New LOTH?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It will be awhile, certainly. The English Mass translation is top priority right now.

Not according to some posters on this thread who have contacts at ICEL. It seems that the LOTH is on the back burner with a guess that it will be a decade before we see anything.

 

[OraLabora]

Not according to some posters on this thread who have contacts at ICEL. It seems that the LOTH is on the back burner with a guess that it will be a decade before we see anything.

It’ll be done in 7 days but it will be 7 biblical days like in Genesis…

I have some experience waiting for things out of Solesmes.

The LOTH came out in 1971. The first official volume of the Roman Antiphonary that makes it possible to chant an entire office in Gregorian chant came out earlier this year. And that’s for only part of the LOTH (Vespers for Sundays, feasts and solemnities).

Nearly 40 years!!!

I’m not holding my breath, if the revised translations take as long I will likely pushing daisies by the time they come out.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I could also see them saying that it is OK to use the older version if changing creates “difficulties”. This was in fact permitted when the LOTH replaced the 1962 breviary, particularly for the benefit of older clergy.

I suppose that it is quite likely that, when a new translation of the Liturgy of the Hours in English becomes available (whenever that will be), the previous translations would still be permissible, at least for individual recitation of the Office. If I’m not wrong, prior to the major reforms at the Second Vatican Council, newer editions of the breviary tended to be used in parallel, rather than a total replacement of the old ones.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I hope it isn’t redone. Another $100 plus for the four-set leather bound edition. Yikes.

Emphasis on the “plus.” I saw the 4-volume leather edition in a catalogue this week, and it was $195. I hope to grow old with the set I’ve got.

 

[PKinsale]

There’s an interesting article online about why there are different English versions of Liturgia Horarum and psalm responses to the Lectionary between the American and British liturgical books. This is the only source I’ve found on the matter, so do take some of the history related with a pinch of salt.

Thanks a lot for this link! It explained a lot to me. I’d love to see more on why ICEL decided to ignore the British translation. This presents it as a decision with not much argument behind it.

 

[drforjc]

Thanks a lot for this link! It explained a lot to me. I’d love to see more on why ICEL decided to ignore the British translation. This presents it as a decision with not much argument behind it.

But didn’t the stated rationale behind Chapman’s hurry to publish his version seem less than altruistic to you?

If his lectionary contained his own version of the psalm refrains and Gospel verses, he would not need to deal with ICEL over royalties. And if he could act quickly, his lectionary would appear first and he could enjoy a better market. These Chapman-sponsored psalm refrains and alleluia verses were quickly approved by the English hierarchy. One must conclude that in so doing, the bishops did not advert to the Roman guideline of one translation per language. More difficult to understand is the confirmation of this approval by the Vatican. I might point out that approval by the hierarchy and confirmation by the Holy See are two required steps for all liturgical translations.

 

[PKinsale]

But didn’t the stated rationale behind Chapman’s hurry to publish his version seem less than altruistic to you?

I was referring more to this, re the Breviary revision:

“One might ask: if the non-ICEL breviary came out first and was a decent effort, why did not ICEL adopt or sanction it, and save itself the trouble and cost of a duplicate effort? This would also save the conflict of the two versions we now in fact suffer. Well, this question was faced by ICEL. Without the benefit of written records, I distinctly remember that the Executive Secretary, Fr. John Rotelle, raised this question at one of our meetings. Our mood was rather tired at the time, and I think I was the only person to reply. I argued for ICEL to proceed with its own translation, because many of the short phrases in the breviary (antiphons, responscries, and the like) would duplicate identical ones in other rites of the liturgy, and these should naturally be translated in the same English words in both places. My argument was not opposed. Without, I recall, any formal vote, we agreed to carry on and translate the breviary.”