Vatican: no return to old ICEL translations
#1
Vatican liturgy secretary rules out possibility of Catholics using 1998 Mass translation
19 March 2015 10:19 by Christopher Lamb
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

A Vatican archbishop has ruled out the possibility of Catholics being able to use a different English translation of the Mass.
There have been growing calls for the 1998 version to be made available as critics are unhappy with the current missal text which is judged clunky, awkward, and a too literal translation of the Latin.  :)
The 1998 text was approved by English-speaking bishops’ conferences after 17 years of work. It was, however, rejected by the Vatican and a revised translation, introduced in November 2011, was then implemented.
But Archbishop Arthur Roche, Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship, said using a different English version of the missal could not happen.
The archbishop told The Tablet that the Roman liturgy “expresses the unity of the entire Church” and that while the 1998 version translated the 1975 Roman Missal, a new Latin Missal was introduced in 2002 thus making the 1998 edition outdated.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1892/0/v...ranslation-

C.
Reply
#2
Excellent.

"clunky, awkward, and a too literal translation of the Latin."

Pfft.
Reply
#3
Quote:critics are unhappy with the current missal text which is judged clunky, awkward, and a too literal translation of the Latin.

I guess it is a little clunky and awkward- but I think the Novus Ordo itself is clunky and awkward, so no translation's really going to fix that.  As for "too literal," how can something that is supposed to be accurate be "too literal"?  The words mean what they mean- nothing more or less.  I think the real description they want to give is "too Catholic."  Too Catholic for those who do not want to live the Church's teachings.
Reply
#4
I prefer the new translations. I prefer every other type of Catholic liturgy I have attended ( so far only TLM, Byzantine, and Anglican Ordinariate, but I have more "liturgical adventures" planned  :)).  But I do see issues...as a traditional Catholic I have some issues with sudden changes...I suppose those attached to the old ICEL translations feel somewhat like the "first generation" trads did. And not all of them are hostile liberals: a lot of them are just people used to hearing what they hear each week. Of course, these translations are such a small change a lot of people probably never even noticed.
Reply
#5
(03-20-2015, 01:15 AM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I prefer the new translations. I prefer every other type of Catholic liturgy I have attended ( so far only TLM, Byzantine, and Anglican Ordinariate, but I have more "liturgical adventures" planned  :)).  But I do see issues...as a traditional Catholic I have some issues with sudden changes...I suppose those attached to the old ICEL translations feel somewhat like the "first generation" trads did. And not all of them are hostile liberals: a lot of them are just people used to hearing what they hear each week. Of course, these translations are such a small change a lot of people probably never even noticed.

Not all of them are hostile liberals, but they are uncatechized.  If they knew what the Latin said- actually read the Latin prayers along with a word-by-word English translation- they would clearly see that the old ICEL translation does not accurately reflect what the Latin says.  That's just the problem- they DON'T read it.  I can't speak for all of them, but my experience has taught me that many of them simply don't want to think that much into it.
Reply
#6
(03-20-2015, 01:15 AM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I prefer the new translations. I prefer every other type of Catholic liturgy I have attended ( so far only TLM, Byzantine, and Anglican Ordinariate, but I have more "liturgical adventures" planned  :)).  But I do see issues...as a traditional Catholic I have some issues with sudden changes...I suppose those attached to the old ICEL translations feel somewhat like the "first generation" trads did. And not all of them are hostile liberals: a lot of them are just people used to hearing what they hear each week. Of course, these translations are such a small change a lot of people probably never even noticed.

But it's a point well taken, I mean, people hear what they hear, and they are used to that.  The new translations are better for what they are worth, but definitely if I had gotten used to the old it would bother me a bit to see them changed. People forget, things like the prayers in the Mass have clear religious meaning for people and to keep changing them every few decades is just unjust, not to mention it gives the impression that the Church can just tinker at will with its sacred rites.

Incidentally this is exactly the impression many trads get when they pause to consider Pius V's suppression of local rites,Pius X mangling the psalter schema in the breviary,Pius XII tinkering with Holy Week and creating new Propers for the feast of the Assumption, and of course the whole slam dunk papally sanctioned wreck job of the Roman Rite that became the Novus Ordo.  Is everything at the whim of the papacy and liturgical committees? Is our faith something handed on to us or is it something fabricated by the hierarchy?

No doubt the new Novus Ordo translations are less disingenuous than the old, but the whole principle of constant aggiornamento is something people rightly abhor,especially in matters of religion.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)