ok, at least one legit objection to “Liturgiam authenticam”
I am reading Peter Jeffery’s book “Translating Tradition: A Chant Historian Reads Liturgiam authenticam”. When we get to about page 50, here finally is what I find to be a legit objection to one part of the document.
Article 36 states that there should exist only one approved translation of the Scripture, even the Psalter. Maybe I’m just overly attached to the Gelineau psalmody, but I think it would be unfortunate to lose the Grail translation (still approved for the responsorial Psalm) from the Mass. And I don’t know that we necessarily need have just one text; Jeffery shows that there have been multiple Latin texts for Scripture in use for centuries in the TLM.
Unfortunately, much else in Jeffery’s book is cruft. He can’t distinguish between a new rite and a translation of the Roman Rite, it seems. This is a very highly regarded book; if you engage in discussions over Liturgiam authenticam, it’s pretty much required reading.
posted by Cantor @ 11:13 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
We should remember that Peter Jeffery is a chant scholar first. I was frankly surprised to see him treading into modern liturgical waters. Having worked with him in the past, I can vouch that he is a really brilliant thinker.
moconnor
Is "cruft" a typo or does it mean something, I dunno, "slangy"?
TIA
(There's a rather good article by Jeffery floating around the internet, as I recall -- am I remembering that his interest is more academic, musical, and musicalogical; not religious, per se? that he is not involved in music ministry?)
Post a Comment
<< Home