Changing the Words at Distribution of Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter smndtupidisaftr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
Now THAT is a real tough one to translate into English. Br. JR, help? 🙂
Click to expand...
Especially if you type it wrong the way I did it?😦

Today is not my day for Latin. I am going to quit this thread before I embarrass myself even further. 😃
 
Cristiano said:
Especially if you type it wrong the way I did it?😦

Today is not my day for Latin. I am going to quit this thread before I embarrass myself even further. 😃
Click to expand...
Don’t give up on the Latin. People make far worse mistakes in English and it’s become more politically incorrect to correct their English. 😦
 
ProVobis said:
Don’t give up on the Latin. People make far worse mistakes in English and it’s become more politically incorrect to correct their English. 😦
Click to expand...
I was not planning to give up Latin, just posting on this thread. 😃
I have to check my son’s Latin homework this evening. :cool:
 
Cristiano said:
The statement is Corpus Christi. In my opinion saying “This is the Body of Christ” is almost as bad as the “Thanks be to God” translation for Deo Gratias. 😉
Click to expand...
Those are acceptable translations for both. In Latin, the various forms of “to be” can be omitted and it is considered acceptable or sometimes even desirable to insert them in the English translation. Since they were omitted in the original, the translator has some choice in choosing subjunctive or indicative mood.

By the way, people can PM me with Latin questions they don’t want to post them. It is a major interest of mine and I would be glad to help.
 
floresco said:
Since they were omitted in the original, the translator has some choice in choosing subjunctive or indicative mood.
Click to expand...
Only to a degree. I don’t think he would say “This be the Body of Christ,” for example. There is a theological difference between the subjunctive and indicative in many cases, something that seems to be lost in English speech. Who says “if I were…” anymore, for example?
 
ProVobis said:
Only to a degree. I don’t think he would say “This be the Body of Christ,” for example. There is a theological difference between the subjunctive and indicative in many cases, something that seems to be lost in English speech. Who says “if I were…” anymore, for example?
Click to expand...
I would if I thought it were stylistically appropriate. If I were to think that, I would not hesitate. 😃

Anyhow, the point is that the translator has to base the decision on which mood to use on more than the Latin words. It is equally correct as far as language goes to translate Corpus Christi as “This is the Body of Christ.” and “May this be the Body of Christ.” We can, however, determine which one to use by considering the theology involved.
 
floresco said:
Anyhow, the point is that the translator has to base the decision on which mood to use on more than the Latin words.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. My step-brother is a professional interpreter and admits there are certain things which are untranslatable and will say so. However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be explained before a judge or lawyer, for example. “Could” vs “would” vs “may” can be quite tricky as most of us know.
 
ProVobis said:
Not necessarily. My step-brother is a professional interpreter and admits there are certain things which are untranslatable and will say so. However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be explained before a judge or lawyer, for example.
Click to expand...
I was talking about a specific example not making a universal rule.
 
ProVobis said:
So any comments on this?
Click to expand...
This is just an example of problems with translations. Is it linear or dynamic? Is it short and effective or long and exhaustive? I think that it is very difficult to have it just one way especially when words in a language (e.g. English) tend to undergo changes with time too.
 
Cristiano said:
This is just an example of problems with translations. Is it linear or dynamic? Is it short and effective or long and exhaustive? I think that it is very difficult to have it just one way especially when words in a language (e.g. English) tend to undergo changes with time too.
Click to expand...
Huh? There’s no issue with the translation. “Corpus Christi” = “The Body of Christ”.
 
Cristiano said:
This is just an example of problems with translations. Is it linear or dynamic? Is it short and effective or long and exhaustive? I think that it is very difficult to have it just one way especially when words in a language (e.g. English) tend to undergo changes with time too.
Click to expand...
I’ll buy that.

So can we say perhaps the English “Body of Christ” is too literal? Theologically inadequate?
 
MarkThompson said:
Huh? There’s no issue with the translation. “Corpus Christi” = “The Body of Christ”.
Click to expand...
Corpus Christi could be translated as:
Body of Christ (greatest level of formal equivalence)
The Body of Christ
A Body of Christ
This is the (a) Body of Christ
May this be the (a) Body of Christ

One could even treat it as a synecdoche ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche) and translate with dynamic equivalence to produce: This is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

All of these possibilities exist within established conventions of translation.
 
I was told that the change was, in part, to bring a parallel between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Where we recognize the presents of Christ in His four forms in the Mass:

The priest acting in persona Christi
The readings as the Word of God is broken open by the priest
The faithful as the Body of Christ
and most real
The presence of Christ in the Holy Species

So two expressions are given as

After the Gospel is “Verbum Dei” … The word of the Lord

For the Host it is “Corpus Christi” … The body of Christ
and the Cup it is “Sanguis Christi” … The blood of Christ
 
Evan said:
I was told that the change was, in part, to bring a parallel between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Where we recognize the presents of Christ in His four forms in the Mass:

The priest acting in persona Christi
The readings as the Word of God is broken open by the priest
The faithful as the Body of Christ
and most real
The presence of Christ in the Holy Species

So two expressions are given as

After the Gospel is “Verbum Dei” … The word of the Lord

For the Host it is “Corpus Christi” … The body of Christ
and the Cup it is “Sanguis Christi” … The blood of Christ
Click to expand...
Making these things parallel obscures the fact that Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament in a very different way than He is anywhere else. I think it is very confusing and quite possibly is a factor in the reduced numbers who believe in the Real Presence.
 
Leon_Bloy said:
If you think about it, saying “Amen” is also pretty cool, since it involves a person publicly proclaiming their belief in the Real Presence.

At some parishes in the U.S., the communion rail is used, and communion on the tongue is the norm. There’s nothing in the Novus Ordo contrary to doing that at all.
Click to expand...
👍
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Why were the words of the priest during distribution changed from CORPUS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ANIMAM TUAM IN VITAM AETARNAM to the simple CORPUS CHRISTI? What was the rationale behind such a drastic change?
Click to expand...
I can’t find it anywhere but I suppose if one were receiving the consecrated Wine under the old formula it would be SANGUIS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ANIMAM TUAM IN VITAM AETARNAM* with the understanding that SANGUIS is the Body AND Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

*loosely translated as “May the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul into eternal life.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top