Survey on priests' dislike of Missal may be inaccurate [CNA]

[manualman]

Sacred like English?

How did it work out for the Protestants?

Huh?

Symbols relevant to the USA were posted that included Latin. The question was asked why there isn’t the same level of controversy over translational precision.

The answer is that those symbols involve mere earthly politics while the liturgy involvs divine revelation. You don’t see how enormous the difference is?? Do YOU place your political views on the same level as the importance of translating revelation correctly?

 

[ProVobis]

Do YOU place your political views on the same level as the importance of translating revelation correctly?

Correctly, meaning what exactly? There is no such thing IMO. I know because I used to do Polish-English translations in the laboratories. Translation is an art and if you take 200 translators you will get 200 translations. Like 200 English Bibles. Which one of them is “correct,” politically or otherwise? (Interesting that you brought up my political views.)

A consensus is the best you can get maybe (especially if the Pope pressures you to) and it’s hardly infallible. On top of that you’re dealing with various demonstratives all translating to the same word (haec, hic, hoc, etc. to “this”), or (pluribus, multis to “many”), not to mention the various forms of “love” to “love” and you introduce ambiguity. Why do we end up with less precision afterwards than beforehand? Vernacular and translating correctly sounds nice in theory but let’s get real. Mathematically, there is no 1-1 mapping, especially between Latin and English. There was a reason why the Church kept the Mass in one language for so many centuries, even though pressures to put it into vernacular were very strong.

That said, seeing that my attachments didn’t get too many hits, I find further posts here by me pointless and I will leave the thread.

 

[larsont7]

I think the changes for the people are not so great that we won’t get used to it, even if consubstantial is a bit silly,

There’s nothing “silly” about using the proper term. Here is a brief article describing the theological difference between being and consubstantial: romanmissalchanges.com/2011/01/what-consubstantial-with-father-means.html

What on earth does “consubstantial” mean? It turns out there’s a good reason the Church wants Catholics to learn this word. Dominican Father Romanus Cessario, senior editor for Magnificat, unpacks its meaning in the Boston Pilot:

For the last 40 years or so, Catholics have become accustomed to express their belief in the sameness of the Father and the Son by the expression, “one in Being with the Father.” This translation came about because certain experts had opined that a literal translation of the Latin term “consubstanialem,” that is, consubstanital, would be too unfamiliar to the everyday churchgoer.

However, the expression “one in Being with the Father” does not translate “consubstantialem.” The expression is too vague. Since God creates and sustains all that exists, everything in some sense can be said to be one in being with God. Not that everything is the divine nature but that everything outside of God remains dependent on the divine nature for its borrowed existence. The sameness that the Eternal Son enjoys with the Father is not like that. Instead, this sameness arises from the specific substance or nature of the Godhead. Catholic faith holds that each of the three Divine Persons share one and the same divine nature or substance. Just as the mystery of the Blessed Trinity stands at the heart of our belief, so also it grounds our salvation.

The Greek expression adopted at the Council of Nicaea is “homoousious,” which is translated into English as “con-substantial.” The Eternal Son, who was born of the Virgin Mary, is neither “like” the Father nor “practically the same substance” as the Father. The Eternal Son enjoys the very same substance as the Father. The Son possesses fully the Godhead of the Father. So today, the Church again confesses in the English rendition of the Creed that Jesus Christ is “consubstantial with the Father.”

 

[Elizium23]

You’re confusing the linguistics with what people will understand within the context of the Mass.

Before we used “consubstantial,” in the Creed, most people knew what the words of the previous version meant because it was in their contemporary language and easy to discern.

Your assertion that because they have trouble using the word consubstantial, they must also have a problem understanding the nature of the Eucharist, is flawed.

I understand consubstantial and the nature of the Eucharist, but I still had an easier time with the previous translation than the use of the word, “consubstantial.”

The problem is that “one in being with the Father” contains a subtle heresy and does not mean the same thing as “consubstantial with the Father” and that is why it had to change. The chair I am sitting in is “one in being with the Father” but it is not Jesus Christ. The Creed uses very precise language that has translated from Greek to Latin to English. The “filioque” is a heresy if said in Greek, so the Greek Creed never uses it at all. Do you not agree that it is important to avoid teaching heresy in the liturgy? Then what is wrong with using a precise term that defines exactly the terms we need?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Elizium

The chair I am sitting in is “one in being with the Father” but it is not Jesus Christ.

The chair you are sitting in, is not “one in BEING, with the father.” It’s and object, not a being.

Jesus is One in Being, with the Father, because there is only one Being, God, and Jesus is the 2nd Person of that one Being.

If anything, a better English translation should’ve been used, but as Bishop Trautman
stated, the new translation was slavishly done.

catholicreview.org/article/faith/bishop-criticizes-slavishly-literal-english-translation-of-missal

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Homoousion

(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Latin consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. (See ARIANISM)

Homoousion was indeed used by philosophical writers to signify “of the same or similar substance”; but as the unity of the Divine nature wasn’t questioned, the word carried the fuller meaning: “of one and the same substance”. However, not only is homos ambiguous; the word ousia itself was often taken as equivalent to hypostasis (person), as apparently is the case in the anathema attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of the identity of nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians, who denied the distinction of person.

It was only after many years of controversy that the two words acquired their distinct meanings, and the orthodox were able to describe the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan., “De dec. Syn. Nic.”, xxv, 26) and again in his letter to Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son “Heteroousion”.

The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, “of other or different ousia”. Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean “of the same of similar substance”. But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense “of the same substance or person”, and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression.

