16-year-old Latin whiz finds new liturgy language lacking

[MarkThompson]

Seen and Unseen is an inclusive set. It contains all things which have ever been created. Things I have seen include things around me which are macro-physical in nature. Things I have not seen include both the spiritual and those physical things which I have not seen, such as a black hole, a buggatti veyron, the third planet from another star, or a quantum particle.

Visible and Invisible are likewise an inclusive set. They are, however, divided differently. Things which are visible now include things I haven’t seen but CAN see if I did look at them, so the buggatti veyron and the planet move into the visible category. Invisible accounts for less of the set, so it now includes only the spiritual, the black holes, and the quantum particles.

Everything you say is correct, and thus the people who think that there is some sort of theological difference here are wrong. Nevertheless, the connotations of two expressions can be different even when their meaning is technically the same. Compare telling your wife “I love your dimpled cheeks, and everything else about you” with telling her “I love your flabby thighs, and everything else about you.” The truth that {x + everything else} = {y + everything else} only tells part of the story.

Likewise, the corrected version of the Creed calls our attention to the fact that not only are there things unseen, but things invisible. God was creator not only of the physical universe, but of the spiritual.

 

[promethius]

Likewise, the corrected version of the Creed calls our attention to the fact that not only are there things unseen, but things invisible. God was creator not only of the physical universe, but of the spiritual.

True, but invisible is a subset of unseen.

Like I said, the reason I like the new wording, in this case, is not because it changes the ultimate meaning, but because the terms visible/invisible are objective (the same for every person alive) while the terms seen/unseen are subjective (different for everyone). If we’re composing a universal creed, we should be doing it with objective language so that we’re all saying the same thing. We can’t do that with subjective terms that don’t mean the same thing for all people… so I think that’s a better argument than that visible/invisible is a closer literal translation.

 

[Cristiano]

I agree and understand, but also agree with the previous poster who said that those who know this, know it already, and those who don’t, won’t begin now… Lord, God of Hosts? You think your parish knows what that means? this is what I mean by arbitrary. Like I said…there are definitely really good changes that do change the meaning
I believe vs we believe
suffered death vs. suffered, died
are examples.

What is wrong with God of Hosts? It is not much different that using Sabaoth instead of translating it into Latin. I think that nobody wanted an explicit reference to the armies of Israel that got defeated, it would have been a strange way to give glory to God.

 

[ProVobis]

What is wrong with God of Hosts? It is not much different that using Sabaoth instead of translating it into Latin.

The Latin Mass left Sabaoth (Hebrew) and *Kyrie Eleison *(Greek) untranslated. Good thing IMO.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The present society can use more humility, and a bit more guilt, too (IMHO).

Go to some churches just before Mass begins-the noise of talking is deafening.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Well I think if we are going to use Engish we should use the most pure form.

Now this is not from the Mass not is it a trans lanslation from any other language this is the originl Engish that it was written in.

Gewat ða neosian, syþðan niht becom,
hean huses, hu hit Hringdene
æfter beorþege gebun hæfdon.
Fand þa ðær inne æþelinga gedriht
swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cuðon

That is from Beowolf I don’t know about you but it makes reading Latin look a lot easier.

 

[Servus_Rosarium]

It promotes a vision of human nature as overwhelmingly and inexorably sinful-- a vision more in line with the heretical Janesenist doctrine of centuries past than Catholic dogma.

It addresses men, not our nature.

 

[ProVobis]

That is from Beowolf I don’t know about you but it makes reading Latin look a lot easier.

Indeed.

But it doesn’t stop there. Remember the famous piece from “My Fair Lady”?

“Why can’t the English learn to speak (English)?”

youtube.com/watch?v=jhninL_G3Fg

 

[liturgyluver]

Indeed.

But it doesn’t stop there. Remember the famous piece from “My Fair Lady”?

“Why can’t the English learn to speak (English)?”

youtube.com/watch?v=jhninL_G3Fg

But that - which incidently was supposed to be humorous - was about accent. I am not sure what point you are trying to make - accents and dialects exist in every country to some degree, but dialects less so in England than elsewhere. In Italy, for example, it is virtually impossible for someone who speaks “Neopolitan” to be understood by someone in Genoa.

