Some place between 40 and Death
14 April 2007 - 27 ניסן 5767 by Huw
For a while now there have been rumbles regarding a new English translation of the Roman Liturgy. It’s due out soon, but, of course: the blogosphere is first! For all you liturgy geeks out there: Fr Tim has posted a full copy of the ICEL text as well as a link to a PDF of the same.
Ah, scoopage.
» Obama shifting gears on Iraq
- #» Google Earth revives ancient Rome
- #» Why Orthodoxy is the One True Church: See how they love each other?
- #» Boiled Peanuts Recipe: because Yankees can't make goober peas. (Goodness! How delicious! Eating goober peas.)
- #
Roots of Christian Mysticism: Texts from Patristic Era with Commentary by Oliver Clement
Music by Heart: Paperless Songs for Evening Worship by Church Publishing
A People\’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (P.S.) by Howard Zinn
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Y’know, maybe I’m just not a good enough Catholic, but I really don’t understand what is so different and wonderful about this new translation. The new wordings don’t seem different enough from what we currently to warrant the change - just different enough to confuse everyone who’s already learned the current responses. I find it particularly frustrating as a new convert - I JUST learned all this stuff!
Bah.
With the exception of the Pro Multo issue (not important to go into here) I think you’re right. But I admit that I think of a liturgy as an independent issue: where most RC liturgist refer to the Latin “Original” just as most Orthodox Liturgists refer to a Greek or Slavonic “original”, forgetting those are, themselves, adaptations and emendations and editings (and even blatant change and evolution) of previous texts. I see an English Liturgy as an Organic development of the western CHurch. Of course the words are different.
Having said that…
“Et cum spirito tuo” really doesn’t translate to “and also with you” but rather “and with your spirit”. Since I don’t imagine the “spirit” is different from “you” in dynamic equivalence, I don’t see anything wrong with the current translation. But it isn’t a literal one.
In some ways, liturgical literalists have taken over Rome. (We have them here too: one needn’t hang out in Orthodox cyberspace very long before one finds out from some pious wag that the Slavonic Bible is just as inspired as the Greek Bible. But the Hebrew Bible isn’t at all.
*nod* I’ve done quite a bit of Latin, so I am aware that some liberties have been taking with the current English translation. I just don’t see what practical difference most of the literal translations make.
And I’m familiar with the pro multis debate, but I’ve yet to be convinced that it really amounts to quite the issue that some make it out to be. I mean, I don’t have any objection to priests saying for many rather than for all, but I don’t think it’s false that Christ gave His life as a ransom for all.
Make that “have been taken.” Whoops!
The translation of the Roman Canon (a.k.a. EP 1) is actually quite good. I’ve seen much worse traditional (Tudor-style) translations than this. It seems both accurate and euphonious. The Anglican influence is quite unmistakeable.
Now if they could only get rid of the cheesy Offertory prayers, or at least give the option of using the old Tridentine “canon minor.”