Both Rocco Palmo and Fr Zuhlsdorf have reported on the “notes” that the chairman of ICEL, Fr Harbert, has sent to Bishop Galeone (the US bishop who raised concerns about the new translations of the propers at the Orlando USCCB meeting) and to a few other interested parties.
It is not an “official” ICEL response, but it does show the thinking behind the translations. In fact, it shows that a LOT of thinking has gone into the translations. Interestingly, Fr Harbert did not think it necessary to reply to Bishop Trautman – the noisiest and least thoughtful critic of the new translations. One imagines it was the “Trautman critique” to which Fr Harbert was referring in his compliment to Bishop Galeone at the beginning of the response:
Bishop Galeone has broken new ground in the public discussion of liturgical language, raising the debate to a higher intellectual level. Whereas critics of ICEL’s recent drafts have mostly commented on individual vocabulary items, his contribution points to structural and semantic issues that are systemic throughout the Missale. His remarks merit a careful response.
One will note that SCM’s own critical observations on the prayers has been on “structural and semantic” issues. One can always learn new vocabulary.
However, something that is obvious from reading Fr Harbert’s notes is the striking attention to detail in the new translations. If you raise a question about someting in the new translations, you can be certain that it has already been subjected to the carefully considered attention of the ICEL folk. Note too, as Fr Z. does, that the translators even gave attention to the original context in which a given latin prayer appeared historically in the liturgy.
The lesson: New ICEL is not like old ICEL! The New Tranlsations will not be like the Old Translations!