Ship of Fools: Behold the Lamb of God

Thread: Behold the Lamb of God Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025036

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Rather than further hijack the 'authorship vs liturgy' thread in an even more protestant-unfriendly direction (to which I plead guilty), what do people think about Thurible's comment here?

quote:
the Invitations to Communion that aren’t “Behold ['Jesus is' is crossed out] the Lamb of God…”

I've never been comfortable with the (old) Roman Missal's wording 'This is the Lamb of God', and no more so with CW's bowdlerising to 'Jesus is the Lamb of God.'

The former suggests a very crude understanding of transubstantiation, as the priest holds up a piece of bread and suggests it is Jesus Christ. Of course, to any believer in the real presence, it is. But it certainly doesn't look like that. ISTM we are being invited to see Jesus with the eyes of faith, not literally.

The latter is equally crass, because it is making an uncontroversial theological statement but failing to link it to the reality of the moment. 'Jesus is the Lamb of God', yes, but what has it got to do with this bread and wine?

I understand that the revised English version of the Missal substitutes 'Behold' for 'This is'. This seems just right: it is inviting us to see Jesus present in the bread and wine, in a real and powerful way rather than in a crude and superficial one. Doubtless the RC authorities recognise this as a theologically accurate expression of transubstantiation. We Anglicans are committed to believing in the Real Presence but not in such a tightly defined way; 'behold' expresses this too. The only slight quibble (which doesn't apply in the context of 'traditional language' liturgy which I assume Thurible's church uses) is that 'behold' is rather archaic. Much as I am against half-timbered liturgical language I think we can live with that.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I dunno. I tend to see "Behold" and "This is" as basically the same thing.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I've always rather liked "Behold" - in the days I used to be at Mass in an Anglo-Catholic church not infrequently, that's what they used. I've often thought "Look! The Lamb of God who takes away..." might be a reasonable contemporary rendition.

[ 31. January 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Angloid, you're quite right about us being in trad language (CW Order One in Traditional Language + Pray, brethren and the occasional preface).

I've never understood "Jesus is the Lamb of God". As you say, it's a case of "And?"

I quite liked "This is the Lamb of God" - strong, sacramental teaching. However, I was struck when I went to a friend's church (for his first Mass, I think, but possibly not) which uses the Roman Rite. Mrs Thurible, whose experience is limited to more trad CW circles than mine has been, thought it quite horrid. It was a bit of a "No shit, Sherlock!" moment for her.

"Behold," on the other hand, has a warmer, "Come on, look and see that this is Jesus, the Lamb of God" sort of feel to it.

Thurible

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
The former suggests a very crude understanding of transubstantiation, as the priest holds up a piece of bread and suggests it is Jesus Christ.

Is that not, though, what transubstantiation suggests? That this piece of bread is no longer bread, despite its outward appearance, and is in fact the actual, literal body of Jesus? If not, then my understanding of transubstantiation is seriously deficient.

Also, is it not the case that the 1962 Missale has "Ecce Agnus Dei; ecce qui tollit peccata mundi'? If so, that would be properly translated with 'behold'.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"Behold" is quoting St John's gospel. I must say I'd never noticed that "This is" is not the same wording. "Jesus is" at that point is, well, pointless.

A new assistant priest says "Here is the Lamb of God". She's tinkering, of course, but in the right direction. (On the other hand, I'd be irritated if someone tinkered the other way.)

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

"This is" is a definition; "behold" is an invitation to perceive.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Hmph. You've summarised my whole post in one sentence.

Thurible the Waffler

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

And mine!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I get somewhat annoyed with one priest who says 'Look, this (emphasised) is Jesus, the lamb of God who....' whilst holding half the priest's host in one hand and pointing a it with the other.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I need frequent reminders that pithiness without originality is nothing worth.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I've never been sure why behold isn't allowed as contemporary language. Lo is archaic. I know why the CofE has gone for Jesus is because it's a compromise; behold would scare the horses, as it implies strong real presence.

