Talk:Communion-plate

Approved, officlal

We generally avoid using terms like "official" when describing something that is, by definition or nature, already official. Neophyte editors like to mention a bishop being "officially installed" to his diocese, or a document being "officially promulgated". In reality, this is a WP:PEACOCK term that is intended to lend an air of cachet unnecessarily to the thing in question. Now to the issue at hand: documents by the Holy See are copyrighted. There was actually a case when Pope Francis released Lumen fidei and a popular apologist converted its format and re-shared it for eBook users. He was immediately beset by copyright claims from the USCCB. So you see, there is no "unofficial" translation of a modern copyrighted Church document that is legal and quotable here. The situation is, of course, very different for historical publications where there are indeed no "official" translations at all, and a plethora of independent, even scholarly ones. In those cases, we can of course refer to the translator by name or the specific publication in order to distinguish it for the reader. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As you say, there often is a plethora of independent, even scholarly, translations of Holy See texts. The translation of the 2002 Roman Missal (of which the 2002 GIRM is part) that the English-speaking episcopal conferences have authorized for use at Mass was decided on by the conferences themselves and confirmed by the Holy See. It is not just one of the plethora of English translations of the 2000 and (with slight variations) 2002 GIRM that appeared before the episcopal conferences published theirs. It has a status that other translations do not have, a status that some would certainly call official. Of course, if you dislike the use of "official", you may choose some other way to describe the distinct status that it does have. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)