Comments on: Issues in Missal Production

By: Karl Liam Saur

Karl Liam Saur — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:26 +0000

Fr Foley,

I read LA 37 as referring to the choice of verses and structure; while the original language texts remain the source for translation, the NV arbiters conflicts among manuscripts. Thanks for pointing this out.

By: John Foley, S. J.

John Foley, S. J. — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:53:23 +0000

Karl shows us that in LA 24 it is specified that the bible is to be translated from the original languages, not Latin. It at least seems that LA 37 (any discrepancy in translations “needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained)” forces the Nova Vulgata Editio to be the arbiter. Peter Jeffery shows how very different the Nova Vulgata Editio is from the original Vulgate, and that often the ancient liturgical tradition is based on the original vulgate. (I think I do Peter justice in interpreting him this way.). Use of the Nova Vulgata Editio as arbiter, therefore, would force a departure from tradition. (Jeffrey, Translating Traditiion, chapter 2). The result would be a translation not necessarily in line with ancient tradition. Or am I misreading it?

By: Jeffery BeBeau

Jeffery BeBeau — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:14:36 +0000

I wanted to reply about the Liturgy of the Hours separately. There is a strong desire by many, ICEL and clergy, and laity to revised the LotH. However, like the Missal this will be a large undertaking, especially the texts of the Office of Readings. There are other factors in the LotH that go beyond translation, which biblical texts will be used? How much of a change will there be in familiar texts? Some things that spring to mind, which version of the Psalter will be used? It seems that there is a strong likelihood for the Revised Grail which would preserve a familiar element. What about the biblical texts? NRSV or NAB are the leading candidates, however only the US uses the NAB, most other places use or will use a revised version of the NRSV. What version of the canticles will be used. ICEL has indicated that they are in discussions with the Holy See about the desirability of beginning this project.

By: Jeffery BeBeau

Jeffery BeBeau — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:06:04 +0000

Actually a lot sooner than you might imagine. I actually asked ICEL this very question not too long ago. From what I understand, the next one is the Order of Celebrating Marriage, there may even be a draft in the works. It is the most “pressing” rite at the moment because of its common usage. The 2nd edition was issued in 1990. An interesting practical aspect is that a large amount of the contents of the OCM are found in the Missal, the orations, prefaces, and nuptial blessings are all there, all that has to be translated are the rubrics and the introductions and the exchange of vows. This can apply to other rites as well. Expect the Dedication of the Church and Altar to appear soon, ICEL finished a draft of it in 2003, a few tweaks to make it accord with the Missal and then go to the Bishops. There is also a draft of the Exorcism Rite done. Simpler rites such as Confirmation and Penance will likely take less time than ones like Funerals, Blessings. Benediction could be fairly easy to achieve as well.

By: Karl Liam Saur

Karl Liam Saur — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:24:04 +0000

Given that MR3 took about three times as long as MR1, perhaps the editions of those other ritual books will take about 3 times as long as their first editions? Some of them did not appear for about 15-20 years….so perhaps 40-60 years from now…by which time LA may have finally been superseded by translation principles that give more emphasis on musicality and beauty than does LA or than did Comme le prevoit in 1969…one thing that LA did establish (very likely unintentionally, of course) is that translation principles can be changed.

By: Pierre Font

Pierre Font — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:12:28 +0000

This may be a topic for a future post, but when will there be new
English translations according to Liturgiam Authenticam of all
other liturgical rites? I am particularly interested in:

1. All other sacraments
2. The Liturgy of the Hours

but the list goes on…

3. Order of Christian Funerals
4. Benediction, Adoration, Exposition, etc., of the
Blessed Sacrament
5. Dedication of a Church and an Altar
6. All other blessings that are translated from Latin
7. Other rites for special occasions (ie, Rite of Election in RCIA, commissioning various ministers)

What concerns me is that after the new missal translation comes into effect, we will encounter services where a rite with a translation that does not follow LA (or, for certain blessings and installations of office, an original English text approved by a local bishops’ conf. composed to sound like earlier translations of other rites) is embedded in a rite with a post-LA translation (the shift in tone will be striking).

By: Karl Liam Saur

Karl Liam Saur — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:03:05 +0000

Jeffrey

LA #24 provides that Scripture is translated from the original languages, not Latin.

By: Jeffrey Herbert

Jeffrey Herbert — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:48:22 +0000

Hmm…if the Lectionary isn’t translated from Latin, why would it fall under LA then? Or am I misunderstanding the term “revision”….is it just minor changes to be made?

By: Anthony Ruff, OSB

Anthony Ruff, OSB — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:54:18 +0000

Also, I have the impression that the NAB was already done with formal equivalancy (to the Hebrew or Greek), not dynamic equivalence, so I don’t think there will be huge adjustments.
awr

By: Karl Liam Saur

Karl Liam Saur — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:48:40 +0000

Jeffrey,

Fortunately, LA would not require translation of the Lectionary from the Latin, so many of complaints about the fetishizing of Latin syntax in the translation of the Missal are not carried over into the Lectionary translation.