Sunday, July 9, 2006


BTW, the Good Archbishop (Abp. Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, that is) also gets mention in the forthcoming podcast (due tomorrow), titled The Forbidden Eulogy (Sequel to "It's My Funeral"). This will be our thirty-seventh podcast.

Anyhoo, Abp. Burke's weekly column for June 23, 2006 is on the new translation of the Mass. First of all, he reminds us that:
Before commenting on the changes, I note that they are not yet final. The text which the conference of bishops approved June 16 must now be reviewed by the Holy See for final approval.

On our present (the "can't-get-dumped-soon-enough") translation:
The key principle of our present translation, known as "dynamic equivalence," permitted the translator to interpret the content of a text, apart from the actual content of the words. As a result, texts which were very rich in scriptural and theological meaning were often rendered in an English version which stripped them of their richness. "Dynamic equivalence" is an inadequate tool for all translations and especially for texts of the Sacred Liturgy. The revision of the principles of translation of liturgical texts can be found in the document of the Holy Father’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Liturgiam authenticam, "Fifth Instruction on the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy," issued on March 28, 2001.

On the so-called "confusion" that those "to the left of center" seem to anticipate:
Some experts and commentators on the matter have suggested that the "rank and file" faithful will not understand the changes in translations or will resist them. I do not share their opinion in any way. From my pastoral experience, I can only imagine that the new translations will be welcomed with gratitude and attention, and that any initial awkwardness in adapting to the changes will be rapidly overcome. At the same time, if I as archbishop and our good priests provide a careful explanation of the changes, they will be more than understandable and, in fact, will be an occasion for our growing in eucharistic faith.

The Good Archbishop has thus eliminated the excuse. Go ahead, read the whole thing.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Actually, Brian, this whole article is colored by the disinformation campaign by those who want fussy literalism rather than art.

My cynical theory is that fussy literalism is the best inoculation they could think of to protect them from inclusive language.

The new texts, what I've seen of them, are NOT better, only different, more difficult to proclaim, a bad misfit for a mode of worship that is read aloud and not mumbled into the back wall.

We needed change -- but the change we're getting is not an improvement. Sort of like running off to Mexico for Laetrile.