|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: And with your Spirit
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
So, the new translation of the Roman Missal will be going into action this year the English speaking world.
Given that the majority of churchgoers in Ireland don't even use missalettes, let alone a missal, I can see the rather obscure replacement for the clear English "And also with you" making no headway at all in the pews, or perhaps inspiring speculation as to what Fr. Flash or Fr. Go On fancies as a tipple after golf.
"Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault" returning to the Confiteor seems to be a return to an older model that my parents generation were familiar with - the supplicant churchgoer seeking an uncertain forgiveness from a God who smiled on only a few in Ireland.
Glossing over the wilfully obscure "consubstantial" in the Creed, the phrase "for us men and for our salvation" is reinserted. No namby pamby inclusive language then.
Reading the text of this version of the Mass in tandem with the promotion of the "extraordinary" rite by Rome, it appears to be a restorationist move by those appalled by the similarity between most modern Anglican Communion services and the present translation of the Mass.
[ 29. September 2011, 07:39: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The changes made to the creed are bad. Changes made to confession are good. Change made to the sursum corda is understandable but probably not helpful without further explanation which will make little sense to the average person sitting in the pew.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
...the phrase "for us men and for our salvation" is reinserted. No namby pamby inclusive language then.
It's not even an inclusive language issue, but rather a very poor translation.
In English, the word "men" means "more than one person of the male gender." In most (if not all) European languages, the word for "men" means either that or a group of mixed gender. English has lost that nuance.
The word "humans" would have come closer than "men" as a decent translation. If the Latin meant to imply men in gender, a different Latin word would have been used.
In other words, there certainly are some "restorationist" politics in play.
I do give GLRCs some credit, though. In this day and age, I think there will be an attempt by many in the pews to learn the new texts. The ones that go week after week are not the ones about which to worry.
Rather, it is the lapsed Catholics, the fair weather attendees, and the twicers (Christmas and Easter) who are in jeopardy. One visit back to the church and they'll be wondering "What happened? I am so lost. Why does this all sound so out of touch? Consubstantial? Seriously??"
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Reading the text of this version of the Mass in tandem with the promotion of the "extraordinary" rite by Rome, it appears to be a restorationist move by those appalled by the similarity between most modern Anglican Communion services and the present translation of the Mass.
Erm... but Anglicans have still had 'And with thy spirit' as an fairly commonly-used option all along! We've also kept 'consubstantial' in an optional version of the Creed, and in the doxologies of several well-known hymns.
In the unlikely event that 'not looking Anglican' is a major consideration for the Vatican, they're going about it all wrong!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
"Men" "Chairman" and "Mankind" are inclusive of both genders grammatically. It is only owing to feminist sentiments that the meaning is being diluted to be considered to be purely masculine. This results in new words being created that eventually gain common acceptance as English continues to evolve.
An obvious example is "Prevent" has ceased to been "Go before" and has come to mean something completely different in the well known Anglican Collect.
As for the translation of the Mass. We have been using it in South Africa for well over a year now owing to an episcopal error! There was a bit of fuss in the beginning in the Catholic Press but now it is just the norm. No doubt the change from Latin to English plus the liturgical changes in the 60's was much more traumatic!
One thing about it I particularly like is the return of the Domine non sum dignus....why do we still refer to these things by their Latin names no matter what language they are in?
It's no big deal....we all go to Mass anyway!
[ 26. January 2011, 09:02: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
That was certainly my experience last time I was in South Africa: people were already replying by instinct and it was only me the foreigner who was being tripped up with the "old" responses.
Ronald Binge, the thing your post most reveals is the ongoing Anglophonic self-importance. We English speakers seem to think we are the norm. Yet all the other languages have been saying "And with your spirit" all along - without all the stuff you object to. In Italian they say "mia colpa, mia colpa, mia grandissima colpa" without somehow thereby having been trapped in ecclesiastical serfdom as your argument implies. And so on.
Get with the program brother! This new translation is helping English speakers step back into tune with the rest of the world instead of sounding our own discordant and self-important notes all the time.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I have to wait until September ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aig
Shipmate
# 429
|
Posted
quote:
"Men" "Chairman" and "Mankind" are inclusive of both genders grammatically. It is only owing to feminist sentiments that the meaning is being diluted to be considered to be purely masculine.
