Thread: Eccles: And with your Spirit Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000825
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
So, the new translation of the Roman Missal will be going into action this year the English speaking world.
Given that the majority of churchgoers in Ireland don't even use missalettes, let alone a missal, I can see the rather obscure replacement for the clear English "And also with you" making no headway at all in the pews, or perhaps inspiring speculation as to what Fr. Flash or Fr. Go On fancies as a tipple after golf.
"Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault" returning to the Confiteor seems to be a return to an older model that my parents generation were familiar with - the supplicant churchgoer seeking an uncertain forgiveness from a God who smiled on only a few in Ireland.
Glossing over the wilfully obscure "consubstantial" in the Creed, the phrase "for us men and for our salvation" is reinserted. No namby pamby inclusive language then.
Reading the text of this version of the Mass in tandem with the promotion of the "extraordinary" rite by Rome, it appears to be a restorationist move by those appalled by the similarity between most modern Anglican Communion services and the present translation of the Mass.
[ 29. September 2011, 07:39: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The changes made to the creed are bad. Changes made to confession are good. Change made to the sursum corda is understandable but probably not helpful without further explanation which will make little sense to the average person sitting in the pew.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
...the phrase "for us men and for our salvation" is reinserted. No namby pamby inclusive language then.
It's not even an inclusive language issue, but rather a very poor translation.
In English, the word "men" means "more than one person of the male gender." In most (if not all) European languages, the word for "men" means either that or a group of mixed gender. English has lost that nuance.
The word "humans" would have come closer than "men" as a decent translation. If the Latin meant to imply men in gender, a different Latin word would have been used.
In other words, there certainly are some "restorationist" politics in play.
I do give GLRCs some credit, though. In this day and age, I think there will be an attempt by many in the pews to learn the new texts. The ones that go week after week are not the ones about which to worry.
Rather, it is the lapsed Catholics, the fair weather attendees, and the twicers (Christmas and Easter) who are in jeopardy. One visit back to the church and they'll be wondering "What happened? I am so lost. Why does this all sound so out of touch? Consubstantial? Seriously??"
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Reading the text of this version of the Mass in tandem with the promotion of the "extraordinary" rite by Rome, it appears to be a restorationist move by those appalled by the similarity between most modern Anglican Communion services and the present translation of the Mass.
Erm... but Anglicans have still had 'And with thy spirit' as an fairly commonly-used option all along! We've also kept 'consubstantial' in an optional version of the Creed, and in the doxologies of several well-known hymns.
In the unlikely event that 'not looking Anglican' is a major consideration for the Vatican, they're going about it all wrong!
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
"Men" "Chairman" and "Mankind" are inclusive of both genders grammatically. It is only owing to feminist sentiments that the meaning is being diluted to be considered to be purely masculine. This results in new words being created that eventually gain common acceptance as English continues to evolve.
An obvious example is "Prevent" has ceased to been "Go before" and has come to mean something completely different in the well known Anglican Collect.
As for the translation of the Mass. We have been using it in South Africa for well over a year now owing to an episcopal error! There was a bit of fuss in the beginning in the Catholic Press but now it is just the norm. No doubt the change from Latin to English plus the liturgical changes in the 60's was much more traumatic!
One thing about it I particularly like is the return of the Domine non sum dignus....why do we still refer to these things by their Latin names no matter what language they are in?
It's no big deal....we all go to Mass anyway!
[ 26. January 2011, 09:02: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
That was certainly my experience last time I was in South Africa: people were already replying by instinct and it was only me the foreigner who was being tripped up with the "old" responses.
Ronald Binge, the thing your post most reveals is the ongoing Anglophonic self-importance. We English speakers seem to think we are the norm. Yet all the other languages have been saying "And with your spirit" all along - without all the stuff you object to. In Italian they say "mia colpa, mia colpa, mia grandissima colpa" without somehow thereby having been trapped in ecclesiastical serfdom as your argument implies. And so on.
Get with the program brother! This new translation is helping English speakers step back into tune with the rest of the world instead of sounding our own discordant and self-important notes all the time.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
Get with the program brother!
And also with you!
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
I have to wait until September ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by aig (# 429) on
:
quote:
"Men" "Chairman" and "Mankind" are inclusive of both genders grammatically. It is only owing to feminist sentiments that the meaning is being diluted to be considered to be purely masculine.
Does that mean that I am OK to attend the Men's breakfast meeting? Or are simple minded women meant to guess when Men is inclusive of them and when it means, well, men?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
And I very much doubt that, when the word 'chairman' was first coined, any woman would have been considered for the role.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Women are not simple minded or at least not any more simple minded than men.
It's often a problem with gender in various languages.Mensch in German for mankind is only masculine but covers all varieties of human beings.Personne in French for a person is always feminine irrespective of the sex of the person in question.
Dummkopf (German for an idiot) is ONLY masculine.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
Mädchen is the German word for girl, in the which language it is neither femenine nor masculine, but neuter - and so the pecularity goes on!
If the ICET (International Commission of English Texts - off the top of my head) did not get it right when the English vernacular came in the 1960s, then I for one am left wondering why it has taken all these decades to remedy that!?
"And also with you" is a free rather than a literal translation from the Latin "Et cum spirituo spirito" - which I quote from memory. All the Europian languages I know, have the translation if this liturgical response more directly from the Latin, though not always in the familiar form.
If we are about to change this English language text again, then let's hope we get it right this time!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
"Men" "Chairman" and "Mankind" are inclusive of both genders grammatically. It is only owing to feminist sentiments that the meaning is being diluted to be considered to be purely masculine.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"Chairman" has its own perculair history and usage, and there might be some people who unaffectedly us "mankind" as a generic term for our whole species, but you know perfectly well that "man" and "men" are overwhelmingly only used to mean adult males.
Its not feminism, and its got nothing to do with "dilution", its the English language. If you want to translate something into English correctly, you do not use the word "men" to mean male and female, young and old. There's no point in old-fogeyish whining about what might have been the case a few hundred years ago. That's the way it is, deal with it.
