Mistranslation in the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marthaferretti
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
marthaferretti said:
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/wdtirs-universae-ecclesiae-21-drilling-into-the-latin-and-english-training-of-priests-and-seminaries/

Are the modernists at it again or just an error in translation ?
Click to expand...
LITERAL TRANSLATION:
21 – Ordinaries are **strenuously (enixe) asked **that they offer to clerics (clericis) to be trained up (instituendis) opportunity for acquiring adequate ars celebrandi… art of celebrating… in the Extraordinary Form, which point is has force above all (potissimum) for Seminaries, in which provision will be made that the students of holy things are to be suitably (convenienter) trained, by learning the Latin language, and, as additional circumstances demand it (adiunctis id postulantibus), the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite itself.

RELEASED TRANSLATION:
21. Ordinaries **are asked **to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
 
I don’t know, so I will ask-
is not this translation the one that is supplied by the Vatican?
Do they not have to approve the translation?

If the answer is yes, why is there even a question then,
as it would be obvious to me that if this is approved it is OK.
Or are we insinuating that the Pope is a “modernist”?
 
I knew this would happen. Friday, a lot of clergy wanted to post their comments right away. Someone on another thread mentioned the USCCB didn’t comment, and I stated it was no big deal because the more interesting comments would come after some time had passed.

Now as we see, one blogger who initially called the UE a “no hitter”, has took another look.

Either way, there is no command and decree for seminaries to teach the EF. That in itself hardly makes the pope a modernist lol.
 
At_Trent said:
Now as we see, one blogger who initially called the UE a “no hitter”, has took another look.
Click to expand...
I think the blogger had read only the official Latin (no-hitter) version up to that point. No one should be gullible to believe the very first translation he hears or reads.

Cavete omnes translationes.
 
marthaferretti said:
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/wdtirs-universae-ecclesiae-21-drilling-into-the-latin-and-english-training-of-priests-and-seminaries/

Are the modernists at it again or just an error in translation ?
Click to expand...
The translation that’s circulating is a rush job done by some people, because everyone was so desperate to see what the directive would say. In a few weeks, we will see the official English translation posted on the USCCB site. These translations are usually done at the Vatican and then sent out.

The difference between the Latin and the English that is circulating is not catastrophic. I saw the Spanish translation and the difference between that and the English is ever so slight that it’s not important. The effects are the same. 🤷

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The difference between the Latin and the English that is circulating is not catastrophic. I saw the Spanish translation and the difference between that and the English is ever so slight that it’s not important. The effects are the same. 🤷
Click to expand...
But do we also need reminders that the Vatican also “worships” Mary in its English translation on another document? Or uses “frequently” instead of “not rarely” on still another to bias on the side of vernacular? Perhaps they don’t realize the ramifications of translations into English, which could have a different impact than on the hispanics even if the differences are slight. Seems as if Americans are always looking for loopholes (but I don’t have proof of that) so anything that sounds as if it’s “allowed” will be the rule rather than the exception.

I find Fr. Z’s arguments well sound. After all, he has a better grasp of Latin than most.

Just out of curiosity, though, has anyone seen a Polish translation of UE?
 
ProVobis said:
But do we also need reminders that the Vatican also “worships” Mary in its English translation on another document? Or uses “frequently” instead of “not rarely” on still another to bias on the side of vernacular? Perhaps they don’t realize the ramifications of translations into English, which could have a different impact than on the hispanics even if the differences are slight. Seems as if Americans are always looking for loopholes (but I don’t have proof of that) so anything that sounds as if it’s “allowed” will be the rule rather than the exception.

I find Fr. Z’s arguments well sound. After all, he has a better grasp of Latin than most.

Just out of curiosity, though, has anyone seen a Polish translation of UE?
Click to expand...
Not I. I speak and read: English, Spanish, Italian, German, French and Latin, but not Polish. I’m studying Creole now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top