Earlier this week Fr Z had some excerpts of the latest USCCB newsletter which said
Well, brick by brick.
Good question! The version we use in the British Isles is not an ICEL translation. If ICEL produce a new translation would the British and Irish episcopal conferences accept it; decide to revise the current one; follow another option. Who knows? It’s a case of watch this space.
The Form of the Mass isn’t a matter of translation. It goes quite a bit deeper than that.
There is no such entity as the “UK Bishops (sic) Conference”.
I did not say that the form of Mass is a matter of translation. I made no mention of translations. I said that it is not the tradition of the Latin Catholic Church to have rigid uniformity of the liturgy.
If you look at the history, you will find this wasn’t always necessarily so. One of the reasons for Trent (and Quo Primum) was to standardize the liturgy and move forward with its ancient language(s). This was effectively done by retroactively abrogating any rite created after 1370 A.D. Whether this will be done on a massive scale again is anyone’s guess but in the meantime we will have to deal with translations which aren’t considered different rites in themselves but do periodically require revision. That’s the philosophical nature of translations when the receiving vernacular changes over time. And English (or what’s acceptable English at the time) has changed and will continue to change.
I will attempt to say this once more although I fear it will be in vain: I am not talking about translations, was not, and will not in regard to what I said about liturgical uniformity. The Latin Catholic Church does not impose a rigid uniformity of liturgy throughout the world. If that were the case why did we have an allegedly poor translation of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Mass when the other vernacular languages supposedly got it right. Now, look what you’ve made me do: I’ve mentioned translation.
The three different current English breviaries are just different translations, correct? Correct me if I’m wrong. Before Nov. 27, there were several English translations of the Roman Missal. Now there is one because of Liturgiam authenticam. There is currently more than one English breviary. In the future, because of Liturgiam authenticam, there will only be one English translation of the breviary, the same as the Roman Missal has only one translation now. When the other texts like the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Ceremoniale, etc., are translated into English in the future, there will only be one translation per language for each text.
The are differences in the Liturgy other than the language. I doubt therefore we will have a uniform Ritual as that has always been one of the most diverse of liturgical books.
When you have 500 vernaculars to authenticize, it’s not that easy to make the liturgy uniform. English only constitutes maybe about 5% of the OF’s, so I think we should be patient with the corrections and approvals.I will attempt to say this once more although I fear it will be in vain: I am not talking about translations, was not, and will not in regard to what I said about liturgical uniformity. The Latin Catholic Church does not impose a rigid uniformity of liturgy throughout the world. If that were the case why did we have an allegedly poor translation of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Mass when the other vernacular languages supposedly got it right. Now, look what you’ve made me do: I’ve mentioned translation.
The differences to be found in liturgy include, but are not solely, different languages.
I don’t quite understand how there can be legitimate differences in the liturgy of the Roman Rite in different places. Small national adaptations for things, yes, like specific feast days and things like that, but probably more than 99% of the new English Roman Missal is exactly the same everywhere. That’s exactly what Liturgiam authenticam was trying to kill, this “create a rite” attitude. Have you seen the “1998 Sacramentary” that was rejected by the Vatican? It is awful, truly awful. The Order of Mass has countless options, and I’m not even kidding. I have it right on my desktop. The “Introductory Rites” consist of: asperges (four options), or a penitential rite (twelve options), or a “litany of praise” (twenty-four options), or a Kyrie (six options), or a Gloria (three options), and you couldn’t combine options (as in, have a Penitential Act, the Kyrie and then the Gloria as it was for probably a thousand years previously). I am not joking. That is forty-nine options, just for the beginning part of mass. That is such a disastrous, radical departure from the structure of the Roman Rite that I can’t even begin put it into words. Thankfully, LA and the CDWDS killed that before it could ever lay its venomous touch on us.
Wow. That is just sick. Can you send it to me, or PM me a link or something?
I have read your post a number of times and I’m afraid I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say.
Have it your way.
Why? It was rejected.