Keep the pet peeves about language for dodgy websites where you can bitch about pretend offences against the grammar police amongst consenting whingers in private, and use the real English language for translating liturgy.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The word mankind is certainly in regular unaffected everyday usage. A quick review of the BBC website will reveal bucketloads of current quotes. But the generic use of man/men (alone) has almost certainly gone now. Whether anyone regrets it isn't really relevant - we are not being forced to use some ugly replacement or circumlocution. Best to change it.
That's the only one quoted I would regret. "And also with you" was always a monumentally crap translation.
quote:
use the real English language
And where may I find this?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
All these people arguing with Fuzzipeg - especially ken getting grumpy. Did you miss the way that Fuzzipeg ended his paragraph? The language usage evolves. He even goes on to give other examples! His point seemed clear enough to me: grammatically man may be inclusive of both sexes, but in current evolved usage it is not.
These hot-button issues that cause knee-jerk responses
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
The prompt is given above to look more closely at Fuzzipeg's post and from that, I notice that (s)he mentions the Domine non sum dignus.
A few years ago, I started a thread on that topic (must be long since consigned to Oblivion and I would not know where to find it now). Sometimes, the "Roof" is mentioned and sometimes it isn't. Even the texts in the various Europeans languages are not consistently the same on that. So, I am wondering whether in the new translation into English, if the Domine... remains as at present (without the "Roof"), or whether it reverts to the literal translation from the Latin (with the "Roof").
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (animea mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
Thanks Ceremoniar; that answers that one.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Ronald Binge, the thing your post most reveals is the ongoing Anglophonic self-importance. We English speakers seem to think we are the norm. Yet all the other languages have been saying "And with your spirit" all along - without all the stuff you object to. In Italian they say "mia colpa, mia colpa, mia grandissima colpa" without somehow thereby having been trapped in ecclesiastical serfdom as your argument implies. And so on.
Get with the program brother! This new translation is helping English speakers step back into tune with the rest of the world instead of sounding our own discordant and self-important notes all the time.
It's not a question of English speakers thinking English is the norm for the rest of the world But to overstate the obvious, English IS the norm for the English-speaking world. (As Homer Simpson would say, "Doh!"
And the Latin Roman Missal is not an inspired text like, say, the Bible (or is it so considered these days?).
Or are English speaking cultures somehow more deficient or less developed (all those English-speaking Anglicans and Protestants corrupting the language!) that we have rely on the norms set by other linguistic groups. For example, we are not an Italian-language culture (no disrespect to that magnificent culture), maybe this tripartate "mea culpa" breast-beating is not so much the cultural style that many Anglophone cultures are prone to. That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our
Disclaimer: I myself am conversant in more than one language, and I am not saying that the current translations (still to be used by most of the rest of liturgically-inclined English-speaking Christians, thank God!) couldn't use improvement. E.g., I've always felt the truncation in the "Glory to God" was unnuecessary and detracted from the poetry.
I am so saddened by the Vatican's unilateral and unnecessary step backward. But they've put their foot down -- get with the program -- end of discussion!
[ 26. January 2011, 18:29: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Missed the edit window but just wanted to clarify the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of my response. Instead of
That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our
it should be
That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our sins.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
We use the Roman Rite. The latin is the definitive text. All vernacular versions are meant to be translations of that definitive text. That is how the Roman Rite works. We are not the same as the Anglican world where each Province has its own liturgy. We have one liturgy in many languages. That says nothing about it being inspired. It changes. In fact the current translation is of the 3rd revision of the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
There has been nothing unilateral from "the Vatican". The Anglophone commission which is responsible for the translation, ICEL, has been working on revising the text since 1980! Their first proposed text went way beyond translating the latin Missa Normativa. What Rome has insisted upon is that this be corrected.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
There have been, and if i am correct still are, regional usage variants within the Roman rite. Or are Anglophone Catholics pushed into this more continental cultural style. (Again us Anglophones are prone to linguistic corruption due to influence of schismatic sects and downright heresies.) Well despite protestations to the contrary, this sounds a bit like cultural imperialism or colonialism.
And while i am on my soapbox, what about this insistence on turning one's back on inclusive language in cases where inclusion was clearly the original intent. "Humankind" is not that weird a word in the 21st century. I've yet to be convinced that, verbal assurances to the contrary, many of the folks running the Vatican really still do have difficulty in accepting women as full-fledged members of the human race. So many Vatican-approved translations seem to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to use "men" when "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning. Vatican guys, get a grip!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
... "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning.
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
As you say, putting the word "man" in there is a bad translation. It does not mean what the Creed means. And the Vatican didn't write the Creed, so this is about translation, not the original.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
... "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning.
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
Except that one must then understand who is meant by "us." Us humans? Us Christians? Us Roman Orthodox Baptisterians? "Us" but not "Them"? One must resort to the Latin or Greek to know that the intended "us" is "us humans."
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (animea mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Much closer to the Anglican (CW Order 1 Trad) usage; very good.
Thurible
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
... "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning.
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
Except that one must then understand who is meant by "us." Us humans? Us Christians? Us Roman Orthodox Baptisterians? "Us" but not "Them"? One must resort to the Latin or Greek to know that the intended "us" is "us humans."
Its pretty obvious in context. I don't think its a real problem. I've never heard anyone complain about that usage other then people looking for a reason to keep "men" in there!
The opposite isn't true of course - lots of people objected to the word "men" and some didn't say it anyway.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
There have been, and if i am correct still are, regional usage variants within the Roman rite. Or are Anglophone Catholics pushed into this more continental cultural style. (Again us Anglophones are prone to linguistic corruption due to influence of schismatic sects and downright heresies.) Well despite protestations to the contrary, this sounds a bit like cultural imperialism or colonialism.
The regional variants are in small things, not core texts. There are no regional variants to the Creed, the Eucharistic Prayers, etc etc. The Spanish has been the most complex translation because it has allowed several different forms of a Spanish translation for Spanish speakers in different parts of the world. This is not now considered to have been a desirable thing. Furthermore, many language groups (such as Zulu and Afrikaans in South Africa) have used the English text as a reference or even starting point for their own translations. Therefore English mistakes are transcribed into the text of the other language. Let me give a simple example: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of power and might.
