Friends:  Greetings from Australia.

I would like to make a late contribution to the exchange on the IGRM2000.
(Sorry I have been on holidays!)

1.  I resent the gratuitous changes made by SL to the study translation of
IGRM2000.  The eleven conferences of bishops who voted to approve the GIRM
in the revised Sacramentary were fully aware of the lobby groups wanting to
change "plate", "cup", "song", etc. and they rejected their proposals.  Now,
without reference to anyone, these changes to our approved text are made.

2.  I am shocked to see people asking who will prepare the definitive
translation of IGRM2000.  We have a well established organisation and
collaborative procedure in the English speaking world.  Of course, ICEL will
prepare the definitive translation to be put to conferences.  There is some
restructuring of ICEL, but the organisation and the work continues.

3.  The results of SL's translation do not justify either the haste with
which it was prepared or the by-passing of established procedures.  I am
grateful for Michael Joncas' syllabus of errors.  I have discovered that it
is in no way exhaustive.  For those who are interested, I append a long list
of additional observations.

4.  Note on #154 (Sign of Peace):
I have found it interesting to compare IGMR2000 with the Latin version dated
May 1999 which was sent to the consultors of the CDW.  For example, the
second paragraph in #154 said in May 1999:  "Sacerdos pacem potest dare
ministris laicis, semper tamen intra presbyterium remanens.  Omnes vero,
iuxta statua Conferentiae Episcoporum..."  In IGMR2000, "laicis" is dropped,
the first sentence was extended and a second sentence was added:  "ne
celebratio turbetur.  Item faciat si e rationabili causa aliquibus paucis
fidelibus pacem dare velit."  Could you therefore make a case for saying
that the "item faciat" refers to avoiding disruption rather than leaving the
sanctuary?  If for a good reason (eg strengthening the bereaved at a
funeral) the priest wished to offer them a sign of peace, he should do it
without disrupting the celebration - obviously he cannot call them onto the
sanctuary.

5.  Note on #315 (Tabernacle):
Firstly, I think Geoff Steel is right when he says that 315a refers to the
situation of existing churches and 315b to new churches.  The Latin itself
gives a reference to the paragraph (which SL omits in their translation).
In new churches, it is especially important that a single altar be erected -
so 315a can't apply.  Mind you, it is difficult to see how locating a
tabernacle in an old high altar would qualify in an old church since 'it
cannot be decorated lest it distract from the main altar' (see #303).
Next, I have noted below that "Praestat proinde" is not translated.  I think
this is quite important.  The first sentence says that the tabernacle should
not be on the Mass altar. Then it says "Praestat proinde...It is better
therefore" to locate it (a) elsewhere in the sanctuary or (b) in a chapel.
Well, that's a quite unexceptional statement:  of course it's better than
having it on the altar!  
Finally, I would want to question the construction "aut... aut enim".
Someone with better Latin than mine might be able to help me out here.  The
translation "or even" makes it sound like a more way out idea than the
first.  But Lewis and Short suggests it can be a way to annex a more
important idea (cf Lewis and Short, 'etiam' IIA) or to complete or
strengthen an assertion (cf Lewis and Short, 'aut' F1).  Does this allow a
translation "or rather in another chapel..." or even "or certainly in
another chapel..."?  In any case, it can be "or also in another chapel..";
surely it doesn't have to be "or even in another chapel..."

I'd be keen to get feedback or corrections, especially if I am wrong.
Thank you

TOM ELICH
The Liturgical Commission
GPO BoX 282, Brisbane Australia 4001
Phone 61 7 3224 3332   Fax 61 7 3221 1705  





SOME ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS 
ON SL TRANSLATION OF IGMR2000

IGRM2000  #61  (SL, p.14,  line 7):
"cantor of the song" should read "cantor of the psalm"

IGRM2000  #61  (SL, p.14,  lines 8-9):
"However, in order that the people may be able to join in the responsorial
psalm more readily" is not in the Latin.  It is part of the missing sentence
identified by Michael Joncas in line 10.

IGRM2000  #63c  (SL, p.15,  line 1):
"or" is missing between "alleluia" and "verse before the Gospel".

