Fit for purpose

[alan29]

I really wish I hadn't followed Paul's link. The process by which this translation was imposed on English speakers and the poor quality of the materials sadden me.

[IncenseTom]

I really know nothing at all about the 1998 text, and to be honest, I'm happy enough with things as they are that I don't have the will to study it for purely academic purpose, as I would imagine it unlikely that we will ever use it. If we do, I'll have a good look then.

I can only comment (and did so) on my experience between the translation which was always intended to be temporary which I grew up with, and the text we have now which I personally think is very good.

[contrabordun]

The 1998 text was the one that was always intended to replace the one which was always intended to be temporary. It was the product of twenty five years work* and was, as I posted previously, accepted unanimously by all the Bishops Conferences in the English-speaking world. Given that that work - a huge waste of the contributors' time and indeed the faithful's money - was in the end simply written off, it does seem reasonable to wonder why so many of the people who have compared the two versions prefer the 1998 one.


*I should declare an interest: as some Board Members are aware, my father was part of the group that did that work.

[nazard]

An article worth reading, though reflecting a wider view of the liturgy?

http://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/suggested-agenda-new-prefect-congregation-divine-worship

I hope that none of those suggestions ever come about.

As for numbers dropping, ours have increased since the new translation.

My own view: better than what we had, but far from good enough yet. If they really want to sort things out they need to sort out the Latin text. I would start by restoring the Roman offertory in place of the current vacuous preparation of the gifts, and drop EPs 2 & 3 from a great height.

[johnquinn39]

God of power and might:

http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study/25 ... tures.html