Thursday, December 22, 2005

Harbert: "I Am Not ICEL"

That Bru-Bru's so modest, no?

Our friends over at Adoremus have transcribed the complete discussion on liturgical translations at last month's USCCB plenary in Washington. It's a lot of reading, and I know you lot like spleen-venting on all this, so comments are open for the enlightenment of us all.

As an initial request, though, just read the stuff first and stay on topic, OK? We don't need another Novus Ordo-Trent War. Thanks in advance.



Blogger eweu said...

Someone award the unidentified Bishop a medal:

"I think the fact that we’re going to have these texts for a long period of time, as you indicated, makes me less receptive to the argument that it would be upsetting for people who have gotten used to these texts over the last 30 or 35 years.

Thirty-five years ago we changed texts that had been in use for four hundred years."

The mere idea that changing the people's responses will be "upsetting" is offensive. I give English speaking Catholics much more credit than that.

We do have defective translations. A lot of them. The Confiteor has a defective translation. The Gloria has a defective translation. The Sanctus has a defective translation. The Domine non sum dignus certainly has a defective translation.

The current Missale Romanum maintains emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice. The current ICEL translations lose that concept almost entirely. That needs to be fixed. If it means changing all the people's responses, so be it. It's important.

22/12/05 09:22  
Blogger CDE said...

I love Aquila's directness: n looking at the survey and surveying the bishops, I am really uncomfortable with this process. Because I really see it as the panel rejecting Liturgiam authenticam. Liturgiam authenticam is clear on what the changes need to be.

While I understand some of the pastoral reasoning, even with some of the faithful and some of the priests in my diocese, when I’ve spoken with them about the changes that will be coming and I showed them the difference between what is in the Latin translation and what we have in the 1970 Missal, they are very understanding of why it needs to change. Now granted, they’re reasonable people and they don’t have their agendas, but I think we owe it to our people to give them good liturgical translations, and faithful to the Latin, to what we have received. And I see this kind of action as saying: Well, we’ll pick and choose what we want. If we take that approach, then our priests can do it, the laity can do it and anyone else can do it.

I interviewed Aquila for The Catholic Servant a few months after his ordination and assignment to Fargo, ND. Thoroughly grounded in the Theology of the Body, and with a solid spiritual life, he is a promising sign for the future of the Church.

My prayer is that this son of Burbank, CA, returns to his home one day.

23/12/05 10:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home