Translation.

As the entire Catholic blogosphere knows by now, in the next few days the U. S. Bishops will vote on the new English translation of the liturgy:

The head of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy expects a showdown in Los Angeles this week.

After years of disputes over the English that is used in the 1970 English translation of the Order of the Mass, the bishops’ conference will vote on a proposed new translation of the Order of the Mass that is intended to be more faithful to the original Latin and more fitting for worship. Extensive debate is expected between bishops in favor of a more sacred, noble style and those who want simpler, more contemporary language.

The bishops, who will meet for their annual spring meeting June 15-17, are considering a new translation of the Order of the Mass proposed by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). That’s the panel created during the Second Vatican Council by the bishops’ conferences of 16 English-speaking nations to translate the Missal from the Latin. The Holy See published a new version of the Roman Missal in Latin in 2002, prompting the need for a new translation.

I’m hoping and praying to see new, accurately translated texts.  I’ve only been trying to teach myself Latin for a few weeks, but already I can see how poorly the existing liturgy meshes with the Roman Missal that is supposed to be the liturgy of the universal church.  Here’s the example in the NCR article linked above:

The Latin text: “hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae.”

ICEL’s 1970 translation: “this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life.”

Credo’s translation: “a pure victim, a holy victim, a spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life.”

After only a few weeks of learning Latin, even I can figure this out:  hostiam = victim, Panem = bread; puram = pure, sanctam = holy, immaculatam = without spot (macula = spot); vitae = of life, aeternae = eternal.

Um.  Yeah.  Is this supposed to be difficult?

Nevertheless, some disagree — in ways that betray concerns that are not about accuracy, but rather, about distaste for the way things are put in the source.

But Bishop Trautman told the Register that he and about half of the nation’s bishops believe the proposed text contains too many complicated words, as well as sentences and phrases that are too long. The words “precious chalice,” for example, replace the word “cup” during the consecration prayers.

“To me, ‘precious chalice’ says something gold with diamonds all around it,” Bishop Trautman said. “Jesus used a drinking cup at the last supper, not a precious chalice.”

I’m assuming that it’s not the cup, but the contents, that makes the vessel precious. 

Archbishop Chaput, of Denver, has the right attitude:  “…the Holy See has a much clearer perspective on how to interpret Vatican II than any individual bishop or any bishops’ conference,” he said in an interview. “We shouldn’t confuse our own reading of the council with its accurate interpretation. That work belongs to the Holy See.” 

Here’s another example:

…in the beginning of Eucharistic Prayer I, below, the words in uppercase were simply left untranslated, in accord with the principle of “dynamic equivalence”:

Te IGITUR, CLEMENTISSIME Pater,
Per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, DOMINUM NOSTRUM,
SUPPLICES rogamus AC PETIMUS,
Uti accepta habeas
Et benedicas
Haec dona, HAEC MUNERA,
HAEC SANCTA sacrificia ILLIBATA.

In the following text, the familiar 1970 ICEL translation of the Latin text above, the words in uppercase were not in the Latin text:

We COME TO you, Father,
WITH PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING,
Through Jesus Christ your Son.
Through him we ask you to accept and bless
These gifts WE OFFER YOU IN sacrifice.

The 1970 text leaves untranslated 12 Latin words out of 28, and adds 10 English words that were not in the original Latin.

Translators must always struggle with idioms and style; but the proper goal should always be faithfulness to the original text, with an eye to the purpose of the text.  Translators of novels, of newspaper articles, of scientific journals, of history textbooks all have different definitions of faithfulness.  The purpose of this text is, in fact, ceremonial:  It’s liturgy.  It’s rite.  This says to me that literal faithfulness to the words is the most important goal.

What, after all, is the point of leaving out Dominum nostrum (Our Lord)?   How does that adhere to the text?  How is that "simplification" not also a poverty?