One has to take into conderation the culture and the language of the translation.
In the Spanish culture the evagelists are always referred to as Saint, even in everyday conversation. This is not the custom in the English speaking world. Therefore, the translation from Latin to English was easier than from Latin to Spanish. Because the Spanish speaking world always refers to the evangelists as Saint, it would have been jarring to the ear of the lsiteners. Instead of calling them to be attentive to the Gospel, it would have been a distraction. We are often distracted when something sounds jarring.
In a not so perfect world, to use the common form St. Mark, St. Matthew, St. Luke and St. John would pass very quickly without being noticed by the congregation and they would move right into the Gospel reading without the disatraction. In the end, that’s what you want.
As to abuses, for something to be an abuse it has to be serious, deliberate and with a full understanding of the damage that one is doing. If one of those three elements are missing, it is a mistake, not an abuse. These are rules of moral theology.
JR
From
Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[171.] Among the various abuses there are some which are objectively
graviora delicta or otherwise constitute grave matters, as well as others which are nonetheless to be carefully avoided and corrected. Bearing in mind everything that is treated especially in Chapter I of this Instruction, attention should be paid to what follows.
[174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.
From this you can see that your definition of abuse is not that being used by the Holy See. An abuse is something done contrary to the liturgical law. It need not be serious - grave abuses are a particular class of abuses. One need not know the full implications - simply knowing it’s wrong is enough. You’re right that there’s a difference between a mistake and an abuse, but both need to be, to use
RS’s turn of phrase, “carefully avoided and corrected.”
You’ve actually overlooked a key factor in the case of the Spanish Lectionary, though: if it’s an approved edition of the books, that means that even though it’s a bad translation, it is nonetheless licit, which means it can’t be an abuse.
The cultural “norms” you’re pointing to in this particular translation issue are so minor that I wouldn’t come down too heavy on the translator for slipping in a “Saint” before the evangelist’s name, but since it means he’s riding roughshod over a well-established liturgical tradition I do think it warrants being called a “bad translation.” The bottom line on translation is that while you need to be adaptable when translating idioms from one language into another, if you’re dealing with straightforward, literal language your responsibility is to the text. You’re not dealing with a different
manner of speech, but with
adding speech to the text - something a translator must avoid whenever possible. Especially when you’re dealing with liturgical texts, language has been carefully selected over the centuries, and very specific yet sometimes unnatural phraseology has been preserved for, in some cases, 1600 years. You just don’t get to “clean it up” to sound more like everyday speech.
Take, for instance, the
Gloria. It is repetitious (
Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram. Qui sedes ad dexteram patris, miserere nobis)
. The ICEL translators made it less so because, they argued, that’s not the way we speak in standard English. So they cut out on “qui tollis…” and one “miserere nobis.” Well, guess what, that’s not the way one speaks in standard Latin, either. The text was not standard, it was poetic, liturgical language. Sometimes translators need to realize that they are not translating normal speech, so they need to leave the text be.
All that said, it *is *a one-word change at a point when most people don’t know what the text should be anyway. So if it sounds like my knickers are in a twist, believe me I have far bigger fish to fry. I just want to point out that modern translators tend not to think through what they’re doing beyond the most shallow of considerations.
