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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
silicasandra said:
It could be worse - there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that “if English was good enough for Jesus and the Bible, it’s good enough for me.” :eek:
Click to expand...
Knowest thou not that thy Lord speaketh thus?

🙂
 
TheMc said:
And the old translation of the Mass didn’t use either of those. Your point is? Both make it clear that the lord is coming into your home. That’s the idea of the Latin. The current translation is much more surface level superficial.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how using an english idiom with the exact same meaning is somehow “superficial” while using a direct translation of latin to english is not.
 
promethius said:
I fail to see how using an english idiom with the exact same meaning is somehow “superficial” while using a direct translation of latin to english is not.
Click to expand...
Red herring. The new translation not only more literally translates the Latin but captures the allusion to Mt 8:8. The “exact same meaning” you tout fails to adequately capture the scriptural allusion.
Liturgiam Authenticam pointed us away from “dynamic equivalence” to “formal equivalence.”
 
drforjc said:
Red herring. The new translation not only more literally translates the Latin but captures the allusion to Mt 8:8. The “exact same meaning” you tout fails to adequately capture the scriptural allusion.
Click to expand...
Does it fail to adequately capture the scriptural allusion? I must have missed that since I’ve known it was the words of the centurion since I was a child.

In fact, I guaruntee that if you walked up to a protestant and asked where “Lord, I am not worthy to blank, but only say the word and blank” comes from, they would be able to tell you the scriptures were being referenced. Don’t blame the use of English idioms on people’s ignorance: my thought is that those who are ignorant that this is a blatantly obvious scriptural allusion will continue to be so. We are merely treating a language like it’s the solution to bad catechesis regarding the mass.
Liturgiam Authenticam pointed us away from “dynamic equivalence” to “formal equivalence.”
Click to expand...
To the latin, yes. To the scripture translation… no. Even you state that this is a scriptural allusion. If the focus were actually formal equivalence to the centurion, we would be saying the (totally meaningless to us) line “and my servant shall be healed”. But that would be ridiculous. The latin ITSELF in the mass text is an allusion to scripture which has dynamic equivalence in terms of it’s meaning because it has been altered to meet OUR need for healing.

So while we’re accepting this sort of equivalence on the part of the Latin text, I see no reason that using an english idiom to describe the exact same thing should be any different.
 
promethius said:
So while we’re accepting this sort of equivalence on the part of the Latin text, I see no reason that using an english idiom to describe the exact same thing should be any different.
Click to expand...
While I’m not particularly fond of any English translation as much of the Latin nuance is lost any way you do it, I would say that if English is to be used as a base for less spoken foreign language where you don’t have any Latin translators, it must be as literal as possible even if it doesn’t make sense. One can only imagine how something like “it’s raining cats and dogs” can distort further translations. There is enough trouble with “Lift up your hearts” as there is no lifting or any other motion in the Latin but direction.
 
MarkThompson said:
Except that “under my roof” to mean “in my home” is idiomatic in English, as in that ultimate trump card of a father: “As long as you live under my roof, young lady, you’ll abide by my rules.” We aren’t talking about translating “What’s up?” as “¿Qué está arriba?”
Click to expand...
I think “under my roof” should be left as it is. Sure most Americans will miss the scriptural reference to the centurion and think it means the roof of the mouth, but it works that way too even if it is wrong.

However there is a secondary scriptural reference to the feast of tabernacles (the modern Jewish holiday Sukkot) and to the transfiguration. In Sukkot you build an organic temporary shelter with a biodegradable roof, which is the essential part. This was what the apostles wanted to build for Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration, when they weren’t thinking about what they were saying. So inviting Jesus under your roof is like asking him to be your companion in a world where you live life on the edge in total dependence on God.

So I vote keep the literal translation “under my roof”.
 
promethius said:
Does it fail to adequately capture the scriptural allusion? I must have missed that since I’ve known it was the words of the centurion since I was a child.

In fact, I guaruntee that if you walked up to a protestant and asked where “Lord, I am not worthy to blank, but only say the word and blank” comes from, they would be able to tell you the scriptures were being referenced. Don’t blame the use of English idioms on people’s ignorance: my thought is that those who are ignorant that this is a blatantly obvious scriptural allusion will continue to be so. We are merely treating a language like it’s the solution to bad catechesis regarding the mass.

