What are your thoughts on liturgical translations?
I think, first of all, I would raise the question why we need translations. Why is it not possible to have liturgical books fashioned in the country itself? Now I realize that in a world of rapid travel there have to be some common formulations that are used, and that certainly should be kept in mind. But I don’t see why, for example, the prayers of the Mass (e.g., the Collect) have to be a translation of a Roman prayer. They could be formulated in the language of the country. English speakers could prepare their own prayers. If we have to have translations, they should be done and approved by the English-speaking episcopates themselves.
What do you think of our new 2011 missal translation? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
Well I myself, and it is my personal view, think it is not English as we use it. It’s too complicated, it’s very difficult to speak. People can’t understand what is being said, I don’t think. I don’t know that is has any strengths. I find it hard to think of its strengths.
My idea of translation is that you take something in a text and say it the way we say it in English, not that you try to retain the style and structure and flavor of another language.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Pray Tell: Archbishop John Quinn in Interview
Bad Latin music is still being created...
According to the Church Fathers -- does this book help or hinder a return to the Fathers?