New English translation of Liturgy of the Hours?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leon_Bloy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leon_Bloy

Guest
Does anybody know if there are plans underway to newly translate the OF Liturgy of the Hours in English just as the mass was recently done? May of the closing prayers, obviously, are the same ones as used at mass, so I would imagine so, but I have no idea.

Thanks!
 
It will have to be eventually. Now this could either be a re-translation of the current Latin text in force or they could wait until a new Latin edition is released. In the latter case, they would be compelled to re-translate.

Also, it is legitimate to substitute the re-translated Mass collects for the current obsolete collects in the LOTH. I can’t find the document outlining that, so, further readers, enlighten us if you know if it please.
 
Leon_Bloy said:
Does anybody know if there are plans underway to newly translate the OF Liturgy of the Hours in English just as the mass was recently done? May of the closing prayers, obviously, are the same ones as used at mass, so I would imagine so, but I have no idea.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
ICEL is in process of doing so, so I read somewhere.

Does anyone know if it is “legitimate” to use a different translation for the psalms/canticles? I know the UK uses a different and unofficial translation, so the definition of legitimate seems to be lax. The prayers and intercessory prayers need fixing (or removal of the latter), but the psalms are a far shot from what’s written.
 
BertBlyleven said:
ICEL is in process of doing so, so I read somewhere.

Does anyone know if it is “legitimate” to use a different translation for the psalms/canticles? I know the UK uses a different and unofficial translation, so the definition of legitimate seems to be lax. The prayers and intercessory prayers need fixing (or removal of the latter), but the psalms are a far shot from what’s written.
Click to expand...
Don’t quote me on this, but I predict it will be 6-7 years before we get a new translation for LOTH. I would recommend still using an official translation (now whether that’s in the vernacular or not…)
 
YoungTradCath said:
Also, it is legitimate to substitute the re-translated Mass collects for the current obsolete collects in the LOTH. I can’t find the document outlining that, so, further readers, enlighten us if you know if it please.
Click to expand...
I have seen this idea floated before but there are two things I see against doing this.

You need another book that contains all the collects to use them so this adds an additional book to the mix. Or you need to print them out from some source.

I do not know if this is acceptable for those who have an obligation to recite the LOTH. I have yet to see any official statement to such effect.
BertBlyleven said:
ICEL is in process of doing so, so I read somewhere.

Does anyone know if it is “legitimate” to use a different translation for the psalms/canticles? I know the UK uses a different and unofficial translation, so the definition of legitimate seems to be lax. The prayers and intercessory prayers need fixing (or removal of the latter), but the psalms are a far shot from what’s written.
Click to expand...
As with using the collects from the new Mass translation, it can be done but it would not fulfill any obligation that one might have to recite the LOTHs. Those who do not have such an obligation may do as they wish but should keep in mind that when they stray from the actual texts that the Church uses they are no longer praying with the Church but are now practicing a private devotion that resembles the LOTHs that the Church is praying.
 
I emailed the ICEL a while ago, and they said it’s probably at least 5 years down the road.

However, I don’t understand why for the life of me, since the psalms and most of the collects are already done. You’d think they’d just quickly finish it up. They could realistically have it done in two years, easily.
 
ByzCath said:
I have seen this idea floated before but there are two things I see against doing this.

You need another book that contains all the collects to use them so this adds an additional book to the mix. Or you need to print them out from some source.

I do not know if this is acceptable for those who have an obligation to recite the LOTH. I have yet to see any official statement to such effect.

As with using the collects from the new Mass translation, it can be done but it would not fulfill any obligation that one might have to recite the LOTHs. Those who do not have such an obligation may do as they wish but should keep in mind that when they stray from the actual texts that the Church uses they are no longer praying with the Church but are now practicing a private devotion that resembles the LOTHs that the Church is praying.
Click to expand...
There actually has been an official statement approving this practice, since the new collects are legitimately approved translations of that text. I wish I could find it, but it does exist, and it is approved. I think it was from the USCCB.

From a practical standpoint, I don’t think it’d be too bad, since only the leader needs the new collect.
 
Here’s a link to an article on Fr. Zs blog.

Suggested Adaptations

The Committee suggests that the following adaptations can be made to other liturgical rites in light of the Roman Missal, though these do not constitute obligations:
…
In the Liturgy of the Hours (individually or communally), one can make use of the proper collects from the Roman Missal
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/12/more-points-about-the-new-corrected-translation-and-update-on-matters-like-the-liturgy-of-the-hours/

A few notes:
  1. Keep in mind this blog is not an official communication of the Church. It’s someone’s personal work (good work, but we have to remember it’s personal).
  2. The information Fr Z gives is re-printed from the USCCB committee on worship newsletter. Again, not an official source because the committee has no authority to make any changes to the Church’s liturgy.
  3. Note the wording “the committee suggests” A suggestion is just that and nothing more.
  4. It’s only a newsletter, so let’s keep that in perspective. If the newsletter were quoting an instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship that would be different, but that’s not the case. It’s just a newsletter.
 
