The US Bishops have rejected new, improved translations of the Missal. Apparentally Americans can't cope with words like "gibbet" or "ineffable". Curt Jestor has some typically CJ comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Lord’s descent into the underworld
At Matins/the Office of Readings on Holy Saturday the Church gives us this 'ancient homily', I find it incredibly moving, it is abou...
-
A French newspaper has reported Pope Francis, once Benedict dies, will abrogate Summorum Pontificum and handover Old Rite's celebrat... -
I was at the Verona Opera Festival when Summorum Pontificum was published but it wasn't until All Souls Day that I first attempted to s... -
In a conversation with our bishop recently, I thought he said that some parishes in the diocese were already using the new ICEL translations...
9 comments:
I still can't decide which will come first: the new Missal or the Parousia
fr paul harrison
Sadly, this shows the disconnect between U.S. bishops and U.S. Catholics. As an educated individual, I'm rather offended that the USCCB thinks that "ineffable" is too complex for me.
In many parts of the country, bishops tend to be old-fashioned "progressives". These bishops view any attempt at correction from Rome as impinging on their "liturgical freedoms".
Any number of liturgical abuses (novelty Masses, altar girls, Communion in the hand) are fine, but proper translations and big words?! We'll have none of that.
It seems the most radical thing a U.S. Catholic can do is hold fast to Tradition and Orthodoxy.
Do pray for the USCCB and those of us under their rule.
I really think the blogosphere's getting this one backwards. The bishops know, quite well, that if they impose something that sounds like a bad imitation of the King James Bible, they're going to hear far more complaints than they will from the few people who like playing "let's talk like rad-trads".
One wonders how many of these bishops are able to understand the word "ineffable" while they continue to misunderstand "pro multis."
Fr. Paul is, of course, quite right. What's the latest estimated date for the new English translation ? 2010 ? 2011 ? We don't know the exact date of the Parousia, but I would say that it could be a close run thing.
In any case, if ICEL continues to muck about much longer, their translation could very well be overtaken by a revised version of the 1970 Missale Romanum.
And why must there be "one size fits all" for the entire English speaking world ?
Time, perhaps, for England & Wales to declare Independence ? Bring back the National Liturgical Commission !
Probably best to give up altogether on an English vernacular mass. English isn't one language any more. I went to a so called English mass the other day. I was the only one in the congregation from the UK. Priest was from Germany and spoke perfectly adequately. The reader was from the USA and I couldn't understand a word of what he said; it would have been better if the reading had been in the local vernacular. Most of the other people in the congregation could understand much of the English as they came from places like Poland and Italy.
What is the point - it is increasingly making sense to standardise with Latin.
But I agree that a bad version of well known seventeenth century English texts is going to sound like a strange affectation, which is another good reason to give up on the whole idea. Then there is all the business of having new books printed, with the associated costs. The money saved could be used in better ways.
Mistake in my previous posting - most of the people could NOT understand the English as they were from all over the place, everywhere but the UK. I came across the same thing in Estonia.
The trouble is that the younger generation are not familiar with Latin, but people do not need to know all the in-and-outs of its grammar to be able to follow the mass in Latin or any other foreign language. The benefit is in these days of migration and frequent travel, it would be a good thing to have the liturgy more or less the same everywhere.
A particular difficulty with English is that different styles of the language are used by different social groups and in different areas. Whatever style is chosen will upset and alienate somebody, which makes it divisive. When I was a child I used to change the way I spoke to whatever was the local accent to avoid getting beaten up which was what would happen if you talked posh in a working class area, Cockney with posh people or a southern English dialect in Glasgow.
It is a pity that the bishops seem so out of touch as not to understand this.
To some limited extent I agree with the American Bishops at least on the word "ineffable". This is a totally obsolete word. The same is true of "gibbet". However there is probably a lot more behind this rejection, in that the new translation is certainly faithful to the Latin and not some watered down and altered version like the ICEL rubbish of today.
Meant to comment earlier how funny and sad and true this is. Unfortunately the 5th commandment prevents us from grabbing a lot of them and lining the up against a wall execution style. You know, had they just kept to the original vernacular translations that came out just after the change from Latin to the vernacular, it wouldn't have been so bad. People DO expect more formal elevated language in a church setting.
Post a Comment