Missal of Benedict XVI?
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    The new issue of GIA Quarterly (don't ask -- I was bored) refers to the revised English translation of the Mass variously as the "Missal of Benedict XVI," the "new edition of the Roman Missal" and the "revised Order of Mass." Are these not all incorrect (and therefore harmful and misleading)? Yes, Benedict did issue a corrected second printing of the Roman Missal, but it was still the Third Edition that was approved by JPII in 2000 and came out in 2002, and which includes the current GIRM that we already follow. The new translation does not itself make any revisions to the Order of Mass. The new translation is of a Missal that has been around 10 years, which hardly makes the Missal itself "new."

    Is this just an attempt to try to attach the blame for this new translation (which, really, was mandated by Vatican II) to the supposedly ultra conservative B16? If so, I think numerous letters need to be written to GIA (and any other publishers who do the same) to set the record straight. Unless I'm incorrect about any of this, and please let me know.
  • hmmm, you are probably right but there is a certain point here that I doubt that any of this would be happening -- and there is far more by way of dramatic and positive change in this translation (probably the first translation of the Missal of Paul VI) than anyone would have believed 5 or 10 years ago -- were it not for the push of B16. I would rather just regard this as a great compliment to the Holy Father.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    I guess another point is that this is a local issue for the English speaking world. I haven't heard anything about a new French translation, for instance, even though there are several places in the French missal that depart from the original Latin. To call it the Missal of B16 makes it sound like an event in the universal Church.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,861
    Emphasizing the Third Edition and talking about a "missal of B16" sounds like an attempt to cover up the real issues, which are embarrassing to the progressivist liturgical establishment:

    The lame-duck ICEL translation was inaccurate, misleading, and stylistically inappropriate.

    The Church has judged it so and mandated its replacement by issuing Liturgiam Authenticam.

    The Pope has compensated for organizational weaknesses (the quasi-independent former-ICEL and the dithering, divided bishops' conferences) by creating the Vox Clara commission and making ICEL subject to the CDWDS.