Translating from the Latin

[johnquinn39]

In a previous thread, Southern Comfort informs us that the current CDW policy on translation is that '... nothing may be used which is not translated from the Latin'.

How useful is this?

Am I right in thinking that none of our Scripture or prayers were originally in Latin?

Would it be better to translate from the original rather than the Latin? (See extract from 'Verbum Dei' below)

But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.

[NorthernTenor]

In a previous thread, Southern Comfort informs us that the current CDW policy on translation is that '... nothing may be used which is not translated from the Latin'.

It would be useful to know which elements of the liturgy this policy relates to. Chapter and verse?

[Southern Comfort]

It relates to what is contained in the liturgical books. Official liturgical books (as opposed to books for the people) must contain nothing beyond a faithful translation of the Latin text. I'm sure someone like Martin Foster will be able to give lots of chapters and verses on this, but this is basically what the phrase Concordat cum originali is being taken to mean. In other words, you can forget about inculturation.

One example of an area where this has caused difficulties that I can recall off the top of my head would be the Rite of Marriage. In this country, we need to abide by civil law concerning the wording of the exchange of consent required for validity. Rome has a huge problem with that, and does not see why the rite it produced can't simply be translated and used by everyone. They consider themselves above the law, one might even say. We even got an Act of Parliament passed in order to have a form of words which is closer to the Roman Rite than our traditional civil formula (which derives from the Sarum Rite). All to no avail so far ─ Rome has still not approved our translation of the 2nd Roman edition of the rite, despite the fact that it was completed some twenty years ago.....

Other examples have already appeared in other threads on this forum, such as the ditching of the ICEL Alternative Opening Prayers in the forthcoming Missal because they were original compositions inspired by the Lectionary readings of the three cycles and not translations of a Latin missal text.

I don't think the CDW gives a fig about Dei Verbum. Accessibility is not even on their horizon, and cooperation with separated brethren is anathema to them. And yet no doubt the pope will continue to maintain that what is happening is faithful to the vision of Vatican II.....

[NorthernTenor]

...faithful to the vision of Vatican II...

Ah, now there's a hare that could run in all sorts of directions.

[mcb]

...faithful to the vision of Vatican II...

Ah, now there's a hare that could run in all sorts of directions.

All the same, it's a phrase which needs to be constantly upheld and defended, especially from the view one hears more and more on one side of the argument, namely that Vatican II had no vision (no "spirit"), only documents. The consequence of giving in to that (IMHO pernicious) line of argument is a constant revisionism: Vatican II meant only what the current incumbent in whichever-Roman-dicastery wants it to have meant, and he has the proof texts to back it up.

I seem to remember that the chairman of the SSG had an excellent letter published in the Tablet a year or so ago, identifying the Society as the organisation dedicated to defending the vision of Vatican II. I'll second that.