Side-by-side text comparisons (slightly OT)
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    I’m looking for (and/or possibly interested in starting) a side-by-side comparison of the versions of parts of the Mass, esp. the collects.

    What I’d love to see, side-by-side:
    Latin, 1973, 1998, 2011, Spanish, French, …

    This would seem to be a boon for the ongoing discussion on the new texts.

    Someone said that there was something to this effect mentioned/posted at PrayTell and others? Does anyone recall something like that?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    1998? Was there a revision of the English text then?
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,050
    I think Felipe is referring to the 1998 ICEL translation of the mass which was rejected by the Vatican. It was a sort of compromise between the 1973 translation and what we have now. You can find links to it here.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Since the 1998 version was rejected, there seems no point to even bringing it up.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    Well, it may be of historical interest: showing where ICEL's thinking was leading before the Holy See reformed it.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    And to see what all the liberals are yelling about when they say that the '98 translation was much better.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    It would be tough to include the 1998, since to get the full effect you'd have to include, e.g., not only the real Collects, but also, for each one, the separate invented alternatives for years A, B, and C.

    What's that, you didn't know that the 1998 "translators" spontaneously took it upon themselves to multiply the already-existing "alternative" Collect of the '73 Sacramentary into a three-headed hydra of unnecessary options with zero basis in the actual text of the Mass? No, I shouldn't think so; that little factoid won't get mentioned in places where the 1998 translation is taken as a fifth gospel.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    From what I have seen of the 1998 translation, there was a palpable intent to make the parts of it that *did* come from Latin into more accurate translations. That, at least, was an improvement upon the 1970s effort.

    And, if you think about it, the alternative collects that the 1970s edition had were a precedent for the further liberties that the 1998 effort took. The rubrical changes maybe don’t have precedent…but I can’t speak to that confidently.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I've wondered lately if the 1998 Sacramentary was submitted to Rome without all the other "creations/additions," and only contained the translations of the things in the actual Latin Missal, if it would have been accepted -- or even if Rome still rejected it, perhaps Vox Clara would not have taken such tight control over editing the final product this time around.
Add a Comment