IGRM2000  #68  (SL, p.15,  lines 1-3):
"to respond and to give... to celebrate the Eucharist" does not translate
"diebus dominicis et in sollemnitatibus;  dici potest etiam in peculiaribus
celebrationibus sollemnioribus".

IGRM2000  #69  (SL, p.15,  line 2):
Chapter 3 makes quite specific distinctions between "de officiis", "de
muneribus" and "de ministeriis".  I think a translation should be
consistent.  Here "munus" is translated "office".  For other examples of
confusion in these terms see: #101, #295, #310 last line, et passim.

IGRM2000  #71  (SL, p.16,  line 7):
"Lastly" is confusing and does not translate "vero".

IGRM2000  #73  (SL, p.16,  line 8):
Sentence missing in translation:  "Quamvis fideles panem et vinum ad
liturgiam destinata non iam de suis proferant sicut olim, ritus tamen illa
deferendi vim et significationem spiritualem servat."

IGRM2000  #74  (SL, p.17,  line 3):
"Cantu ad introitum" is not translated "entrance antiphon" in #47, #50 et
passim. 

IGRM2000  #77  (SL, p.17,  lines 4-5):
This has become gobbledygook.  It should be something like: "At Mass, one
prayer over the gifts is said...   or, if the Son is mentioned at the end of
the prayer; 'who lives and reigns for ever and ever'."

IGRM2000  #87  (SL, p.19,  line 5):
For "ab aliquibus ex ipsis", why change "some of them" to "a group of them"?

IGRM2000  #89  (SL, p.19,  line 10):
"and give their assent" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #90  (SL, p.19,  line 0):
The heading "Ritus conclusionis" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #90b  (SL, p.20,  lines 1-2):
The expansion of "quibusdam diebus et occasionibus" is unjustified.

IGRM2000  #92  (SL, p.21,  line 9):
"Final" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #94  (SL, p.21,  line 4):
The Latin "proprias habet partes" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #100  (SL, p.22,  line 2):
"ashes" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #106  (SL, p.23,  line 3):
The Latin "cum decore ordine et pietate" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #118c  (SL, p.25,  line 1):
"but also" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #122  (SL, p.25,  line 3):
"potest" is not translated by "is".

IGRM2000  #123  (SL, p.26,  line 1):
The change from "ascendit" to "accedit' is not reflected in the translation.

IGRM2000  #128  (SL, p.26,  line 3):
"sit and" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #131  (SL, p.26,  line 1):
The Latin "liturgicum" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #131-132  (SL, p.26,  line 1 in both):
"canitur Alleluia vel alter cantus" is translated differently in each.

IGRM2000  #133  (SL, p.26,  line 2):
The Latin "possunt" is not translated

IGRM2000  #135  (SL, p.27,  line 1):
"three" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #136  (SL, p.27,  line 2):
"as the occasion allows" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #139  (SL, p.27,  line 2):
The reference in Latin is to n. 74.

IGRM2000  #151  (SL, p.29,  line 4):
"acclamat' has usually been translated "make the acclamation".  See also
#175 line 11.

IGRM2000  #162  (SL, p.30,  line 4):
Does "aut etiam" need to be translated "or even" or can it be rendered "or
also" here?

IGRM2000  #175  (SL, p.32,  lines 6-7):
Unnecessarily complex.  As the Latin says, "preceded by the censer bearer
with a smoking censer and ministers with lighted candles".

IGRM2000  #175  (SL, p.32,  line 13):
The Latin does not have "the book".  "Redit" is from the verb "redeo" (to go
back), not from "reddo" (to give back).

IGRM2000  #179  (SL, p.32,  line 4):
The Latin "potest" is not translated by "goes to".

IGRM2000  #188  (SL, p.33,  line 3):
"during Mass" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #192  (SL, p.34,  line 2):
The Latin "distributione" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #204  (SL, p.35,  line 1):
Michael Joncas referred to this sentence.  In fact, the Latin "Ob peculiarem
causam, sive significationis ritus sive festivitatis" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #210  (SL, p.36,  line 2):
What has generally been translated "presiding celebrant" is occasionally
translated "principal celebrant".  See also # 215 line 1.

