Pray brethren

[FrancisB]

Exactly my point. “Brethren” sounds Old English too.

While I agree with you, I should point out to you that “Old English” is a different language altogether; it was spoken in the early middle ages and was eventually replaced by “Middle English” in the 13th century. Middle English too was replaced by “Early Modern English” or “Elizabethan/Jacobean English” in the 16th century (roughly during the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, hence the names). “Early Modern English” is the language that the King James Version and the Douay-Rheims translations of the Bible use and the language of Shakespeare.

This is why it matters: we cannot understand Old English (without studying it as a foreign language), and Middle English requires some serious strain to be understood (see my earlier post). Early Modern English is intelligible to modern speakers, but is difficult for younger speakers or non-native speakers to understand.

 

[ProVobis]

Exactly my point. “Brethren” sounds Old English too.

It may sound Old English but this would be an example of Old English.

1066andallthat.com/english_old/beowulf_prologue.asp (I know this all too well as I have to hear it from my stepbrother who happens to be a professional linguist.)

Fæder ure,
ðu ðe eart on heofenum,
si ðin nama gehalgod;
to-becume ðin rice;
geweorþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofenum.
Urne ge dæghwamlican hlaf syle us to-deag,
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgifaþ urum gyltendum,
ane ne gelæde ðu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfle.
Amen.

---

This would be an example of Middle English.

1066andallthat.com/english_middle/overview_video.asp

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be þi wille don in herþe as it is doun in heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.

---

And here’s a 1582 version of the Rheims Douai:

digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/etext/bie-idx?type=header&bible=Rheims%20Douai

Very notable are transpositions of the "u"s and "v"s, as well as the many “e” endings.

 

[dochawk]

Of all the things for folks to get edited about . . .

I’m an admitted grammar nazi and reactionary, but folks, get with the time!

Rome accepted the use of the vernacular, and shifted to it for liturgical purposes, quite some time ago. That’s why the liturgy in the Church of Rome is no longer in. . . . Greek!
That’s right, folks, Rome shifted to e vernacular for liturgical purposes some sixteen centuries ago . . .

Anyway . . .

• The word that we have had for centuries was neither “brethren” nor “brothers and sisters” but “fratres”. Perhaps we should just use the Latin, since it is not that hard for people to learn a new word.

In English, “he” does not imply gender, absent something else in the context, whie “she” does. Nonetheless, “brothers and sisters” is a natural construct in English, while using both nouns would not be a natural construct in the romance languages.

There is a parallel between the languages, but it only goes so far. “Fratres e Fratres” (or whatever the female form would be), or “hermanos y hermanas” wild be bizarre constructs, while “brothers and sisters” is not.

There are fights to choose about politics driving liturgical language, but “brothers and sisters” is not one of them!

hawk

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I guess, but when is the last time that you heard someone use the word “brethren” outside of liturgical English? It seems to me that “siblings” might be a better option in some cases, since that’s a synonym that we at least still use. Then, I still think “brothers and sisters” is probably a more realistic usage, and one cannot even argue that “fratres” carries the same theological weight as “consubstantialem”. I understand why we got “consubstantial”; it’s a matter of better understanding the faith by better understand the vocabulary of the church’s teachings. I don’t think adding “brethren” to our vocabulary will really help this cause.

The main point of this new translation is for the replacement of overly simple English and bad translations into high, reverent English that is reserved for only the most solemn occasions.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Brethren is by no means ‘difficult’ for younger speakers to understand. Video games use it just as much, and you don’t see kids complaining about it.

Nonetheless, I also find it appropriate that ‘brothers and sisters’ is used as a substitute. ‘Fratres’ and ‘brethren’ on their own are sufficiently ambiguous, as both can either refer to ‘brothers’ or ‘brothers and sisters’, but when used in the context of the Penitential Act (or even the Orates Fratres), it is clear that it addresses all the faithful regardless of gender, so it would in a manner of speaking actually be marginally clearer to translate it as ‘brothers and sisters’.

Compare this to translating ‘omnipotenti’ as ‘almighty’, which actually adds ambiguity (what exactly is the nature of God’s almighty nature?), but in this case, ‘fratres’ as ‘brothers and sisters’ actually contributes clarity and specificity (we refer to all present, rather than possibly just the men of the congregation).

