presbyter wrote:If the use of the present ICEL translation is never abrogated, perhaps priests will just continue to use it.
I was wondering if they might just do that anyway. Particularly worried about the people's parts – will we really have to start a whole new bunch of acclamations and must my parish throw out the half dozen they now know? Can anyone confirm the Sanctus translation which switches from the third person the the second? (Think that was mentioned on here.)
I'm with presbyter rather than reginald on this one. It's interesting to read the articles in "The Tablet" about the short prayers and how they have been translated. I don't think there was a hiddend esire to give them a Vatican II slant - I think ti was a sincere attempt to make them sound like English rather than Latin.
I would not wish to defend the ICEL texts, which I find banal, in the style of a certain tabloid, but some of the language in these collects is OTT. Let us all hope our Bishops sort them out a bit, but I would rather have those than the ICEL. Presbyter, please don't go your own way, the unity of the church is very important. Archbishop Lefebre I suppose meant well, but there is a fair chance he has caused a long term split.
nazard wrote:Presbyter, please don't go your own way, the unity of the church is very important. Archbishop Lefebre I suppose meant well, but there is a fair chance he has caused a long term split.
Presbyter is well able (and likely) to speak for himself, but, knowing him as I do, I would say that he is the last person to 'go his own way'. I think more has been inferred than he implied.
Can I make a quick plea that when referring to "the ICEL texts", people are a bit more specific. As I understand it, technically all the translations are ICEL texts. Simplified a bit, I think there are at least 3 sets of them (not all are complete). A-the ones done in a rush after V2 and in current use B-the ones done more slowly thru the 70's and 80s, intended to replace set A C-the ones done after the recentish change of management in ICEL. If I've understood nazard correctly, "the ICEL texts, which I find banal" refers to set A and "these collects" is set C. But I could be mistaken, and there's a fair bit of potential for confusion.
contrabordun wrote:Can I make a quick plea that when referring to "the ICEL texts", people are a bit more specific. As I understand it, technically all the translations are ICEL texts. Simplified a bit, I think there are at least 3 sets of them (not all are complete). A-the ones done in a rush after V2 and in current use B-the ones done more slowly thru the 70's and 80s, intended to replace set A C-the ones done after the recentish change of management in ICEL. If I've understood nazard correctly, "the ICEL texts, which I find banal" refers to set A and "these collects" is set C. But I could be mistaken, and there's a fair bit of potential for confusion.
Precisely. The B texts are the ones sent to Rome in 1997, which were not only significant improvements on A but also good English. There were no changes in the people's parts of the Mass, just some optional alternatives. If Rome had not at that time been going through an anti-inclusive language phase, those texts are what we would have now, and no one would be complaining. Instead, the devious way of burying this translation for all time was to issue in Latin a third edition of the Missale Romanum which was actually totally unnecessary. When you think about it, this was a tremendous slap in the face not only to all those who had spent 20 years producing the revision but rather more importantly to the world's English-speaking bishops who had all approved it.
I guess the new translations are a step towards the 'good old days' - when priests rattled off Mass, mumbling the Latin and the faithful could read the translations in their missals - or the even better older days when the faithful couldn't read and couldn't afford a missal so said their Rosaries or other prayers (and didn't complain and were ostracised by the rest of the Catholic community if they didn't attend Mass). We wouldn't have to sit through sermons at Mass - the Epistle and Gospel of the day was usually read out in English instead. Masses were shorter too - I once served a weekday Mass at a side altar which lasted 12 minutes.
This was hardly the respectful and attractive liturgy that Benedict XVI wants us to implement in order to attract people to our churches. Latin grammatical structures do not translate well into English. If we use archaic Latin grammar and archaic English vocabulary in the translations, then, I agree with Reginald, we might as well go back to Latin - they are both dead languages and people would need extensive eduction to understand either. Yesterday's Telegraph suggested Bishop Roche is one of the favourites to succeed the Cardinal so the Curia must like what he's been doing. Why do I get the impression that the Vatican has lost touch?