Does that mean that I am OK to attend the Men's breakfast meeting? Or are simple minded women meant to guess when Men is inclusive of them and when it means, well, men?
--------------------
That's not how we do it here.......
Posts: 464 | From: the middle bit at the bottom slightly to the right | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
And I very much doubt that, when the word 'chairman' was first coined, any woman would have been considered for the role.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Women are not simple minded or at least not any more simple minded than men.
It's often a problem with gender in various languages.Mensch in German for mankind is only masculine but covers all varieties of human beings.Personne in French for a person is always feminine irrespective of the sex of the person in question.
Dummkopf (German for an idiot) is ONLY masculine.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
Mädchen is the German word for girl, in the which language it is neither femenine nor masculine, but neuter - and so the pecularity goes on!
If the ICET (International Commission of English Texts - off the top of my head) did not get it right when the English vernacular came in the 1960s, then I for one am left wondering why it has taken all these decades to remedy that!?
"And also with you" is a free rather than a literal translation from the Latin "Et cum spirituo spirito" - which I quote from memory. All the Europian languages I know, have the translation if this liturgical response more directly from the Latin, though not always in the familiar form.
If we are about to change this English language text again, then let's hope we get it right this time!
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
"Men" "Chairman" and "Mankind" are inclusive of both genders grammatically. It is only owing to feminist sentiments that the meaning is being diluted to be considered to be purely masculine.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"Chairman" has its own perculair history and usage, and there might be some people who unaffectedly us "mankind" as a generic term for our whole species, but you know perfectly well that "man" and "men" are overwhelmingly only used to mean adult males.
Its not feminism, and its got nothing to do with "dilution", its the English language. If you want to translate something into English correctly, you do not use the word "men" to mean male and female, young and old. There's no point in old-fogeyish whining about what might have been the case a few hundred years ago. That's the way it is, deal with it.
Keep the pet peeves about language for dodgy websites where you can bitch about pretend offences against the grammar police amongst consenting whingers in private, and use the real English language for translating liturgy.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The word mankind is certainly in regular unaffected everyday usage. A quick review of the BBC website will reveal bucketloads of current quotes. But the generic use of man/men (alone) has almost certainly gone now. Whether anyone regrets it isn't really relevant - we are not being forced to use some ugly replacement or circumlocution. Best to change it.
That's the only one quoted I would regret. "And also with you" was always a monumentally crap translation.
quote:
use the real English language
And where may I find this?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
All these people arguing with Fuzzipeg - especially ken getting grumpy. Did you miss the way that Fuzzipeg ended his paragraph? The language usage evolves. He even goes on to give other examples! His point seemed clear enough to me: grammatically man may be inclusive of both sexes, but in current evolved usage it is not.
These hot-button issues that cause knee-jerk responses
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
The prompt is given above to look more closely at Fuzzipeg's post and from that, I notice that (s)he mentions the Domine non sum dignus.
A few years ago, I started a thread on that topic (must be long since consigned to Oblivion and I would not know where to find it now). Sometimes, the "Roof" is mentioned and sometimes it isn't. Even the texts in the various Europeans languages are not consistently the same on that. So, I am wondering whether in the new translation into English, if the Domine... remains as at present (without the "Roof"), or whether it reverts to the literal translation from the Latin (with the "Roof").
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (animea mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
Thanks Ceremoniar; that answers that one.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Ronald Binge, the thing your post most reveals is the ongoing Anglophonic self-importance. We English speakers seem to think we are the norm. Yet all the other languages have been saying "And with your spirit" all along - without all the stuff you object to. In Italian they say "mia colpa, mia colpa, mia grandissima colpa" without somehow thereby having been trapped in ecclesiastical serfdom as your argument implies. And so on.
Get with the program brother! This new translation is helping English speakers step back into tune with the rest of the world instead of sounding our own discordant and self-important notes all the time.
It's not a question of English speakers thinking English is the norm for the rest of the world But to overstate the obvious, English IS the norm for the English-speaking world. (As Homer Simpson would say, "Doh!"
