On dreary liturgical translations
CWN - December 22, 2011
Anthony Esolen continues his devastating analysis of the liturgical translations which have now been replaced. He reasons:
It’s bad enough to have the dreary wherever we turn in this modern world. Why should we have it within our churches?
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($24,494 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: ForOthers8614 -
Dec. 22, 2011 8:50 PM ET USA
His three part commentary on the Crisis magazine website is a gloriously refreshing critique of the shifts in wording in familiar hymns and songs. As a musician, I have noticed that in the last several years there have been changes in the words of even the most familiar hymns which results in a Babel-like confusion that leads to many people who just stop singing.
Posted by: hartwood01 -
Dec. 22, 2011 7:26 PM ET USA
Psalm 23 is much prettier in the RSV version. I don't care for the "thees and thous" of the King James version.