C
Cetil
Guest
I don’t believe that’s the case but if you can provide further info then fine. What I am aware of is that the changes made to the Latin text have been very minor.
C.
- Status
C.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I’m not sure what you don’t believe is the case. I was simply applying your overbroad statement and its logic to a different revision.
C
Cetil
Guest
Your earlier post said that the Latin text was “bad” but there is no indication that I know of that is the case.
You said: “second typical edition of the Roman Missal in Latin is very bad” If you want to make the case that the Latin was bad by all means make it. I am onlyl aware that minor changes were made to the Latin text.
If you review the link I provided you will see the very blunt remarks made by the Vatican over and over again with respect to the English translations so I don’t believe my earlier statement is at all overbroad. It’s on target.
C.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
You said the previous translation was very bad, “Otherwise the Holy See would not have revised it!”
That’s the statement I take issue with. The Holy See revises things on a pretty regular basis, and it’s incorrect to use the fact that a revision was made as evidence that the translation or some other aspect was “very bad.” Even if the translation was outstanding, the Holy See would probably still have revised it.
C
Cetil
Guest
That is an absurd statement. I gather you are simply not aware of much of what is going on in this respect? The Vatican does not revise things “on a pretty regular basis”. (?) We have had no revisions of the English translation of the Mass since it was issued in 1970. As to more evidence that the current translation in use is very much lacking I can only refer you to the extensive media accounts of the matter since the early 1990’s which show very clearly that the revisions made have been extensive. The very sharp remarks of the Vatican in this vein more than illustrate my point. At one point the American bishops were advised by the Vatican to replace ALL of the translators they were using! The Vatican document “Liturgiam Authenticam” delineates the problems very well.
C.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I don’t see how they illustrate your point that no revision would have taken place had the previous translations not been “very bad.” Do you have counterexamples where the original translations were judged to be good, and the local translation teams were told not to bother revising the missal in that language?
The missal is now in its third typical edition in about 40 years. We got a new GIRM a few years ago. I don’t expect another comprehensive edition of the CIC for a decade or two, but canons have been changed in a piecemeal fashion. And back to this thread, the CCC was initially promulgated in French, then translated into English while it was being backtranslated and edited in Latin. Several years after the first English edition was promulgated, a revised version was issued that conformed more closely to the Latin translation. I don’t really expect a new edition of the CCC in the near future simply to update the missal quotes - but it wouldn’t be a huge surprise, either.
C
Cetil
Guest
I can only observe again, and for the last time that Vatican remarks on the old English translation have been quite scathing. And, YES it was extensively changed because it was bad. Why else indeed would the translation need to be changed? You may wish to actually research that yourself. I’m not going to do your work for you. There was extensive coverage of this in the Catholic press in the nineties.
My own rule is not to post on a subject if I lack background in it. Your approach is different.
My point about no revisions concerned only the English translation of the Mass, which indeed has only recently been revised and for the FIRST time in 40 years. Your point about the third edition of the Latin text is of course quite irrelevant to what I was saying.
Bye,
C.
B
Bakuryokuso
Guest
I think it’ll take a really long time before the update the English CCC with the new English mass texts.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
Thank you Bakuryokuso for returning us to the OP’s original topic.
I think that there will eventually be a new edition of the CCC that incorporates the new texts, but I don’t think it’ll be anytime soon. Besides the Roman Missal, the CCC also quotes liturgical texts from the Liturgy of the Hours, the Roman Ritual and Roman Pontifical. As these texts will be revised in turn, it will probably be after all these liturgical texts are amended and promulgated before the CCC and Compendium’s texts will be updated.
Given the volume of liturgical texts and the process, maybe this will be in time for the 40th anniversary of the CCC?
I think that there will eventually be a new edition of the CCC that incorporates the new texts, but I don’t think it’ll be anytime soon. Besides the Roman Missal, the CCC also quotes liturgical texts from the Liturgy of the Hours, the Roman Ritual and Roman Pontifical. As these texts will be revised in turn, it will probably be after all these liturgical texts are amended and promulgated before the CCC and Compendium’s texts will be updated.
Given the volume of liturgical texts and the process, maybe this will be in time for the 40th anniversary of the CCC?
V
Vince1022
Guest
When the Church approved and promulgated it as the form to celebrate Mass.
V
Vince1022
Guest
No, the revision was to correct a few minor errors and more importantly to incorporate/update some teachings, e.g. as a result of John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
It was anticipated from the start that the English (and French) would later be revised to conform to the typical Latin edition. You are correct that the typical edition included changes, both from new papal teaching and from suggestions received after initial promulgation years earlier. This is another example that the Vatican doesn’t require that a prior edition be “very bad” when it orders up new editions, which was the point I was making.
I suspect that any new edition of the CCC will likewise include not just revisions of mass texts, but also changes that reflect encyclicals and other Church documents issued since the first typical edition of the CCC.
- Status