The first Afrikaans version of the Missal used that as the base text and translated the Sanctus as:
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van krag en mag
You have no idea how dreadful that sounds - particularly in the South African context.
The new Afrikaans Missal corrected that to
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van die hemelskare
which translated back into English is Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of heavenly hosts. Which of course is much closer to Dominus Deus Sabaoth, which has very little to do with power and might.
I visited the Afrikaans translation commission about 10 years ago and know someone who was very closely involved in the work. He told me they had abandoned any reference to the English Missal because it misled them too often.
And yes, the co-operation with the ecumenical commissions is largely to blame for this and has corrupted the translations. I don't expect Anglicans to want to use the Roman Rite and have direct translations of the latin. You can knock yourselves out and say whatever you like. But I do want to use the Roman Rite and not some Anglican paraphrase. You may get all itchy about that and say it's because I don't want to be contaminated by heretics, but that's your issue, not mine.
quote:
And while i am on my soapbox, what about this insistence on turning one's back on inclusive language in cases where inclusion was clearly the original intent. "Humankind" is not that weird a word in the 21st century. I've yet to be convinced that, verbal assurances to the contrary, many of the folks running the Vatican really still do have difficulty in accepting women as full-fledged members of the human race. So many Vatican-approved translations seem to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to use "men" when "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning. Vatican guys, get a grip!
I could not agree with you more.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
No it doesn't, not by a very long stretch. That option was looked at, but it confines the ones for whose salvation he came to those uttering the words. Who is the "us" being referred to? Us Christians? Us Anglicans?
Us evangelical Anglicans? Us british? You get the point. The Creed in its original does not say "for us". It says for us human beings - that is for all people. That's quite a broad statement.
[Cross posted of course, these points to ken already having been made. I don't want to keep men, and I am arguing against "for us"]
[ 26. January 2011, 20:20: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its pretty obvious in context. I don't think its a real problem.
While I think it's clear in context as well and I have no problem with the simple "us" personally, I've heard those who disagree, and whose disagreement had nothing to with "men." It had to do with how the creed sounds to a newcomer who is unfamiliar with it. Does that newcomer hear it as inclusive (us humans) or exclusive (us Christians/whatever)? And what effect does that have on how the newcomer perceives the church. I don't think it's a completely unreasonable concern.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
There have been, and if i am correct still are, regional usage variants within the Roman rite. Or are Anglophone Catholics pushed into this more continental cultural style. (Again us Anglophones are prone to linguistic corruption due to influence of schismatic sects and downright heresies.) Well despite protestations to the contrary, this sounds a bit like cultural imperialism or colonialism.
The regional variants are in small things, not core texts. There are no regional variants to the Creed, the Eucharistic Prayers, etc etc. The Spanish has been the most complex translation because it has allowed several different forms of a Spanish translation for Spanish speakers in different parts of the world. This is not now considered to have been a desirable thing. Furthermore, many language groups (such as Zulu and Afrikaans in South Africa) have used the English text as a reference or even starting point for their own translations. Therefore English mistakes are transcribed into the text of the other language. Let me give a simple example: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of power and might.
The first Afrikaans version of the Missal used that as the base text and translated the Sanctus as:
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van krag en mag
You have no idea how dreadful that sounds - particularly in the South African context.
The new Afrikaans Missal corrected that to
Heilig, heilig, heilig, God van die hemelskare
which translated back into English is Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of heavenly hosts. Which of course is much closer to Dominus Deus Sabaoth, which has very little to do with power and might.
I visited the Afrikaans translation commission about 10 years ago and know someone who was very closely involved in the work. He told me they had abandoned any reference to the English Missal because it misled them too often.
And yes, the co-operation with the ecumenical commissions is largely to blame for this and has corrupted the translations. I don't expect Anglicans to want to use the Roman Rite and have direct translations of the latin. You can knock yourselves out and say whatever you like. But I do want to use the Roman Rite and not some Anglican paraphrase. You may get all itchy about that and say it's because I don't want to be contaminated by heretics, but that's your issue, not mine.
quote:
And while i am on my soapbox, what about this insistence on turning one's back on inclusive language in cases where inclusion was clearly the original intent. "Humankind" is not that weird a word in the 21st century. I've yet to be convinced that, verbal assurances to the contrary, many of the folks running the Vatican really still do have difficulty in accepting women as full-fledged members of the human race. So many Vatican-approved translations seem to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to use "men" when "humans" or "humanity" or "humankind" more accurately reflect the meaning. Vatican guys, get a grip!
I could not agree with you more.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You don't even need to do that. "for us and for our salvation" works fine.
No it doesn't, not by a very long stretch. That option was looked at, but it confines the ones for whose salvation he came to those uttering the words. Who is the "us" being referred to? Us Christians? Us Anglicans?
Us evangelical Anglicans? Us british? You get the point. The Creed in its original does not say "for us". It says for us human beings - that is for all people. That's quite a broad statement.
[Cross posted of course, these points to ken already having been made. I don't want to keep men, and I am arguing against "for us"]
Thank you for your good and thoughtful post. It does give a huge insight into the minds of those who have decided that this is the way to go for the Mass. (Obviously I don't agree with everything, but I'll risk the Holy Handgrenades as I have in many other things over the last twenty years, but that's sin sceál éile [another story])
Over the years in Ireland some things have evolved in the usage of the Mass from the pew rather than in the Missal (or, more often the Missalette!).
The Doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer has always been said in tandem with the celebrant, at least in Dublin Archdiocese. I believe that this happened because the missalettes we used in the early 1970s had it in larger type, not the bold for congregational response, and the congo read it as being part of their script.
The now seemingly forgotten revisions of the mid 1970s to the English text had one casualty. The 1970 usage had the congo phrase "We raise them up to the Lord", replaced by "We lift them up to the Lord". In my hearing in Ireland, the latter usage is never used.
