There is a debate in America magazine shaping up on the subject of the prospective implementation of the new English translations of the Roman Missal (Novus Ordo), which would introduce such changes as "And with your spirit," "consubstantial," "incarnate," and "Joseph, spouse of the same Virgin." Fr. Michael Ryan counsels against the implementation in his essay "Why Don't We Say, 'Wait?'" (America, Dec. 14), while Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas mounts a strong retort in his essay, "Defending the New Roman Missal" (America, February 1, 2010). Fr. Stravinskas' article is well-worth reading for its good sense rebuttals of spurious counter-arguments.
[Hat tip to J.M.]
Is it a mew missal or a new translation of an existing missal? What I mean is this: implementing a new missal would involve restorationist efforts. Implementing the new translation is foisting on unsuspecting cafeteria sitters a strong course of what they should have learned in school, had the school been paying attention.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is a lifeless lack of rhythm and structure, a sort of "collapsed arches" effect that comes up all over the new translation, as in such passages as this (Eucharistic Prayer IV):
ReplyDeleteIt is truly right to give you thanks, truly just to give you glory, Father, most holy, for you are the one God living and true, existing before all ages and abide for all eternity, dwelling in unapproachable light; yet you, who alone are good, the source of life, have made all that is, so that you might fill your creatures with blessings and bring joy to many of them by the glory of your light. And so, in your presence are countless hosts of angels, who serve you day and night and, gazing upon the glory of your face, glorify you without ceasing. With them we too confess your name in exultation, giving voice to every creature under heaven as we sing (say):
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is obviously a matter of having a new and more accurate translation of the existing Latin missal of Paul VI (1969); which does not begin to address questions of possible infelicities in the original Latin missal (such as led Fr. Louis Bouyer to resign from the Concilium), or the question whether it would have met with the approval of the Council Fathers.
ReplyDeleteOn the positive side, the new translations more accurately reflect the Latin original of the Pauline Missal (1969). On the negative side, this does nothing to guarantee the stylistic elegance of the new translation.
Anyone who wants an example of comparative decorum and elegance in a vernacular translation should have a look at the English translation of the 1962 Missal of John XXIII available in currently available 1962 Missals containing both Latin and English.
Band aids on a cancerous tumor. Re-arrangements of furniture on a sinking Titanic.
ReplyDeleteAside from a bit of enjoyable clucking over how the passionate reformers of the V2 Cultural Revolution have suddenly turned thoughtful maintainers of the status quo, I don't see anything to be gained by the current debate over the best frosting to be heaped on a badly baked cake. The whole thing reminds me of one of those classic disputes between Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, Foghorn Leghorn and The Dog, Moe and Shemp, Moe and Curly, Moe and . . . .
ReplyDelete