Two Commentaries on the New Translation

Jerry Galipeau is feeling ever better about the new translation.

“At this point in my own journey with the new translation, that I am seeing this whole development as much more organic. The only way that the new translation is really going to take root here in the United States is if we give people solid information; solid knowledge directly from the sources. We need to lay it all out for people. We need to show them that there are significant differences between the way the Latin was translated into English and the way the Latin was translated into many of the world’s languages.”

What he is getting at is a point that is so far being avoided for understandable reasons. He senses that the best way to explain the coming change is to show people that this new translation is an improvement, not just a change but an upgrade. I think he is exactly right.

Already, some priests are making their own videos to demonstrate this. Here is an example.

11 Replies to “Two Commentaries on the New Translation”

  1. Forty years after the Council, I don't think we've seen much improvement. The accuracy of this translation is openly questioned. And that's even assuming accuracy is the highest virtue. Liturgy is largely an art form. Many of us would argue that literary beauty in the context of theological orthodoxy is the best combination.

    I've come to the conclusion the problem may be as much with the source material as the translation. MR3 unsuccessfully blends a preconciliar one year cycle with a post-conciliar Lectionary. That is the single greatest drawback.

    Another would be the poverty of sources for prayers in the MR3. A wiser Rome would have encouraged original compositions in line with the three-year Lectionary cycle, as it did for many of the other rites, then use the best of these and apply them to the universal edition.

    My observation is that the CDWDS, and possibly Rome in general lacks the vision and creative thinking needed to get this done as well as it could be done.

  2. I think we should not get confused, in that these are two different issues. To me, how well the new English langauge version of MR3 presents the Latin of MR3 is a distinct issue from criticism of MR3 itself.

  3. "A wiser Rome would have encouraged…"
    "Rome in general lacks the vision…"

    Todd, you're starting to sound like the 'Pray Tell' blog! I'm writing a letter to Rome, suggesting that the Pope and his assistants step down, and they put you and Pray Tell in charge. I will let you know if they respond.

  4. One could argue that vision and creative thinking caused the current mess.
    I wouldn't argue that, but I bet a whole lot of people would. (And I probably wouldn't disagree with them.)

  5. One doesn't have to know much Spanish to notice the difference between the (current) ICEL translation and the Spanish one. If you're near a Spanish parish, pick up one of their missalettes and do a comparison.

    You'll be astounded.

  6. Todd, I hope you're not saying that the banal, pedestrian, and highly inaccurate current translation is superior to what is being proposed.

  7. Folks,

    Todd has complained about the quality of the current translation since before the idea of a Catholic blog was a twinkle in anyone's eye.

  8. Todd, let's cut to the chase. Do you favor "and with your Spirit" as the translation of "et cum spiritu tuo" or "and also with you?"

  9. I agree–anything closer to the Latin is an improvement.

    I was thinking the same thing about his hands…Next time, he needs to be photographed in a close-up. Whole lot of hand motions going on!

Comments are closed.