Comme Le Prevoit 43

A final word on our document:

43. Texts translated from another language are clearly not sufficient for the celebration of a fully renewed liturgy. The creation of new texts will be necessary. But translation of texts transmitted through the tradition of the Church is the best school and discipline for the creation of new texts so “that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already in existence” (SC 23.).

The modern curia has pretty much countermanded this notion, at least with regard to the Roman Missal. It is curious to see Sacrosanctum Concilium’s only mention of “organic” growth used as a reference to guide the creation of new texts.

In sum, we’ve seen that Comme Le Prevoit presented a balanced and flexible approach for guiding the translation and creation of texts for Roman Catholic worship. Faithfulness to the original was lauded where most pastorally useful. Particular ideologies were put at the service of meeting the spiritual needs of the people. Rather than being a blind endorsement of “dynamic equivalence” (How many times did we see that term?) the Consilium treated that principle as one tool among many in the liturgists’ toolbox.

Any last thoughts, criticisms, affirmations, comments?

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in Minnesota, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Comme Le Prevoit, post-conciliar liturgy documents. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s