Those familiar with certain facts may be troubled by some "reasons" given for the new, more accurate (Novus Ordo) Mass translations that will be implemented next year. Case in point: One article appearing on a Catholic site entitled 'Missal changes intended to make up for hasty work after Vatican II' states that "the Committee charged with the English translation of the Roman Missal issued the post-Vatican II translations very quickly", implying that problems with post-VII translations are mere "accidents" attributable to "haste." Hopefully, excuses like this won't be given a "free pass" considering that: (1) The new translation is the THIRD edition (how hard is it to change "we" to "I" and "all" to "many", just to name a few simple corrections - yet even these obvious fixes haven't been made until now, decades later), (2) the VERY SAME obvious errors have appeared for decades in multiple translations, raising questions about whether such errors were actually intentional mistranslations rather than "translation errors", (3) it's been 40 years - that's FORTY years (certainly an excessive amount of time to "correct hasty translations"!), and (4) one simply cannot overlook the "radical agenda" of the ICEL.
Even if some translation errors could have been attributed to "hasty work" after Vatican II, the same cannot be said for the forty years which have followed. Rather, this time period has been marked by "liturgical experts" trying to manipulate the liturgy and "shape it" to suit their goals. Some seemed to have lost sight of fact that translation work should be aimed at providing accurate texts rather than providing a means to advance agendas (e.g. the push for "feminist-inspired inclusive language"). Simply blaming the matter on "hasty translations after Vatican II" won't fool Catholics who know a little about what's gone on for the last forty years.
[9/2]
Posts