BertBlyleven said:
ICEL is in process of doing so, so I read somewhere.

Does anyone know if it is “legitimate” to use a different translation for the psalms/canticles? I know the UK uses a different and unofficial translation, so the definition of legitimate seems to be lax. The prayers and intercessory prayers need fixing (or removal of the latter), but the psalms are a far shot from what’s written.
Click to expand...
Apologies to go tangential, but I am pretty sure the UK uses a different and official translation – That is, approved by the appropriate conference(s) of bishops for use in the appropriate country(ies). It is not, however, approved by the USCCB for use in the USA.

Though there has been a deliberate effort for all English speaking countries to use the same translation of the Roman Missal, it was not a caonically necessary condition. Similarly, I believe, the translation of the Roman Missal differs in eg Spain and Mexico, even though both are Spanish translations.

tee
 
superamazingman said:
I emailed the ICEL a while ago, and they said it’s probably at least 5 years down the road.

However, I don’t understand why for the life of me, since the psalms and most of the collects are already done. You’d think they’d just quickly finish it up. They could realistically have it done in two years, easily.
Click to expand...
There is more to the LOTH than just the psalms and collects.

If the wording is to change according to the now philosophy on how to go about translating then all the antiphons, intercessions, responsorials, verses, and what ever else there is will be changing.

Not only that, but I believe a newer translation of the lectionary has come out since the publication of the LOTH so that means all the readings will need to be updated.

It is not as simple as some would suggest.
 
superamazingman said:
I emailed the ICEL a while ago, and they said it’s probably at least 5 years down the road.

However, I don’t understand why for the life of me, since the psalms and most of the collects are already done. You’d think they’d just quickly finish it up. They could realistically have it done in two years, easily.
Click to expand...
Are the Psalms already done?

With the new missal, there is a single translation being used in all English-speaking countries. As far as I know – and please correct me if I’m wrong – different countries are currently using different translations of the Psalms. Which one will be selected for the Liturgy of the Hours?
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
Are the Psalms already done?

With the new missal, there is a single translation being used in all English-speaking countries. As far as I know – and please correct me if I’m wrong – different countries are currently using different translations of the Psalms. Which one will be selected for the Liturgy of the Hours?
Click to expand...
It’ll be the new revised grail, also known as the RGP. You can look at the RGP here:

giamusic.com/sacred_music/RGP/psalmDisplay.cfm

I like this new translation better, and it’s much more singable. Whenever I sing the cantor, I always use the RGP for the psalm verses on both the propers and the responsorial psalm.
 
superamazingman said:
It’ll be the new revised grail, also known as the RGP.
Click to expand...
I knew that had been selected for the US. I didn’t know it had been selected worldwide.

And I guess I’m still confused. This is from the GIA site you linked to:
All this suggests the Revised Grail Psalter, 2008, may well be destined to become the universal psalter for English-speaking Catholics. link]

It doesn’t sound like a done deal. :confused:
 
tee_eff_em said:
Apologies to go tangential, but I am pretty sure the UK uses a different and official translation – That is, approved by the appropriate conference(s) of bishops for use in the appropriate country(ies). It is not, however, approved by the USCCB for use in the USA.

Though there has been a deliberate effort for all English speaking countries to use the same translation of the Roman Missal, it was not a caonically necessary condition. Similarly, I believe, the translation of the Roman Missal differs in eg Spain and Mexico, even though both are Spanish translations.

tee
Click to expand...
Good points. And don’t the USCCB bishops have to approve the Spanish translations and all the other vernaculars within the US besides?
 
The Grail Psalms aren’t ruined by inclusive language, are they?
 
YoungTradCath said:
The Grail Psalms aren’t ruined by inclusive language, are they?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, from what I can tell.

Psalm 1:
  1. Blessed indeed is the man
    who follows not the counsel of the wicked,
    nor stands in the path with sinners,
    nor abides in the company of scorners,
  2. but whose delight is the law of the LORD,
    and who ponders his law day and night.
  3. He is like a tree that is planted
    beside the flowing waters,
    that yields its fruit in due season,
    and whose leaves shall never fade;
    and all that he does shall prosper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top