Detailed Notes on the English Translation(s) of the Graduale Romanum etc.
  • ProfKwasniewskiProfKwasniewski
    Posts: 242
    This is a great piece that just appeared over at Views from the Choir Loft:

    http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2014/may/1/english-translations-gradual-official/
    Thanked by 1HeitorCaballero
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    No offense, but this is tendentious--much ado about editorial decisions the average person simply does not care about. It is embarrassingly obvious that the amount of virtual ink spilled on this highly rarified subject is all about un-edifying competitiveness between boutique publishers.

    "Hybrid translation" -- scare quotes around "currently approved"--"no salvation from decrees"--how boring. Let your work stand on its own merits without taking thinly-veiled swipes at others' efforts.

    I think it's tragic that the best talent within the CMAA sphere hasn't collaborated and rallied behind a single resource, but if it has to be this way, at least show each other the same respect that GIA shows WLP, etc. You don't see folks on the other side of the debate lobbing passive-aggressive grenades at each other.
    Thanked by 3francis chonak Gavin
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    This article is mostly about discrepancies and errors within the US Lectionary, or between the Lectionary and other books. But the article adds its own confusion to the subject.

    It labels certain texts as coming from the "Current Lectionary Translation (2014)" or "Official Lectionary Translation (2014)". Are these two different things? Surely not. In any case, there is no US edition of the Lectionary produced in 2014.

    The current US Lectionary is the second typical edition, issued in 2002, and most of it was prepared in the 1970s. So he's talking largely about mistakes and inconsistencies made forty or perhaps thirty years ago, as if they were recent. What good is that?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 967
    The only translation of the Roman Gradual texts I know of that fully matches the new translation of the Roman Missal ánd is an accurate translation of the Latin, is that used in the Lumen Christi series. It thus complies with the demands of Liturgiam authenticam 36.

    At the start, the article mentions that it will be about the English translation of the Roman Gradual (Entrance, Gradual, Offertory, Communion), but it gives mainly examples of inconsistencies in the translation of the Lectionary. While for the Jogues Illuminated Missal an accurate translation of the Roman Gradual texts may have been chosen, the responsorial psalms that are also printed in this missal are still the 'corrupted' texts of the Lectionary.

    The chosen translation of the Roman Gradual texts in the Jogues Illuminated Missal, taken from the former Gregorian Missal by Solesmes, is indeed an accurate translation, but being different from the Revised Grail Psalter, it doesn't add to the ‘uniformity and stability’ which should ‘characterise the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use’ (LA 36).
    Thanked by 2matthewj Ben
  • ProfKwasniewskiProfKwasniewski
    Posts: 242
    I would suggest that people evaluate the CCW article on its own merits, and not make "assumptions" about things. It is indeed a complicated issue, but the article does an admirable job of showing the issues involved and why they are important.
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    traduttore tradittore
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 967
    Don't get me wrong. The article presents very clearly the serious problem of inconsistencies within the psalm translation of the US Lectionary. It's this kind of inconsistencies that Liturgiam authenticam wants to avoid.

    Over here in the Netherlands it's even worse. While the texts of antiphons that are identical in the Latin typical edition are at least identical in the English Lectionary, in the Dutch Lectionary even these identical antiphons may differ. One extreme example: the Latin antiphon Haurietis aquas in gaudio de fontibus salutis (Is 12:3) is translated as follows on three different occasions:

    Gij zult in vreugde water putten aan de bronnen van uw redder.
    De dag is nabij dat ge water zult putten met opgeruimd hart uit de bron van het heil.
    Verheugd zult ge water scheppen uit de bronnen van heil.

    You don't have to understand Dutch to see that something is very wrong. I even wonder if the faithful will recognise these texts as being the very same verse from Scripture.
  • ProfKwasniewskiProfKwasniewski
    Posts: 242
    This is what hasty vernacularization and decentralization have led to. We have a mess on our hands that may take decades to disentangle -- and no, it did not HAVE to turn out that way. Had there been a combination of intelligence and piety strong enough to stem the tide of neo-modernism, we might have had consistent (and required) liturgical books, including the chant books specified by the Council, appearing simultaneously with the revised liturgical rites. Instead we got a mish-mash with confusing option-laden rubrics and an incoherent pluralism of music.

    I admire the enormous efforts of so many today in the CMAA who are producing books that actually work right now, in the midst of our mess, adhering to the structure of the Roman Rite and to the Church's guiding documents. It's still a mess, but there is now a ray of light piercing through it.

    Naturally, I hope we will also always promote the best music and ceremonial possible for the EF, which should serve as the model and the cutting edge.
    Thanked by 4smvanroode CHGiffen Andrew Motyka Ben
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    I always wince when I read anything Jeff Ostrowski writes. He may have a great point, he may be making great contributions, but he's always trying to sneak ads for his books into everything he posts.

    The ICEL and Revised Grail Psalter translations are under copyright. Is the old Solesmes? If not, that would make the decision of which translation to use easier.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    Most of the errors described above are owing to nothing other than gross editorial sloppiness. Fr. Stephen Hartegen, OFM, did a fine job putting together the 1970 USA Lectionary for Mass - fifteen years or so before the invention of the personal computer. Once the PC had been invented, there has existed no excuse for the same Latin antiphon having more than one translation into a vernacular language, such as what smvanroode refers to. The 1998 USA Lectionary for Mass is peppered through and through with errata. Why the present leadership of the BCDW continues to insist on keeping with these errata even though they have been pointed out to them by Fr. Felix Just, SJ, and many others is anyone's guess. I continue to be mystified.