And the Latin Roman Missal is not an inspired text like, say, the Bible (or is it so considered these days?).
Or are English speaking cultures somehow more deficient or less developed (all those English-speaking Anglicans and Protestants corrupting the language!) that we have rely on the norms set by other linguistic groups. For example, we are not an Italian-language culture (no disrespect to that magnificent culture), maybe this tripartate "mea culpa" breast-beating is not so much the cultural style that many Anglophone cultures are prone to. That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our
Disclaimer: I myself am conversant in more than one language, and I am not saying that the current translations (still to be used by most of the rest of liturgically-inclined English-speaking Christians, thank God!) couldn't use improvement. E.g., I've always felt the truncation in the "Glory to God" was unnuecessary and detracted from the poetry.
I am so saddened by the Vatican's unilateral and unnecessary step backward. But they've put their foot down -- get with the program -- end of discussion!
[ 26. January 2011, 18:29: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Missed the edit window but just wanted to clarify the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of my response. Instead of
That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our
it should be
That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our sins.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
We use the Roman Rite. The latin is the definitive text. All vernacular versions are meant to be translations of that definitive text. That is how the Roman Rite works. We are not the same as the Anglican world where each Province has its own liturgy. We have one liturgy in many languages. That says nothing about it being inspired. It changes. In fact the current translation is of the 3rd revision of the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
There has been nothing unilateral from "the Vatican". The Anglophone commission which is responsible for the translation, ICEL, has been working on revising the text since 1980! Their first proposed text went way beyond translating the latin Missa Normativa. What Rome has insisted upon is that this be corrected.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
There have been, and if i am correct still are, regional usage variants within the Roman rite. Or are Anglophone Catholics pushed into this more continental cultural style. (Again us Anglophones are prone to linguistic corruption due to influence of schismatic sects and downright heresies.) Well despite protestations to the contrary, this sounds a bit like cultural imperialism or colonialism.
And while i am on my soapbox, what about this insistence on turning one's back on inclusive language in cases where inclusion was clearly the original intent. "Humankind" is not that weird a word in the 21st century. I've yet to be convinced that, verbal assurances to the contrary, many of the folks running the Vatican really still do have difficulty in accepting women as full-fledged members of the human race. So many Vatican-approved translations seem to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to use "men" when "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning. Vatican guys, get a grip!
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
... "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning.
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
As you say, putting the word "man" in there is a bad translation. It does not mean what the Creed means. And the Vatican didn't write the Creed, so this is about translation, not the original.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
... "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning.
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
Except that one must then understand who is meant by "us." Us humans? Us Christians? Us Roman Orthodox Baptisterians? "Us" but not "Them"? One must resort to the Latin or Greek to know that the intended "us" is "us humans."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (animea mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Much closer to the Anglican (CW Order 1 Trad) usage; very good.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
... "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning.
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
Except that one must then understand who is meant by "us." Us humans? Us Christians? Us Roman Orthodox Baptisterians? "Us" but not "Them"? One must resort to the Latin or Greek to know that the intended "us" is "us humans."
Its pretty obvious in context. I don't think its a real problem. I've never heard anyone complain about that usage other then people looking for a reason to keep "men" in there!
The opposite isn't true of course - lots of people objected to the word "men" and some didn't say it anyway.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
There have been, and if i am correct still are, regional usage variants within the Roman rite. Or are Anglophone Catholics pushed into this more continental cultural style. (Again us Anglophones are prone to linguistic corruption due to influence of schismatic sects and downright heresies.) Well despite protestations to the contrary, this sounds a bit like cultural imperialism or colonialism.
The regional variants are in small things, not core texts. There are no regional variants to the Creed, the Eucharistic Prayers, etc etc. The Spanish has been the most complex translation because it has allowed several different forms of a Spanish translation for Spanish speakers in different parts of the world. This is not now considered to have been a desirable thing. Furthermore, many language groups (such as Zulu and Afrikaans in South Africa) have used the English text as a reference or even starting point for their own translations. Therefore English mistakes are transcribed into the text of the other language. Let me give a simple example: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of power and might.