Although, all told, I would rather go with brethren. I find it slightly more solemn, and I prefer the implications of the faithful as one body, rather than two joined together.

(Conversely, one could always say that it would end up diluting the distinction between male and female. Both of which have been created by God as distinct beings, yet made to be one people.)

(When will this ever end… )

or whatever the female form would be

Sorores.

 

[Filii_Dei]

or whatever the female form would be

Sorores.

 

[jimrob]

The version of the Missal for England and Wales gives “brothers and sisters” as an alternative wherever “brethren” occurs.

The problem is with the English Language. “Fratres” is the plural of “brother” but in Latin and Latin derived languages, the masculine plural can include the feminine. Translating it as “brothers” would appear to exclude more than half the congregation. For some reason using the archaic word “brethren” seems more acceptable, but “brothers and sisters” conveys the meaning more clearly. What it really means is “y’all” in US English or “you lot” in British English - fortunately there’s unlikely to be another translation in my lifetime.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The version of the Missal for England and Wales gives “brothers and sisters” as an alternative wherever “brethren” occurs.

The problem is with the English Language. “Fratres” is the plural of “brother” but in Latin and Latin derived languages, the masculine plural can include the feminine. Translating it as “brothers” would appear to exclude more than half the congregation. For some reason using the archaic word “brethren” seems more acceptable, but “brothers and sisters” conveys the meaning more clearly. What it really means is “y’all” in US English or “you lot” in British English - fortunately there’s unlikely to be another translation in my lifetime.

Yes, “Pray, you lot, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.”

 

[FrancisB]

This is why the translation takes so long to create…

 

[ProVobis]

Rome accepted the use of the vernacular, and shifted to it for liturgical purposes, quite some time ago. That’s why the liturgy in the Church of Rome is no longer in. . . . Greek!
That’s right, folks, Rome shifted to e vernacular for liturgical purposes some sixteen centuries ago . . .

Latin and Greek are special “vernaculars.” They are the “vernaculars” of the cross and unique in that respect.

Besides that by the 3rd century common people in the West spoke Vulgar Latin, which was to become the basis of the Romance languages. Vulgar Latin morphed many of the Classic Latin words and changed their syntax so it’s really debatable whether the use of Classic Latin in the Mass could be considered the “vernacular” of the 3rd or 4th century. Would one say Shakespeare is today’s vernacular?

To those who say one language is as good as another for worship consider this. The whole purpose of a language, whether it’s national, science, or computer is to define a culture, a nation, a philosophy, a way of expression, a direction, and, yes, even a tool of exclusion and controversy. Imagine what the Church would be like today had it not Christianized the Roman language in the early centuries and decided never to have Latin as its language for documents, councils, music, and liturgy. Where would its direction be?

If “fratres” was good enough for the early Church, it shouldn’t be a controversial element in 2011.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Latin and Greek are special “vernaculars.” They are the “vernaculars” of the cross and unique in that respect.

Besides that by the 3rd century common people in the West spoke Vulgar Latin, which was to become the basis of the Romance languages. Vulgar Latin morphed many of the Classic Latin words and changed their syntax so it’s really debatable whether the use of Classic Latin in the Mass could be considered the “vernacular” at that time.

To those who say one language is as good as another for worship consider this. The whole purpose of a language, whether it’s national, science, or computer is to define a culture, a nation, a philosophy, a way of expression, a direction, and, yes, even a tool of exclusion and controversy. Imagine what the Church would be like today had it not Christianized the Roman language in the early centuries and decided never to have Latin as its language for documents, councils, music, and liturgy. Where would its direction be?

If “fratres” was good enough for the early Church, it shouldn’t be a controversial element in 2011.

Right. The Latin language is the supreme expression of the “Roman” in the Catholic Church. Nothing else expresses its Roman heritage and identity like that language does.

 

[alwayslooking]

I know that “brothers and sisters” is a legitimate option. However my pastor says “Pray friends” he is an otherwise very conservative priest, he is not one that I would consider liberal by any sense.

Is this a legitimate option?

