What’s the danger if the Pope is fluent in the Latin and is able to verify his own authenticity after his translator finishes his job? But it’s good to know that you’re aware of the dangers of translating any document into languages that have different set of nuances and idiosyncrasies in the language and have multiple meanings for each word.
It’s certainly done with more risks. For one thing, the second person pronoun in English doesn’t distinguish between singular and plural so that’s one strike against it. Also nouns in English don’t vary their endings which means the word order must be carefully analyzed and grammar (which is becoming less enforced these days) especially so. Many idioms and idiosyncrasies exist. The spoken English is even more difficult with all its homophones and tones and slang and heavy accents, even coming from the English scholars. And there are other difficulties which at the moment I’m unable to recall.
I recognize the differences and the challenges; but I would not overstate the risks. We can get to a point where we over inflate the dangers and begin to see some that are not present at all. Coming from an international community where we have to do this on a daily basis, on matters of morals and theology and have done this for 800 years, I can tell you that it can be done very successfully. We have had very few superiors general who were fluent in Latin and we have never had a General Chapter that was conducted in Latin. Our first general chapter was in 1221 and it was in French with 5,000 attending from all over Europe. The documents were written in Italian, then translated into Latin in 1223. They contained both theology and moral law. From the Latin they were translated again into modern languages. You can travel to our houses in 114 countries and find them same theology, the same moral rules and the same spirituality with each friar reading the entire canon of Franciscan documents in their languages. My point is that we must be careful in doing the work, while also be careful not to over estimate the dangers. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming obsessive, which is not a good thing.
JR, since there are enough uncertainties in translations (∑ (∆x/x)) that I’m not sure that this is mathematically possible (P (∑(∆x/x)) = 0) but I’ll save it to a later date to present some proofs after I have a chance to work them out. However, I’ll have to remember to take the time-tested factor and the fact you all know some Latin into consideration.
As Cardinal Arinze mentioned in 2006:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html
Another golden nugget of wisdom from you Bro. JR. This is truly a great question we need to ask ourselves all the time. Whether we relate ourselves to St. Francis or any of the saints, we should think if all these discussions we are having is something that would promote holiness in our own lives and in others, or some needless worries we have which doesn’t contribute in our own growth in faith.
Islam? Hindu? Buddhisim? When Catholics do something that Protestants do, people here get angry for doing Protestant things. Why are we comparing ourselves to non-Christians?
Sounds to me as if you are proposing that the Eastern and Western Churches be consolidated into one and only one rite.
I’m not proposing anything. I’m saying that if you compare Latin with all these other religions who use a single language, then you’re looking at it from the wrong angle. Because Latin is not universal in the entire Church to begin with. There are no different Rites in Judaism. Islam has many sects but all still use Arabic. The Catholic Church was never Latin only for its entirety. So how do we compare it to religions that has a single, unified language in its entirety when the Catholic Church is not nor was ever that way?
Do we put our pants on differently? I believe Cardinal Arinze pointed out the similarities of being human, that’s all. I don’t see where he presents a sign-up sheet for any other religion. Do you disagree with the point he is trying to make?
I’m just saying that the attitude seems different when its justifying something because its done from another religion or if its done by Protestants. Or maybe its the action itself, but why justify it with another faith’s practice? For example people frown on holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer because its such a Protestant thing to do. We can’t have Protestant practices in our Liturgy. But having a unified language is a great idea, just look at the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, or the Muslims who rejected his divinity and downgraded Him to merely a prophet, or to the Hindus who don’t know him at all.
I don’t know about that. You’re talking to someone who spent years in chemical and biochemical laboratories collecting and interpreting data. It might be fun to try to measure this holiness and growth sometime.
I do believe that we oftentimes get caught up in too much meaningless worry.I don’t know about that. You’re talking to someone who spent years in chemical and biochemical laboratories collecting and interpreting data. It might be fun to try to measure this holiness and growth sometime.
I am not the one doing the comparing, Cardinal Arinze is, and he is backed up by almost two thousand years of Latin Rite Catholic worship tradition.
Sorry, I use “you” loosely and I don’t mean you = roadsend
Where does it says that?
You list your location as “Eparchy of New Westminster”.
Its my location, not religion
