Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
Deo gratias.
A neat bit of damage limitation on ICEL's part, don't you think?
(Or am I just being super-cynical?)
Of course, eventually it will prove to be very good news...
...eventually...
This is great, great news. We should be grateful to ICEL and the bishops for doing the right thing. I take back the intemperate things I said before.
Way to go, Jeffrey! Thank you for your determination on this issue. Can we turn to the Grail psalms next?
Will this apply to just the Ordinary texts or will it apply to the entire ICEL translation of the Roman Missal?
He made no distinction. So it apparently applies the whole Missal when it appears.
Agreed that this is good news.
However, this gives motivation to the happy-clappy people to press for as long a delay as possible. Yes, we know that the better texts will come out eventually, but will "eventually" mean A.D. 2030 or 2050?
In other words, any way we can speed up the recognitio process and short-circuit the happy-clappies?
Congratulations, Jeffrey - I think.
Ian.
Jeffrey
You have definitely scored a significant point through sheer determination. Congratulations and many thanks. Thanks are due as well to ICEL for their liberal spirit, in the true sense of the term.
They made the right decision, in fact, the only decision that could have legal justification in the practical realm. These are exactly the kind of rules that govern "fair use" of copyright material in the academic world, indeed, they seem a bit more liberal.
Jeffrey, in all honesty, if we are going to be forced to change our texts and music, I have no intention to pay ICEL for the required materials. The bishops are spending a fortune to fix that which is not broken. I won't have my people paying for it.
This is all good news, but is everyone satisfied with the definitive translations? Is there no hope of further re-touching? I agree we/they are almost there, but there are still some cringe-making moments in these texts, eg what to me seems the clumsy muddle of the Memento of the living in the Roman Canon, and again the clumsiness of "In a similar way" in all the anaphorae - what on earth would be wrong with the much more rhythmical "In like manner", or simply the familiar - to Anglicans - "Likewise". Surely even Bishop Trautperson could hardly complain that such expressions are beyond the supposedly limited intelligence of "John and Mary Catholic". And one can carry literalism too far. Most such excesses seem to have been removed from this version, but I do feel that, as here, traces still remain.
The new translations are dainty, gay-sounding, and too British. Who decided that sacral language must be pretty? They will have to peel my old Sacramentary out of my cold dead hands.
Break the power of GIA and OCP!!! Overthrow the established old liberal order! Take back the music!! Down with Haugen!! Down with Haas!!
Lordy, it feels so good to be a revolutionary agitating for good things. :-D
Johnny Boy you are not a revolutionary you just know what you like. This is more than a fashion show. OCP doesn't publish my seminary favorites but I don't get jollies forcing nostalgia on my parishioners. The musical and liturgical judgments about music can be guided by objective criteria, but most often they come down to what people like. All the publishers have a range of selections, some great (Soper, for example) and others less so. Even your "Adoremus" (sic) has a few dogs. I like that genre, but the people here would hate it. The so-called "critera" that you use to criticize updated/reformed liturgical music (OCP/GIA) can just as easily be used to denegrate Adoremus selections, like I said, it just comes down to a matter of what you LIKE.
Dear Monitor,
The New Liturgical Movement began life as a welcome arena for well-considered and temperate discussion. Polemic has its place, but comments like "dainty, gay-sounding, and pretty" hardly stand up to rigorously objective intellectual analysis. Indeed, they could even be considered offensive to some.
It is important to remember that the definitive text is not solely the work of ICEL, and that the genuine infelicities that have been pointed out could well be changes forced onto the ICEL translation by the Bishops, or even by the Congregation for Divine Worship.
My last post entitled "Dear Monitor" appeared under the name of Peter M, but this is incorrect.
Anon
Looking at the NLM criteria for posting comments:
Critique Principles not People. Be Discriminating but don't Nitpick. Be Academic not Acerbic. Be Principled not Polemical.
A number of above comments failing three out of four criteria seems to me to warrant their deletion.
Likewise, I hope this comment may be deleted for nitpicking.
I'm very happy about this! I've been working on a mass setting myself.
Do we know when the English texts will be finalized? I would be interested in composing a setting as well.
Congratulations, brethren, on negotiating this on behalf of us all. Thank you, and God bless you.
Actually, I have long had a sneaking suspicion that the ICEL people themselves may be more on our side than they are able to publicly admit. Their masters, however, in the Episcopal conferences are a different matter.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