    Re: vernacular translations of the Graduale Romanum, the Apostolic See has never requested such. Were it to request such, only the territorial conferences of bishops would have the authority to approve the translations.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen kevinf chonak CharlesW
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    I always wince when I read anything Jeff Ostrowski writes. He may have a great point, he may be making great contributions, but he's always trying to sneak ads for his books into everything he posts.


    Such a thing never happens on the Chant Cafe.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Ben
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Having trouble thinking of any blogger without a self-promotion agenda...
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Maybe our CMAA friend and colleague, Jeff Culbreath up in NoCenCA. He's a regular and devoted guy and true family man, like GregP here on MSF.
    Thanked by 1gregp
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Having trouble thinking of any blogger without a self-promotion agenda...


    Exactly, except in the case of Jeff O, or the good folk at Illuminare, or Richard Clark, etc., self-promotion isn't necessarily a bad thing. These people aren't looking to get their names out there for fame and fortune (though there is so much of that to be had in the opulent world of liturgical music).

    Each of them really and truly believes in their approach to the liturgy and music. They believe in the work they do through their hymnals, compositions, and other projects. Self-promotion, in this case, is an attempt to steer people toward what they think is good.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Self-promotion, in this case, is an attempt to steer people toward what they think is good.

    Ummm, Andrew, you just made Kathy's case for her.
    I also remembered a fellow CMAA blogger, tho' having a vested interest, is clearly for the common good, Gary Penkala.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    I even wonder if the faithful will recognise these texts as being the very same verse from Scripture.

    @smvanroode, I recalled this thought of yours this past weekend when in Acts 2:25–28 Peter referenced Psalm 16:8–11, whose verses were found in the day's Responsorial Psalm.

    I'm not offering or asking for comments, simply making an observation.

    Reading I (US Lectionary):
    "I saw the Lord ever before me,
    with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
    Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted;
    my flesh, too, will dwell in hope,
    because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,
    nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.
    You have made known to me the paths of life;
    you will fill me with joy in your presence."

    Responsorial Psalm (US Lectionary):
    "I set the LORD ever before me;
    with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
    Therefore my heart is glad and my soul rejoices,
    my body, too, abides in confidence;
    because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,
    nor will you suffer your faithful one to undergo corruption.
    You will show me the path to life,
    abounding joy in your presence."

    Responsorial Psalm (Revised Grail Psalter):
    "I keep the LORD before me always;
    with him at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
    And so, my heart rejoices, my soul is glad;
    even my flesh shall rest in hope.
    For you will not abandon my soul to hell,
    nor let your holy one see corruption.
    You will show me the path of life,
    the fullness of joy in your presence."

    For comparison purposes I looked up the following:

    Reading I (Nova Vulgata):
    “Providebam Dominum coram me semper,
    quoniam a dextris meis est, ne commovear.
    Propter hoc laetatum est cor meum, et exsultavit lingua mea;
    insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe.
    Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno
    neque dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.
    Notas fecisti mihi vias vitae,
    replebis me iucunditate cum facie tua.”

    Responsorial Psalm (Nova Vulgata):
    "Proponebam Dominum in conspectu meo semper;
    quoniam a dextris est mihi, non commovebor.
    Propter hoc laetatum est cor meum, et exsultaverunt praecordia mea;
    insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe.
    Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno
    nec dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.
    Notas mihi facies vias vitae,
    plenitudinem laetitiae cum vultu tuo."
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Ummm, Andrew, you just made Kathy's case for her.


    That's exactly what I was trying to do. So, thanks?

    EDIT: The confusion is probably due to the fact that I am frequently unclear online. I'm very sarcastic by nature and so have a hard time telling if other people are being as snarky as I am.
  • DanielCDanielC
    Posts: 37
    Wow, there are a lot of negative and (it seems quite mean-spirited) comments here...

    I think that the article does a great job of presenting this fascinating material, and I'm thinking that all he was trying to say was that we have so many different "approved" options with the Novus Ordo, but our responsibility is to choose the BEST options from among the many which are fully approved.
  • Ignoto
    Posts: 126
    Hundreds more errors have been found. For example:

    23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A (source)
    Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcílians sibi,
    et pósuit in nobis verbum reconciliatiónis.
    God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,
    and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

    24th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C (source)
    Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcílians sibi,
    et pósuit in nobis verbum reconciliatiónis.
    God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,
    and entrusting to us the message of salvation.


    At first, I was wondering if the selection of "reconciliation" or "salvation" was due to a conscious choice, similar to how misericordia in the Revised Grail Psalter was translated as one of three options (mercy, loving mercy, or merciful love) depending on the context.

    So, I thought I would look at the readings for each day to check the context. However, when I looked at the Lectionary published by Liturgical Press as well as the Lectionary published by Catholic Book Publishing Company, both 23 OT-A and 24 OT-C say "reconciliation."

    I also checked CanticaNova and that likewise gives "reconciliation" for both Sundays:
    http://canticanova.com/planning/year-a/pln23a_l.htm
    http://canticanova.com/planning/year-c/pln24c_l.htm


    Does anyone know of a Lectionary source that gives "salvation" for the Verse before the Gospel on the 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 967
    The source files, provided by the USCCB, of the US Lectionary which I used to typeset the Lumen Christi Missal has "reconciliation" for both 23 OT-A and 24 OT-C.

    But "salvation" does occur on 30 OT-C. So the point made by Jeff is still valid.
    Thanked by 1Ignoto
  • Ignoto
    Posts: 126
    So you're one of the people I can thank for the high-quality typesetting of the LCM!

    Thank you for pointing me to 30 OT-C. I had remembered singing "entrusting to us the message of salvation" fairly recently but I could not remember when.
Add a Comment