When ICEL hit the wall

I just ran into Cardinal Medina’s letter from early last year rejecting the ICEL version of the Roman Missal. It’s an extraordinary document, both for the complaints about bureaucratic footdragging and for the substantive comments on the ICEL translation. It seems obvious from the latter that consciously or not ICEL had been treating the “dynamic equivalency” approach to translation as a way to remake Catholicism into their vision of what it should be by making changes in the law of prayer. They weren’t acting as translators, they were acting as religious reformers. What part of translation is it, for example, to rework the rubrics in order to downplay the distinction between priest and people?

Leave a Comment