I have no earthly idea who “anonymous” is over at Gotta Sing Gotta Pray. But he/she knows what he/she’s talking about, and has been spilling lots of interesting information in the course of this day – excerpted below. This was bound to come out eventually. I expect there will be more. – awr
Suit yourself, of course, but there would be very little chance of me knowing that a report had been prepared by ICEL and BCDW, far less that it was 46 pages long, unless I had seen the thing. Which is precisely why I have to be anonymous.
Musicians should be particularly concerned, it seems to me, by the fact that the antiphons have come back in the form documented in section 2 of the Leaked Texts part of Rindfleisch’s article. What a shame that the seasonal appropriateness of some of those antiphons will be lost by 2010’s decision, contrary to LA, to nix the Vulgate base and go with the New Grail.
By the way, for the record, I stand with Rindfleisch: I see NO place in which 2010’s multitudinous changes, many of them as he says, “utterly gratuitous,” are an improvement over 2008.
2008, which the bishops approved was, in my opinion, nearly perfect, exactly what we who wanted a new translation had been waiting and hoping for.
It will be interesting to see if those on my side of the aisle, so to speak, the conservative side, will have the courage to point out the erroneous translations not to mention the innumerable English gaffes of this 2010 text. Again, it is hard to justify bemoaning mistranslations and deviations from directives in the 1974 ICEL and ignoring the same problems in 2010 just because it comes from Vox Clara from whom we expected (obviously mistakenly) better.
…
My guess as to the Why and Who is speculation of course. Several of us wonder if the thinking of Vox Clara/CDW went something like this: “Nothing will please those who oppose a new translation. But even some ‘good’ bishops have reservations and concerns about 2008. They’d never publicly criticize, but here’s a list of their concerns. See what you can do.”
Example: 2008 has one “I believe” at the beginning of the Creed, as in Latin, governing the whole text. 2010’s Creed has added three, violating LA and the Ratio Translationis. Why? Bishops and Conferences complained about having only the one “I believe.”
So the “underlings” revised 2008, attempting to please the acceptable critics, but lacking sufficient Latin skills and English style to produce anything comparable to 2008.
How else account for “overcome” in their revised Easter preface, awkward placement of modifiers and erroneously constructed sentences in Collects and Prefaces?
Rindfleisch didn’t get into other seemingly gratuitous changes that violate the norms Vox Clara/Congregation were supposed to uphold: for instance, quaesumus (“we pray”) has NOT been translated seven times when it appears in the Latin; but “we pray” HAS been added nineteen times when the equivalent Latin word isn’t present.
Among the revisers’ other problems with English usage is an inability to get the word order of subject and the auxiliary “may” right in subjunctive clauses: “Grant that, just as, being conformed to him, we have borne by the law of nature the image of the man on earth, so by the sanctification of grace may we bear the image of the Man of heaven.” Obviously, the line should read “we may.” “Look upon us and have mercy, that as we follow, by your gift, the way you desire for us, so may we never stray from the paths of life.” It should be, “so we may never stray”. There are a dozen such errors.
Placement of adverbs has also baffled the revisers. “Graciously” should come BEFORE the verb it modifies as in 2008: graciously hear, graciously grant, graciously bless. In 2010, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, with such unpleasing results as: “Grant graciously” “Bestow on us graciously” “Constrain them mercifully” especially when the adverb separates verb from object: “Sanctify graciously these gifts” or “Grant graciously to your Church.” A modicum of English style sense would have kept the revisers instinctively clear of such errors.
Who gave us this mess? Who knows? Several candidates. There is one Vox Clara advisor, for instance, who says “Between you and I” so often it has become a joke with those of us who regularly meet with him.
The point here, and I presume of the Pray Tell article, is that errors of translation and English usage need to be fixed BEFORE the Missal is published. Let more eyes examine more of the REALLY SERIOUS FLAWS in 2010 NOW. But whether 2010 is corrected or published with errors, the bishops conferences as well as the rest of the Church must be allowed to question the competence of a Commission and Congregation that could have the near-perfectly translated 2008 text go into its “processor” only to have the 2010 comedy of errors come out.
…
The immediate challenge at hand is to reverse the incompetent revising of 2008 by Vox Clara and the Congregation that is now poised to be dumped on the English-speaking Church as the Received Text of 2010.
Please leave a reply.