Gray Book antiphons – leaked

And now someone has leaked the antiphons in the Gray Book – i.e., the version prepared by ICEL for the bishops’ conferences. So many documents, so many leaks… I can hardly keep up today.

12 comments

  1. I’m baffled as to why the antiphons were translated independently of any existing Bible translation.

    One would think the antiphons would reflect a scripture translation that might be heard during the readings, and psalm antiphons would be taken from the Revised Grail.

    I realize the NAB Lectionary battle is still to be fought, but I was hoping the antiphons would be lifted from the Grail and the RSV-CE II, wetting the powder on that one before the first shot got off. Ah, well.

  2. There are two reasons why tracking what happened to the antiphons between their 2008 translation and the Received Text is important.

    1. The point made in the “Areas of Difficulty” report [and this answers Jon’s very reasonable question above]: “Those [i.e., whoever did the 2010 revisions] asked to translate the Antiphons to which a Psalm reference was attached provided a translation based on the Hebrew text, not on the Missal text, which often adapts the Psalm texts for Christological or liturgical reasons. In most cases, the Vulgate and in some cases earlier Latin translations of the Psalms provide the sources for the Antiphons in the Missal. The Antiphons provide a basis for the Church’s reading of Scripture in light of Christian Revelation and theology and in light of their context within the liturgy of the day, season or occasion. A failure to translate the Latin texts of the Missal results in a failure to reflect the tradition of the Church’s reading of the Scriptures within the liturgical context.”

    A couple of samples follow in the report:
    1. Entrance Antiphon, Saturday, First Week of Lent (Q322ai)
    Cf. Psalm 18:8 (Missal Text) Lex Domini irreprehensibilis, convertens animas; testimonium Domini fidele, sapientiam praestans parvulis.

    Received Text Version: The law of the Lord is perfect; it revives the soul. The decrees of the Lord are steadfast; they give wisdom to the simple.

    Gray Book Version The Law of the lord is perfect, converting the soul; the decree of the lord is faithful, giving wisdom to little ones.

    Whereas the Neo Vulgate text, a modern translation based on the Hebrew text, reads, reficiens animas, the Missal text reads, convertens animas. In the context of Lent, “converting” is preferable and a more accurate translation of the Latin.

    1. Another sample from “Areas of Difficulty”
      4. Entrance Antiphon, Tuesday of Holy Week (Q532ai)
      Cf. Psalm 26: 12 (Missal Text) NE TRADIDERIS ME, Domine, in animas persequentium me: quoniam insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui, et mentita est iniquitas sibi.

      Received Text Version DO NOT LEAVE ME to the will of my foes, O Lord, for false witnesses rise up against me, and they breathe out violence.

      Gray Book Version DO NOT HAND ME OVER, Lord, to the will of those who pursue me, for unjust witnesses have risen against me and wickedness has lied to itself.

      As illustrated in bold [CAPS here] in each text, the Gray book Version translates the Latin text and the Received Text, the Hebrew text. The Gray Book version reflects the strong Christological reading of the Psalm, especially in the phrase “Do not hand me over.” In fact the Communion Antiphon (Romans 8:32) for that same day reads, “God did not spare his own Son, but HANDED HIM OVER for us all.”

      2. The second reason this is important: Weren’t we told that the New Grail was being checked by CDW to make sure it preserved the Vulgate’s Christological references? A number of these Received Text antiphons seem to be taken from the New Grail. At least in example 4 above, the reference to the Vulgate wasn’t made. My cursory comparison of the New Grail that was sent to CDW and the version CDW gave the English-speaking Africans for their Liturgy of the Hours (Pauline Editions) reveals that the only changes were the reinsertion of “sons of men” wherever the New Grail had “children of Adam” and “men’s” for “human” (but not consistently). Quite a different agenda from making sure Vulgate Christological references were not lost.

      Both Missal and Psalter seem to raise (or even answer!) serious competency questions regarding CDW (and the Missal re Vox Clara).

  3. Received Text Version: The law of the Lord is perfect; it revives the soul. The decrees of the Lord are steadfast; they give wisdom to the simple.

    …………

    Received Text Version DO NOT LEAVE ME to the will of my foes, O Lord, for false witnesses rise up against me, and they breathe out violence.

    Both these texts present verbatim what is in the revised Grail psalter, November 2008 version.

    It may be safe to assume, therefore, that this psalter has been used as one of the sources for the revision of the antiphons, and that where there are deviations from the November 2008 version these represent changes made by CDWDS to the revised Grail text.

  4. Well, well, now this gets interesting. The Revised Grail is one of the most strictly proprietary texts in liturgyland. Post it online and you will hear from the lawyers. It is highly doubtful that the copyright holders and their agents would just permit the new Missal to run those text verbatim without some financial compensation and perhaps even royalties.

    You know, this is beginning to look very very bad. In other words, these changes might not have been arbitrary and the work of incompetent bureaucrats. There might be reason ($) for some of these changes.

  5. Jeffrey (and others)…

    these changes might not have been arbitrary and the work of incompetent bureaucrats. There might be reason ($) for some of these changes

    There are some things that are so obvious that they just go under the radar. To assume that those who are undertaking the most important and singularly influential liturgical reform in over 40 years are somehow liturgical “Keystone Cops” bumbling about is a) naiive and b) serves to provide further cover for them.
    A better question to ask is where is all of this heading? Perhaps the goal isn’t what we are thinking…

  6. Question to you experts now that I have been able to read Ratio Tanslationis and Peckler’s new book:
    – 1998 ICEL MR2 approved by all english speaking conferences – Rome let it die
    – during this same time period major language groups i.e. German, Italian, Spain, etc. had their MR2 revisions approved and accepted
    – these other language group revisions/updates followed the same translation process and rules as ICEL 1998 – they were approved but english was not. Can someone explain why? Per Pecklers, these language groups used “dynamic equivalence”, CLP, etc. long before LA. We see examples of language that is specific to one country – e.g. Brazil and how they respond to The Lord Be With You
    – realize that I may see a “conspiracy” at times but help me understand why the english conferences/ICEL was not approved or even acted on and became a “target” by a small group to set an example – resulting in LA, RT, etc.
    – this makes no sense??

    1. I’m no expert. (sorry). However, in my opinion, a lot of this seems to be driven by the issue of inclusive language. As the good Professor X pointed out, the CDW’s highlighting of the Christological dimension in revised Grail psalms seems to amount to not much more than inserting ‘man’ and ‘sons of men’ in various places instead of ‘human’ or ‘children of Adam.’ However, to be fair, the vandalism of the 2008 text doesn’t seem to be the result of a desire to excise inclusive language from the liturgy. As regards the motive of the 2010 changes, I am, like all of you, simply bewildered.

  7. Here’s the Entrance Antiphon for the First Sunday of Advent:

    Ad te levavi animam meam, Deus meus, in te confido, non erubescam. Neque irrideant me inimici mei, etenim universi qui te exspectant non confundentur.

    ICEL 2008:
    To you, my God, I have lifted my soul.
    In you I trust, I shall not be put to shame.
    Let not my enemies mock me,
    for no one who waits for you
    will be put to shame.

    CDW 2010 (with punctuation as printed):
    To you, I lift up my soul, O my God.
    In you, I have trusted; let me not be put to shame.
    Nor let not my enemies exult over me;
    and let none who hope in you be put to shame.

    Yes, it actually says ‘Nor let not…’. And they expect composers to set this to music? O my God!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *