|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Catholic liturgy in English
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Well yes. I can see the point. Though I would want to distinguish between 'Godward' elements of worship, and 'human-ward' ones. Of course all worship is Godward, but parts of it depend on our understanding in a particular way, and while Latin might well be appropriate, say, for the Gloria in Excelsis it might be less so for the prayers of the people.
A liturgy that no-one can understand is a great leveller, but more effective is one that all can understand at a basic level. High-flown language for a congregation not especially fluent in English (or whatever the vernacular in question) can be divisive.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I'm not opposed to that view, Angloid, but Liturgy is not about human comprehension and the immediately apprehensible.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I agree, but parts of it are made much more effective if comprehension is involved. As i suggested, the Prayers of the People can't really be called such if the people don't understand what is being said in their name.
I would have thought the ideal compromise is what happens in most cathedrals (both Anglican and Catholic) at a choral mass, when the invariable parts of the Ordinary are sung in Latin and the rest is in the vernacular.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
As for the prayers of the people, I don't really know what they are for and why they were introduced. It seems to me that the intentions are included in the Canon.
As for the 'vernacular' bits: I am about to go to assist at the main Sunday Mass in a small, rural town in coastalSouthern England. About 1/4 of the congregation will be Polish, 1/4 from South Asia or West Africa, there will be a dozen or so Philippino families, assorted non-English European tourists and yachties. What is the vernacular?
[ 28. April 2013, 07:44: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think you've answered that question! I've just celebrated the Eucharist for the Anglican community in Genoa; native British English speakers about 35%; various African first languages with English in common about 35%; Japanese-German-Swiss-French-Italian first language speakers probably making up the rest. Everybody speaks some Italian but not all of them enough to understand the readings and sermon; 'basic' English is more or less the lingua franca.
I don't suppose there are many if any RC churches where Latin is the common language not just for liturgy but for teaching and general communication. There needs to be some accepted mutually comprehensible language and as often as not that is English. Well, it is for us Anglicans, but in the UK (apart from Wales) I guess it applies to everyone else as well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I'm not at all that's right. The section of Sacrosanctam Concilium that permits the use of the vernacular does not talk about a lingua franca but about a lingua vernacula, a mother tongue. English wouldn't have counted as that for more than about a 1/3 of our congregation this morning.
It seems to me that there is a certain irony in the Church all but abandoning a common liturgical tongue at just the time in her history that the mass movement of peoples, not to mention travelling for business or leisure would make it genuinely useful.
To return to the OP: we are now 18mths into a preaching plan based on the prayers and texts of the revised translations. I am continually struck by the depth of the new translation and how impoverished - both linguistically and theologically - of its predecessor. It has made for some uncomfortable exchanges, however. One Sunday eight months ago, or so, one of our parishioners who is involved in everything in te parish and more widely in the diocese came to me after Mass where I had preached on the text of the collect. Her beef wasn't with my homily - remarkably - but with the text of the collect. It rendered entirely faithfully the Latin original and she said to me hat she simply didn't believe the doctrine it expressed. In the homily I had compared the new translation which the old: she said that, "The old translation was woollier and I could live with it but this new one doesn't leave any room to hide." Mmm.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I'm in favour of vernacular liturgy. Translating is a tightrope. How do we manage to balance accuracy with an ever changing language? Actually I think looking to the old Roman Rite gives us a clue as to how the early Church thought it should be approached. For the first couple of centuries the liturgy in Rome was celebrated mainly in Greek and around the third century Latin began to be used. However, looking at some of the most ancient prayers in the rite we see the use of some quite archaic language. A good example is the use of "quaesumus" which translated means "we bessech thee" or "prithee". This world was considered archaic even in Cicero's day, never mind the third century, but it was used to give a sense of archaic solemnity.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I, too, am in favour of a vernacular liturgy if you can establish what is the native language - which my little example was intended to illustrate is not easy. Absent that, then the argument for a lingua franca might point to English but within the Latin Rite the eponymous option has something to recommend it.
The other problem is precisely that of translation and the status of the normative.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
As for the 'vernacular' bits: I am about to go to assist at the main Sunday Mass in a small, rural town in coastalSouthern England. About 1/4 of the congregation will be Polish, 1/4 from South Asia or West Africa, there will be a dozen or so Philippino families, assorted non-English European tourists and yachties. What is the vernacular?
I deal with a lot of immigrants from Latin America, most of whose native language is either Spanish or Nahuatl. Many of them are extremely appreciative of the fact that their [native English-speaking] priests try their best to speak Spanish, but they do express frustration that it is almost always difficult to understand the homily.
Many of them have developed survival English skills: they can understand simple, spoken English. More than once I have heard it said that some priests should simply preach a short homily in simple, not-too-fast English.
One of the nice things about a worldwide by-the-book liturgy is that it is not too difficult to learn.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
You'll often find in ContinentalEurope that in larger areas Catholic churches will generally have at least one Mass in English.It is the lingua franca and many peoplew can understand something of it.
I remember someone here complaining about the not too good English of a priest celebrating Mass in English in Prague. The complainer was oblivious of the fact that the priest's first language and that of a good number of the participants would not have been English. But to give an example most Italians wishing to assist at sunday Mass in Prague would probably understand English better than Czech.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Why must vernacular = a vocab of 5,000 words? Weird.
One reason surely is that for many 'English-speaking' communities, English is not their first language. I'm currently doing locum duty for an Anglican church in Italy, and while some of the old expatriate anglophones would prefer the Book of Common Prayer, the practical need is for a liturgy in simple modern English because many of the congregation are from Africa and elsewhere and their first language is not English. All credit to them that they are fluent enough in it to worship in an anglophone congregation as well as being fluent enough in Italian to survive in this city.
I'm sure this problem is magnified for very many Catholic churches in our increasingly multi-cultural society.
But I'm pretty sure that words like 'grace' and 'gracious' are in the vocabulary of these people, yet in many cases these words were cut out.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm in favour of vernacular liturgy. Translating is a tightrope. How do we manage to balance accuracy with an ever changing language? Actually I think looking to the old Roman Rite gives us a clue as to how the early Church thought it should be approached. For the first couple of centuries the liturgy in Rome was celebrated mainly in Greek and around the third century Latin began to be used. However, looking at some of the most ancient prayers in the rite we see the use of some quite archaic language. A good example is the use of "quaesumus" which translated means "we bessech thee" or "prithee". This world was considered archaic even in Cicero's day, never mind the third century, but it was used to give a sense of archaic solemnity.
Another example is the use of the word calix, 'chalice.' That was archaic also in the days of Cicero, yet they still retained it in the Roman Rite.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I seem to remember a long argument last time the new translation was discussed on the Ship about:
- Whether the RCC had been right to change its translation from 'cup' to 'chalice'.
- Whether that was a better translation of calix or the sort of false friend a non-native-English-speaker person might have chosen, and
- Since calix itself was a translation from the original Greek word, which definitely better translates into English as 'cup', the RCC should have followed the universal practice of every other ecclesial community in the Anglophone word, and stayed with 'cup'.
I.e. which is the Ur-text, the Latin version of the Mass or the Greek New Testament that precedes and underlies the Latin?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Which demands the question, why? and, why should it be?
--------------------
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
Indeed.However the Latin text of the Mass is the form approved for the Roman rite.All translations of the Roman rite are translations of that text.
Whether the Latin text is the best that it could be is another question.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I think there's a lot to be said for having a liturgical language. To find the Mass the same from Poland to Peru, from Italy to Idaho is a great leveller. Vatican II allowed for Mass in the vernacular, which I entirely agree with, but it never anticipated that Latin would be abandoned in favour of vernacular liturgies. The Jews kept Hebrew alive for millenia as language of worship. The Russian Orthodox have Old Slavonic. Even Cranmerian English, once meant to be understood by the people, has become a liturgical language.
As a member of both the Latin Mass Society and the Association for Latin Liturgy, most of the Masses I attend are in Latin, either in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Forms. I couldn't hold a conversation in Latin, but it isn't rocket science to learn the meaning, when all moderm missals contain a translation. While it might not be to everyone's taste to worship that way, and I quite accept that, I personally believe that the Catholic Church should do more to promote the use of Latin, as it's still the template on which all Catholic liturgy is built.
Having said that, even if the ICEL translation was in more natural English than the latest version, it omitted so much from the Latin, or added where it shouldn't, that it can confuse. One very simple example is: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth, which simply translates as Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts (although hosts isn't and never was a particularly good word to use here). Compare that with; Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might. This is really not a translation, and people used to saying it have trouble with the punctuation in the later version, which restores it to its latin original. This has to be an improvement.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since calix itself was a translation from the original Greek word, which definitely better translates into English as 'cup', the RCC should have followed the universal practice of every other ecclesial community in the Anglophone word, and stayed with 'cup'.
I.e. which is the Ur-text, the Latin version of the Mass or the Greek New Testament that precedes and underlies the Latin?
For RCs, like or not not, the original language of liturgical texts is indeed Latin. That is what is being translated.
I found the reference to "the universal practice of every other ecclesial community in the Anglophone wor[l]d" amusing, as if one could: a) Make a statement referring to "universal practice" without any reference to RC practice, and b) think that the RCC should strive to pattern her liturgy after that of Protestant and other denominations.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I found the reference to "the universal practice of every other ecclesial community in the Anglophone wor[l]d" amusing, as if one could: a) Make a statement referring to "universal practice" without any reference to RC practice, and b) think that the RCC should strive to pattern her liturgy after that of Protestant and other denominations.
Enoch was not saying that. He said 'every other ecclesial community.' Though that included the RCs themselves until not long ago. The implication is that the RCC should pattern her liturgy according to the principles of good translation. 'Chalice' is not translation so much as transliteration.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thank you Angloid. I could not have put it better.
Ceremoniar, your condescension does your communion no favours. It is also very odd, and intellectually untenable, that anyone can seriously maintain that the desire to emulate a Latin translation that is by its nature derivative, should prevail over both fidelity to the Greek New Testament and euphony in the target language.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
Re Latin as a liturgical language...
