Jerry Galipeau, at his blog Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray, points out the interesting anomaly that in the new translation the consecration of the cup — hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei — is translated, “for this is the chalice of my Blood” while the memorial acclamation beginning Quotiescumque manducamus panem hunc et calicem bibimus. . . is translated as, “When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup. . .”
It is interesting to wonder how this is squared with Liturgiam Authenticam no. 50d: “In translating important words, due constancy is to be observed throughout the various parts of the Liturgy.” This would seem to say that, all other things being equal, the same English word should always be used to translate the same Latin word. Is there something about the memorial acclamation that calls for a different translation? Is it the near-quotation of scripture that makes the difference (see LA no. 49)?
It is also interesting to ask what light the discrepancy between the consecration and the memorial acclamation sheds on how we read LA no. 50c: “One should maintain the vocabulary that has gradually developed in a given vernacular language to distinguish the individual liturgical ministers, vessels, furnishings, and vesture from similar persons or things pertaining to everyday life and usage; words that lack such a sacral character are not to be used instead.” Is “cup” a term for a “thing pertaining to everyday usage” while “chalice” is a word with a “sacral character”? If so, why is cup acceptable in one case but not the other? Is it because the words of the consecration should be more “sacral” than those of the memorial acclamation? Of maybe the answer is as mundane as one person translating the Eucharistic Prayer and another person translating the memorial acclamation.
Maybe its because I have a stack of papers to grade, but these are the sorts of questions toward which my mind keeps wandering.