The Battle over Liturgiam Authenticam Instruction on the Translation
Abstract
In 2017, Pope Francis appointed a commission to investigate the continued suitability of the Liturgiam Authenticam Instruction, approved by John Paul II, on the rules of translating liturgical texts. This article shows the genesis of this event, not necessarily the one which is marking the next stage of a “dewojtylization” of the Church, as conservative Vatican commentators would have it. The main reason for the establishment of this commission is the controversy over the two translations into English: the official one, approved in 2010, which is maintained in the spirit of Liturgiam Authenticam, and the earlier one, from 1998, done in accordance with the principles of the Instruction of Paul VI of 1969, which, in fact, recommended the use of the so-called dynamic equivalence, which in practice implied the usage of contemporary colloquial language. In order to understand the essence of the dispute, the author of this article presents the concept of dynamic equivalence developed by Pastor Eugene Nida, pointing to its strengths and weaknesses. The former mainly lies in the fact that in the years around the Council it was the first serious scientific theory of translation. That concept is also full of weaknesses, which are reflected in the significant development of translation theory over the past 60 years. The most serious of these is the fact that it reduces the act to the already existing resources of the target language thus inhibiting its development. Therefore, it is essentially the opposite of the method of St. Jerome, adopted in the Catholic tradition. According to the author the Liturgiam Authenticam Instruction takes into account several decades of biblical translation practice in the post-Conciliar spirit, with its successes and failures. The conclusions of this analysis are as follows:
- The absolutization of dynamic equivalence as “the only scientific theory of translation” proves that there is no cooperation between the biblical studies communities and those developing contemporary theories of
- The Liturgiam Authenticam Instruction focuses on what is preventing the process of desacralization of liturgy, as occurring in many Protestant Churches, but also in many post-conciliar Catholic
References
Balcerzan Edward, Ewa Rajewska, Pisarze polscy o sztuce przekładu 1440–2005.
Antologia (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2007).
von Balthasar Hans Urs, „Theologie und Heiligkeit”, Wort und Wahrheit 3 (1948): 881–897.
Brzozowski Jerzy, „Une crise du dialogue: les espérances du Concile Vatican II face aux réalités d’aujourd’hui”, w Discours religieux: langages, textes, traductions, red. Barbara Marczuk-Szwed, Iwona Piechnik, (Kraków: Biblioteka Jagiellońska, 2020), 361–373.
Dolet Etienne, La manière de bien traduire d’une langue en autre (Lyon: b.w., 1540).
Hieronim z Strydonu, „List do Pamachiusza”, w Cyceron, Św. Hieronim, Burgundiusz z Pizy, Leonardo Bruni. O poprawnym przekładaniu. Teksty łacińskie i polski, tłum. Władysław Seńko, Juliusz Domański, Włodzimierz Olszaniec, red. Juliusz Domański, (Kęty: Wydawnictwo Marek Derewiecki, 2006).
Kielar Barbara, Tłumaczenie i koncepcje translatoryczne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988).
Luter Marcin, „List okólny o tłumaczeniach”, w Pisarze polscy o sztuce przekładu 1440–2005. Antologia, red. Edward Balcerzan, Ewa Rajewska, (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 1977).
Meschonnic Henri, Pour la poétique, t. 2, (Paris: Gallimard, 1973).
O’Collins Gerald SJ, Wilkins John, Lost in Translation. The English Language and the Catholic Mass (Collegeville: Liturgical Press Academic, Saint John’s Abbey, 2017).
Pielka Paweł, Eklezjologia Hansa Ursa von Balthasara (w przygotowaniu).
Delisle Jean, „Les nouvelles règles de traduction du Vatican”, Meta. Journal des traducteurs 50/3 (2005): 831–850.
Halverson Sandra, „Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms: The case of »literal translation»”, Culture & Society issue. Translation Spaces 2 (2015): 310–340.
Haquin André, „La réforme liturgique de Vatican II a-t-elle fait preuve de creativité et en quel sens?”, Recherches de science religieuse 101/1 (2013): 53–67. Nida Eugene A., „Zasady przekładu na przykładzie tłumaczenia Biblii”, tłum.
Maria B. Fedewicz, Pamiętnik Literacki LXXII/ 1 (1981): 323–342.
Nadolski Bronisław, „Dookoła prac przekładowych w XVI wieku”, Pamiętnik Literacki, 43/1–2 (1952): 475–487.
Rada do wykonania Konstytucji o Liturgii, „Instrukcja o tłumaczeniu tekstów liturgicznych (Comme le prévoit...), 1969”, Ruch biblijny i liturgiczny 24/6 (1971): 322–323.
https://skoczow.luteranie.pl/nabozenstwa-online/ (dostęp: 13.01.2021)
Ferrone Rita, Notes on the Comitee to Revise Liturgiam Authenticam, 16.03.2017, https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2017/03/16/notes-on-the-committee-to-revise-liturgiam-authenticam/ (dostęp: 19.01.2021).
Grillo Andrea, https://deon.pl/kosciol/komentarze/czy-papiez-franciszek-zmieni-liturgie,379982 (dostęp: 20.02.2021).
Kongregacja Kultu Bożego i Dyscypliny Sakramentów, Instrukcja ‘Liturgiam Authenticam’ z 28 marca 2001, https://opoka.org.pl/biblioteka/ (dostęp: 20.08.2019).
Lamb Christopher, „Pope Francis Corrects Cardinal Sarah on Translation. Association of Catholic Priests”, 16.10.2017, https://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2017/10/pope-francis-corrects-cardinal-sarah-on-translation/ (dostęp: 21.01.2021).
Magister Sandro, „Liturgie, ultime »résistance«”, 15.03.2017, http://www.diakonos.be/settimo-cielo/liturgie-ultime-resistance-une-note-du-professeur-de-marco/, (dostęp: 20.01.2021).
O’Connell Gerard, „Pope Francis has ordered a review of the new Mass translation”, La Stampa (za American Magazine, https://www.americamagazine.org/ faith/2017/01/26/pope-francis-has-ordered-review-new-mass-translation-rules) (dostęp: 27.01.2017).
Osiński Wojciech, „Kraj pustych kościołów”, https://www.tygodnikprzeglad.pl/ kraj-pustych-kosciolow/ (dostęp: 14.01.2021).
Copyright (c) 2021 Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.