"For us, and for our salvation" is much more recent, and seems to be a more spontaneous thing, as the missalettes have only reflected this in recent years. My 1991 copy of the UK/Ireland Sunday Missal certainly has "For us men, and for our salvation" and has been dropped by Irish congregations very quietly in the meantime.
The other, congregation-adopted change to the Missal is the saying, along with the celebrant, of the intercession for peace.
The point here is that no matter what Rome proposes and Maynooth disposes, Irish congregations will go on and do their own thing. I will be pleasantly surprised if by Christmas 2012 Irish congregations will have spontaneously adopted "and with your Spirit", a phrase meaningless in common usage.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
I think too much is made of "common usage" when the Holy Mass is so obviously an un-common thing. Everytime you step into a Catholic church it's obvious that it's an ucommon place filled with uncommon people doing uncommon things. People don't go to Mass seeking a common experience.
It's the insistence on "common usage" in language, design, and music that's helped lead, in my opinion, to much banality in worship in the Latin Rite.
I can imagine that old habits die hard. I can't imagine that many people will actively resist the new wording. I can imagine that some poeple will. I imagine many won't. I imagine that many who care about these things desire these changes or similar ones and will not resist. I imagine the many who don't care so much will not care so much enough to not make a fuss. I imagine in a few years most people will get along, like they did before.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I think too much is made of "common usage" when the Holy Mass is so obviously an un-common thing. Everytime you step into a Catholic church it's obvious that it's an ucommon place filled with uncommon people doing uncommon things. People don't go to Mass seeking a common experience.
It's the insistence on "common usage" in language, design, and music that's helped lead, in my opinion, to much banality in worship in the Latin Rite.
I can imagine that old habits die hard. I can't imagine that many people will actively resist the new wording. I can imagine that some poeple will. I imagine many won't. I imagine that many who care about these things desire these changes or similar ones and will not resist. I imagine the many who don't care so much will not care so much enough to not make a fuss. I imagine in a few years most people will get along, like they did before.
You should go to an Irish conveyor-belt Mass then. Four or five Masses before one o'clock in the afternoon on a Sunday, it might be an eye opening experience ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
to say nothing of getting in and out of the car park ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
You should go to an Irish conveyor-belt Mass then. Four or five Masses before one o'clock in the afternoon on a Sunday, it might be an eye opening experience to say nothing of getting in and out of the car park
That's a lot like the typical large U.S. parish (even a "little big parish" like mine) actually. Things aren't so different over here in that respect.
People are going to make do just like they always did before. It was like that with the larger jump from Latin to vernacular back in the day and (most) people made do.
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
While I think it's clear in context as well and I have no problem with the simple "us" personally, I've heard those who disagree, and whose disagreement had nothing to with "men." It had to do with how the creed sounds to a newcomer who is unfamiliar with it. Does that newcomer hear it as inclusive (us humans) or exclusive (us Christians/whatever)? And what effect does that have on how the newcomer perceives the church. I don't think it's a completely unreasonable concern.
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
Anne
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
Very reasonable. Like Ronald Binge above, I'm not advocating for "us men." I'm just saying that simply "us" only reflects the meaning of the original Greek and Latin if one knows who "us" is -- context is required from outside the text.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
I was rather hoping the new translation would be prettier rather than pettier.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
I don't mean to sound flippant, but I think a newcomer who hears 'us men' as exclusive might already have issues with the Catholic Church regarding her views. I think there are bigger camels for the visitor to swallow before stepping inside a Catholic Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I was rather hoping the new translation would be prettier rather than pettier.
I wish they'd hire writers and poets to smooth out the translations.
I don't think the Christmas-and-Easter Catholics will be all that upset at the new wording. They might get caught off guard, go "huh? wah?" look down at their missalettes and then roll with it like everybody else. It's still the same Order of Mass as before so I don't think the tweaking is going to cause strong levels of spiritual and emotional angst.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Or are English speaking cultures somehow more deficient or less developed (all those English-speaking Anglicans and Protestants corrupting the language!) that we have rely on the norms set by other linguistic groups. For example, we are not an Italian-language culture (no disrespect to that magnificent culture), maybe this tripartate "mea culpa" breast-beating is not so much the cultural style that many Anglophone cultures are prone to. That doesn't make them/us any less worshipful and any less sorry for our
I sympathize but I think much of this is not as foreign to the English speaking world as you make it out to be. Before 1500 English peasants were as wacky and colorful with their faith as any on the continent and anybody attending Mass in the U.S. before 1970 would have engaged in the breast beating, etc. A great many of U.S. Catholics are English-speaking now, but they have non-English-speaking backgrounds (Italian, Polish, etc.). They'll not necessarily have the hang-ups against "colorful practices" despite speaking English.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (anima mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Not only more accurate, but dead literal! "Sed tantum dic verbum et sanabitur anima mea."
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What if the newcomer, unfamiliar with the creed, hears 'us men' as exclusive (not us women)? What effect does that have on how she perceives the church? Is that a reasonable concern?
Very reasonable. Like Ronald Binge above, I'm not advocating for "us men." I'm just saying that simply "us" only reflects the meaning of the original Greek and Latin if one knows who "us" is -- context is required from outside the text.
Why can't we say 'us humans'? That's what the original Greek and the subsequent Latin means.
Carys
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Or us people? I would always translate ανθροπος as person if I were doing NT translation...
[ 27. January 2011, 21:33: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I was rather hoping the new translation would be prettier rather than pettier.
That is a very witty and usable line, Edward Green. May I borrow it?
Unfortunately I can add nothing to this thread except to express surprise that they would not only consider but actually choose to use 'man' for 'people' in the 21st century. It was dodgy decades ago, but we have moved on as a people. This makes me think that somehow or other non-native speakers chose this final 'translation.'
I cannot think of a subdialect in the English speaking world where "men" means anything other than adult males. One or two on this thread have tried to argue the other way, but get real! Language has moved on since the first world war.
But on the bright side, "and with your spirit" is cool. "And also with you" never bounced or dovetailed.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
This makes me think that somehow or other non-native speakers chose this final 'translation.'
Either that, or there are some troubling "Men's Club" issues going on.
