NCR reporter John Allen interviewed Cardinal Pell about Vox Clara on March 11. The interview may be found here. My favorite question and response:Let me ask you something I hear from a lot from non-experts, which is that as important as questions of translations may be, the quality of liturgical experience is much more influenced by how good the homily is, how beautiful the music, and how welcoming the community. If you really wanted to do something about liturgy, wouldn't it make more sense to address these other variables?...[T]hese other things are enormously important. Whether they are so clearly superior to this issue I think is debatable, but it's not a debate that's particularly worth having. You see, it's a very difficult thing to do anything about the welcome in a community, the quality of preaching, but here with these translations - that's something that we can improve. Also, if you get the right quality of language, it can be a great help to worship, in calling people to prayer. You've only got to look at the enduring influence of something like the Book of Common Prayer, or the King James Bible. Even though its language is no longer appropriate, the King James Bible was written to be proclaimed. You've only got to get up and read it and you can feel that. I don't want a quaint translation. I want something that is clear, though not everyday by any manner or means...
The Cardinal mentions that some of the translations in Africa and Asia are being done from the English rather than from the Latin. What: is English the new Latin?
I took that to mean that the Cardinal thinks that Vox Clara's work has an imperative to be true and good, since it's translations will be used by a lot of Asians and Africans who don't understand Latin.
How much Latin should liturgists and translators know? How about priests? Will the priests who are ordained in 2004 know more Latin than the ones who were ordained in 1984? Is the cardinal saying that it dosen't matter?
Giving up proportionally-spaced fonts for Lent?
No, just the closer I can get to posting something that looks as if it had been through my 1950's Royal Desk Model the happier I am.
Zorak, I'm sure, understands!
I was saddened to learn that the State Department no longer uses Courier in its official correspondence.
Well, why didn't you say so? I went in and added a style so you can specify Courier.
OOOOH! Grazie!!!
First of all, the homilies are bad because of the restrictions placed on them by the documents of vatican 2. Second, the self serving banality of the ICEL language is apparent when the english of Novo Ordis is compared with the Baroque moving text of the English in the Tridentine mass. Of course the American Bishops say the real translation they are giving us of the Novo Ordo from Rome(under duress) is more elegant. They should speak the truth and say what they gave us was lies. The St James has at least 200 translation errors as do the newer catholic bibles which are according to the masoretic texts of the middle centuries. It is time that catholics got up off their b.o.t.toms and studiously inform themselves of the truth in their worship so when they are before God in prayer they are using words he acknowledges. Not emotive jargon that is again self justifying. manipulation and spin is the new Catholic Language. If you think I am too strong then read some the information readily at hand on the 'Net
Oh, yeah. Vatican II must be the thing that makes preachers get up and babble on endlessly while saying nothing. It's all their fault.
The cardinal speaks of returning to the loftier language of previous translations. He is one who is attempting to correct ICEL run amok.
ICEL run amok is not a reason to call Vatican II the problem, though. Anyone who reads the documents can easily see that a pedestrian liturgy was not mandated by the council.
RC go read the restrictions on Pastors and what the Homilies are to contain in the vatican 2 documents and then make your comment when you are better informed.
Hurcum, maybe you could point out at least a particular document or documents? Most of us don't have time to just sit down and read through all of the Vatican II documetns (especially including any post-concilliar documents that you may be refering too)
I've heard some very good homilies, and some very bad ones. It seems to have to do more with the priest giving the homily than any of the Vatican II documents.
Are you just bluffing, Hurcum? The burden of proof is on you, since you made the charge. It's time to "put up".
Years ago when I became a Catholic, I spent the time to read every word of the Council documents, and I look forward to your answer with interest.
V2's most famous directive for preachers seems to be the use of the word "homily" rather than "sermon" to describe what the preacher gives. (E.g., in the document "Sacrosanctum Concilium".)
Now, is that what you want to contend is responsible for the bad state of preaching?
Incidentally, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an interesting article on the homily.