full interview at AmerikaYou were prominent in the work of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) and the development of the new liturgical translations. Now that they have been in use for nearly two years, are you satisfied with the translations pastorally and theologically?
It’s hard for me to give an unbiased judgment on the value of the new translations. First of all, the first full translation of the missal of Paul VI was ideologically charged. Since the liturgy, along with Sacred Scripture, is the primary carrier of the tradition that unites us to Christ, the loss of the theology of grace, the domestication of God, the paraphrasing that deliberately omitted nuances of understanding, the deliberate omission of biblical references in the liturgical text itself, etc. left the church for forty years without a way of worship that adequately expressed our faith. This was clear for those of us who used the Roman missal in Spanish during those years; their translation was far more adequate. The bishops had the obligation to see that the translation into English of the third edition of the Roman Missal was faithful and also able to be used communally. I believe it has been well done. Some of the expressions in the Prefaces are a bit “clunky,” but the collects are truly beautiful if a priest takes the time to interiorize the structure of dependent clauses and use his voice so that the prayer is comprehensible to the faithful.
ht Pewsitter
Photo
3 comments:
best description of the "new translation" that I have heard is that it is an exercise in English as a foreign language.
Another said this one new translation has caused 10,000 new translations as priests make their necessary adaptations.
If the former "ideologically challenged" translation need to be remedied, the comprehension challenged
new translation is not the right remedy.
The new Roman Missal is death by adverbs. Nothing like telling God what to do and then adding how to do it!
Post a Comment