I keep thinking back to the valuable lesson I learned in my middle school foreign language after-school program: when translating, beware of false friends/cognates. I get the distinct impression that some of the translation is an attempt to re-shift the meanings of English words so that they are a neater translation of the Latin. I keep wondering why people educated in multiple languages forget this lesson, but it seems to be more a matter of hubris than of confusion.
Although the use of "men" works for "humans" in many languages, it no longer works in English for this usage. No matter how much the church tries to push it (and it has tried this push for four decades already), our language has not been changed [back] by this tactic. In fact, if anything, over the last forty years (since the Missal of 1970), the word "men" has lost even more street cred as a viable word for "humans."
Of course, the same issue surfaces later in the creed, when the Latin "Et homo factus est" clearly is meant to suggest human (as contrasted with deity), rather than man (as contrasted with woman). The ELLC's latest text actually uses the word "human," in an admittedly clunky translation.
The Catholic Church can do whatever it wants, as far as I'm concerned, but this over-insistence is clearly a Men's Club issue (or at the very least, as Mama T pointed out, a grand decision made by a non-native English speaker who doesn't fully understand the nuances).
Exact translation of words can happen, but that does not mean that ideas and nuances are being translated correctly. My French teacher certainly set me straight on the difference between the French entendre and the Spanish entender.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The new translation says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." I am pleased to see that my soul (anima mea) has been restored, since it is a more accurate rendering of the Latin original, and is also richer in sacramental theology.
Not only more accurate, but dead literal! "Sed tantum dic verbum et sanabitur anima mea."
I know that the question is what is the best translation of the original text in the missal, and not the underlying biblical one. But St Matthew's gospel actually says 'your servant shall be healed' . Which would be highly appropriate in this context too, and avoids the implicit dualism which suggests that soul and body can be separated. A really rich sacramental theology would say with Cranmer 'that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body'.
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on
:
I suppose Anglophone RCs in the Philippines will just have to grin it and bear it. Then again, I won't be surprised if the Apostles' Creed will be retained in lieu of the Nicene. As for the vernacular texts (and there will be many of them), I hope that they issue them as translations from the Editio Typica and not by way of English. Oddly enough, for a country that was a Spanish colony for 300+ years, we never seem to have gotten "Y con tu espíritu" into the Tagalog translations (perhaps in Chavacano, but I'm no linguist), the usual response being "At sumainyo rin" which is closer to the English "and also with you." To be fair, even the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI; Philippine Independent Church) uses "at sumainyo rin" for the Sursum corda. Will check with their official books (originally published in English) when I have the chance.
[tangent]Re: Inclusive language, the Ave Maria in Tagalog is "Aba, Ginoong Maria" which can be translated verbatim as "Hail, Mister/Lord Mary," in English. Many a wag and some have taken up this matter in stand-up acts and religious Q&A slots on local media[/tangent]
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But St Matthew's gospel actually says 'your servant shall be healed' .
Actually, it says "my servant shall be healed."
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Sorry: I realised that after I had posted. But changing that to 'your' is less of a tweak, and a more meaningful one, than substituting 'soul'.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I cannot think of a subdialect in the English speaking world where "men" means anything other than adult males. One or two on this thread have tried to argue the other way, but get real! Language has moved on since the first world war.
I worship at a church where services are exclusively in Ye Olde Englishe, and so, of course, it's 'us men'. I don't have a problem with it in Ye Olde Englishe but do object in contemporary English (and will amend the intercessions in the Breviary, for example).
I think that's the problem, isn't it? 'Men' for people is perfectly acceptable in Ye Olde English but it isn't in contemporary English - even when that English is deliberately hieratic (is that the right word?).
Mind you, we won't be using it so it doesn't really matter.
Thurible
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry: I realised that after I had posted. But changing that to 'your' is less of a tweak, and a more meaningful one, than substituting 'soul'.
Strictly a matter of opinion, of course.
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I was rather hoping the new translation would be prettier rather than pettier.
I cannot think of a subdialect in the English speaking world where "men" means anything other than adult males. One or two on this thread have tried to argue the other way, but get real! Language has moved on since the first world war.
In Geordie men are addressed as "man"; women as "woman man".
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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?
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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."
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
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".
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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".
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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?
Posted by Margaret (# 283) on
:
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...
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
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!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
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.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
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.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I think you just out-lawyered the Magisterium.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
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
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
). 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!)
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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".
Posted by Noirin (# 16194) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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"!
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on
:
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?
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
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!
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But hey -- "Who for us guys and our salvation" would probably work just fine in those places.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Nick Tamen, you keep going up in my estimation!
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
From the Irish Independent:
Irish Priests critcise "stilted" translation of the Roman Missal
Posted by angelicum (# 13515) on
:
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.
Posted by angelicum (# 13515) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
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.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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 ]
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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!
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
Irish conservative Catholic commentator Kieron Wood criticises priest for his comments on the revised Eucharistic Prayers:
Kieron Wood letter
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
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????
Eh, no.
I'll leave this issue alone now.
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
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.
TT's point CANNOT be emphasized enough. However, there has been a problem, exposed by the liberal Catholic liturgists, where a hidden hand, possibly in the Vox Clara middle management, made all sorts of arbitrary changes to the text that was approved by the bishops, mostly, though not exclusively, in the Collects, presented that version of the missal to the Curia, who then signed off on it. While I believe that the liberals have done a service to complain about this, their complaints are just a tad disingenuous as (a) the text approved by Vox Clara is more sympatico with the translation principles supported by liberals than the translation principals upheld by the Vatican and the English speaking Bishops Conferences, and (b) the high-handed tactics of the Vox Clara operatives is precisely the same kind of mediocre, crony-ridden high-handed tactics used by pre-Bruce Harbert/Andrew Wadsworth ICEL - the ICEL that the liberals champion.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
It's not Vox Clara but the CDW that have done the post approval tinkering. It won't be known in some quarters as the Missale Morronicum for nothing
Having reviewed a large sample of these tinkers, I reckon about 1/3 are an improvement, 1/3 are no better and no worse (which begs the question why they're there at all) and 1/3 are egregiously bad.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
However, there has been a problem, exposed by the liberal Catholic liturgists, where a hidden hand, possibly in the Vox Clara middle management, made all sorts of arbitrary changes to the text that was approved by the bishops, mostly, though not exclusively, in the Collects, presented that version of the missal to the Curia, who then signed off on it.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
It's funny how tactics like this span the nations and the denominations.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Sorry for the double post...