Carys

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

From a RC perspective, this interesting thread highlights the translation issues that were particularly characteristic of the 1970 missal. As a young Anglican, I was used to Behold, but when I became RC, the ICEL masterpiece (not!) of 1970 was in effect, and Ecce had been rendered as This is. This was hardly the most significant translation foible, but my, how the many less-apparent issues truly added up.

The current translation restored Behold. I say restored because nearly all of the Latin-English people's missals prior to 1970 had translated Ecce as Behold. There was a specific intent in the 1970 missal to dumb down the translations whenever possible.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
There was a specific intent in the 1970 missal to dumb down the translations whenever possible.

Not trying to derail this thread, but I'd be really interested to see some hard evidence of that claim. I've encountered many who thought that the effect of the translation was to 'dumb down', but never before seen the suggestion that the translators set out with the declared intention to do so. Why would they want to do that?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
The former suggests a very crude understanding of transubstantiation, as the priest holds up a piece of bread and suggests it is Jesus Christ.
Is that not, though, what transubstantiation suggests? That this piece of bread is no longer bread, despite its outward appearance, and is in fact the actual, literal body of Jesus? If not, then my understanding of transubstantiation is seriously deficient.

No, that is emphatically not what transubstantiation is. It's not some trick on the senses, so that "despite outward appearances" it is in fact something else.

To use an analogy (don't push it too far though): that note in your pocket is a piece of paper (the accidents), but because of the printing on it, it is in fact money. Your senses are not deceiving you, it is not money "despite outward appearances" that it is paper. The substance of that paper, however, has been changed so that it is not mere paper, it is money.

The "accidents" of bread and wine remain - it's bread and wine you see, your senses are not deceiving you. But the "substance" is changed so that it is no longer just bread and wine, it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

The "substance" has changed, not the "accidents" - hence transubstantiation.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I like 'Behold'...

... but then I like pretty archaic language at times, and then I become not so sure about it.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
There was a specific intent in the 1970 missal to dumb down the translations whenever possible.
Not trying to derail this thread, but I'd be really interested to see some hard evidence of that claim. I've encountered many who thought that the effect of the translation was to 'dumb down', but never before seen the suggestion that the translators set out with the declared intention to do so. Why would they want to do that?

The translation was characterized by a move away from what might be called "ecclesial language." Words that sounded even remotely technical, theologically precise or specific to RC usage were avoided wherever possible. This shift was apparently ecumenical in scope, and in that regard was quite successful, as the Order of Mass as it was previously rendered in people's Latin-English hand missals before the Council had always sounded specifically Catholic and not very Protestant-friendly, but the post-V2 translation was indeed able to be emulated by other denominations, to a certain degree.

The other shift was away from language that was anything other than everyday pedestrian speech. Formal language was eschewed in favor of simpler--dare I say banal--terminology. Descriptive adjectives and adverbs that appeared in the original Latin were simply dropped from the English translation. A more anthropomorphic approach was used, that emphasized common usage, even where this meant displacing the Latin terms. The methodology of dynamic equivalence was used as a justification for deleting scores of words in the original, and the more anthropomorphic approach was seen as being in keeping with what the Council Fathers wanted, even though they had said relatively little on this particular topic.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Sorry, I typed anthropomorphic in the above post where I meant to write anthropocentric. (I was just reading William Saroyan, so the wrong word was freshly in my mind.) [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I need frequent reminders that pithiness without originality is nothing worth.

Ok: we'll carry on taking the pith then.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I know why the CofE has gone for Jesus is because it's a compromise; behold would scare the horses, as it implies strong real presence.

It doesn't imply any doctrine contrary to that of the Prayer Book or Common Worship.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
This shift was apparently ecumenical in scope, and in that regard was quite successful, as the Order of Mass as it was previously rendered in people's Latin-English hand missals before the Council had always sounded specifically Catholic and not very Protestant-friendly, but the post-V2 translation was indeed able to be emulated by other denominations, to a certain degree.

The other shift was away from language that was anything other than everyday pedestrian speech. Formal language was eschewed in favor of simpler--dare I say banal--terminology. Descriptive adjectives and adverbs that appeared in the original Latin were simply dropped from the English translation.

Now, now...the Protestants at the time used thee and thou, and even when they took on "contemporary" language, it looked and sounded a whole lot different than the Sacramentary (except the common bits of the ordinary, of course)

The issue of language simplification in that era is well-known, but it was definitely not limited to English. Behold doesn't even come to English from Latin, so its translation into other languages from Latin is extremely varied. Spanish uses "Este es" (this is), French uses "voici" (which in my opinion comes fairly close to Ecce), and if I recall correctly German uses something like "Seht."

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

My preference is strongly for, 'Behold'. The Christian Gospel begins with John, and it begins with him in a pretty simple way. Firstly, repent! God is near. And secondly... Look! There He is. It shouldn't be any more complicated than it needs to be!

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I know why the CofE has gone for Jesus is because it's a compromise; behold would scare the horses, as it implies strong real presence.
It doesn't imply any doctrine contrary to that of the Prayer Book or Common Worship.

Talking about this in the pub after dinner tonight I realised the problem isn't strong real presence per se but lifting up and inviting people to gaze upon it. Because the sacrament was not ordained by Christ to be lifted up ... or gazed upon.

Carys

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Talking about this in the pub after dinner tonight I realised the problem isn't strong real presence per se but lifting up and inviting people to gaze upon it. Because the sacrament was not ordained by Christ to be lifted up ... or gazed upon. Carys

That may not be what Christ ordained the Sacrament for, but it's a way to take a moment and contemplate what Christ's gift of his Body and Blood means for us.

I like John Macquarrie's thoughts on this.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Well indeed. As many, many have pointed out, this is only a problem if it is not a prelude to the reverent consumption thereof afterwards....

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

For what it's worth, the pertinent phrase in John occurs twice, at 1:29 and 1:36: ide ho amnos tou theou.

My handy-dandy Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Barclay Newman) gives for ide: "Look! See! Listen!; here is; hear are."

BDAG says "ide serves...to indicate a place or individual, here is (are) (like French voici)," giving 1:29, 36, 47; 19:14, 26 as examples.

Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis for Dumb Jesuits calls ide the 2nd aorist imperative of horao, "here treated like an exclamation like idou."

Finally, Raymond Brown in his commentary on John translates things as: "Look! Here is the Lamb of God."

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I get somewhat annoyed with one priest who says 'Look, this (emphasised) is Jesus, the lamb of God who....' whilst holding half the priest's host in one hand and pointing a it with the other.

What the ...? He/she should be burned at the stake. Immediately. And cast into the deepest depths of Dis. Grrr.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
"This is" is a definition; "behold" is an invitation to perceive.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Well indeed. As many, many have pointed out, this is only a problem if it is not a prelude to the reverent consumption thereof afterwards....

Precisely, dj_o; this Article needs to be read in the historical context of a church culture in which the non-communicating Mass was the primary service.

A Eucharist at which the elements are not offered to the congregation is a mockery of the sacrament.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I get somewhat annoyed with one priest who says 'Look, this (emphasised) is Jesus, the lamb of God who....' whilst holding half the priest's host in one hand and pointing a it with the other.

You mean that s/he isn't holding the chalice in one hand and the half of the priest's host in the other at this stage? - or does s/he have a third hand?

Banish the scoundrel - confine them to wherever bad liturgy practictioners are confined for time eternity, and beyond!

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

Does anyone say "This is the handmaid of the Lord"?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Does anyone say "This is the handmaid of the Lord"?

In what context? In the EOC communicants are given communion with the formula of, "The handmaiden of God, N., receives the body and blood of OLG&SJC" or "The body and blood of OLG&SJC is given to the handmaiden of God, N., for the remission of sins and unto life everlasting."

(substitute "servant" for males)

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I assume in the context of the Angelus:

V: Behold the handmaiden of the Lord
R: Be it unto me according to thy word

Hail Mary...

I don't think I've heard "This is..." but I have heard "I am..."

Thurible

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Well indeed. As many, many have pointed out, this is only a problem if it is not a prelude to the reverent consumption thereof afterwards....
Precisely, dj_o; this Article needs to be read in the historical context of a church culture in which the non-communicating Mass was the primary service.

A Eucharist at which the elements are not offered to the congregation is a mockery of the sacrament.

Indeed, I agree and would prefer behold, but the reason I suspect the CofE ended up with "Jesus is" is because there are those from the evangelical wing who would use the article to object to Behold. Similarly, we ended up with "bread to set before you" rather than "bread to offer" in the offertory prayers.

Carys

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Similarly, we ended up with "bread to set before you" rather than "bread to offer" in the offertory prayers.

Which of course means exactly the same thing. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Similarly, we ended up with "bread to set before you" rather than "bread to offer" in the offertory prayers.
Which of course means exactly the same thing.

Indeed but I think the objection to the former is it could imply sacrifice.

Carys

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Another fan of "behold" here.

In German (RC, I mean) the words used are "Siehe, das ist Gottes Lamm..." where "siehe" can mean "behold", "lo", or "see"..."the lamb of God".

I guess one could understand what one wanted there.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"We set before" may literally mean the same as "we offer", but it doesn't have the same imaginative connotations.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Now, now...the Protestants at the time used thee and thou, and even when they took on "contemporary" language, it looked and sounded a whole lot different than the Sacramentary (except the common bits of the ordinary, of course)

Hmmmm, the "common bits of the Ordinary" were taken from the then-current English language translation made by ICEL, the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, the Catholic body in charge, then and now, of making the translations.

Yes, before someone else points it out, I know that the official source of most denominations' texts come from International Consultation on English Texts (ICET). But that group's work was intentionally a shadow of ICEL at the time, much as the RCL's original source was the Catholic Lectionary.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I assume in the context of the Angelus:

V: Behold the handmaiden of the Lord
R: Be it unto me according to thy word

Hail Mary...

I don't think I've heard "This is..." but I have heard "I am..."

Thurible

Yes.

I was too cryptic.

In the Mass the Latin has "Ecce Agnus Dei ..."; in the Angelus we have "Ecce ancilla domini". The translation of the Mass into English was "This is" and as someone has observed Spanish has "Éste es". Neither English ("Behold the handmaid") nor Spanish ("He aquí la esclava") [shows prejudice] messed around with the Angelus. What was the rationale for not using in the mass an expression more-or-less hard-wired into the faithful?

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Now, now...the Protestants at the time used thee and thou, and even when they took on "contemporary" language, it looked and sounded a whole lot different than the Sacramentary (except the common bits of the ordinary, of course)
Hmmmm, the "common bits of the Ordinary" were taken from the then-current English language translation made by ICEL, the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, the Catholic body in charge, then and now, of making the translations.

Yes, before someone else points it out, I know that the official source of most denominations' texts come from International Consultation on English Texts (ICET). But that group's work was intentionally a shadow of ICEL at the time, much as the RCL's original source was the Catholic Lectionary.

Yes, maybe I misunderstood your earlier post. It sounded as if you were suggesting that the simplified language of the Sacramentary were a result of pandering to Protestants or trying to be more like them. My point was that Protestants were not using simplified "contemporary" texts at the time, and that blame for the simplified language belongs with the Catholic hierarchy.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Yes, maybe I misunderstood your earlier post. It sounded as if you were suggesting that the simplified language of the Sacramentary were a result of pandering to Protestants or trying to be more like them. My point was that Protestants were not using simplified "contemporary" texts at the time, and that blame for the simplified language belongs with the Catholic hierarchy.

The blame for the simplified language absolutely belongs with the Catholic hierarchy, as they allowed the ICEL dynamic equivalence method to be used. I don't think that Pope Paul VI had any real understanding of the English-language developments, but I am fairly confident that Cardinals Bugnini and Lercaro in Rome did, and they enthusiastically supported ICEL's work, as did the American, English, Canadian, Australian and other bishops' conferences. Some bishops did object, but their criticisms were basically brushed aside and outvoted. And yet, forty years later, much, if not most, of the basis of the revised ICEL version was comprised of the very things that the objectors had voiced. It took the passage of time, and Blessed John Paul's Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001 to finally highlight the need to kick out the old ICEL guard and replace them with the next generation. Even then, it still took another decade of work to get the job done.

Yes, there was some pandering to Protties with the 1970 missal, as the inter-denominational group formed ICET in 1965 and were quite eager to act as observers to ICEL's work. So ICEL literally worked from day one with ICET observers at their elbows, and there was definitely a desire to use the translations to as an occasion to further the ecumenioal agenda. Sure, back the the mid-to-late sixties, it really looked like the Catholic Church and at least the liturgical mainline Prot groups might come closer together, but by the mid-seventies we knew that this could not and would not happen.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'm not an expert in linguistics but I have never understood this objection to 'dynamic equivalence'. It just seems to me common sense. A language is not a neutral code but expresses a particular culture, so 'translation' from one to another needs to convey the essential meaning rather than the surface, literal meaning. In religious language there is always a trade-off, of course, between honouring the original cultural references and being comprehensible to a different culture. Hence the compromise (maintained even by the ICEL) of referring to the 'Lamb of God'. But too far the other way and you end up with a load of Latin gobbledegook like some of the new Missal.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

I'm a little puzzled that no one has yet pointed out the context. In the Roman Missal the Ecce Agnus Dei comes straight after the triple invocation Agnus Dei so the 1974 translation has the meaning just about right: You've just been invoking the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world - well this IS the Lamb of God...

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm not an expert in linguistics but I have never understood this objection to 'dynamic equivalence'. It just seems to me common sense. A language is not a neutral code but expresses a particular culture, so 'translation' from one to another needs to convey the essential meaning rather than the surface, literal meaning. In religious language there is always a trade-off, of course, between honouring the original cultural references and being comprehensible to a different culture. Hence the compromise (maintained even by the ICEL) of referring to the 'Lamb of God'. But too far the other way and you end up with a load of Latin gobbledegook like some of the new Missal.

Latin is an exceptionally precise language, hence it's suitability for expressing theology. Dynamic equivalence doesn't merely result in banality, it results in translations that aren't translations at all.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

CL, this handles only half the equation. The source language, Latin, may be exceptionally precise theologically.

That still leaves the target language. If it is exceptionally precise theologically, fine.

But it may not be theologically precise, exceptionally or not. In that case there will be instances where there is no possible precise rendering in the target.

Does not formal equivalence then fail and dynamic equivalence offer the only option? That, or the translation has some sort of precision, but fails to actually render the meaning of the Latin in a way that can be understood by folk who have no reference to the Latin.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

Exactly - the English has to mean what the Latin means, not just be what in the latest translation often appears to be little more than a clumsy transliteration.

Of course, if the English is obscure, then the meaning remains entirely in the control of those writing it.

Far be it from me to suggest the presence of such an unworthy hidden agenda... [Devil]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

A number of the last few posts are as inaccurate as the ICEL translations they are criticising.

ICET did not sit at the elbow of ICEL and urge them to translate things a particular way, then copy those translations. That is a complete nonsense.

The rather dreadful sectarian antipathy between churches before the 1960s was something most churches wanted rid of, including the Catholic Church. Unitatis Redintegratio set out the Catholic stall in that regard. Where there was once barely polite at best engagement, there was a new desire to actively engage with others. The liturgical movement in all churches was one concrete situation in which that was possible, co-inciding as it did with the ecumenical thaw. For the Catholic Church there was the task of translating texts, for other churches the task of updating texts. ICET was the agreed forum - and the Catholic Church was fully a part of ICET. So this idea that ICEL was the Catholic and ICET the protestant body is erroneous. And for absolute clarity and disclosure: I do not like the texts that ICET produced!

The English Catholic Missal was promulgated first, using the agreed ICET texts, which is why it is often incorrectly asserted that other churches simply copied the Catholic Church, as in the lectionary. Wrong. The texts were agreed ecumenically before the various churches each in turn adopted them.

