Thursday, June 26, 2008

ICEL's Fr Harbert replies to Bishop Galeone

Both Rocco Palmo and Fr Zuhlsdorf have reported on the "notes" that the chairman of ICEL, Fr Harbert, has sent to Bishop Galeone (the US bishop who raised concerns about the new translations of the propers at the Orlando USCCB meeting) and to a few other interested parties.

It is not an "official" ICEL response, but it does show the thinking behind the translations. In fact, it shows that a LOT of thinking has gone into the translations. Interestingly, Fr Harbert did not think it necessary to reply to Bishop Trautman - the noisiest and least thoughtful critic of the new translations. One imagines it was the "Trautman critique" to which Fr Harbert was referring in his compliment to Bishop Galeone at the beginning of the response:
Bishop Galeone has broken new ground in the public discussion of liturgical language, raising the debate to a higher intellectual level. Whereas critics of ICEL’s recent drafts have mostly commented on individual vocabulary items, his contribution points to structural and semantic issues that are systemic throughout the Missale. His remarks merit a careful response.
One will note that SCM's own critical observations on the prayers has been on "structural and semantic" issues. One can always learn new vocabulary.

However, something that is obvious from reading Fr Harbert's notes is the striking attention to detail in the new translations. If you raise a question about someting in the new translations, you can be certain that it has already been subjected to the carefully considered attention of the ICEL folk. Note too, as Fr Z. does, that the translators even gave attention to the original context in which a given latin prayer appeared historically in the liturgy.

The lesson: New ICEL is not like old ICEL! The New Tranlsations will not be like the Old Translations!

6 Comments:

At Friday, June 27, 2008 2:31:00 am , Blogger John said...

This is slightly off your topic (and probably already been said) but it is bugging me.

The word "gibbet" is in fact a superb term to use for the cross. The word "cross" itself has lost most of its power to evoke horror and cruelty and a lonely death, just because we see crosses and crucifixes everywhere.

Just imagine Stephen King using "gibbet" in one of his horror novels. Would an editor tell him to use another word? Of course not. Even if you don't know what it means the very sound of the word is creepy.

 
At Friday, June 27, 2008 5:47:00 am , Blogger eulogos said...

I agree with John, above.

But Stephen King actually used crucifixion in one of his novels.
Somehow the man in his story crying out "It hurts, it hurts" while the other people in the town watch and are afraid either to protest or leave, made a deeper impression on me than listening to the passion gospels read or even than The Passion of the Christ movie.

Can't remember the name of the book, maybe someone else here remembers.
Susan Peterson

 
At Friday, June 27, 2008 8:59:00 am , Blogger Schütz said...

What do you think of Fr Harbert's suggestion of "death-machine", as in "the death-machine of the Cross"?

 
At Friday, June 27, 2008 4:42:00 pm , Anonymous Mike said...

"What do you think of Fr Harbert's suggestion of "death-machine?""

You forgot "fully armed and operational!!!!"

I think this would be perfect! If we were writing for the Herald Sun, filming the latest Marvell Comic Movie, or forming a death metal band. I think Fr Harbert was making a point rather than a suggestion!

 
At Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:45:00 pm , Blogger Past Elder said...

A priest of my acquaintance some years ago, but during the conciliar years, was a German Jewish convert from a very cultured Berlin family -- he said he was convinced that based on their product ICEL must stand for International Conspiracy Against English in the Liturgy.

No doubt he would welcome the new translations. But really, what does it matter -- better translations of heretical texts serve the church, whoops, the people of God? On the other hand, maybe it will make the non-Catholic nature of the novus ordo clearer. It certainly won't make participation in a novus ordo "Mass" by a knowing and willing Catholic any less of a sin, as they're sinful in their Latin original for their falsification and suppression of the Catholic faith.

 
At Saturday, June 28, 2008 11:09:00 pm , Blogger Past Elder said...

PS -- I see where the recent apostacy of another Lutheran minister has not escaped your attention.

With him as with you and the rest, if it were Roman Catholicism to which you had coverted, I could understand, but with this move you all have moved to something even further removed from the Roman Catholicism you think you have found than the Lutheranism you left.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home