data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/37eb5/37eb5e5039af2de1206d67729062ae90469ae306" alt=""
I expected to hear some grumbling and negative comments about the changes, but surprisingly everyone seemed very positive. Indeed, I didn't receive a single negative question during the Q&A. I thought they were particularly appreciative of the fact that the changes were being explained and addressed well in advance of their implementation next Advent. This was especially encouraging, and as a result I have begun work on a plan of liturgical catechesis to prepare our parishioners for the revisions. I hope all our parishioners will be as receptive and enthusiastic as these women were last night.
Personally, I'm all in favor of the revised translations. In some of the current English texts the beauty of the Latin phraseology is sadly lost. And in many instances key words and phrases were simply omitted. The Gloria is one of the more obvious examples, but there are far more subtle examples as well. In the response to the Orate, fratres prayer, which the priest prays right before the Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer, the current text has the assembly responding with the words, "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his Church." And yet, in the Latin Roman Missal, of which these words are supposedly a translation, the last three words of this response are, "Ecclesiae suae sanctae." And so "his holy Church" somehow became "all his Church." For years now, I've wondered why the word "sanctae" (holy) was omitted in translation. Thankfully, it has been restored in the revised translation. Do you think that if hundreds of millions of people had all been praying for the holiness of Christ's Church for the past few decades, it might have made a difference? Just a thought.
God's peace...
No comments:
Post a Comment