Unlike the other translations and unlike the Mortem Tuam, the Christ Has Died addresses no one.
The consecration has just occurred. The Lord is present anew, newly present, has been here all along but has just arrived in a new way--we come into His Presence in a new way, by the will of the Father and of the One who said, "With longing I have longed to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15)
In response to the Lord's moment of sacrifice, to His high priesthood and His love, we can sing to Him, addressing Him, telling Him of our hope.
Or we can sing the Christ Has Died.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Kathy, "Christ Has Died" is credal, not acclamatory. It also maintains rather than interrupts the perspective of the institution narrative.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of it, and I won't mourn its passing. But a lot of criticism of it is over the top.
"Christ Has Died" is credal, not acclamatory. It also maintains rather than interrupts the perspective of the institution narrative.
Todd, why would it be right for translators to change the type of expression, and its directionality? Do you think changes on this level should be the provence of a translator of liturgical texts?
You are applying 1998 rules to ICEL and other language groups who worked under the authority of their bishops and with a different set of rules in the 1970's and 80's. Remember, we're not talking about ICTEL or ICETL here. These groups didn't just translate--they composed.
In memorial acclamation A, ICEL maintained the third-person reference to Christ from the Eucharistic Prayer (always addressed to the Father) and the Sanctus. By that standard, "Christ Has Died" is more consonant with its context.
I wouldn't forward that argument uncritically, however. The RCIA exorcism prayers also shift their address from Father to the Son.
My point is that memorial acclamation A is a lot more slippery than some commentators think.
Post a Comment