The first Afrikaans version of the Missal used that as the base text and translated the Sanctus as:
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van krag en mag
You have no idea how dreadful that sounds - particularly in the South African context.
The new Afrikaans Missal corrected that to
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van die hemelskare
which translated back into English is Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of heavenly hosts. Which of course is much closer to Dominus Deus Sabaoth, which has very little to do with power and might.
I visited the Afrikaans translation commission about 10 years ago and know someone who was very closely involved in the work. He told me they had abandoned any reference to the English Missal because it misled them too often.
And yes, the co-operation with the ecumenical commissions is largely to blame for this and has corrupted the translations. I don't expect Anglicans to want to use the Roman Rite and have direct translations of the latin. You can knock yourselves out and say whatever you like. But I do want to use the Roman Rite and not some Anglican paraphrase. You may get all itchy about that and say it's because I don't want to be contaminated by heretics, but that's your issue, not mine.
quote:
And while i am on my soapbox, what about this insistence on turning one's back on inclusive language in cases where inclusion was clearly the original intent. "Humankind" is not that weird a word in the 21st century. I've yet to be convinced that, verbal assurances to the contrary, many of the folks running the Vatican really still do have difficulty in accepting women as full-fledged members of the human race. So many Vatican-approved translations seem to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to use "men" when "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning. Vatican guys, get a grip!
I could not agree with you more.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
No it doesn't, not by a very long stretch. That option was looked at, but it confines the ones for whose salvation he came to those uttering the words. Who is the "us" being referred to? Us Christians? Us Anglicans?
Us evangelical Anglicans? Us british? You get the point. The Creed in its original does not say "for us". It says for us human beings - that is for all people. That's quite a broad statement.
[Cross posted of course, these points to ken already having been made. I don't want to keep men, and I am arguing against "for us"]
[ 26. January 2011, 20:20: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its pretty obvious in context. I don't think its a real problem.
While I think it's clear in context as well and I have no problem with the simple "us" personally, I've heard those who disagree, and whose disagreement had nothing to with "men." It had to do with how the creed sounds to a newcomer who is unfamiliar with it. Does that newcomer hear it as inclusive (us humans) or exclusive (us Christians/whatever)? And what effect does that have on how the newcomer perceives the church. I don't think it's a completely unreasonable concern.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
There have been, and if i am correct still are, regional usage variants within the Roman rite. Or are Anglophone Catholics pushed into this more continental cultural style. (Again us Anglophones are prone to linguistic corruption due to influence of schismatic sects and downright heresies.) Well despite protestations to the contrary, this sounds a bit like cultural imperialism or colonialism.
The regional variants are in small things, not core texts. There are no regional variants to the Creed, the Eucharistic Prayers, etc etc. The Spanish has been the most complex translation because it has allowed several different forms of a Spanish translation for Spanish speakers in different parts of the world. This is not now considered to have been a desirable thing. Furthermore, many language groups (such as Zulu and Afrikaans in South Africa) have used the English text as a reference or even starting point for their own translations. Therefore English mistakes are transcribed into the text of the other language. Let me give a simple example: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of power and might.
The first Afrikaans version of the Missal used that as the base text and translated the Sanctus as:
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van krag en mag
You have no idea how dreadful that sounds - particularly in the South African context.
The new Afrikaans Missal corrected that to
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van die hemelskare
which translated back into English is Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of heavenly hosts. Which of course is much closer to Dominus Deus Sabaoth, which has very little to do with power and might.
I visited the Afrikaans translation commission about 10 years ago and know someone who was very closely involved in the work. He told me they had abandoned any reference to the English Missal because it misled them too often.
And yes, the co-operation with the ecumenical commissions is largely to blame for this and has corrupted the translations. I don't expect Anglicans to want to use the Roman Rite and have direct translations of the latin. You can knock yourselves out and say whatever you like. But I do want to use the Roman Rite and not some Anglican paraphrase. You may get all itchy about that and say it's because I don't want to be contaminated by heretics, but that's your issue, not mine.
quote:
And while i am on my soapbox, what about this insistence on turning one's back on inclusive language in cases where inclusion was clearly the original intent. "Humankind" is not that weird a word in the 21st century. I've yet to be convinced that, verbal assurances to the contrary, many of the folks running the Vatican really still do have difficulty in accepting women as full-fledged members of the human race. So many Vatican-approved translations seem to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to use "men" when "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning. Vatican guys, get a grip!
