Alan Griffiths on the 2010 Missal Translation

[mcb]

Fr Alan Griffiths, who was such a powerful and incisive advocate for the 2008 Missal translation at this year's Summer School, has a strongly-worded letter in this week's Tablet, about the shortcomings of the 2010 version and the reckless manner in which it seems to have been produced.

[musicus]

It is a very fine letter. I just hope it (and others like it - including those cited at the most excellent http://www.praytellblog.com) will lead to some very high-level action - and that right soon. There may have been conspiracy - dirty work at the Roman crossroads - but I think the other option (which would have been bleeped here) is more likely.

It does seem that the tide of protest is rising. People will only tolerate so much.

[mcb]

I suppose the idea of a conspiracy is far-fetched. But it will be a strange turnaround if the net result of the 2010 débacle is to have people clamouring for the 2008 version who might have started out feeling a great deal more lukewarm towards it. Being disgruntled about high-handed Roman ways seems to be an enticing distraction away from considering the merits of the 2008 translation, to judge from the blogosphere.

Can't say I'd wholly agree with Alan Griffiths's description of the 1973 translation as 'mischief'. For all its faults, I will miss its directness and simplicity.

[alan29]

I suppose the idea of a conspiracy is far-fetched. But it will be a strange turnaround if the net result of the 2010 débacle is to have people clamouring for the 2008 version who might have started out feeling a great deal more lukewarm towards it. Being disgruntled about high-handed Roman ways seems to be an enticing distraction away from considering the merits of the 2008 translation, to judge from the blogosphere.

Can't say I'd wholly agree with Alan Griffiths's description of the 1973 translation as 'mischief'. For all its faults, I will miss its directness and simplicity.

Which exactly the example left by Jesus. Sadly there are those who think that his isn't a good enough example.

[presbyter]

According to Bruce Harbert - there's still a lot of "editing" going on (he was very tactful) [Birmingham Clergy day this week]

Those who have 'got at' the text seem to be getting in a right mess. Sometimes antiphons are repeated in the Missal and now, it seems, where different people have tinkered with the same antiphon (in different places in the Missal) we've got two or three different translations of the same text!

Perhaps Advent 2011 is somewhat optimistic!

[johnquinn39]

Let's just be honest about this.

The only thing people are going to notice is that God is no longer powerful and mighty, and that Christ has not risen.

[post edited by mod- Docmattc]

[John Ainslie]

I thought the Vox Clara committee were supposed to be safeguarding the interests of English language translations. But their last meeting on 28/29 April this year seems to have been a sign-off: see the official report of this meeting on the Vatican website. Although Cardinal Pell was confirmed as continuing his chairmanship of the committee (Cardinal Murphy O'Connor is its secretary), the report also states: 'Cardinal Cañizares also announced the intention of the Congregation to continue the work of the Vox Clara Committee in advising the Holy See on matters pertaining to the English language translation of liturgical books'. So that may be how the Congregation has arrogated to itself the right to mess around not only with the 2008 text approved by ICEL but also the 2010 text, whatever that was, approved six months ago by Pope Benedict.

The Pray Tell blog reports that the ICEL bishops meeting in Rome this week met not only the Congregation but also the Pope - but perhaps that is just a bit of wishful thinking...