What will the art in the CTS Roman Missal be like?

13 Comments

1. TNCath says:

   25 March 2011 at 11:29 AM

   I like the return to traditional art. I seem to remember the present Sacramentary contains that rather 1960’ish looking art that always reminds me of the music of the late Father Lucien Deiss–not awful but still a bit odd.
2. traditionalorganist says:

   25 March 2011 at 11:31 AM

   Finally recognizing timeless beauty, rather than trendy fashion.
3. Christo et Ecclesiae says:

   25 March 2011 at 11:32 AM

   I kinda like this! I hate the modernish, large-eyed people Catholic art these days.

   Although this isn’t about images, but I looked at the cover/book designs of all of the U.S. publisher’s Roman Missal’s. They vary from beautiful to not quite… But it seems only one has a really unattractive cover in my opinion: Liturgical Press

   However, this one is TRULY beautiful: Regal Editon
4. Geremia says:

   25 March 2011 at 11:36 AM

   An improvement over H. Breucker et al.
5. KAS says:

   25 March 2011 at 11:39 AM

   Very pretty! Every so much better than the stuff I’ve seen. I love the classic religious art, it is so bright, cheerful and pretty.

   I am eager for the implementation!
6. Centristian says:

   25 March 2011 at 11:52 AM

   “I seem to remember the present Sacramentary contains that rather 1960?ish looking art that always reminds me of the music of the late Father Lucien Deiss–not awful but still a bit odd.”

   Not to fret. The editions of the new Roman Missal offered by The Liturgical Press will still feature that hideous art style that tends to plague liturgical books in America (and which is so inexplicably favored by contemporary clergy).
7. Legisperitus says:

   25 March 2011 at 12:33 PM

   I guess that’s supposed to be the Pantokrator on the cover of the Liturgical Press edition, although it looks more like Haile Selassie wearing sunglasses and holding a Big Gulp.
8. quovadis7 says:

   25 March 2011 at 1:46 PM

   Does anyone know – you included Fr. Z – if there is any publisher of the new ICEL translation of the Roman Missal who plans to provide a version with the official Latin text also included (similar to the 1962 Missal where the Latin & the vernacular are side by side)?

   That’s what I’d REALLY like to get my hands upon….

   Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

   Steve B
   Plano, TX
9. AnAmericanMother says:

   25 March 2011 at 4:00 PM

   Legisperitus,
   I saw the cover of the Roman Missal . . . oh, dear.
   The LP quarterly Mass Guide publications recently took a sharp turn back towards traditional Catholic art. Instead of the barely representational abstract junk, the covers now present what I would consider far better than “acceptable” paintings – like a da Fossano Madonna and Child from the 15th century.
   Unfortunately the tacky 60s woodcuts are still much in evidence on the inside.
   I have no idea who started that trend, they need to stop right away. Woodcuts by Durer and Holbein are acceptable. Most others not (there were a lot of tacky woodcuts in the 15th century too. It’s not a medium for amateurs.)
10. Fr Matthew says:

    25 March 2011 at 4:21 PM

    This sample looks great! Finally, art that will be inspiring instead of disturbing when I see it while I celebrate Mass…
11. Geoffrey says:

    25 March 2011 at 4:42 PM

    quovadis7 said: “Does anyone know – you included Fr. Z – if there is any publisher of the new ICEL translation of the Roman Missal who plans to provide a version with the official Latin text also included (similar to the 1962 Missal where the Latin & the vernacular are side by side)?”

    It is in the works… that is all I can say for now…
12. Defend Us In Battle says:

    25 March 2011 at 10:10 PM

    This is how the “Pray Tell Blog” is treating the new translation:
    http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/03/25/preface-of-the-annunciation-2008-and-2010/

    They seem to be quite upset, and I feel that there is just a philosophical gap in the thinking between “our” side and “theirs.”
13. Blog Goliard says:

    26 March 2011 at 7:01 PM

    That “Pray Tell” link is interesting (thanks, Defend Us In Battle).

    Most of the time, those folks just seem generally outraged at the imposition of moldy fig Latinate constructions that remind them of the Bad Old Days, in place of good old simple down-to-Earth English like Jesus spoke.

    And I’m not convinced that they’d be defending the proposed 2008 text so strongly–or even at all–if it weren’t proving a useful tool to employ against the final approved text.

    All that notwithstanding, however, the writer not only has detailed arguments to offer in discussing the Preface of the Annunciation, but also seems to have a valid point.

    Is there a good reason that the approved corrected translation skips right past the “caelesti nuntio”?

Comments are closed.