The editio typica that all translations must reflect is obviously Latin - and I think the argument justifying this is built round the idea that there's an important sacramental reality we access through the Latin rite, in the way it developed, the theology it exemplifies and in its specific literary features. Catherine Pickstock makes much of this in 'Beyond Writing' (though she talks about the Tridentine rite and definitely not the Paul VI mass).
[ 29. April 2013, 22:46: Message edited by: loggats ]
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you Angloid. I could not have put it better.
Ceremoniar, your condescension does your communion no favours. It is also very odd, and intellectually untenable, that anyone can seriously maintain that the desire to emulate a Latin translation that is by its nature derivative, should prevail over both fidelity to the Greek New Testament and euphony in the target language.
Oh, please, spare me the platitudes. The only condescension here came from those who criticized the Catholic Church for not arranging its liturgy according to the desires of non-Catholics. I was just responding to those snipes, to which you have, it would seem, added your own.
Rather than claim that something is "untenable," you would be well-advised to see that no one, certainly not I, made any comments about the Greek New Testament per se. I said that the original language of the liturgical texts is Latin, since we were speaking about the translation of said Latin texts into English. Much as it may distress you, Latin is indeed the language in which said liturgical texts have been composed for nearly 17 centuies.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Are you suffering from a variant of Tourette's, as a result of which, whatever the subject under discussion you involuntarily ejaculate something from the BCP, whether it goes to the question or not?
And when was the BCP last the tongue of the common people? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Actually,the BCP is in the " tongue of the common people " now in most or all of the Anglican Communion. With the notable exception of the C of E, most national churches have continually revised the languages of their several "official" Books of Common Prayer so that the language may be better understood. And we also know that's true in England these days, where only a minority rely on the full use of the "official" 1662 book.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Anyway Art XXIV is aboout 'such a Tongue as the people understandeth'- not the one that they speak, or that the common people speak.
Hence e.g. the permission to use a Latin translation of the BCP in colleges and universities where it was expected that all present would understand it. (No, I don't knwo why you would bother, if they all could also understand the English original, but that's by the by.)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you Angloid. I could not have put it better.
Ceremoniar, your condescension does your communion no favours. It is also very odd, and intellectually untenable, that anyone can seriously maintain that the desire to emulate a Latin translation that is by its nature derivative, should prevail over both fidelity to the Greek New Testament and euphony in the target language.
Oh, please, spare me the platitudes. The only condescension here came from those who criticized the Catholic Church for not arranging its liturgy according to the desires of non-Catholics. I was just responding to those snipes, to which you have, it would seem, added your own.
Rather than claim that something is "untenable," you would be well-advised to see that no one, certainly not I, made any comments about the Greek New Testament per se. I said that the original language of the liturgical texts is Latin, since we were speaking about the translation of said Latin texts into English. Much as it may distress you, Latin is indeed the language in which said liturgical texts have been composed for nearly 17 centuies.
Yes, and the normative text of the scriptures the Roman Rite uses is a Latin translation, whether that be the old Latin or the Vulgate.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you Angloid. I could not have put it better.
Ceremoniar, your condescension does your communion no favours. It is also very odd, and intellectually untenable, that anyone can seriously maintain that the desire to emulate a Latin translation that is by its nature derivative, should prevail over both fidelity to the Greek New Testament and euphony in the target language.
Oh, please, spare me the platitudes. The only condescension here came from those who criticized the Catholic Church for not arranging its liturgy according to the desires of non-Catholics. I was just responding to those snipes, to which you have, it would seem, added your own.
Rather than claim that something is "untenable," you would be well-advised to see that no one, certainly not I, made any comments about the Greek New Testament per se. I said that the original language of the liturgical texts is Latin, since we were speaking about the translation of said Latin texts into English. Much as it may distress you, Latin is indeed the language in which said liturgical texts have been composed for nearly 17 centuies.
Yes, and the normative text of the scriptures the Roman Rite uses is a Latin translation, whether that be the old Latin or the Vulgate.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that the Latin translation is still derivative of the Greek. And i'll bet there are at least some English-speaking Roman Catholics who would prefer a little more euphony in the vernacular translations.
[ 01. May 2013, 20:52: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I myself like the new translation, and also because in many places, the old didn’t translate the text at all. For some (to my unknown) reason, many of the latin references to splendour and (even) grace (gracious Father, etc.) were simply removed. It seems to me that ‘dynamic equivalence’ often became ‘remove what to me isn’t ‘relevant’ or what I don’t like.’ The point of dynamic equivalence must be to translate meaning, not to remove it. But that is what happened in many places. And liturgy is not supposed to be just about ‘getting the meaning across.’ If that were the case, they should just have sunday school with a few prayers and a Eucharist.
This was my main issue with the old translation. It didn't always translate some concept in the prayers at all. Sometimes the 'translations' didn't bear any resemblance to what they were supposed to translate! (Monday's collect, interestingly, is an oft-quoted example of this very thing.)
All sorts of scriptural quotations and allusions in the texts were simply not translated, or translated in such a way that the real meanings were obscured. (As an example, I didn't know that eucharistic prayer III had a reference to Malachi 1:11 in it.)
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
