishops reverse.

23

� The 1983 Code of Canon Law altered the mode of approbation for vernacular translations.

� Publication of vernacular translations now had to be approved by "the Apostolic See or by the conference of bishops" (Canon 825).

� This is a significant development since the Rules of the Index in 1564, which left approval of vernacular translations exclusively to the local bishop or inquisitor -position maintained by Tisserant in 1942.

� The recent action of the C.D.F. seems to imply to a historian that, while approval for a vernacular translation can be given by either of the competent authorities, approval by a conference can be withdrawn by the higher authority.

24

6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 5

25

� October 1999: Cardinal Medina

demands widespread changes

in ICEL’s mandate, structures and personnel

� ICEL accused of paraphrasing rather than translating,

making alterations without prior authorization, limiting

the bishops power to obtain corrections or

improvements, adding original texts, etc.

� ICEL was not in a position to render adequate service to

the bishops, the Holy See or the English-speaking

faithful.

� The Congregation directed the bishops to revise ICEL’s

statutes within six months, limiting its work to the strict

translation of Roman liturgical texts, requiring anyone

involved in ICEL to obtain the nihil obstat of the

Congregation to assume and maintain their role (Tom

Elich) 26

� Bishop Maurice Taylor (Scotland)

believed it "a duty of conscience" to

speak out

� "The impression is given, and indeed is

seemingly fostered by some, that ICEL is

a recalcitrant group of people,

uncooperative, even disobedient. This

is mistaken and untrue .... One is

tempted to suspect that, no matter

what ICEL does, its work will always be

criticized by some because their minds

are made up that the mixed commission

is incorrigible and unworthy of

continued existence." [2002]27 28

� In 2000 John Paul II “authorized” the

publication of an editio typica tertia of

the Roman Missal

� While not published until 2002

� And published in an emended edition in 2008

� This publication effected ended all translation

processes into the vernacular

� Along with the MR was a new General

Instruction

� Officially translated into English with US

adaptations in 2003

29

� 2001: Vatican issues Liturgiam Authenticam

� These not only replaceComme le prévoit

� But radically reversed the principles for translation

� The power of the recognitio; “not a mere formality, but … an exercise of the power of governance, which is absolutely necessary (in the absence of which the act of the Conference of Bishops entirely in no way attains legal force); and modifications (even substantial ones) may be introduced by means of it.” [80] 30

“the original text, insofar

as possible, must be

translated integrally and in

the most exact manner,

without omissions or

additions in terms of their

content, and without

paraphrases or glosses (20)

6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 6

� Liturgiam Authenticam regulates � not only the translation of prayer texts

� but also biblical texts for worship.

� LA instructs that the 1979 revised Latin version of St. Jerome’s Latin Bible (the Vulgate) called the Neo-Vulgate must be the base text for all biblical translations.

� Catholic Biblical Association � in a letter to the US bishops they called

attention to the directive of Pope Paul VI (27 June 1971) that "the [Pontifical Biblical] Commission must be consulted before the issuance of new norms on biblical matters."

� They were not consulted

31

this document “contains

provisions detrimental to

solid biblical scholarship…

and advocates policies that

make it difficult to produce

good vernacular

translations.” Executive

Committee, Catholic Biblical

Association

� According to Bishop Donald Trautman, then chair of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy� the Congregation for Divine Worship and

Discipline of the Sacraments in 2001 issued a 36-page instruction on liturgical translation without collegial or collaborative effort.

� The Cardinal and Bishop members of the Congregation were not consulted by mail or in a plenary session.

� The Pontifical Biblical Commission was notformally consulted.

� The Episcopal Conferences were notconsulted.

� Bishop Peter Culliane, president of the New Zealand Bishops’ Conference and its delegate to (ICEL) stated: “For more than two years, the bishops appointed to represent the English-speaking countries have tried to meet with the Congregation for Divine Worship …” to no avail. 32

33

� In response to Cardinal Medina’s 1999 letter

� special meeting of the presidents of bishops conferences

was held

� the Episcopal Board also met and a subcommittee of

bishops drafted a new charter for the work of

� ICEL’s secretariat and Advisory Committee were not

invited into the process

34

� 2000 US bishops agreed to comply

with requests of Medina’s letter

� Further revisions required when

Liturgiam Authenticam appeared

� October 2002 Cardinal Arinze then

requested further changes

� US bishops approved in 2003

� A new structure was implemented

� redefining roles

� replacing the Advisory Committee with a

Consultants Committee

� disbanding the standing sub-committees

� Translation

� Original texts

� Presentation of texts

� Music

� Replaced by ad hoc committees

� Role of Episcopal Board strengthened

� These changes created a “formal”

relationship between ICEL and the

Congregation for Divine Worship and

the Discipline of the Sacraments35

� 2002 John Paul II established Vox

Clara Committee

� “to assist and advise the Congregation

for Divine Worship and the Discipline of

the Sacraments in fulfilling its

responsibilities with regard to the

English translations of liturgical texts”

� Chaired by chaired by Cardinal George

Pell, Sydney (Australia)

36

� Has met c. 20 times in Rome

� Reviewing every translation submitted by ICEL

� And translations submitted by Bishops’ conferences with their adaptations

6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 7

� February, 2004

� Draft translation of the Order of Mass

presented to English–speaking

Conferences of Bishops from ICEL

� Each section of the Missal would go

through two drafts,

� the first (the “green book”) would undergo

review and modification

� the second (the “gray book”) would be

presented for canonical vote by the

Conferences of Bishops

� then submitted to the Vatican Congregation

for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the

Sacraments for recognitio

� Vox Clara would also review in the process

37

� June 2006

� Order of Mass and US adaptations is approvedby US Bishops [after 3 drafts]

� The 11 other sections of the sacramentary would now be considered

� June 2008

� Rome gives recognitio for the Order of Mass

� While it cannot be used, Musicians can now begin setting texts

� November 2008, June 2009, November 2009

� US Bishops approve other segments of Missal

� 28 April 2010, Vox Clara in meeting with Benedict XVI presented him with New English Translation of the Roman Missal

� Recognitio dated 26 March 2010

38

� Even though

� The recognitio was dated 26 March

2010

� And announced 28 April 2010

� The “corrected” texts were not

released on line until 25 August 2010

� The Masses for Reconciliation and

For Various Needs until November

� And the texts to the publishers until

30 December 2010

� These contained

� Over 100 changes in the Ordo Missae

� As many as 10,000 changes overall39

� For example, the “absolution” at the

Penitential Rite

40

� They inserted two more “I believe” in

the creed, to make real English

sentences [although not strictly

following LitAuth

41 42

� On the other hand

� others are so problematic

� that a group of people who worked

on the translation

� felt compelled to issue an

anonymous critique outlining 13 areas

of difficulty

6/6/2011

Copyright Edward Foley © - reproduction is

not allowed 8

� The Process

� May be the most

problematic part of the

New Missal

� And what needs to be

avoided in the future

43