I could not agree with you more.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
No it doesn't, not by a very long stretch. That option was looked at, but it confines the ones for whose salvation he came to those uttering the words. Who is the "us" being referred to? Us Christians? Us Anglicans?
Us evangelical Anglicans? Us british? You get the point. The Creed in its original does not say "for us". It says for us human beings - that is for all people. That's quite a broad statement.
[Cross posted of course, these points to ken already having been made. I don't want to keep men, and I am arguing against "for us"]
Thank you for your good and thoughtful post. It does give a huge insight into the minds of those who have decided that this is the way to go for the Mass. (Obviously I don't agree with everything, but I'll risk the Holy Handgrenades as I have in many other things over the last twenty years, but that's sin sceál éile [another story])
Over the years in Ireland some things have evolved in the usage of the Mass from the pew rather than in the Missal (or, more often the Missalette!).
The Doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer has always been said in tandem with the celebrant, at least in Dublin Archdiocese. I believe that this happened because the missalettes we used in the early 1970s had it in larger type, not the bold for congregational response, and the congo read it as being part of their script.
The now seemingly forgotten revisions of the mid 1970s to the English text had one casualty. The 1970 usage had the congo phrase "We raise them up to the Lord", replaced by "We lift them up to the Lord". In my hearing in Ireland, the latter usage is never used.
"For us, and for our salvation" is much more recent, and seems to be a more spontaneous thing, as the missalettes have only reflected this in recent years. My 1991 copy of the UK/Ireland Sunday Missal certainly has "For us men, and for our salvation" and has been dropped by Irish congregations very quietly in the meantime.
The other, congregation-adopted change to the Missal is the saying, along with the celebrant, of the intercession for peace.
The point here is that no matter what Rome proposes and Maynooth disposes, Irish congregations will go on and do their own thing. I will be pleasantly surprised if by Christmas 2012 Irish congregations will have spontaneously adopted "and with your Spirit", a phrase meaningless in common usage.
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
I think too much is made of "common usage" when the Holy Mass is so obviously an un-common thing. Everytime you step into a Catholic church it's obvious that it's an ucommon place filled with uncommon people doing uncommon things. People don't go to Mass seeking a common experience.
It's the insistence on "common usage" in language, design, and music that's helped lead, in my opinion, to much banality in worship in the Latin Rite.
I can imagine that old habits die hard. I can't imagine that many people will actively resist the new wording. I can imagine that some poeple will. I imagine many won't. I imagine that many who care about these things desire these changes or similar ones and will not resist. I imagine the many who don't care so much will not care so much enough to not make a fuss. I imagine in a few years most people will get along, like they did before.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I think too much is made of "common usage" when the Holy Mass is so obviously an un-common thing. Everytime you step into a Catholic church it's obvious that it's an ucommon place filled with uncommon people doing uncommon things. People don't go to Mass seeking a common experience.
It's the insistence on "common usage" in language, design, and music that's helped lead, in my opinion, to much banality in worship in the Latin Rite.
I can imagine that old habits die hard. I can't imagine that many people will actively resist the new wording. I can imagine that some poeple will. I imagine many won't. I imagine that many who care about these things desire these changes or similar ones and will not resist. I imagine the many who don't care so much will not care so much enough to not make a fuss. I imagine in a few years most people will get along, like they did before.
You should go to an Irish conveyor-belt Mass then. Four or five Masses before one o'clock in the afternoon on a Sunday, it might be an eye opening experience ![[Smile]](smile.gif) to say nothing of getting in and out of the car park ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
You should go to an Irish conveyor-belt Mass then. Four or five Masses before one o'clock in the afternoon on a Sunday, it might be an eye opening experience to say nothing of getting in and out of the car park
That's a lot like the typical large U.S. parish (even a "little big parish" like mine) actually. Things aren't so different over here in that respect.