IGRM2000  #220  (SL, p.37,  line 3):
The Latin "elata voce" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #226  (SL, p.38,  line 1):
The Latin "a solo" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #229  (SL, p.38,  line 2):
The Latin "a solo" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #237  (SL, p.39,  line 1):
The Latin "ac deinde manibus extensis" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #2327  (SL, p.39,  lines 2-3):
The word "ipsam" seems to go with "orationem dominicam".  The words "the
other concelebrants and" are not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #249  (SL, p.41,  line 11):
I think the "and" should be omitted.

IGRM2000  #283c  (SL, p.45,  lines 7-8):
The Latin "sacerdoti celebranti" is not translated by "the priest to whom
charge of a given community has been entrusted as their own pastor".

IGRM2000  #284a  (SL, p.45,  line 2):
The Latin "aut" may be translated by a simple "or".
The Latin "rite" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #285a  (SL, p.45-46,  line 2 and 3):
In line 2, the words "single" and "even" are not in the Latin.
In line 3, the sense is not well served by translating "copia" as "surplus".
The present translation suggests that the quantity of wine should be
underestimated so that no surplus remains.  The Latin "ne copia... plus
aequo" cautions rather against having an abundance beyond the right amount.

IGRM2000  #286  (SL, p.46,  line 1):
"directly" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #287  (SL, p.46,  line 6):
The Latin could be rendered more simply "and then withdraws" to follow the
translation in #286 line 5.

IGRM2000  #288  (SL, p.47,  line 2):
The words "for some reason" are not in the Latin;  "honestum" in the Latin
is not translated.

IGRM2000  #291  (SL, p.47,  line 2):
The Latin "autem" here indicates continuity not contrast (as "however"
suggests).  This problem recurs in #311 line 4. 

IGRM2000  #303  (SL, p.49,  line 6):
The altar should not be made with cunning or trickery ("artfully") but
"artistically".

IGRM2000  #305  (SL, p.49,  line 2):
"a certain" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #306  (SL, p.49,  line 1 and 4):
"Mensa" is not an English word.
The Latin "pyxis" has been translated "vessel" in #118c, #160 and #163.  The
problem will recur in #329.  The context suggests it refers to bread dishes
for all the bread, not a pyx for bringing communion to the sick.

IGRM2000  #309  (SL, p.50,  lines 10-11):
"This should be done" is not in the Latin.
This recurs in #310 line 7 and #313 line 4.

IGRM2000  #310  (SL, p.50,  line 9 and 11):
Translating "item" as "in the same way" does not make sense;  perhaps
"also/moreover".
"should" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #313  (SL, p.50,  line 7 and 10):
The Latin "quae indoli huius temporis conveniat" is better translated in
#305 line 3.
"sustained" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #314  (SL, p.51,  lines 6-7):
Michael Joncas refered to "considered".  This sentence should parallel
similar sentences on blessing the ambo (#309), chair (#310) and organ
(#313).

IGRM2000  #315  (SL, p.51,  line 3):
The Latin "praestat proinde" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #315a  (SL, p.51,  line 2):
The reference is omitted.  The Latin says n. 306 but it should read n. 303.

IGRM2000  #315b  (SL, p.51,  line 1):
In the Latin "ad privatam fidelium adorationem et precationem", "private"
qualifies both the faithful's adoration and prayer.

IGRM2000  #320  (SL, p.52,  line 1):
The word "made" seems to be have been left out.

IGRM2000  #329  (SL, p.53,  lines 2, 3, 5-7):
In line 2, "etiam" could just mean "also".
In line 3, "regarded as" is not in the Latin.
In line 5, "quod valet" is not translated;  therefore, instead of making the
sentence refer to "not break easily or deteriorate", it is made to refer to
"suited to sacred use".
In line 6, the list of vessels is inadequate:  here and in other places in
this section "plate" reappears;  "pyxis" is translated as pyx (see above
#306);  and "theca" is not translated at all.

IGRM2000  #336  (SL, p.53,  line 5):
"must" is not in the Latin.

IGRM2000  #339  (SL, p.54,  line 1):
The Latin "possunt" is not translated.

IGRM2000  #355  (SL, p.56,  line 15):
The punctuation and the sense of the Latin suggests "enim" be translated by
"for".

IGRM2000  #373  (SL, p.60,  lines 1-2):
The Latin has not changed. Why not retain the clearer ICEL version: "as
situations arise or at fixed times"?