USCCB Purchases Translation of Psalms and Canticles from Conception Abbey
  • drforjc
    Posts: 25
    Aka the RGP....
    Which doesn't say a whole lot for the original Grail either, then.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,012
    We are God's people, the sheep of God's flock', the second 'God's' being a very obvious ploy to avoid the masculine pronoun 'his' which would be spoken (and/or even thought) in normal speech in that context. Such fetishes are comically obvious and tedious. At least they avoided the more likely current and even more comical usage of 'We are God's people, the sheep of Their flock'. The really natural form would be 'We are God's people, the sheep of His flock', but the PC police (and those in paranoid fear of them) have won again.
    ...This is one of the main reasons I avoid composing ANY music using these silly translations…

    Truly, Latin is for serious composition and will outlast these novelties.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • Francis,

    As Jackson will not doubt point out (and I would be forced to agree with him) beautiful, faithful translation is possible into English. Why it is so rare in our own day is a question which merits some reflection.
    Thanked by 2Salieri CharlesW
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,654
    Why it is so rare in our own day is a question which merits some reflection.

    It is because beautiful, graceful English is no longer welcome on account of the fetish of "folkiness" which reduces language to the lowest common denominator, in a vain attempt by today's academics and pseudo-intellectuals to be "authentic to the lived experience of ordinary people". Any kind of elevated language, whether in poetry, oratory, or anything else, is considered by the politically correct elites to be elitist---usually with racial baggage attached, such as the standard "dead white men" trope---it is the reason why some "progressive" (whatever that means) professors of English have advocated removing Shakespeare from school curricula, and replacing it with something more "relevant" like rap lyrics. Because the USCCB are forever chasing the mirage of "relevance", they (despite the best efforts of the members of the new ICEL) have given-in to this stupid notion that "ordinary people" cannot understand more elevated forms of English, and need simple texts that are easily grasped with no big words: do you remember Bp. Donald Traut-person as head of the USCCB Secretariat for Divine Worship during the debates on the new Missal translation? "It's too hard! Consubstantial?! The people won't be able to figure out what this means! We need the simple, old translations like 'And also with you' that are so dear to our people!"
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 722
    The post-Counciliar reforms and rumors of reforms featured a real phobia toward hieratic, stylized, sacred language in favor of accessible, transparent, some might say sophomoric modern language. Of course, the latter is as changeable as the culture, so that now we should probably be proclaiming (or at least writing) English in the style of a teenage texter in order to preserve our modern relevance. The trend is symptomatic of a larger tendency toward the impermanence of what was once considered (naively, as some would say) the permanence of faith and worship, which itself reflects the contempt many felt for the received tradition. Some have seen this pattern of concern-critique-contempt as a reaction to the traumas of the first half of the 20th century, and the inadequacy of the Church's response. Why that didn't equal a stronger sense of universality and, thus, a universal language (Latin was handy) is not at all clear to me. Instead, we have devolved into multiple Missals in multiple languages, and even different versions of the same language, all proclaiming to be locally relevant, but all striking me as near-xenophobic. Combine that with liturgical laws that have favored local, particular interpretations and application, and you get the ghettoization of Catholic worship, diversity run amok. After a few decades, some dioceses are reining it all in with their particular version of status quo (Missalette) liturgy, which seeks to please everybody, and ends up pleasing nobody. Rubrical flailing and language tweaking ensues, and disorder and chaos reign. Fortunately, we have a slightly broader choice of ghettos than we had a couple decades ago. But the solution to the English question is nowhere in sight.
  • I couldn't say it better myself, Richard.

    Just as a preliminary test before the long-overdue Roman Missal 4th edition with similar language comes out, I ran the 1975 ICEL Gloria through an SMS lingo converter and got the following beauty:

    glry 2 God n d highest
    & (-<-) 2 Hs ppl on erth.<br /> Lord God, heavenly King,
    Almighty God & Father,
    we worship you, we GIV U thanks,
    we praise U 4 yor glry.
    Lord Jss Christ, only Son of d Father,
    Lord God, Lamb of God,
    U tAk awA d sin of d world:
    hav mercy on us;
    U R seated @ d rght h& of d Father:
    recEv our prayer.
    4 U aloN R d Holy One,
    U aloN R d Lord,
    U aloN R d Most High,
    Jss Christ,
    w d Holy Spirit,
    n d glry of God d fathR. Amen.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,934
    @Richard R.

    You have described the tower of Babel... fortunately such constructions have a habit of falling down.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 722
    Schönbergian, seems to me you've got way too much punctuation going on for modern tastes. I'm told periods and commas are oppressive/offensive.
  • way too much punctuation going on for modern tastes. I'm told periods and commas are oppressive/offensive.

    Not to mention the gender-specific no-no of "Hs", "King", "Father", "Son", and "fathR". That's sure to offend so many. I think the correct term is GNB for gender-neutral Being... and "God" sounds so... like dominant. Don't know if we can use caps, either.
  • Astute observations, Incardination - and, sadly, they needn't be in purple!
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • Sorry, guys. I didn't want to make it too good or OCP might have actually picked it up.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,137
    And the July-August 2019 USCCB CDW newsletter was posted online this week with its discussion:

    http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/newsletter/upload/newsletter-2019-07-and-08.pdf
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen chonak
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,012
    vernacular is highly overrated... stick to Latin... and you composers out there... why even bother composing in English... it will go the way of the dustbin on the heels of each particular translation. your music should be timeless, just as any other art strives to be... make it so!

    i have music i have composed that i still cherish, and it was composed in the blighted translation of decades earlier than today... the music is still in tact, but the (updated) language has destroyed its syntax... i am trying to revive my scores, but it is very difficult
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,137
    Well, in the USA, older translations of psalms approved for liturgical use remain valid for use as *sung* Responsorial Psalms under GIRM 61. The old approved translations have not, for that purpose, been abrogated. That won't help with continued commercial viability if the "market" prefers the new translation exclusively, but it should give comfort to music directors who have good works in the older translations in repertoire and prefer to keep them in repertoire. That would appear to be the purpose of the grandfathering clause - to reduce *unnecessary* dumping of good work composed in good faith under previous approvals; that would be entirely sensible.