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?
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
|
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! |
Easter Campaign: Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($29,040 to go):
$80,000.00
$50,959.70
36%
64%
|
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.