Has anybody heard about updates to the language of the Marriage, Burial, and other rites that are not contained within the Missal itself?
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It's not Vox Clara but the CDW that have done the post approval tinkering. It won't be known in some quarters as the Missale Morronicum for nothing
Having reviewed a large sample of these tinkers, I reckon about 1/3 are an improvement, 1/3 are no better and no worse (which begs the question why they're there at all) and 1/3 are egregiously bad.
The sample I saw had about the same 1/3 ratio of good, indifferent, and ugly.
I wonder: where was Gus DiNoia in all of this?
Posted by Noirin (# 16194) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Hopefully there will be plenty of engagement. The new translation set out to be a faithful translation, and in some regards, it is not. ... 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"!
lots of good stuff here Martin, thanks. In Ireland, Veritas is preparing congregational laminated handouts with the changes. I'm pretty sure other countries have similar stuff. The US Bishops website has loads of info too.
I like the idea about putting in the GIRM instructions too, might as well drive everyone potty at the same time!!! I'd also like if they put in the plain chant as its much easier to sing the changes rather than say them!
Posted by Noirin (# 16194) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
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.
lol!!so true :-) but they probably need support ... these guy have put themselves into an awful corner with this. They may feel that they won't use the new translation ... but when they can't do Mass cover for a brother priest (for holidays, illness etc), they will find themselves in a very sad and lonely place. Bishops need to engage with them immediately to prevent any more of this megaphone debate!
Posted by Noirin (# 16194) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
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!
o sweet Lord ... one has nothing to do with the other!! The following is a time line which might give a sense that this has been happening for yonks and isn't related to the Visitation at all!
OK - Since 1963 the, over 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, celebrate Mass in their own language. The text every language group across the world uses is translated from a common Latin text. To prevent confusion, this is not translated anew in each country, but once for each language.
In 1964, an international commission was set up for the English language. It has representatives from the Bishops conferences of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, United States of America, as well as the associate member conferences of Antilles, Bangladesh, CEPAC (Episcopal Conference of the Pacific), Gambia-Liberia-Sierra Leone, Ghana, Kenya, Malaysia-Singapore, Malawi, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea and the Solomons, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe (see http://www.icelweb.org/)
In 1970 it produced its first approved translation of the Roman Missal (which contains the Order of the Mass in English), in 1975 its second. Since 1987 ICEL have been preparing for a 3rd edition. In 2000, as part of Jubilee celebrations, Pope John Paul II announced that the 3rd edition would be prepared and from 2002 – 2010 ICEL have engaged with all the bishops conferences to produce this 3rd edition. Basically: they sent a preparatory text (first translation from the Latin), a green book (for comments), a grey book (to vote on, bishops could add amendments which were also voted on, and a final document went to the Congregation for Divine Worship for recignito. The decree for recignito was given last March, the Pope got a bound copy in April.
The process has not been without controversy, to put it mildly, and has been strongly influenced by the 2001 document ‘Liturgicum Authenticam’. In March 2010, the final text was recognised by the church as the new norm for all English speaking congregation, and at their meeting in June 2010, the Irish Bishops press release stated that they ‘welcomed the recent completion of the translation of the Third Edition of The Roman Missal and its approval by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Bishops look forward to its final editing and its use at Masses in Ireland towards the end of 2011. Bishops will engage in diocesan and parish programmes to help our congregations to understand and appreciate the new translation of the Mass so that the changes will serve, in the words of the Holy Father, “as a spring board for a renewal and deepening of Eucharistic devotion all over the English speaking world”. ‘
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
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.
I think you just out-lawyered the Magisterium.
Er, scarcely. I think they are well aware of the difference between 'homo' and 'vir' in Latin; the fact that English has generally used the same term (man) for both) is not going to affect that.
If there was any doubt on that, the RCC has women altar servers by virute of just such a distinction: the use of 'homo' and 'vir; in the same canon (230) providing different meanings.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I wonder how this new translation is being introduced.
An RC friend told me of a diocesan evening to 'introduce' it. It involved information-giving but discussion was not expected. It felt like it was being imposed without any consultation.
Posted by Noirin (# 16194) on
:
good point Leo. The problem is ... what is the point of discussion?? Is the diocese willing to act on the opinions expressed? If not, its cruel to people to pretend that they have a choice. If it is, then it probably would have swung into action ages ago
Thats the problem with this ... its deeply personal, hugely invasive and yet the text of the liturgy belongs to the whole church not just to a particular diocese (and not just to some clerical planks in Rome either!!)
Transparency requires that we don't patronise
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I think it was Triple Tiara who made the point earlier in the thread that the RCC was not like the Anglican Communion, but had one universal rite rather than local variants of it (except of course for Milan etc). Which we outsiders can hardly argue with.
But it can hardly be a matter of principle, provided all the variants express the same doctrine. It's clearly not in accordance with the centralising tendencies of the present Vatican regime to allow more variants than the strictly limited and historic ones. But the differences in culture among English-speaking Catholics, let alone those of other languages, are vast, and if the liturgy is going to be incarnated in its context surely it would be wise to allow for this.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
But the terrible truth is, Angloid, that the individual national/language-group conferences could not really be trusted to translate the normative text in ways which did not sacrifice faithfulness to the actual meaning of the text on the altar of "comfortable" compromise.
The evidence? The many prayers in the old ICEL text which are not even rough paraphrases of the normative Latin.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Surely there are two sorts of variant. Non-literal translations (or even very different versions) which don't contradict the essential doctrines expressed in the liturgy, and different versions which as you suggest water down those doctrines. I can see that the Vatican needs to guard against the latter, but why should they be responsible for the nuts and bolts of the translation, especially if the first language of most theologians is not English?
[edited to clarify]: what I mean is, the translations/ versions should be first of all the responsibility of local churches, submitted to the authorities for theological but not linguistic approval. Not the other way about.
[ 07. February 2011, 22:04: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Angloid, do read Noirin's post above which sets out the whole process that has taken place. That shows that your objection in your final edited paragraph above does not apply. This is NOT a translation produced in Rome. And let's get this "johnny foreigner who doesn't speak English" myth out of the way. There are a great many English speakers from all parts of the globe who work in Roman dicasteries. As it happens, the fellow who worked for some time in the Congregation for Divine Worship and dealt with English matters was a young Irishman. (I think he has now been replaced).
What Trisagion alludes to above is an extremely odd thing that has taken place regarding the editing of the Propers (Collects, Prefaces and so on), not the Ordinary of the Mass. This is all still a bit opaque because, unlike the Ordinary of the Mass, the authorised Propers have not yet been released. Like Trisagion, I have seen a whole raft of exerpts, with the Roman edits, and I concur with his judgement. But I know for a fact that there is ongoing discussion between ICEL and CDW about the matter and the end result is not yet clear.
I cannot agree with your position that "as long as the translations do not contradict doctrine that's okay". The liturgy should not simply not contradict doctrine, it should convey it. Lex orandi and all that.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
TT: I bow to your greater knowledge and of course experience as an insider. As I have said, I'm commenting as a sympathetic (I hope) outsider. Perhaps there is a greater gulf than we sometimes realise between our churches' perspective. Not so much concerning doctrinal differences (we're well aware of those) but cultural assumptions.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
And let's get this "johnny foreigner who doesn't speak English" myth out of the way. There are a great many English speakers from all parts of the globe who work in Roman dicasteries. As it happens, the fellow who worked for some time in the Congregation for Divine Worship and dealt with English matters was a young Irishman. (I think he has now been replaced).
One curial wag of my acquaintance commented that the two languages that one needed a working knowledge of in the Vatican are Italian and English. We expected him to say Italian and Latin (or even Polish at the time--now German, one would suppose), but he said that unless one were directly in the Pope's service, Italian and English were the most useful.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... unless one were directly in the Pope's service, Italian and English were the most useful.
In almost every country in the world these days the most useful languages are the national language and English.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, but isn't Latin the national language of the Vatican?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Apparently not
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I see. Thanks.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Ah well, both the question and the answer actually raise more questions than the apparent answer!
One needs to distinguish between "The Vatican", as in Vatican City State, and the Holy See, which is the curial operation of the Catholic Church, but is often loosely referred to by everyone as "The Vatican" - incorrectly. Very little of the Curia is actually located in the Vatican, but is spread all around Rome.
The working language of both is essentially Italian. The legislative and authoritative language of the Holy See is latin, but it's not the lingua franca.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Perhaps everybody should say mass in Italian! It would sound beautiful (unlike the Dalek-speak of this English 'translation') and it would be hard for the bureaucrats to criticise its inauthenticity.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Surely this was one of the main reasons why the Catholic church continued the celebration of Mass in Latin.
Latin pronounced in the Italian fashion can indeed be beautiful,but is not necessarily so.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, but isn't Latin the national language of the Vatican?
Latin is mostly used, and is a kind of unofficial 'official' language. That language, however, is not spoken.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Latin is mostly used, and is a kind of unofficial 'official' language. That language, however, is not spoken.
This would also make a good disclaimer for Ecclesiantics.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As you say, putting the word "man" in there is a bad translation
Whatever else this may be, it isn't a bad translation. In Latin, it is:
"Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem."
Which means, "for us men and for our salvation."
Now the idea of "men" may have changed in both Latin and English, but nobody with a brain in their head is going to think that "men", in this sense, excludes women, because it is, or was, only a generic term for humanity.
Personally, I would have left the word out of the new translation, but in almost all respects, I think its dignified language is a vast improvement on the paraphrase, flat version, which English speaking Catholics have had to endure for over 40 years. And worse damage was done. The modern C of E Rite, Common Worship, has copied so much of the awful translation of Novus Ordo. I hope it will be corrected along wth the Roman Rite.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Now the idea of "men" may have changed in both Latin and English, but nobody with a brain in their head is going to think that "men", in this sense, excludes women, because it is, or was, only a generic term for humanity.
And yet, and yet, this is exactly what feminist theologians, and others—all assuredly with brains in their heads—have been telling you for years. The message still hasn't sunk into the brain in your head. Neither of you is witless. You just disagree.
[ 12. February 2011, 01:07: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In Latin, it is:
"Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem."
Which means, "for us men and for our salvation."
No, it doesn't.
Posted by mimmi (# 15829) on
:
Is it possible to see a version of the new mass online. I'm following the discussion but don't have the text. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
Texts are all available here.
Posted by mimmi (# 15829) on
:
Thanks, Hart, for the link. I'll need time to think about them - just had time to glance through, but I can see the points we are making.
On a positive I like the dismissal words at the end.
"Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord"
But I thought this was just a new translation. I can't remember anything quite like that in the older version.
Posted by Noirin (# 16194) on
:
These are the resources my local diocese is recommending -
Websites (each has resources, texts and timetables):
The Catholic Bishops Conference of New Zealand
- Announcing their first steps of implementation in Sept 2010 - here
- A 'readable' 22 page introduction to the changes:here
The US Bishops wesbite is here
- A full copy of the Order of the Mass is: here
The England & Wales Bishops conference has similar details here
Theres also an 'international' DVD with a library of videos, essays, etc on the theme – Its called ‘ Becoming One Body One Spirit in Christ’, and is available here
[Link fix.]
[ 12. February 2011, 23:18: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
An RC friend told me of a diocesan evening to 'introduce' it. It involved information-giving but discussion was not expected. It felt like it was being imposed without any consultation.
Yeah, I mean, this kind of non-consultative imposation of liturgy has NEVER happened in the modern church.They ought to be ashamed.
