The Catholic Biblical Association of America

Presentation at Panel Discussion at November 2001 USCCB Meeting

LITURGIAM AUTHENTICAM: THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

USCCB, November 13, 2001

Avery Dulles, S.J.

According to memorandum dated October 26, 2001, my assignment is to provide "a theological introduction, reflecting on the central purpose of the Instruction to assure the integral transmission of Revelation through the translation of scriptural and liturgical texts."

The very title "authentic liturgy" indicates the essential purpose. LA has the intention of correcting liturgical translations that are judged unfaithful to the Roman Missal. More specifically, it seeks to rectify the principles set forth in a previous directive, Comme le prévoit, issued by the Consilium on the Liturgy in 1969.⁽¹⁾

These earlier principles have been blamed for the rather free and pedestrian translations produced by ICEL and printed in the Missal of 1971.

In several speeches and writings Pope John Paul II encouraged a new effort. In 1995, for example, he said to a group of American bishops:

When so many people are thirsting for the living God (Ps 42:2)--whose majesty and mercy are at the heart of liturgical prayer--the Church must respond with a language of praise and worship which fosters respect and gratitude for God's greatness, compassion, and power. When the faithful gather to celebrate the work of our redemption, the language of their prayer--free from doctrinal ambiguity and ideological influence--should foster the dignity and beauty of the celebration itself, while faithfully expressing the Church's faith and unity."⁽²⁾

In its concern for the effective transmission of revelation, LA attends both to the content of the faith (fides quae creditur) and to the attitude of faith (fides qua creditur).

For the content it is important that the translations adhere closely to the texts being translated. LA disavows "creative innnovation" (20) and calls for exact translations "as literal as possible" (56), "without omissions or additions of terms and without paraphrases and glosses" (20). Special care is to be taken in rendering sacramental formulas and articles of the creed (55, 63, 65).

To inculcate the attitude of faith, it is important for the liturgical texts to represent "the voice of the Church at prayer" (27). LA calls for a sacred vocabulary and for a style somewhat removed from everyday speech (27, 47, 50c). The texts, it declares, should offer "words of praise and adoration that foster reverence and gratitude in the face of God's majesty, his power, his mercy, and his transcendent nature" (25).

The twin emphases on accuracy and sacredness will resonate with the aspirations of many priests and lay persons, who are dissatisfied with the vernacular texts in common use today. But the two principles just stated generate corresponding problems. For one thing, some of the terms and images in the original texts are no longer intelligible except to a few scholars. Partly for this reason Comme le prévoit called for accessibility and "creative adaptation" (6, 21, 33, et passim). With the aim of assuring the effective transmission of the faith, it directed that the language be simple and modern. It cautioned against stilted and archaic expressions.

In its insistence on literal accuracy, LA prohibits the altering of texts for the sake of avoiding discrimination (29-32, 57b). Its demand that the grammatical gender and person of the original words be retained is restrictive in comparison with the criteria adopted by the United States Bishops in 1990, which discourage the use of terms such as "man" and "he" in a generic sense.⁽³⁾

The question of language potentially offensive to Jews will, I believe, be taken up by Bishop Brown in his presentation this afternoon.⁽⁴⁾

It would be pointless to speak of fidelity to the original texts without specifying what versions are to be translated. For texts of ecclesiastical composition, the norm for the Latin rite is evidently the Roman Sacramentary (24). Regarding biblical translations, the question is very complex. At one point LA says that the texts for the Latin liturgy are to be taken from the neo-Vulgate (37), which was intended to provide a text well suited to liturgical use.⁽⁵⁾

This approach has clear advantages, since all churches of the Roman rite should have the same readings. These readings should be in continuity with the Roman tradition (4) and be capable of bearing the spiritual interpretations made by the Latin Fathers (41 and 41a).

