It is important to note that Liturgiam Authenticam does not mandate a strictly literal translation of the Latin. Paragraph 20 merely stipulates that the translation must render “the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular.” In order to achieve that end, it is not necessary to sacrifice either clarity or fluency. But in my opinion, the newly proposed ICEL translations, for the most part, are a rather stilted rendering of the Latin.
The liturgy tussles are far more complex than left versus right. Galeone stops short of slamming Liturgiam Authenticam, but he says the document isn’t being faithfully and accurately followed by ICEL. This was big:
At the Orlando conference, it was pointed out that only eight bishops had submitted amendments to alter the proposed texts. The legal maxim “silence gives consent” should warrant the conclusion that the vast majority of bishops agree with the proposed translations. I submitted no amendments. I refrained from doing so out of frustration. At our meeting in Los Angeles two years ago, I submitted four amendments with well-reasoned explanations as to why the texts were flawed. Not one amendment was accepted, nor was any reason given for their rejection. I have spoken with other bishops who feel equally frustrated.
So the bishops still aren’t happy with the new ‘n’ improved ICEL. Well-reasoned input is rejected without explanation. And frustration’s the result? You’d think Rome sees its bishops as something more than mid-level mouthpieces against abortion and in favor of the one-big-happy-Roman-family.
I’m wondering how the USCCB go-along caucus will deal with clergy back home. They have to bring all this stuff back to their diocese and try to get the parish pastors on board. I think they’re going to get more lip than the bishops were willing to give in their meetings.
Any lip from the commentariat here?
(Image credit: Fr Mike Thompson’s home page.)