 

[ProVobis]

was about accent.

Guess you missed the part where he was showing her his notebook? But I was making no particular point except to respond to the Old English comment, which I thought was good in showing how the English words and meanings have morphed. And the language will continue to be morphed, witness alone the growing number of people writing “text” code all over the internet and not too concerned with proper grammar or spelling. Ever heard of entropy and the Tower of Babel?

 

[PacoG]

The real title of this article may as well be, “Latin student agrees new translation is fine, but realizes for the first time that he doesn’t like the actual words and theology of the Catholic Mass.” No surprise NCR was thrilled to run it.

The headline should read:

“We finally find someone of the JP2 generation who isn’t a lesbian who agrees with our strand of leftist (not liberal) Catholicism”

But then again, that’s too long to be a headline.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Indeed.

But it doesn’t stop there. Remember the famous piece from “My Fair Lady”?

“Why can’t the English learn to speak (English)?”

youtube.com/watch?v=jhninL_G3Fg

I agree I hear things people say or I read a not from someone and I feel at times that we are speaking different languages.
The Old English of Beowulf was used dates to the 8th century AD. Look at the changes in the English language compared to Latin over that same time span.

That is why it is so important for these ancient languages so as to keep the true meaning.

 

[liturgyluver]

Guess you missed the part where he was showing her his notebook? But I was making no particular point except to respond to the Old English comment, which I thought was good in showing how the English words and meanings have morphed. And the language will continue to be morphed, witness alone the growing number of people writing “text” code all over the internet and not too concerned with proper grammar or spelling. Ever heard of entropy and the Tower of Babel?

The notebook part was phonetics, and still about her accent. Besides, English isn’t the only language to have “morphed”. Look at German. And there is a huge debate in France about the struggle to retain “proper” French. And a text message in Italian is very different to a conversation. So there is no evidence that this is confined to English.

I accept though that no translation will ever be perfect: there are some things that I can express in English and not properly in Italian, and vice versa. But that’s the way it is.

 

[promethius]

That is why it is so important for these ancient languages so as to keep the true meaning.

Except that the impetus to change the liturgy of the latin rite had nothing to do with “keeping true meaning” and everything to do with the fact that latin was the vernacular of the area in which the latin rite first originated. It was a change meant so that romans could UNDERSTAND the liturgy, just as the change to the various vernacular languages of today represents the same spirit of pastoral care for persons.

 

[ProVobis]

So there is no evidence that this is confined to English.

Of course. All modern languages and meanings, almost by definition, have been morphed, but some obviously more quickly than others. My guess is that the rate depends on changing local politics and illiteracy percentages. The fact that Americans score 25th in reading skills certainly won’t help promote English stability. Or maybe I have that backwards.

That is why it is so important for these ancient languages so as to keep the true meaning.

It seems that that’s the only standard we have left.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Except that the impetus to change the liturgy of the latin rite had nothing to do with “keeping true meaning” and everything to do with the fact that latin was the vernacular of the area in which the latin rite first originated. It was a change meant so that romans could UNDERSTAND the liturgy, just as the change to the various vernacular languages of today represents the same spirit of pastoral care for persons.

That however does not address that from ancient greek to ancient latin is much more consitant then from ancient latin into modern English.

We also have to keep in mind that from those times till the last fourty years people learned at least some of the latin of the liturgy even though it was not their native tongue. And even at the time of the Latinization of the Liturgy it was not the native tongue for all of the Empire. Offical yes but native no. I will again refer to my example of english from the 8th century.

I have no problem going back even to the Greek and hebrew to refine the Latin if need be. But we can not refine the Latin by the use of modern language.

 

[ProVobis]

It was a change meant …

What change? The inscription on the cross was in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. It was only fitting that the sacred liturgy and truth would be expressed in those three languages and in the nuances prevailing at the time of Christ. I don’t see the pastoral value of suppressing the language of the very early church in today’s liturgy. A sermon in vernacular and attempted translations in handmissals are pastoral enough, IMO.