MATL - A Theological Question

Prompt: When have you felt particularly gripped by a theological question? How did it come up?Did you reach a solution? Did you find yourself still grappling with similar questions?

The re-translation of the English version of the Roman Missal, released and implemented beginning with Advent of 2011, posed a major liturgical theological question for me.  The purpose of the re-translation was to emphasize the importance of ‘most accurate or literal translation possible’ of the original Latin. This decree stated that the vernacular translations should contain no paraphrasing or adaptation of the phrases.  The reissue created changes most visibly within the Mass, such as using "And with your spirit," rather than "also with you" as a responsorial to an offering of peace, or altering the order and content of the Gloria, "Peace to God's People on Earth," becoming "and on Earth, peace to men of Good Will."

During the Second Vatican Council, much discussion was devoted to vernacular language. The purpose of allowing the business and teachings of the Church to occur in vernacular language was to deepen the connection and spirituality of the congregation to the various liturgies they engaged with. There was wide recognition that Latin had long-since ceased to be a primary language in the world- both in terms of commerce and diplomacy.  The Church also recognized its global presence, including areas like Asia and South America, where Latin was not as accessible.  While rote memorization of the "mass parts" or even the Mass itself was certainly possible for Catholics, maintaining the daily operations of the Church in Latin outside of arenas where Latin was a viable and fluent language actually created barriers between the congregation and the Church.  Accepting vernacular translations in no way diminished the tradition of Latin, but embraced the current world content as a new way to reach out and engage with the faithful and, perhaps, to evangelize more effectively.

As anyone who speaks more than one language knows, part of the art of translation resides in translating the intent and content of the words, rather than just the literal translation.  The retranslations are awkward and cumbersome to fluent English speakers- the words lack cadence and flow, and create illogical sentence structures. They are not "good" translations by the standards of any English-speaking individual, however 'literally accurate' they might be.  Indeed, because they are so awkward and illogical, I think the translation actually diminishes the truth of the rite- it creates a barrier between the congregation and the Word.

I struggled, and still struggle, with the intent of the translations. It seems to undo the good works of the Second Vatican- I trend I also see echoed in the calls for a return to more conservative "traditional" (read: pre Second Vatican, post Council of Trent) ideas and standards for the Church. Obviously, as a woman, I feel this would undo what little progress towards integration of women leadership in the Church we have made, and indeed threatens to relegate women to the periphery of the faith. Changing the translations is just the first step of acquiescing to those who are fearful of change.

I have not resolved this theological question. I am open to learning more about doctrine and tradition, but for now, I still quietly say: Peace be with you…and also with you.