To the latin, yes. To the scripture translation… no. Even you state that this is a scriptural allusion. If the focus were actually formal equivalence to the centurion, we would be saying the (totally meaningless to us) line “and my servant shall be healed”. But that would be ridiculous. The latin ITSELF in the mass text is an allusion to scripture which has dynamic equivalence in terms of it’s meaning because it has been altered to meet OUR need for healing.

So while we’re accepting this sort of equivalence on the part of the Latin text, I see no reason that using an english idiom to describe the exact same thing should be any different.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I really could not care one way or the other on the new translation. I will still go to mass and receive the Eucharist.
I like some parts, like the Confeitor, but other parts, like the one discussed here about the Centurion, I find arbitrary, like changing ‘seen and unseen’ to ‘visible and invisible’. Or changing “on the third day he rose again” to “he rose again on the third day”—really?

as a side note… dismissing anybody’s opinion because of age is rediculous and sactimonious nonsense. I find it refreshing that a 16 year old is taking enough interest in his faith to write the article and express his feelings.
 
jps23430 said:
I totally agree. I really could not care one way or the other on the new translation. I will still go to mass and receive the Eucharist.
I like some parts, like the Confeitor, but other parts, like the one discussed here about the Centurion, I find arbitrary, like changing ‘seen and unseen’ to ‘visible and invisible’. Or changing “on the third day he rose again” to “he rose again on the third day”—really?

as a side note… dismissing anybody’s opinion because of age is rediculous and sactimonious nonsense. I find it refreshing that a 16 year old is taking enough interest in his faith to write the article and express his feelings.
Click to expand...
About the seen and unseen versus visible and invisible.

Seen and unseen implies a certain worldliness to whatever it is referencing, since practically anything can be, at various intervals in time, seen, and at other intervals, unseen. However, visible and invisible implies a certain otherworldliness. It implies power over the senses, in that “seen” is the action of the people, and “visible” is the action of the deity. “Seen” has a connection to the person. “Visible” has a connection to God.
 
YoungTradCath said:
About the seen and unseen versus visible and invisible.

Seen and unseen implies a certain worldliness to whatever it is referencing, since practically anything can be, at various intervals in time, seen, and at other intervals, unseen. However, visible and invisible implies a certain otherworldliness. It implies power over the senses, in that “seen” is the action of the people, and “visible” is the action of the deity. “Seen” has a connection to the person. “Visible” has a connection to God.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jps23430 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s no point in doing a half of a job, I suppose.
 
jps23430 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s where the catechetical moment comes in. 🙂 I think one of the great opportunities with the new translation is that it clues us into the fact that we don’t understand the faith as well as we think we do. This is a necessary precursor to us actually seeking to understand.

For example, take “one in being” vs. “consubstantial.” It is easy for us to sort of gloss over this every Sunday in the Creed and assume we know what it means. After all, I know what “one” means. I know what “in” means. I know what “being” means. The words are so commonplace that it is quite easy to recite them without ever reflecting on what the phrase means. However, when we are confronted with an unfamiliar word like “consubstantial”, that becomes impossible. It is not a word we’re accustomed to hearing and so it prompts us to ask the question “What does it mean?”

I am excited for the changes to finally get here. Three more weeks!
 
YoungTradCath said:
About the seen and unseen versus visible and invisible.

Seen and unseen implies a certain worldliness to whatever it is referencing, since practically anything can be, at various intervals in time, seen, and at other intervals, unseen. However, visible and invisible implies a certain otherworldliness. It implies power over the senses, in that “seen” is the action of the people, and “visible” is the action of the deity. “Seen” has a connection to the person. “Visible” has a connection to God.
Click to expand...
Meh, it really makes no difference to me on this one.

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.

The main arguement for the difference between the two inclusive sets, and thus for the specific wording, in my opinion is the subjectivity of the seen/unseen: namely, an astronomer has looked at a lot of planets through his lenses, he has effectively “seen” more than many people, so the balance of seen/unseen depends on the person you talk to. Visible/Invisible is the same no matter who you talk to… so even though each category is an inclusive set, when we say things that are seen we are referring to a subjective term, while when we say things that are visible we are referring to an objective term… otherwise there’s no REAL difference, both are different ways of saying “everything”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top