P
ProVobis
Guest
Sad to say, that’s beyond my comprehension.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Superstition? No more so than keeping math or physics symbols or musical notation, I would think.
For converting, I would agree that one probably needs some “training wheels” however.
D
Deo_Gratias42
Guest
It’s not at the seminaries in Canada.
Clerics are required to pray the LOTH in Latin and require special permission from their bishop to pray it in the vernacular.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Wait, so they don’t teach Latin in seminaries, but they require it of clerics who have graduated from these seminaries and they have to beg their bishop to get out of the requirement?
O
otjm
Guest
You seem to think that either something is perfectly translated - which you, yourself say is impossible - or that it is borderline heresy.
Rome seems to think otherwise, as it gives approval to translations.
Taken to its most illogical conclusion, no one could pray in any language other than Latin and truly “acquire perfection” - which interestingly leaves out the Apostles, and all of their disciples who spoke, prayed, and worshiped liturgically in their vernaculars - for several centuries.
Not to mention that Christ prayed in Aramaic and Hebrew…
QED
O
otjm
Guest
Oh, I suspect that long ago there were blanket permissions given. How long has it been - 50 years or so? Vatican 2 also appears to have intended that a significant part of the Mass would be said in Latin. that, too, changed.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I am sorry but one of the comments on this thread is in error…concerning an obligation to say the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin unless one obtained a permission to use the vernacular.
This has not been the case in decades. I have been saying the Divine Office since 1979 and it was not the case even then. I know of no Ordinary – at least in North America, Latin America, Europe or Africa – who expects his diocesan clergy to pray the breviary in Latin unless he has allowed them something else. The vernacular is simply normative.
It is true, as one commenter posted, that the original thought of the Council Fathers was for Latin to be normative for the LOTH and that Blessed Paul VI was even saddened that there was a move away from the Office in Latin. (I taught Sacrosanctum Concilium and the history of its implementation for years.)
However…the vast majority of the diocesan clergy pray the Office individually and, unless one has a truly exceptional background in Latin, it simply never is on par with one’s own native language. That is why there was a move away from Latin. There are, however, certainly those who choose to pray the Office in Latin.
Beyond the priests, non ordained Men, as well as Women, Religious recite the Office individually – but many also have some level of choral obligation – and the use of the vernacular is also easier for them as their formation typically includes far less study of Latin than is mandated for Priests. When I am on retreat with the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Passionists, the Benedictines, etc., and I join them for the Office, it is in the vernacular.
Of course, there are always exceptions. There are congregations, especially in monastic institutes, such as the monasteries under Solesmes, where the Office is in Latin. And there are the various communities existing under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. As they use the 1962 missal for Mass and the vetus ordo for the celebration of the other sacraments, they also employ the preconciliar breviaries which are, of course, in Latin.
As for the situation in Canada one comment relates…well, I can only say that the Canadian priests I have worked with had a good knowledge of Latin but they were Religious. If other communities and diocesan seminaries were not complying with the established minimum standard, they would not be fulfilling the directives originating with the Holy See.
The Program for Priestly Formation, fifth edition, states in Paragraph 189. “A knowledge of Latin and the biblical languages is foundational and should be given the emphasis that church teaching accords it. Particular attention must be given to ensure that before entering the theologate all seminarians can demonstrate that they have acquired that ‘knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and the documents of the Church,’ according to the insistence of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council,”
Finally, the term “members of institutes dedicated to acquiring perfection” is simply the formal and canonical expression for a person who belongs to some form of Religious Life or institute of Consecrated Life.
I hope all this is helpful.
This has not been the case in decades. I have been saying the Divine Office since 1979 and it was not the case even then. I know of no Ordinary – at least in North America, Latin America, Europe or Africa – who expects his diocesan clergy to pray the breviary in Latin unless he has allowed them something else. The vernacular is simply normative.
It is true, as one commenter posted, that the original thought of the Council Fathers was for Latin to be normative for the LOTH and that Blessed Paul VI was even saddened that there was a move away from the Office in Latin. (I taught Sacrosanctum Concilium and the history of its implementation for years.)
However…the vast majority of the diocesan clergy pray the Office individually and, unless one has a truly exceptional background in Latin, it simply never is on par with one’s own native language. That is why there was a move away from Latin. There are, however, certainly those who choose to pray the Office in Latin.
Beyond the priests, non ordained Men, as well as Women, Religious recite the Office individually – but many also have some level of choral obligation – and the use of the vernacular is also easier for them as their formation typically includes far less study of Latin than is mandated for Priests. When I am on retreat with the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Passionists, the Benedictines, etc., and I join them for the Office, it is in the vernacular.
Of course, there are always exceptions. There are congregations, especially in monastic institutes, such as the monasteries under Solesmes, where the Office is in Latin. And there are the various communities existing under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. As they use the 1962 missal for Mass and the vetus ordo for the celebration of the other sacraments, they also employ the preconciliar breviaries which are, of course, in Latin.
