Hypothetical: Translation, meaning and validity

[DL82]

The Church works on a translation of the Mass into the native language of a group of people in some part of the world. Anthropologists, linguists and theologians work on the translation diligently, and after some time a translation is sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship, which approves it as a legitimate form of the liturgy.

Due to misunderstandings between the linguists and the theologians, however, the words of institution are garbled nonsense:
That-over-there, animal-carcass, belonging-to-someone.

If the Church approves the Missal with the garbled words of institution, does it become a VALID form? Does Transubstantiation take place even if the Church’s approved words of institution don’t mean “this is my body” to any actual speaker of the language?

 

[e_c]

Remember a few principles…

1. God cooperates with us in this.
2. Human language is controlled by humans.

By those two principles, we can say that yes, it would indeed be valid, though totally unhelpful… or so it seems to me. Perhaps there is a canon that addresses this. Look and see what you find.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Church works on a translation of the Mass into the native language of a group of people in some part of the world. Anthropologists, linguists and theologians work on the translation diligently, and after some time a translation is sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship, which approves it as a legitimate form of the liturgy.

Due to misunderstandings between the linguists and the theologians, however, the words of institution are garbled nonsense:
That-over-there, animal-carcass, belonging-to-someone.

If the Church approves the Missal with the garbled words of institution, does it become a VALID form? Does Transubstantiation take place even if the Church’s approved words of institution don’t mean “this is my body” to any actual speaker of the language?

I am sorry but your hypothetical has nothing to do with the actual process that is in place regarding liturgical translations between a conference of bishops and the Holy See. What you envision is simply not feasible, given the structure of the process.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Remember a few principles…

1. God cooperates with us in this.
2. Human language is controlled by humans.

… or so it seems to me. Perhaps there is a canon that addresses this. Look and see what you find.

Not according to the fundamentals of sacramental theology.

This is a matter of theology…it is not a matter of canon law.

 

[DL82]

I am sorry but your hypothetical has nothing to do with the actual process that is in place regarding liturgical translations between a conference of bishops and the Holy See. What you envision is simply not feasible, given the structure of the process.

Please assume that whatever process the Church has in place for approving a translation is followed in this case. So the question is: what would happen if the Church approved a translation that didn’t relate to spoken language?

A similar case could be: the texts are discovered of an ancient Christian liturgy celebrated by early missionaries to Central Asia - the language they are written in is no longer spoken by any living people. If a priest were to attempt to celebrate this liturgy, but mispronounced every word, because scholars misunderstood how the alphabet of this ancient people worked, would it be valid? Even though no persons, alive or dead, would understand the language that was used.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’d assume, trusting in the Church’s authority to bind and loose - it is valid.

However, there’s a reason the English translation of the Ordinary Form was reissued in 2011 - much of the 1973 ICEL “translation” was hardly a translation.

One would hope that if such a ‘discovery’ were made, it would be corrected swiftly