People are going to make do just like they always did before. It was like that with the larger jump from Latin to vernacular back in the day and (most) people made do.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While I think it's clear in context as well and I have no problem with the simple "us" personally, I've heard those who disagree, and whose disagreement had nothing to with "men." It had to do with how the creed sounds to a newcomer who is unfamiliar with it. Does that newcomer hear it as inclusive (us humans) or exclusive (us Christians/whatever)? And what effect does that have on how the newcomer perceives the church. I don't think it's a completely unreasonable concern.
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
Very reasonable. Like Ronald Binge above, I'm not advocating for "us men." I'm just saying that simply "us" only reflects the meaning of the original Greek and Latin if one knows who "us" is -- context is required from outside the text.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
I don't mean to sound flippant, but I think a newcomer who hears 'us men' as exclusive might already have issues with the Catholic Church regarding her views. I think there are bigger camels for the visitor to swallow before stepping inside a Catholic Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I was rather hoping the new translation would be prettier rather than pettier.
I wish they'd hire writers and poets to smooth out the translations.
I don't think the Christmas-and-Easter Catholics will be all that upset at the new wording. They might get caught off guard, go "huh? wah?" look down at their missalettes and then roll with it like everybody else. It's still the same Order of Mass as before so I don't think the tweaking is going to cause strong levels of spiritual and emotional angst.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Or are English speaking cultures somehow more deficient or less developed (all those English-speaking Anglicans and Protestants corrupting the language!) that we have rely on the norms set by other linguistic groups. For example, we are not an Italian-language culture (no disrespect to that magnificent culture), maybe this tripartate "mea culpa" breast-beating is not so much the cultural style that many Anglophone cultures are prone to. That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our
I sympathize but I think much of this is not as foreign to the English speaking world as you make it out to be. Before 1500 English peasants were as wacky and colorful with their faith as any on the continent and anybody attending Mass in the U.S. before 1970 would have engaged in the breast beating, etc. A great many of U.S. Catholics are English-speaking now, but they have non-English-speaking backgrounds (Italian, Polish, etc.). They'll not necessarily have the hang-ups against "colorful practices" despite speaking English.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (anima mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Not only more accurate, but dead literal! "Sed tantum dic verbum et sanabitur anima mea."
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
Very reasonable. Like Ronald Binge above, I'm not advocating for "us men." I'm just saying that simply "us" only reflects the meaning of the original Greek and Latin if one knows who "us" is -- context is required from outside the text.
Why can't we say 'us humans'? That's what the original Greek and the subsequent Latin means.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Or us people? I would always translate ανθροπος as person if I were doing NT translation...
[ 27. January 2011, 21:33: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I was rather hoping the new translation would be prettier rather than pettier.
That is a very witty and usable line, Edward Green. May I borrow it?
Unfortunately I can add nothing to this thread except to express surprise that they would not only consider but actually choose to use 'man' for 'people' in the 21st century. It was dodgy decades ago, but we have moved on as a people. This makes me think that somehow or other non-native speakers chose this final 'translation.'
I cannot think of a subdialect in the English speaking world where "men" means anything other than adult males. One or two on this thread have tried to argue the other way, but get real! Language has moved on since the first world war.
But on the bright side, "and with your spirit" is cool. "And also with you" never bounced or dovetailed.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
This makes me think that somehow or other non-native speakers chose this final 'translation.'
Either that, or there are some troubling "Men's Club" issues going on.
I keep thinking back to the valuable lesson I learned in my middle school foreign language after-school program: when translating, beware of false friends/cognates. I get the distinct impression that some of the translation is an attempt to re-shift the meanings of English words so that they are a neater translation of the Latin. I keep wondering why people educated in multiple languages forget this lesson, but it seems to be more a matter of hubris than of confusion.
Although the use of "men" works for "humans" in many languages, it no longer works in English for this usage. No matter how much the church tries to push it (and it has tried this push for four decades already), our language has not been changed [back] by this tactic. In fact, if anything, over the last forty years (since the Missal of 1970), the word "men" has lost even more street cred as a viable word for "humans."
Of course, the same issue surfaces later in the creed, when the Latin "Et homo factus est" clearly is meant to suggest human (as contrasted with deity), rather than man (as contrasted with woman). The ELLC's latest text actually uses the word "human," in an admittedly clunky translation.