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I know that “brothers and sisters” is a legitimate option. However my pastor says “Pray friends” he is an otherwise very conservative priest, he is not one that I would consider liberal by any sense.

Is this a legitimate option?

If it doesn’t have it in the Missal then I wouldn’t think so. Say the black, do the red as Fr. Z would say.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If it doesn’t have it in the Missal then I wouldn’t think so. Say the black, do the red as Fr. Z would say.

Yes, especially as the phrase, “… or similar words”, is no longer there.

 

[dochawk]

Latin and Greek are special “vernaculars.” They are the “vernaculars” of the cross and unique in that respect.

Putting aside the linguistic possibility of two things being “unique” together . . . Latin and Greek are hardly alone in that way. church Slavonic wasn’t actually spoken by anyone, but was mutually intelligible among the various Slavs. Hmm, that may make it the “least vernacular” of what the east has used . . .

hawk

 

[ProVobis]

church Slavonic wasn’t actually spoken by anyone, but was mutually intelligible among the various Slavs. Hmm, that may make it the “least vernacular” of what the east has used . . .

I’m not surprised to hear that. It is highly inflected language and as such probably was not a popular conversational language, although Polish, Russian, and other Slavic languages have maintained a certain amount of inflection in their languages and are, of course, very conversational.

 

[dochawk]

My understanding is that it was constructed by SS. Cyril & Methodius, and is closest to one particular language. They also produced the written form.

Although they were sent from Constantinople, they were summoned to Rome to defend their use of this language in liturgy. Satisfied, the Pope ordained one a bishop and sent them back to their mission . . .

hawk

 

[PacoG]

Yes, “Pray, you lot, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.”

I think the Texan form would be better: “Pray ya’ll that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.”

I have had this discussion with a couple of English teacher friends. Whoever were the powers that be that decided to consolidate all forms of the second person (plural and singular, subjective and objective) into “you” and got rid of ye, thou and thee really did a great disservice to the language. Furthermore, TPTB didn’t send out the memo to everyone. Ya’ll, You all, Youse, Youse guys, you lot, etc., all represent an internal need of the English-speaking peoples to have a separate second person plural.

Second observation, while the trend in English was to eliminate the formal second person (thee, thou, thine, thy) and to to the informal you, the trend in Spanish was to go to the plural formal (ustedes) and away from the plural familiar (vosotros).

But I digress.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think the Texan form would be better: “Pray ya’ll that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.”

I have had this discussion with a couple of English teacher friends. Whoever were the powers that be that decided to consolidate all forms of the second person (plural and singular, subjective and objective) into “you” and got rid of ye, thou and thee really did a great disservice to the language. Furthermore, TPTB didn’t send out the memo to everyone. Ya’ll, You all, Youse, Youse guys, you lot, etc., all represent an internal need of the English-speaking peoples to have a separate second person plural.

Second observation, while the trend in English was to eliminate the formal second person (thee, thou, thine, thy) and to to the informal you, the trend in Spanish was to go to the plural formal (ustedes) and away from the plural familiar (vosotros).

But I digress.

Actually, “you” is the formal and “thee” is familiar in the English language. “You” is a colder word than “thee.” For example, the spoken title of the reigning pope was always, and continues to be, “Your Holiness.” It was never, “Thy Holiness,” as that is far too intimate.

So the trend was also in English to eliminate the intimate second person (thee, thou, thine, thy), just as it was in Spanish (I’m taking your quote on Spanish at face value).

 

[MarkThompson]

Second observation, while the trend in English was to eliminate the formal second person (thee, thou, thine, thy) and to to the informal you, the trend in Spanish was to go to the plural formal (ustedes) and away from the plural familiar (vosotros).

You have the English backwards. Thee-thou-thy is the informal (or intimate) form of address; you-your is the formal. Because thee-thou-thy is so out of date and sounds extremely old-fashioned, the misconception widely prevails that it must have been more formal. This is not so. You would address a brother or close friend as “thee,” a superior as “you.” That is why the Quakers, the “Society of Friends” who do not recognize social distinctions, have retained thee and thou.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people make this mistake, and thus imagine, for instance, that it is important to go back to thee and thou in our prayers so that we can show greater reverence toward the awesome majesty of God.