Now, if we may take Hilary’s explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers how the four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-Arians approached the Nicene Creed as nearly as possible without the actual word Homoousion, there may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to have been well advised in their conciliatory formula “that the Son was like the Father in all things, according to the Holy Writ”. But this very formula was forced from the Fathers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the Semi-Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius “the bond of faith”, or, according to the expression of Marius Victorinus, “the rampart and wall of orthodoxy.” (See ARIANISM; TRINITY.)

newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm

 

[gracepoole]

So, let me ask you the same question I asked 50 years ago. Is there an ideal period in the history of the English language (Old English, Middle English, Elizabethean English, etc.) which can be used as an English standard going forward? Any suggestions?

A “standard”? Three problems here: 1) The notion of a standard would presuppose that there’s some sort of platonic ideal that literature can get closer to or further away from – and of course aesthetics don’t work that way. While I might see one author as a master, you might think her or his writings aren’t up to snuff. 2) Literature reflects the time period in which it is written. Texts written during the French Revolution often contain the rebellious spirit of that time, while texts written during the Victorian age can be stuffy and evidence of the flowery aesthetic that was popular then. What encapsulates one period would not encapsulate another. 3) While some may dislike this quality of language, it evolves. Its evolution is actually one of its greatest strengths.

Short answer, then, is no.

 

[ProVobis]

A “standard”? Three problems here: 1) The notion of a standard would presuppose that there’s some sort of platonic ideal that literature can get closer to or further away from – and of course aesthetics don’t work that way. While I might see one author as a master, you might think her or his writings aren’t up to snuff. 2) Literature reflects the time period in which it is written. Texts written during the French Revolution often contain the rebellious spirit of that time, while texts written during the Victorian age can be stuffy and evidence of the flowery aesthetic that was popular then. What encapsulates one period would not encapsulate another. 3) While some may dislike this quality of language, it evolves. Its evolution is actually one of its greatest strengths.

Short answer, then, is no.

I remember a Julius Caesar paperback which was full of phrase and word “translations” into 1960 English. Maybe just like we had Latin-English (and the English was different from handmissal to handmissal) we should have (Mass) English - English for everyone to follow. One could then choose which handmissal is more understandable to him or her. As an example, old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-intro.shtml.

So much for tossing out handmissals altogether.

 

[Ohana]

Whoa, way off topic here. OP talked about a very poorly conducted poll among priests. It was not a trigger for a debate on translation accuracy. Mea culpa for contributing my mite to getting off topic.

 

[ProVobis]

Whoa, way off topic here. OP talked about a very poorly conducted poll among priests.

Perhaps someone should take another survey to find out how many agree with prior surveys. And so on and so on.

 

[GangGreen]

To me the new translations actually sound like the Latin (the Church’s official language) and are also more reflective of scripture. I don’t see why anyone would not like them unless they’re anti-Latin types.

 

[Lucky7]

Perhaps someone should take another survey to find out how many agree with prior surveys. And so on and so on.

Considering it was in the English language, perhaps it needs to be translated.

 

[ProVobis]

Considering it was in the English language, perhaps it needs to be translated.

and COPYRIGHTED.

 

[Ohana]

Again I say, the translation for the congregation is not difficult and was actually well received once we got through the “change” process. There were greater changes for the priests. . They seem to follow the book a lot closer now. It just sounds as if the survey was poorly done with too small a sample to be valid/reliable.

 

[ProVobis]

It just sounds as if the survey was poorly done with too small a sample to be valid/reliable.

So you’re saying 855 priests are insignificant?

Note that I’m indifferent as I don’t attend English Masses, regardless of the wording. I attend the Latin Mass primarily as I find the English language to be too barbaric. But since the 60’s I have found the process and motivations of these retranslations to be quite interesting.

 

[Ohana]

So you’re saying 855 priests are insignificant?

Note that I’m indifferent as I don’t attend English Masses, regardless of the wording. I attend the Latin Mass primarily as I find the English language to be too barbaric. But since the 60’s I have found the process and motivations of these retranslations to be quite interesting.

As a sample to draw a conclusion from, yes. Significant groups of priests were noted to be not included in the poll. This can lead to a serious poll bias - as in polling people only on Monday on their home phones or some such. Some groups who may have been much more in favor of the changes were not allowed to participate, a decision made at the diocese level. Still, would bias the outcome.

 

[ProVobis]

Still, would bias the outcome.

I know this. I studied actuarial science. The question itself biases any poll. Not to mention the questioner himself and the manner of polling. I’m sure one who wants change for the sake of change can find numbers somewhere out of 7 billion people to justify his position as well. I find it interesting though that we find ourselves more concerned with the OP accuracy of polls rather than accuracy of the translation in 2013 English.

 

[Ohana]

I know this. I studied actuarial science. The question itself biases any poll. Not to mention the questioner himself and the manner of polling. I’m sure one who wants change for the sake of change can find numbers somewhere out of 7 billion people to justify his position as well. I find it interesting though that we find ourselves more concerned with the OP accuracy of polls rather than accuracy of the translation in 2013 English.

I see. I thing the poll was the original question. I do not feel competent to comment on the accuracy of the translation. Perhaps that should be a separate thread for those with enough latin and depth of study of the Mass to comment. I would read it!

 

[gracepoole]

To me the new translations actually sound like the Latin (the Church’s official language) and are also more reflective of scripture. I don’t see why anyone would not like them unless they’re anti-Latin types.

I love Latin. I grew up studying it and went on to take four years of it in high school. But unless the Mass is being said in Latin, translation’s going to get messy. It’s an inaccurate assumption to claim that those who dislike the most current translation are “anti-Latin types.”

 

[RHWoodman]

Oh well. Nothing I can do about it. I know that my opinions are that of one person, one small brick in the foundation of a very large church. I can opine all I want in this forum, but nothing is going to change. Just venting I guess. Thanks for listening.

You’re quite welcome. Feel free to come here and vent anytime.