The neo-Vulgate, however, is not the only norm. In an earlier passage LA, following a directive of Pius XII in Divino afflante Spiritu (DASp 16), says that the translation is to be made directly from the languages in which the Bible was composed, using the neo-Vulgate only as an auxiliary tool (24).⁽⁶⁾

This principle will meet with the approval of biblical scholars, many of whom are dissatisfied with the choice of manuscripts used for the neo-Vulgate.

The principles in different paragraphs are difficult to harmonize. Is it possible to follow critical editions of texts in the original languages (24) and at the same time to adhere as closely to the neo-Vulgate as required by nos. 37-39? If the translators accept textual traditions that depart from the neo-Vulgate, the resultant readings may differ significantly from those in the Latin lectionary.

At certain points LA ventures beyond strictly liturgical matters. In no. 36 it calls for a complete translation of the Bible for private study and prayer that corresponds to the texts used in the liturgy.⁽⁷⁾

There may indeed be good reasons for desiring a common Bible for all English-speaking Catholics. But most Scripture scholars will be dissatisfied with translations that give preference to the neo-Vulgate, as used in the Latin-rite liturgy.

Later paragraphs make provision for coordination between this approved translation, in conformity with the neo-Vulgate, and translations intended for use in non-Latin Catholic churches (LA 90). Mention is also made of cooperation with Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians in the production of ecumenical versions of the Bible (LA 91).⁽⁸⁾

These questions, as well as that question of cooperation with Jews in translating the Hebrew Bible, will, I believe, be discussed by Bishop Brown, in his presentation this afternoon.

As regards its central purpose, I would judge that LA contributes to the integral transmission of the faith by its dual emphasis on literal accuracy and on language conducive to reverence. It also helps to safeguard a sense of family unity and historic continuity among Latin-rite Catholics. As LA is received, it will have to be reconciled with other authoritative documents, which encourage a moderate use of inclusive language, reliance on manuscript traditions foreign to the neo-Vulgate, and sensitivity for the concerns of Eastern Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, and Jews.

NOTES

1. 1. "Instruction du `Consilium' sur la traduction des textes liturgiques pour la célébration avec le Peuple," La Documentation Catholique, 20 April 1969, 367-71. An English translation exists in pamphlet form: Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Translation of Liturgical Texts, January 25, 1969 (Washington, D.C.: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1969).

2. 2. John Paul II, Ad Limina address to the bishops of California, Nevada, and Hawaii, L'Osservatore Romano, December 4, 1993; Origins 23 (January 13, 1994): 538-40, at 539.

3. 3. United States Bishops, "Inclusive Language in Liturgy: Scriptural Texts," Origins 20 (November 29, 1990): 405-8.

4. 4. I would assume that the "Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (no. 4)" of 1974 and the "Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church" of 1985, both produced by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, still stand. These documents comment on the problems raised by the term "Jews" in the Fourth Gospel and the term "Pharisee" in other New Testament texts.

5. 5. Paul VI, Address to the Roman Curia, December 23, 1966 (AAS 59 [1967]: 53-54); Address to the College of Cardinals, December 22, 1977 (L'Osservatore Romano, 23 December 1977, 1). See also John Paul II, Scripturarum thesaurus, §§2-3 (AAS 71 [1979]: 557-59).

6. 6. The words "auxiliary tool" may not capture the precise meaning of subsidium. It could be translated more generally as an "aid" or "resource." To avoid the appearance of a contradiction with other parts of the Instruction, LA adds "in the manner described elsewhere in this Instruction."

7. 7. LA 50a says that the language in the liturgy and that of the vernacular translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be appropriately coordinated. In its biblical quotations, the English translation of the CCC follows, in general, the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version, neither of which is based on the neo-Vulgate.

8. 8. The 1987 Guidelines for ecumenical translations published by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in 1987, which are mentioned favorably by John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint §44, recommend that ecumenical translations of the Old Testament take the Masoretic text as a basis, while making use of Greek and Syriac texts for some of the deuterocanonical books. In this connection it may also be recalled that the Revised Standard Version was published with an imprimatur in 1965.

433 Caldwell Hall
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC 20064
(202) 319-5519
e-mail:cua-cathbib@cua.edu