The Catholic Church can do whatever it wants, as far as I'm concerned, but this over-insistence is clearly a Men's Club issue (or at the very least, as Mama T pointed out, a grand decision made by a non-native English speaker who doesn't fully understand the nuances).
Exact translation of words can happen, but that does not mean that ideas and nuances are being translated correctly. My French teacher certainly set me straight on the difference between the French entendre and the Spanish entender.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (anima mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Not only more accurate, but dead literal! "Sed tantum dic verbum et sanabitur anima mea."
I know that the question is what is the best translation of the original text in the missal, and not the underlying biblical one. But St Matthew's gospel actually says 'your servant shall be healed' . Which would be highly appropriate in this context too, and avoids the implicit dualism which suggests that soul and body can be separated. A really rich sacramental theology would say with Cranmer 'that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body'.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known
Shipmate
# 11399
|
Posted
I suppose Anglophone RCs in the Philippines will just have to grin it and bear it. Then again, I won't be surprised if the Apostles' Creed will be retained in lieu of the Nicene. As for the vernacular texts (and there will be many of them), I hope that they issue them as translations from the Editio Typica and not by way of English. Oddly enough, for a country that was a Spanish colony for 300+ years, we never seem to have gotten "Y con tu espíritu" into the Tagalog translations (perhaps in Chavacano, but I'm no linguist), the usual response being "At sumainyo rin" which is closer to the English "and also with you." To be fair, even the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI; Philippine Independent Church) uses "at sumainyo rin" for the Sursum corda. Will check with their official books (originally published in English) when I have the chance.
[tangent]Re: Inclusive language, the Ave Maria in Tagalog is "Aba, Ginoong Maria" which can be translated verbatim as "Hail, Mister/Lord Mary," in English. Many a wag and some have taken up this matter in stand-up acts and religious Q&A slots on local media[/tangent]
Posts: 1833 | From: Manila, Philippines | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But St Matthew's gospel actually says 'your servant shall be healed' .
Actually, it says "my servant shall be healed."
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Sorry: I realised that after I had posted. But changing that to 'your' is less of a tweak, and a more meaningful one, than substituting 'soul'.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I cannot think of a subdialect in the English speaking world where "men" means anything other than adult males. One or two on this thread have tried to argue the other way, but get real! Language has moved on since the first world war.
I worship at a church where services are exclusively in Ye Olde Englishe, and so, of course, it's 'us men'. I don't have a problem with it in Ye Olde Englishe but do object in contemporary English (and will amend the intercessions in the Breviary, for example).
I think that's the problem, isn't it? 'Men' for people is perfectly acceptable in Ye Olde English but it isn't in contemporary English - even when that English is deliberately hieratic (is that the right word?).
Mind you, we won't be using it so it doesn't really matter.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry: I realised that after I had posted. But changing that to 'your' is less of a tweak, and a more meaningful one, than substituting 'soul'.
Strictly a matter of opinion, of course.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I was rather hoping the new translation would be prettier rather than pettier.
I cannot think of a subdialect in the English speaking world where "men" means anything other than adult males. One or two on this thread have tried to argue the other way, but get real! Language has moved on since the first world war.
In Geordie men are addressed as "man"; women as "woman man".
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Who, other than the women's studies crowd, effete members of the middle class, and Labour Party activists, gives a toss about inclusive language anyway. It is one of the great stupid ideas of the twentieth century and has done more to ruin the English language than even TV.
I would magine that provided it explained in advance, the average Catholic is going to accept it, and within a year or two it will become This is the the way we've always done it!(TM)
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Who, other than the women's studies crowd, effete members of the middle class, and Labour Party activists, gives a toss about inclusive language anyway.
Believe it or not, there are some of us who have never taken a women's studies course, who aren't members of the Labour Party and who aren't particularly effete, who nevertheless care about worship in the vernacular and who understand that "men=humans" hasn't been vernacular English in most places for quite a while.
Some of us also think that Paul's adminition against unnecessarily causing offense to our brothers and sisters in Christ has some applicability here.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
