In Koch’s view, the readmission of the celebration of Mass in the preconciliar form is “only the first step,” but “the time is not yet ripe” for further steps. Rome can take further actions only when there is readiness among Catholics to consider new forms of liturgy “in service of the Church.”
Posts Tagged Liturgiam Authenticam
Language and Identity
Dec 29
One problem with a group-defining language is that it naturally excludes others. Apparently this was not a problem for the authors of Liturgiam authenticam.
“Loosely translated. . .”
Dec 16
The idea that the English word that looks the most like the Latin word is clearly the right choice seems clearly mistaken.
No Good Alternatives
Dec 10
Part 4 of Gabe Huck’s series on the new missal.
“Now we leave translation aside to talk about a much less noticed disaster. In the 2010 missal, the Vox Clara missal, why are there no ‘alternative’ collects? These original English texts have been an element of our sacramentary since 1973.”
“In the light of the CDW document on how to translate from Latin into the vernacular, Liturgiam authenticam, the revisions turn out sometimes to be idle tinkering, and not always closer to the original.” — Fergus Kerr, OP
The Truth?
Dec 1
Michele Somerville is the author of a December 1 article in the Huffington Post, “The Truth Behind the Godawful New (Old) Roman Catholic Missal”.
Part 3 of Gabe Huck’s 4-part series on the new translation.
“We are being told something by this new missal and we had better understand: ‘Your language doesn’t matter. Nobody’s living language matters. Latin matters.’”
Lost in Translation: Part 2
Sep 29
Part 2 of Gabe Huck’s 4-part series.
“Once you get beyond “Push” or “Pull” on the shop door, translators must make judgments where right and wrong are probably not the best words to describe what happens. No translation will say exactly what the original says to one for whom the original language is the mother tongue.”
Mike Fallon of Scotland has written extensively on the new missal. This is his latest article.
“We three [national episcopal conference] presidents voiced our concerns in particular about the Holy See’s right to approve the statutes contrary to Sacrosanctum Concilium. We did not believe that Cardinal Arinze’s lawyer had in fact refuted our arguments, but there was no further discussion.”
“Recognizing the impossibility of genuine dialogue on this matter, we made our point and then got on with the rest of the agenda.”
“It is still incumbent on bishops’ conferences to reclaim the rights and responsibilities entrusted to them by law, and wrongly usurped.”