Posted by mimmi (# 15829) on
:
Quite a few Anglo Catholic churches use the missal, or use it as a resource. I wonder if they will go on to 'and with your spirit' or settle in Common Worship.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
I recently asked a weekly-attending good RC friend about how the parish had been planting seeds for the new Missal. The response was, "What? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
"
My friend is very intelligent, and cares about such things. Still, there has been no mention about the new missal. I had to spend a little time explaining where the new texts could be found online, and the rationale behind some of the changes.
Upon seeing the texts, the reaction was .
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
My friend is very intelligent, and cares about such things. Still, there has been no mention about the new missal. I had to spend a little time explaining where the new texts could be found online, and the rationale behind some of the changes.
Upon seeing the texts, the reaction was .
Back in my RC days as a youth, I don't recall any preparation for the 1970 Missal; on the First Sunday of Advent we brought our brown St. Joseph (1965) Sunday Missals as usual but began using the Monthly Missalettes instead. Lots of differences, and Father had a new, eerie-sounding cordless microphone. We were asked to pray a psalm whose text had strange accents over some of the words. I remember that as a very odd Sunday indeed. Sort of exciting, but Father's new voice over the PA system made it all a bit creepy.
Posted by mimmi (# 15829) on
:
I was in Pauline books - Kensington High Street, yesterday looking at Lent stuff. I notice the missals on sale were all the current ones, no 'and with your spirit' ones.
There were some pamphlets about the new mass that seemed to be teaching aids.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
My friend is very intelligent, and cares about such things. Still, there has been no mention about the new missal. I had to spend a little time explaining where the new texts could be found online, and the rationale behind some of the changes.
Upon seeing the texts, the reaction was .
Back in my RC days as a youth, I don't recall any preparation for the 1970 Missal; on the First Sunday of Advent we brought our brown St. Joseph (1965) Sunday Missals as usual but began using the Monthly Missalettes instead. Lots of differences, and Father had a new, eerie-sounding cordless microphone. We were asked to pray a psalm whose text had strange accents over some of the words. I remember that as a very odd Sunday indeed. Sort of exciting, but Father's new voice over the PA system made it all a bit creepy.
An excellent point. For many RCs, the tranition to the new Order of Mass also introduced microphones at the same time.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mimmi:
I was in Pauline books - Kensington High Street, yesterday looking at Lent stuff. I notice the missals on sale were all the current ones, no 'and with your spirit' ones.
There were some pamphlets about the new mass that seemed to be teaching aids.
Well, yes, the new Missal has not actually been published yet, so you will still only find the old ones.
Posted by mimmi (# 15829) on
:
That's what I thought. I just looked to see if any had got published yet.
It must be quite a publishing rush, with having to get altar books, smaller copies, texts for people to follow.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
PaulTH wrote: quote:
Now the idea of "men" may have changed in both Latin and English, but nobody with a brain in their head is going to think that "men", in this sense, excludes women, because it is, or was, only a generic term for humanity.
Not sure what you mean by the meaning changing in Latin, but homo has always meant human. Man, as in a male person, is vir.
Same sort of thing in the Greek. Both languages are explicitly inclusive.
Which, incidentally, is why translating Psalm 1 v1 as "Blessed are they", "Blessed is the person" etc. is a mistranslation, because the original has the exclusive, male meaning. It is a messianic psalm.
Posted by Peter's Bark (# 16074) on
:
Homo, like 'man' in English, can mean either 'human' or 'male person'. An example of the latter is 1 Cor 7:1 - bonum est homini mulierem non tangere.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
That's quite a complicated counter-example you have chosen there, Peter's Bark.
I think in that instance it is just picking up on the Greek which has the same construction. Which seems to be because in Greek the words for man and woman also mean husband and wife, which would make the recommendation potentially highly ambiguous about married people, exactly the opposite of what was intended.
I don't know enough of examples elsewhere in Latin where that minority usage is also used - it may be that it is also reserved to avoid ambiguity also. Perhaps someone could advise? But I think that excepting that, the general rule applies.
Posted by Peter's Bark (# 16074) on
:
How about Matthew 19:5 - propter hoc dimittet homo patrem et matrem et adherebit uxori suae (for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife)?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Probably similar reasons I guess - if you need to use the word in close proximity to the words connoting husband/wife status, you would use that construction.
I think the problem is that all this presupposes a direct one to one correspondence between the meanings of these words in Latin or Greek, and in English. But the usage is not the same - it may be OK to generalise but there are exceptions.
Of course we have the same problem just within English - man also used to mean not only both a person, or a male person, but also a married male (as in "man and wife"). Though that use has largely died out save for the occasional colourful expression.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mimmi:
On a positive I like the dismissal words at the end.
"Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord"
But I thought this was just a new translation. I can't remember anything quite like that in the older version.
That is right. This is a recent change in the Latin text, which will be reflected in the new English translation. You can read about the change
here.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Perhaps everybody should say mass in Italian! It would sound beautiful (unlike the Dalek-speak of this English 'translation') and it would be hard for the bureaucrats to criticise its inauthenticity.
A nice idea, but English-speaking people who speak Italian are in the minority. As an Italian speaker, Mass in that language would suit me fine.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the Silent Acolyte:
And yet, and yet, this is exactly what feminist theologians, and others—all assuredly with brains in their heads—have been telling you for years. The message still hasn't sunk into the brain in your head. Neither of you is witless. You just disagree.
I did emphasise that I would have left out the word "men", not because I think it a wrong translation, but because of the sensibilities which The Silent Acolyte mentions. However, I still consider this new translation to be far superior to what has been on offer for the last 40 years.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I did emphasise that I would have left out the word "men", not because I think it a wrong translation, but because of the sensibilities which The Silent Acolyte mentions. However, I still consider this new translation to be far superior to what has been on offer for the last 40 years.
I heard a priest omit "men" just last Sunday. I still can't figure out whether he held "usss" for a bit too long, or whether it was "us" [rest] "and." It all goes so quickly! Thankfully, I was listening specifically for this.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I heard a priest omit "men" just last Sunday.
I used to often hear it done that way in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s - and I left the word out myself.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0