As for the situation in Canada one comment relates…well, I can only say that the Canadian priests I have worked with had a good knowledge of Latin but they were Religious. If other communities and diocesan seminaries were not complying with the established minimum standard, they would not be fulfilling the directives originating with the Holy See.
The Program for Priestly Formation, fifth edition, states in Paragraph 189. “A knowledge of Latin and the biblical languages is foundational and should be given the emphasis that church teaching accords it. Particular attention must be given to ensure that before entering the theologate all seminarians can demonstrate that they have acquired that ‘knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and the documents of the Church,’ according to the insistence of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council,”
Finally, the term “members of institutes dedicated to acquiring perfection” is simply the formal and canonical expression for a person who belongs to some form of Religious Life or institute of Consecrated Life.
I hope all this is helpful.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I am one of those that prays the breviary in Latin. I chant in a schola, and chanting the Hours helps keep me in tune. I also find that the Latin psalmody works kind of like a mantra to pull me out of the material world into the spiritual. But I also pray it in the vernacular. What I do is chant the psalm in Latin, then read it through in French (my mother tongue) in silence after chanting it. It works well and adds nice moments of silence to my prayer. Doing it that way and I stretch Lauds and Vespers out to 20-25 minutes on ordinary days.
The abbey I’m associated with is of the Solesmes congregation. They chant Lauds and Vespers in Latin Gregorian chant. The rest is chanted in French but with the Gregorian Latin hymn. Vigils and the minor hours recto-tono, and Compline in directum. The responsory and Marian antiphon at Compline are in Latin Gregorian chant. They use monastic Schema B, one of the fairly new post-Vatican II monastic schemas (from the mid-60s, designed by Dom Notker Fueglister). It prays all 150 psalms in a week. I sometimes use that schema when I have a bit more time on my hands, but usually I use the 4-week LOTH using Les Heures Grégoriennes for the day hours, and Liturgia Horarum and a home-made antiphonary (faithful to Ordo Cantus Officii) for the Office of Readings which I use as Vigils using a 2-year Monastic lectionary instead of the 1-year in LOTH.
But when I travel by car, as I did for the past week and a half, I just bring my French LOTH with me.
The abbey I’m associated with is of the Solesmes congregation. They chant Lauds and Vespers in Latin Gregorian chant. The rest is chanted in French but with the Gregorian Latin hymn. Vigils and the minor hours recto-tono, and Compline in directum. The responsory and Marian antiphon at Compline are in Latin Gregorian chant. They use monastic Schema B, one of the fairly new post-Vatican II monastic schemas (from the mid-60s, designed by Dom Notker Fueglister). It prays all 150 psalms in a week. I sometimes use that schema when I have a bit more time on my hands, but usually I use the 4-week LOTH using Les Heures Grégoriennes for the day hours, and Liturgia Horarum and a home-made antiphonary (faithful to Ordo Cantus Officii) for the Office of Readings which I use as Vigils using a 2-year Monastic lectionary instead of the 1-year in LOTH.
But when I travel by car, as I did for the past week and a half, I just bring my French LOTH with me.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know what’s in the mind of the translator. But you yourself have stated translations are more of an art than science, or something to that effect. One who wants everything in vernacular has to accept the chance of imperfections. Serious students of the Bible, of Italian operas, of Shakespeare, etc. know this, and that’s why they stick to the language that it was written in.
Thank you.
Hebrew was not considered a vernacular, was it?
.
D
Deo_Gratias42
Guest
Seminarians are required to be very proficient in Latin in order to be ordained. Unfortunately, many bishops neglect the proper education of seminarians. I don’t even know how many people are aware of this requirement anymore.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Don Ruggero has covered things well, but just two quick points:
- “institutes dedicated to acquiring perfection” is just that Vatican translator’s stab at “instituti status perfectionis” or “of an institute of a state of perfection”, which is an institute of consecrated life wherein perfection is pursued by means of the evangelical counsels. Not perfect translation, or plate spinning, or rug weaving.
- I did point out that the stricture of SC concerning Latin was short lived. It survived at least a year to the first document implementing the conciliar decree, Inter Oecumenici:
- In reciting the divine office in choir clerics are bound to retain the Latin language.
- The faculty granted the Ordinary to allow use of the vernacular in individual cases by those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a serious hindrance to fulfilling the obligation of the office is extended also to the major superiors of nonexempt, clerical religious institutes and of societies of common life.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Would these be the ICEL translations? We know what the Vatican thinks of them now.
C
Corki
Guest
Not exactly. Pope Benedict XVI instructed seminaries to include Latin again but that was just a few years ago. After Vatican II up to the point of the Holy Father’s instruction, Latin was not taught in all seminaries. Some, to be sure, but certainly not all.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Vatican II’s document on priestly training, Optatam totius, demanded that seminarians be equipped to use Latin:
- Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.
Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.
So the Church in the modern era has always - on paper - demanded that her priests have a useful grasp of Latin, even though she has not demanded that they put that skill to use within the liturgy. It likely is true that Latin was not taught in all seminaries, but that would have been in contravention of ecclesiastical law (a common phenomenon in the post-conciliar Church).
O
otjm
Guest
Okay, now it is “imperfections”.
I am not even sure that really reflects translations. Or rather, translators. I don’t know of any who say that there can be an absolute word for word translation, particularly where the word to be translated may have several shades of meaning, or even several meanings. Let’s take one - the translation of John 6 from the Greek to the Latin, and then to the vernacular of whatever language it is being translated to.
My recollection is that in the Greek, Christ uses a word, toward the end of His teaching, that roughly translates as “eat”; but is closer to a word (or in fact is a word) that is used for how animals may “eat” - a word that is closer to English “gnaw” or “chew”.
And in reading John 6, one can see that there is a progression, that the teaching becomes more intense, and (presuming that the commentary is correct), fitting that such a word would be used.
However, I don’t recall that the Latin translated it that way from the Greek; and certainly many, if not most translations of the Latin (presuming the Vulgate) don’t.
Are they “inaccurate”? I would not say so, and would not agree with you if you say so, as the word “eat” conveys the point Christ was teaching. It could be conveyed more graphically (probably to the dismay of my grade school sisters who taught religion, wherein we were taught that one absolutely should not chew the Host - as if chewing anything that wafer thin were even in the realm of possibility). But to say that “eat” is an imperfection in translation is at best laughable.
We “ate” the Host, but didn’t chew in the '50’s; and the Church since has appeared to move positively toward hosts which more clearly resemble bread than the translucent, and even almost transparent hosts we had 60 years ago.
Since it is likely you will not concede that translations are not inaccurate, and are full of “imperfections”, we should probably put this to rest.
It has been entirely too long since I took Homeric Greek, with some koinae (John’s Gospel). And only two years “less” long since I took Latin in college. So it is not like I have had no exposure, even granting the exposure was about 50 years ago.
The Apostles, and their followers, spread out through the world; and they managed to teach in Greek, as well as other languages - not all the world spoke Greek. And while Latin became the language of the western Church, it did not become the language of the eastern Church and the Church pretty much has managed to hang together (and yes, I am well aware of 1054). Furthermore, the Faith has been taught in the vernacular since the time of Christ. And the Church has managed reasonably well for 2000 years, without getting into a tailspin over “imperfections”.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I freelance as a translator (English<->French) to supplement my retirement income. It isn’t an exact science to be sure! It’s hard to capture nuances in a different language. It has to capture the meaning, reflect cultural bias, and be “readable” or “conversational” depending on the context (written or spoken). It’s easy to come across as sounding wooden in another language, and I think that’s one of the objections to the new English translation of the Missal.
“Qui manducat carnem meam”. Roughly “who eats my flesh”. Also the opening words of one of my favourite communion antiphons!
I doubt it, because the Church somehow maintained a common understanding of the Eucharist from the first Vulgate translation onwards, in spite of differences with the Greek.
The idea is to foster a common understanding of the Church and its sacraments as a pathway to salvation, which comes through inner conversion and not through meticulous adherence to detail. Whether it’s “for the multitudes” or “for all”, shouldn’t really matter all that much for our inner conversion. If it does, we’re focusing on the wrong things!
P
ProVobis
Guest
For the record, Jerome’s Vulgate was not the first Latin Bible. There had been an earlier Vetus Latina, the origins of which are mostly unknown. It could have very well been written by the Greeks themselves. However, the Latin language was later Christianized so that “gratia” would mean grace and “oratio” would mean prayer, among a lot of other words the Church uses today in the prayerful sense.
Perhaps, to the extent prayer can be total silence. But can one truly say “for multitudes” and “for all” have the same impact, if one is conscious of what’s being said?
D
DaveBj
Guest
Just to pick on this minor point, there is a big difference between “is taught to every seminarian” and “is being [adequately] learned by every seminarian.”
P
ProVobis
Guest
FWIW, I believe Cardinal Arinze referred to some of them as “iconoclasts.” It’s not like translators don’t have the power to change meanings for the unsuspecting listeners or readers. I learned much from my step brother who serves as a court translator and must tell you I cringe whenever I ask him about specific translations from Polish or another language into English. And these things go to a judge or jury which basis its judgements not on the testimony but on translations. Does that seem fair to you?
BTW, I’m not knocking my step brother because his abilties are rather impressive but he’s only carrying out standard practices. For example, he will translate most profanities into GDI, but that in itself can influence or prejudice juries in the wrong direction.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps, if you allow for the fact that one can “chew” without teeth, as probably many in the early days were forced to do.
But what seems to get the Anglophones more up in knots is how we translate “accipite.” (accipio, accipere, accepti, acceptus) Rather than translating to its cognate “accept,” we translate to “take” in the Mass but many insist on “receive.” I’ll never figure that one out.
- Status