Nova Vulgata and New Grail (wonkish)

A regular Pray Tell reader was concerned about this comment by “anonymous” which we excerpted from GSGP:

Musicians should be particularly concerned, it seems to me, by the fact that the antiphons have come back in the form documented in section 2 of the Leaked Texts part of Rindfleisch’s article. What a shame that the seasonal appropriateness of some of those antiphons will be lost by 2010’s decision, contrary to LA, to nix the Vulgate base and go with the New Grail. 

 She writes:

What makes this person think that a new translation of the psalms–done according to the norms of LA–would be done without consideration of the Nova Vulgata? That’s quite an insinuation, it seems to me. And, if the Revised Grail Psalms are the preferred version for use at liturgy, then why not use them for those antiphons that are from psalms? I can’t speak to the comment about the loss of seasonal appropriateness that comes with the Revised Grail, but it seems to paint with a rather broad brush. 

Comments?

awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

9 responses to “Nova Vulgata and New Grail (wonkish)”

  1. Jeremy Stevens

    Well, you have to think that the “insinuation” is actually a pretty educated guess, if you look at what Xavier Rindfleisch actually documented:

    ——–
    “One glaring example among several is the Entrance Antiphon for Tuesday of Holy Week. This is the week in which the Lectionary readings culminate in Judas’ betrayal and set the stage for the Paschal Triduum.

    Latin Original: Ne TRADIDERIS ME, Domine, in animas PERSEQUENTIUM me.

    2008 text: Do not HAND ME OVER, Lord, to the will of THOSE WHO PERSUE me.

    2010 Received Text: DO NOT LEAVE ME to the will OF MY FOES, O Lord.

    Note that the Communion Antiphon of this Mass, with its reference to “handing over,” intentionally “matches” the Entrance Antiphon, providing a “sung parenthesis,” as it were, around the liturgy: “God did not spare his own Son, but HANDED HIM OVER for us all.” (Romans 8:32)

    That “match” and “context” are completely missed by a translation based neither on the Vulgate or Neo-Vulgate, both of which read: “Ne TRADIDERIS me,” Do not hand me over.

    ——-
    Looks like that Revised Grail did NOT take account of the Neo-Vulgate.

    And I thought the reason the Revised Grail got the Congregation’s recognitio (after Monsignor Moroney’s Vox Clara made recommendations like with the 2008 text?) was that the Revised Grail DID meet the norms of LA?

    Here’s hoping it’s a “broad brush” but it seems to me that if they missed the “seasonal appropriateness” of Holy…

    Reply
  2. Scott Knitter

    Will there ever be a Revised Grail Psalter, in print? These things seem to take forever.

    Reply
  3. Rich Skirpan

    It seems to me for consistency sake it makes sense to use the Revised Grail Psalms if they are going to become the preferred Psalms for use in the Liturgy. My concern right now would be that I believe I have heard the Revised Grail Psalms themselves came back from Rome with changes which are themselves being reviewed to see how they effect the singability!

    Reply
  4. David Haas

    I can say with absolutely sureness, that GIA is waiting for the final kinks to be worked out (and there have been many)… and it will be available..

    Reply
  5. Jeffrey Tucker

    I gather that the Grail does not (purport) to use the Vulgate as its source, so taking those texts for the propers would put further distance between the (spoken) Missal propers and the (sung and, thankfully, untouched by the translators) Gradual propers, which is a terrible idea. There is also the matter of liturgical precedent, which liturgists and translators ought to consider from time to time. Such a change would also be catastrophic for the work that has already been done to create sung versions of the Missal propers. It would mean starting from scratch (yet again for the 10th time).

    I can’t believe that this is even being discussed at this late date.

    Reply
  6. Rich Skirpan

    “taking those texts for the propers would put further distance between the (spoken) Missal propers and the (sung and, thankfully, untouched by the translators) Gradual propers”

    “Such a change would also be catastrophic for the work that has already been done to create sung versions of the Missal propers.”

    Mr. Tucker,

    I usually agree with you, and it would be unfortunate for the work that has been done. But so many have already had to do tons of work because of these revisions, so why not also those of us who are trying to restore the Propers! 🙂 Seriously, though, if the point of the Propers is to be sung, shouldn’t they be set to a translation made for singing?!

    Reply
  7. Lynn Thomas

    Why on earth are we translating the Psalms from Latin at all? If they must be retranslated [a point for separate debate, given the many extant translations], go back to the original languages and translate from there. There are a sufficient number of Hebrew scholars about to make that a very feasible idea, and doing so eliminates a whole set of opportunities for error.

    Reply
  8. Fr. Hal Weidner

    The western Catholic Church is piling up different psalms translations from the Hebrew, Latin and the Greek not to mention a variety of vernaculars and the now forbidden possibilities of two different venerable translations in English…the King James and Book of Common Prayer. How have we gotten into this mess?

    Reply
  9. David Allen

    Once again I am glad to be using the Latin text of the Liturgica Hoarum.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading