homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Eccles: And with your Spirit (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Eccles: And with your Spirit
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree Nick Tamen.

That particular translation of that clause of the Creed, by the way, was inserted by direct instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I find it dodgy on another point as well: "became man" is very suspect theology and does not accurately reflect "homo factus est" in other words was made man.

Still, who am I to argue with the CDF?

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
basso

Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228

 - Posted      Profile for basso   Email basso   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
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).

It's here.
Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I find it dodgy on another point as well: "became man" is very suspect theology and does not accurately reflect "homo factus est" in other words was made man.

If I recall correctly, this was a difference between US and English practice. In US Catholicism, I believe it has been:

quote:

By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man

I believe English Catholic practice follows what is done in most US Protestant places:

quote:

By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

I vaguely recall that the Spanish is "se hizo," which I would normally translate as "became," although an argument could easily be made to translate it "was made."
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I vaguely recall that the Spanish is "se hizo," which I would normally translate as "became," although an argument could easily be made to translate it "was made."

In the Spanish translation it's "se hizo hombre" which is literally "(him)self made man".

--------------------
“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
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I vaguely recall that the Spanish is "se hizo," which I would normally translate as "became," although an argument could easily be made to translate it "was made."

In the Spanish translation it's "se hizo hombre" which is literally "(him)self made man".
Grammatically several things can be taking place. It could be reflexive (as in Me despierto), or it could be passive voice (as in Se Habla Español). It could also be interpreted as an issue of different translation--hacer is usually translated as "to make" or "to do," while hacerse is usually translated as "to become."

In any event, I'm not convinced that the original Latin implies "making himself," while the Spanish use of the reflexive verb hacerse seems to suggest that.

Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

A lot of people. Especially women under the age of 40 or so. Many people do instinctively feel excluded by non-inclusive language. I gripe about messing around with old hymns to inclusify them but think there is no excuse for modern hymn writers to use exclusive language.

Now with 'hemas tous anthropos' I object to translating it as merely 'us' because that stands in danger of being more exclusive (being perceived as 'us Christians' for example), but that doesn't mean 'us men' is satisfactory either. It needs to be 'us humans' or 'us people'. Sounds a bit odd now, but we'd get used to it quickly enough.

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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:


Now with 'hemas tous anthropos' I object to translating it as merely 'us' because that stands in danger of being more exclusive (being perceived as 'us Christians' for example), but that doesn't mean 'us men' is satisfactory either. It needs to be 'us humans' or 'us people'. Sounds a bit odd now, but we'd get used to it quickly enough.

I don't think "humans" works because it implies that the important thing is membership of the biological species, rather than being spiritually in the image of God.


"Us people" is more likely than just "us" to be taken as exclusive in colloquial English. Us people here, rather than you lot over there. "Us" in English can freely be either inclusive or exclusive, you have to depend on context.

If you wanted to eliminate ambiguity, you'd need to say "all people".

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Many people do instinctively feel excluded by non-inclusive language.

This is exacerbated by the fact that all the decision-makers who count were men (humans of the male gender) who don't have to come home and face their wives!
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Um... People who speak English to the people around them in hopes that the people around them will understand what they're saying?

Just a guess, you understand ... there being not so many people out there on the streets (where we're suppposed to be communicating the gospel and bringing souls to Christ) who think "man" means anything except "males".

For heaven's sake -- I'm none of the things you list, and I'm eligible this year to receive the Canadian Old Age Pension and neither I nor most of my contemporaries have used "man" to mean anything but "male" for decades.

THis is one tide that is not going out -- and those who are defending it are like children trying to keep their sand castles from dissolving in that tide. It's just one of the things that says to most young people (those under 35) that the church is so out of touch with reality that there's no point in even considering what it says.

John

[ 29. January 2011, 18:21: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:


If you wanted to eliminate ambiguity, you'd need to say "all people".

Quite. And why not? 'Us' is implied anyway.

--------------------
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
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I were to stand up in church and say "can all of us men go to the hall" or somesuch, how many women would come along?

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Margaret

Shipmate
# 283

 - Posted      Profile for Margaret   Email Margaret   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's a certain weird charm in observing the RCC joining Scientology as one of the few religious* groups not to use inclusive language. Scientologists don't use it because they're imitating the egregious L Ron Hubbard, whose glory days were in the 50s to 70s of the last century, before inclusive language became the norm, and whose turgid writings have now been canonised as scripture. But why on earth should English-speaking RCs be lumbered with this out-of-date use of language?

*Well, at least Scientologists claim that Scientology is a religion...

Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Inclusive language is fine when it doesn't sound ridiculous. I'm sure we have all listened to someone reading the Gospel and changing it into inclusive language as they go along resulting in dreadful boo boos! Mary not being allowed to have a son, for example.

I also don't like the word "Humankind"....nothing to do with the sentiment, just the sound of it!

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I hear a sepulchral nag pointing out that if "men" = "adult humans", then statements such as "ordination to the sacred ministry is confined to men" simply means not ordaining children. You can't have it both ways.

--------------------
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
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170

 - Posted      Profile for Mama Thomas   Email Mama Thomas   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I also don't like the word "Humankind"....nothing to do with the sentiment, just the sound of it!

It is quite an old word though, been around for ages and I hope you get used to it.

--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known

Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by basso:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
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).

It's here.
Thanks Basso. I see, it is there for reference. If I didn't know how to do foreign accents in 2007, then I have put that right since.

--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!

Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If ever I was fleetingly tempted to swim the Tiber, this has finally killed the idea stone dead. It's linguistically and culturally illiterate, and just proves that the RC church is just not somewhere I want to be for any length of time.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gosh, you must be very far from even being able to see the river, let alone look at the water and think of dipping in your toe to see if a swim might be a good idea.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm shocked. I agree with ken. This moment needed recording as it may never happen again.

You can't have one text which you regard as the "real thing" and attempt to squeeze it into such other languages as your members may regard as desirable (for whatever bizarre reason when "we" all know the "real thing" is far better) and call it worship in the vernacular. It's just not.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hear a sepulchral nag pointing out that if "men" = "adult humans", then statements such as "ordination to the sacred ministry is confined to men" simply means not ordaining children. You can't have it both ways.

[Overused] I think you just out-lawyered the Magisterium.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Gosh, you must be very far from even being able to see the river, let alone look at the water and think of dipping in your toe to see if a swim might be a good idea.

I have considered it at various points, during my student days and subsequently. My reasons are possibly atypical, and would certainly keep me as far away from Ordinariate types as humanly possible. I was, and to a degree still am, looking for a way of escaping the identity-based preoccupations of the C of E, and its general tendency to find its own navel all-consumingly fascinating. Also, being a linguist, I was looking for a church with a genuinely international and multi-cultural perspective. Now that Rome seems to be following the example of Canterbury, and on occasion outdoing it, the urge is waning rapidly.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having said earlier that it wasn't really my argument because we won't be using it, it registered this morning that we do borrow the 'Pray, brethren'. Has that changed?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Offeiriad

Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031

 - Posted      Profile for Offeiriad   Email Offeiriad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Yet all the other languages have been saying "And with your spirit" all along - without all the stuff you object to.

The Church in Wales is the only place where I have found myself saying "And with your spirit", and it never sat comfortably for me.

Personally I find the argument for the RC change a bit obscurantist, especially as the Roman Rite historically tended to be austere and practical, rather than laden with symbolic meanings. Mind you, I did find felicitous the suggestion offered but rejected around the early 1970's that the greeting should be rendered:

The Spirit of the Lord be with you;
all: and also with you.

Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem in the Church in Wales liturgy is that we address the priest with "you/your" and God with "thou/thy/thee" which is grammatical nonsense.

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whatever language we use in religious language it is only an attempt to express what is sometimes unable to be epressed adequately.

Most people don't worry overly about the language which is used in the liturgy.

Take for example the well known english form of the Lord's prayer.

I can't see how the average epaker of english can say what 'forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us' means exactly. It may not be sexist but it is certainly not everyday language,but it is accepted by most anglophone Christians.

ther is another form of that same petition used often by Scottish Presbyterians' forgive us our debts,as we forgive our debtors' - once again that is not everyday language,but it is accepted by many .

'Hallowed be Thy name' is another example of language which is not in everyday use and yet we accept it.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The problem in the Church in Wales liturgy is that we address the priest with "you/your" and God with "thou/thy/thee" which is grammatical nonsense.

Not just grammatical, but theological nonsense too.

--------------------
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
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very true, Forthview, and for this reason I'm not especially concerned about "consubstantial" (although I do admit to finding the fact that they're using it amusing [Snigger] ). I was waiting with bated breath to find out how they were going to attempt to translate "quaesumus": would it be query, question, beseech, or would they just go for a full-on made-up word like "quaise"???!

The only things about the translation that really bother me* are the errors. The "men" issue is an error in translation. It works in other languages, but not in English. As for the rest of the translation, I wish nothing but the best for RCs, for whom a new translation was long overdue.

*(Eliminating for now my Lutheran doctrinal objections, of course!)

Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The problem in the Church in Wales liturgy is that we address the priest with "you/your" and God with "thou/thy/thee" which is grammatical nonsense.

Not just grammatical, but theological nonsense too.
Absolutely! I'm afraid when I'm at such liturgies I always respond "And with thy spirit".

--------------------
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
Noirin
Apprentice
# 16194

 - Posted      Profile for Noirin   Email Noirin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that there are two issues here: the translation itself and how the change(s) will be experienced in the local community.

I have plenty of problems with the translation - the politics of how it evolved, the return to exclusive language, the poor translations in parts (oblation!?!). However the facts are that this translation (the third) of the English edition of the Roman Missal is all but a done deal. In fact, short of a Bishop being brave enough to say 'not in my diocese', it is a done deal!

The issue that I care about is how we as a community handle change in the liturgy. Will we engage or ignore, discuss or blame?

The suggestion, that this translation will come into common use easily, isn't realistic. There are potentially hugly problematic moments ahead: a bereaved family arrive for a funeral to realise they don't know any of the Mass responses, a Minister of the Eucharist brings communion to a house bound parishioner who now panics as she searches for her glasses to read the unfamiliar words, one local priest out of several in a town decides to ignore the translation so that the congregation is mortified by not knowing how to respond to the Mass. etc, etc.

I live in an irish diocese that simply tried to get everyone to 'stand, sit, kneel' appropriately and it took years to work through the politics of it!! Some clergy were totally avoided their responsibility as presiders in it and that won't work with a language change like this. For example this new translation cannot be read unseen at the altar, it needs plenty of preparation. (After years of repeating familiar words, thats very challenging) Similarly, parishioners deserve lots of lead in time for this - clergy have a responsibility to inform themselves and inform their parish, rather than wish it would go away.

This translation takes getting used to. But i think that, with time and learning, many of the hard edges soften, and we can figure out (together) what is unacceptable and what is just strange and new.

Posts: 14 | From: Co Clare, Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All those things were said when we got a vernacular liturgy. I admit this is slightly different in that we are used to some English phrases, which come automatically. As has been said, it will take time, but it will happen, within a few months even. In South Africa I encountered the rite already in use - EVERYONE said "and with your spirit" (except me).

Two further points: no bishop has the authority to say "not in my diocese" - and if he does he will be pulled up very short and very fast.

Secondly, the politics is a fascinating thing. Truth is, this translation has had far more input over a much broader spread of people than the previous ICEL ever allowed. The process is fascinating, and every Anglophone Bishops' Conference not only got a vote, but were allowed to suggest alterations. That was not the case previously, where they either had to accept it or reject it. This is not a translation written by flunkies in Rome, but the result of real international collaboration, with Rome exercising the last word only.

The allegedly more liberal former ICEL was anything but. In effect it set itself up as a Congregation of Rites for English speakers, and tried to cut Rome out of the picture. There was no recourse against its "expertise". That ICEL was pulled into line and that Rome demanded it be reconstituted was a painful experience, but absolutely necessary.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Welcome to Ship of Fools, Noirin, and to the Ecclesiantics board. There's a "Welcome Aboard" thread in All Saints where you can introduce yourself if you feel so inclined. Otherwise, enjoy your voyage with us.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

[ 31. January 2011, 00:56: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596

 - Posted      Profile for Ceremoniar   Email Ceremoniar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
All those things were said when we got a vernacular liturgy. I admit this is slightly different in that we are used to some English phrases, which come automatically. As has been said, it will take time, but it will happen, within a few months even. In South Africa I encountered the rite already in use - EVERYONE said "and with your spirit" (except me).

Two further points: no bishop has the authority to say "not in my diocese" - and if he does he will be pulled up very short and very fast.

Secondly, the politics is a fascinating thing. Truth is, this translation has had far more input over a much broader spread of people than the previous ICEL ever allowed. The process is fascinating, and every Anglophone Bishops' Conference not only got a vote, but were allowed to suggest alterations. That was not the case previously, where they either had to accept it or reject it. This is not a translation written by flunkies in Rome, but the result of real international collaboration, with Rome exercising the last word only.

The allegedly more liberal former ICEL was anything but. In effect it set itself up as a Congregation of Rites for English speakers, and tried to cut Rome out of the picture. There was no recourse against its "expertise". That ICEL was pulled into line and that Rome demanded it be reconstituted was a painful experience, but absolutely necessary.

Amen to all of this. I have heard Msgr. Bruce Harbert, onetime chairman of the retooled ICEL and still a consultant, and his observations confirmed all of this. The number of years put into this project has been considerable, especially when compared with the short turnarounds in post-VII period.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noirin:
The issue that I care about is how we as a community handle change in the liturgy. Will we engage or ignore, discuss or blame?

Hopefully there will be plenty of engagement. The new translation set out to be a faithful translation, and in some regards, it is not. In some crucial cases that may cause doctrinal misunderstanding, slavish literalism has obscured the fact that English is not a secret code for Latin.

The reaction of the people will determine if anything needs to be changed. As concerns the phrase "for us men," it has always been thus, so I doubt anybody will bat an eyelid about it. However, as we have been positing, it is not an accurate translation.

As for the pew-warmers, they will learn. What it will take is priests who are not wishy-washy, and who are also socially adept at charming the new liturgy into the lives of the parishioners.

It also wouldn't hurt if there were a website of printer-ready order of mass bulletins available for churches to download and use. To be frank, I think it should be designed by a Protestant. We're better at making order of service bulletins. I've never seen a decent one at any Catholic liturgy I've ever attended (especially the ones where they are trying to make it easy on us non-RCs).

This one, which I assume was made by an RC, is actually fairly decent. To make things unambiguous (and to take care of the posture issue once and for all), I'd add in directions about sitting, standing, and kneeling. Then that issue could be resolved under the guise of "New Missal, New Rules"!

Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898

 - Posted      Profile for otyetsfoma   Email otyetsfoma   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In my Anglican days I often noticed low-churchmen deliberately substituting their own words for those of the BCP. I always assumed they were either demonstrating their reluctance to be "tied to a book" or that it would seem more homely and less stuffy! Occasionally it let to disasters like "I baptise you in the name of the father (pause) and in the name of the Son (pause) and in the name of the Holy Spirit". Recently in Canada I noticed the same attempt at folksiness from the RCs (mostly Jesuits) on the TV daily mass. Will the new translation be enforced to put an end to these things?
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. 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

Actually, I give a toss. And I give a toss because language means something. Even if that meaning is ever evolving.

And like it or not, one of the evolutions of the 20thC in language was the awareness that more than half the human race is linguistically excluded by use of exclusively male terms used to describe all of humankind. This means something. If you are linguistically excluded it means you are invisible. No amount of sophistry can assuage or erase this reality.

Your belligerence in this matter I find offensive. It's especially irresponsible for those responsible for the ordering of liturgy to be willfully negligent of the issue, because the relationship between language and symbol/what is signified is a key and important one. It's an issue that ultimately cuts to heart of sacramental theology. And no amount of hiding of heads in Aristotelean metaphysics is going to negate the issue or close the Pandora's box of gender inclusivity in the English language.

Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
...the phrase "for us men and for our salvation" is reinserted. No namby pamby inclusive language then.

'Men' in english includes both persons of the female and makem sex. So it is as inclusive as it can get.

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
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.
How, exactly? If it weren't for the word 'men' (or perhaps 'humans') the text could easily be interpreted to mean 'we who are speaking this'; 'we who are Christians,' etc. A Calvinist would perhaps interpret it to mean 'my calvinist brethren only,' as they believe Christ only died for some ('the elect') and not for all.

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Last time I went to Sunderland the locals seemed to have the same two sexes as the rest of us.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
'Men' in english includes both persons of the female and makem sex. So it is as inclusive as it can get.

No it doesn't and it isn't. And what's more, if you are a native English speaker you know it doesn't.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220

 - Posted      Profile for Corvo   Email Corvo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Last time I went to Sunderland the locals seemed to have the same two sexes as the rest of us.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
'Men' in english includes both persons of the female and makem sex. So it is as inclusive as it can get.

No it doesn't and it isn't. And what's more, if you are a native English speaker you know it doesn't.
I agree with Ken, but wonder whether this is completely true of non-British English. I remember being at a Patti Smith concert in Birmingham and the women in the audience getting quite irate about the way Patti kept addressing it (the audience that is) as 'you guys'. Was this because the presence of a single male in the group meant the collective noun had to be masculine (as it would in Italian f'r'instance)?

[ 02. February 2011, 13:31: Message edited by: Sacred London ]

Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I agree with Ken, but wonder whether this is completely true of non-British English. I remember being at a Patti Smith concert in Birmingham and the women in the audience getting quite irate about the way Patti kept addressing it (the audience that is) as 'you guys'. Was this because the presence of a single male in the group meant the collective noun had to be masculine (as it would in Italian f'r'instance)?

In some parts of America, "you guys" is simply an idiomatic plural of "you," much like the Southern "y'all" or the Pittsburgh "yinz."


But hey -- "Who for us guys and our salvation" would probably work just fine in those places. [Devil]

--------------------
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
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

 - Posted      Profile for malik3000   Author's homepage   Email malik3000   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
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.

I second this!

--------------------
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      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But hey -- "Who for us guys and our salvation" would probably work just fine in those places. [Devil]

[Killing me]

Nick Tamen, you keep going up in my estimation!

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
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.

I second this!
... and there are even some of us who actually ARE effete, middle-class members of the t'Labour party who don't care that much about Inclusive Language. If liturgies and hymns were written using 'men' in the old sense, then I don't have a problem with churches retaining them, especially if it would cause changes to well-loved musical settings in the process.

However, I confess that actually preparing a new translation of a liturgy that deliberately uses the archaic meaning of 'men' and 'mankind' strikes me as strange indeed.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the Irish Independent:

Irish Priests critcise "stilted" translation of the Roman Missal

--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515

 - Posted      Profile for angelicum   Email angelicum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
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!

What does it mean by unilateral in this context?

It appears to me that it was the 1970 English translation that was unilateral - in the sense that it was different, not just to the Latin, but also as demonstrated by TT, the Italian, and other languages.

Why non-Catholics may feel put out that we no longer share the same/or similar sounding texts, for me - apart from the fact that I am very aware that we use a translation (as opposed to an original liturgy), and that while I am in full communion with, say Italian RCs, I am in impaired communion with English-speaking Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. It is therefore more important for me, that the words of the RC liturgy should be more similar to non-English speaking RCs, than to English speaking non-Catholic Christians.

Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515

 - Posted      Profile for angelicum   Email angelicum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
From the Irish Independent:

Irish Priests critcise "stilted" translation of the Roman Missal

From the article:
"Fr Madden urged the Bishops Conference to assert its right to make its own decisions about how Mass is celebrated here"

Bishops conferences have of course no "right" to do so. They are not a mini-Magisterium. The liturgy belongs to the Church, not to the Irish Bishops Conference.

If this is truly representative of the standard of argumentation from Irish priests, its no wonder that the Catholic Church is dead in Ireland.

Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Heheh well maybe the Irish can make the cause of ecumenical relations leap forward if they emulate some of the Greeks who objected to a bishop using a new-fangled translation.

Apparently that's what this is all about.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
From the Irish Independent:

Irish Priests critcise "stilted" translation of the Roman Missal

From the article:
"Fr Madden urged the Bishops Conference to assert its right to make its own decisions about how Mass is celebrated here"


Bishops conferences have of course no "right" to do so. They are not a mini-Magisterium. The liturgy belongs to the Church, not to the Irish Bishops Conference.

If this is truly representative of the standard of argumentation from Irish priests, its no wonder that the Catholic Church is dead in Ireland.

So, how can the report that the German bishops were able to send back their translation for review be explained?

Some knowledge of what actually happened between the institution of the Church and the people of Ireland might inform your last comment a little more.

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
So, how can the report that the German bishops were able to send back their translation for review be explained?

erm, the English-speaking bishops of the world have been doing the same?

This is NOT a Vatican translation. Do you want me to restate the whole process again????

[ 04. February 2011, 21:56: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was rather under the impression that the Irish bishops' Conference had been deprived of all such rights when they were placed under Visitation last year. I suppose they could try telling the Vatican what to do, but it doesn't sound like a course destined for success I have to say!

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools