Tuesday, May 26, 2015
EQUIVALENT AND LITERAL TRANSLATIONS OF LANGUAGES INTO ENGLISH: OBVIOUSLY WE SHOULD ALL PREFER THE EQUIVLANT VERSIONS!
'We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.'
But Former Father PI states that John Nolan's version of the translation is prejudiced. In reality, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini said the following:
"And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."
I suspect that Former PI is giving us the literal translation of what Archbishop Bugnini wrote. Therefore if this is true we should all despise it as those who despise the new and glorious literal translation of the English Roman Missal.
I suspect too, that what John Nolan presents is an equivalent translation of the Italian original. If so we should all love it as equivalency is so touted by those who hate literal translations.
I am grateful to form PI for pointing out the obvious and that we should all love the equivalent version.
I saw this comment at another internet site that captures very well the essence or equivalent of what I am saying:
Hehe. So Archbishop Bugnini's defenders are objecting to the fact that the quote attributed to him all these years appears to have been translated into English by someone from the 70's era of the ICEL.
And they're mad as heck that the translation isn't remotely precise. Oh the irony!
Ironic too that his critics used a sloppy dynamic equivalence for all these years. You can't make this stuff up!