The result, however, was unfortunate from a Catholic perspective, because theology often suffered in the interest of concord. The great example is the response "And also with you". That was a child of ICET. Rather curiously though, having embraced all those ICET texts. the Catholic Church seemed to baulk at the modernised Lord's Prayer, which other churches accepted. The one prayer we really ought to have in common therefore became one we did not! (And yes, I am aware that the modernised version or the traditional forms are options in the liturgies of other churches).

As far as dynamic equivalence is concerned, let it be noted that it was the Holy See which issued the document instructing translators to use the principles of dynamic equivalence, in the 1969 document Comme le prevoit. The eperience of various translations (not just the English) caused the Holy See to change its mind and demand stricter adherence to the latin original. The big culprit in all of this was not in fact the first English Missal of 1973, but the revision submitted in the 1990s. In that "translation" there was a wholesale rewriting of the Liturgy and the invention of new texts, all under the banner of "dynamic equivalence". It inspired a lot of bad blood between the Holy See and the English speaking bishops worldwide and resulted in the crackdown via the new document from the Holy See, Liturgiam authenticam. And an additional policing of translations, via the newly invented body Vox Clara.

The result is what we now have.

Personally, all the things that irritate a certain type happen to be things I strongly approve of: the new Gloria, And with your Spirit, etc etc. But I must admit to finding many of the Collects and Prefaces baffling and certainly hard to follow in English. I understand the words, but find the way they are put together altogether bewildering.

Had ICEL stuck to translating rather than interpreting and inventing texts, we would never have been in this situation, is my own opinion.

And then there are the other language translations - including the French and the Italian. I wait to see what will happen there!

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Oh, and let me also say, since I am on a roll: please can someone provide a formal equivalence rather than dynamic equivalence translation of, for example, Ite, Missa est, please?

There are many dynamic equivalence occurrences in the new translation. The rules can never be as hard and fast as some try to make out.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Ite, Missa est

"Seeing as the congregation departed 10 minutes ago, immediately after communion, I'm going to have lunch now."

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Latin is only a precise code because it's a dead language. It doesn't have any choice but to be a precise code.

You cannot worship in the vernacular with a formal equivalent because no formal equivalent will ever be a natural use in the target language. To have worship in the vernacular you must use dynamic equivalence. It will be messier but it will be authentic worship in authentic language, not danced doctrine in complete nonsense.

I can't remember being quite as alienated by any use of language as by the new "translation" of the mass texts.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

I think "We've had the Mass - be off with you" is a literal a translation of Ite missa est as any...

Or; "That's the Mass that was - now go"

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Except mass as the name of the service derives from missa which is the past participle of 'mitio' I send. So it means 'go it is sent,' though I'm not sure what it is. Maybe 'one is sent' might make sense. 'Go, sent into the world 'perhaps. But 'the mass is ended' has always struck more as odd.

Carys

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

[PEDANT MODE ENGAGED] Mitto, dear, mitto.[/PEDANT MODE ENGAGED]

People have argued about Ite, missa est ever since it was first uttered. I believe, though, that the general consensus as to its literal meaning is: "Go, this is the sending-forth."

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

Yes, missa originally means "dismissed". The word "mass" derives from it. Which makes the choice of translation nothing other than bizarre.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Except mass as the name of the service derives from missa which is the past participle of 'mitio' I send. So it means 'go it is sent,' though I'm not sure what it is. Maybe 'one is sent' might make sense. 'Go, sent into the world 'perhaps. But 'the mass is ended' has always struck more as odd.

Carys

Missa est - 3rd person singular feminine perfect passive indicative of the verb mitto 'I send' - therefore meaning she (or it, with reference to some unspecified feminine noun) has been sent. So literally 'Go ye, she (or it) has been sent'. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
So literally 'Go ye, she (or it) has been sent'. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

The assembly? (ie ecclesia).

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Latin is only a precise code because it's a dead language. It doesn't have any choice but to be a precise code.

To be a little more precise (!), it's a code used almost exclusively by people interested in theological precision. Therefore, it's theologically precise. Languages used by other people interested in other things do not have the same privilege.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0