Replies

Why doesn't one hear translations this beautiful in modern Roman Catholic Churches?

In my fairly extensive collection of prayer and liturgical books, some of my more prized possessions are a St. Joseph's Missal in traditional liturgical English, an old Douay-Rheims in traditional liturgical English, and a parallel Latin/English Psalter in traditional liturgical English.

When, where, and how was the decision made to jettison the traditional language translations that had been done within the Roman Catholic Church earlier in the century, in favor of the new style of modern English that is ubiquitous in modern Catholic parishes?

"Why doesn't one hear translations this beautiful in modern Roman Catholic Churches?"

That is the $64 million question!

As a result of the 2nd Vatican Council it was decided to allow the liturgy to be celebrated in the venacular in some parts. Unfortunately the modernists quickly got hold of this project with the aim of translating the whole Mass into a modern "man-in-the-street" vernacular using the liberal translation principles of dynamic equivalence. This change took place somewhere between 1965 and 1970.

The Church is still struggling with the damaging consequences of this change to this day. The orthodox believers want as a minimum to see a reverent and accurate translation (if not return to the Latin), whereas the dregs of the 1960's hippies who have ascended to the episcopate are desperately trying to cling on to their dumbed-down semi-heretical street-patois.

It may be off-topic, but it was interesting that an Orthodox Christian could spot the difference so quickly when so many of our co-religionists either cannot see the difference or prefer the banal secularity of the modern.

Acutely, or terminally, deficient phronema is my diagnosis!

This is off-topic for this thread, but when I was reading the text of the Requim Mass in this post, I was struck by the beautiful traditional liturgical English translation parallel to the Latin text.

Why doesn't one hear translations this beautiful in modern Roman Catholic Churches?

You're quite right to point out the, ahem, lack of beauty in the translations.

My opinion, based only on the product (the translations), is the people of the ICEL place no value on beauty. It is unimportant, as a matter of policy.

Back in 1970, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued Liturgicae Instaurationes. The word 'beauty' appears twice in the short document:

The new norms have made liturgical formularies, gestures, and actions much simpler, in keeping with that principle established in the Constitution on the Liturgy: "The rites should be marked by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension and as a rule not require much explanation."[8] No one should go beyond these defined limits; to do so would be to strip the liturgy of its sacred symbolism and proper beauty, so needed for the fulfillment of the mystery of salvation in the Christian community and, with the help of an effective catechesis, for its comprehension under the veil of things that are seen.

and

In this matter it is advisable to proceed without haste, enlisting the help not only of theologians and liturgists, but of people of learning and letters. Then the translations will be documents of tested beauty; their grace, balance, elegance, and richness of style and language will endow them with the promise of lasting use; they will match the requirements of the inner richness of their content.

One can see by their product that ICEL has utterly failed in fulfilling the second.

Hence, I conclude that ICEL places no value on beauty.

I'm not qualified to answer the questions in your last paragraph. I am ignorant of when, where, and how was the decision made to jettison the traditional language.