The Mass Revision

[ProVobis]

For example, “consubstantial” is meaningless, unless one already knows what that word means.

Would you believe they actually had this in a 1867 Latin-English handmissal? Even the handmissal translations varied from one to the next (some had “being of one substance” but the divine nature wasn’t quite clear there either) but these were acceptable because they were for personal use only.

 

[MarkThompson]

Reading my mind now, are you? I never claimed to a single thing about the 1973 translation of the Prayer over the Gifts,so how do you know what I think about the 1973 translation? Your jabbing remark was mistaken. This type of logical error is why I do use posters here to have a better grasp on the liturgy than our bishops.

Not “reading your mind” – if you thought the first prayer I demonstrated was so outlandish or such an outlier that it had to be a “misprint,” then you clearly are very unfamiliar with the issues surrounding the 1973 translation. What you see above is utterly par for the course.

The thing is, I actually prefer the more literal translations, though I recognize their shortcomings. For example, “consubstantial” is meaningless, unless one already knows what that word means. I do not think I have ever read it in a novel or seen it in print.

Ironically, the Latin term that is being translated, “consubstantialis,” is not an authentic Latin word either. It was invented for the purpose of translating the Greek word (“homoousios”) used in the creed as the Council of Nicaea passed it.

 

[yablabo]

Indeed, you are both wrong. The 1973 translation is packed with places (e.g., “And also with you”) where what you see is a deliberate choice to rewrite the original, not “errors,” as though the translators simply goofed and the editor failed to catch the blunder. On the other hand, we were given in many places rewritings of the original, not “translations” of any sort, be it dynamic or literal.

Hi, Mr. Thompson,

I fear you have misunderstood to what I am referring with the term “error.” I am not talking about the individual erring in translation, but rather that the result of the translation, by whatever motive, is doctrinal error in some cases.

– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

Yes, it is. That is the difference between equivalent and equal. You may not agree, but one can’t deny that at least somewhere, some educated translators thought it an acceptable equivalency. No, I will not buy into Mark’s conspiratorial assigning of motive, either, though considering how he worded his first sentence, I believe my signature to be applicable.

Hi, pnewton,

There is only a dynamic equivalent in the case that the same sense or meaning is present in the resultant words. The word consubstantial has a very specific meaning that is lost in the “rendering” “one in being.” And…I am at a loss at how anyone could say that to take a sense in Latin and omit it completely in the 1973 translation in English is any sort of equivalency (as in the case of the Gloria) whether literal or dynamic.

Equivalency is a greater concept than that of equality, but it contains the concept of equality…and therefore, if it transgresses the concept of equality, it can’t possibly be an equivalency. Equality is the condition of being interchangeable, as in, one to one. Equivalency is the condition of two beings which are worth the same, and therefore interchangeable in that sense.

– Nicole

 

[pnewton]

Hi, pnewton,

There is only a dynamic equivalent in the case that the same sense or meaning is present in the resultant words. The word consubstantial has a very specific meaning that is lost in the “rendering” “one in being.” And…I am at a loss at how anyone could say that to take a sense in Latin and omit it completely in the 1973 translation in English is any sort of equivalency (as in the case of the Gloria) whether literal or dynamic.

Interesting opinion. I happen to thing that it is fairly equivalent. After all what is the “substance” that makes God? I is not air, gas or mashed potatoes. Rather it is being itself. That is why his name is “I AM”. It is this name that Jesus took on that caused the Jews to try and stone him.

 

[ProVobis]

The term is also used to describe the common humanity which is shared by all human persons. Thus, Jesus Christ is said to be consubstantial with the Father in his divinity and consubstantial with “us” in his humanity. This term was canonized by the Catholic Church in 325 at the council of Nicaea.

It has also been noted that this Greek term “homoousian” or “consubstantial”, which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, and was ratified in the Nicene Council and Creed, was actually a term reported to also be used and favored by the Sabellians in their Christology. And it was a term that many followers of Athanasius were actually uneasy about. And the “Semi-Arians”, in particular, objected to the word “homoousian”. Their objection to this term was that it was considered to be un-Scriptural, suspicious, and “of a Sabellian tendency.”[1] This was because Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be “one substance.” Meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and Son were “one essential Person.” This notion, however, was also rejected at the Council of Nicaea, in favor of the Athanasian formulation and creed, of the Father and Son **being distinct **yet also co-equal, co-eternal, and con-substantial Persons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality

 

[yablabo]

Interesting opinion. I happen to thing that it is fairly equivalent. After all what is the “substance” that makes God? I is not air, gas or mashed potatoes. Rather it is being itself. That is why his name is “I AM”. It is this name that Jesus took on that caused the Jews to try and stone him.

Opinion is a different formation of the intellect than belief and knowledge. I do not have an opinion regarding consubstantiality, but rather a belief and knowledge.

God’s substance is not being. Being is the essence of God. Essence is the “whatness” or quiddity, that is, the explicit answer to what a being is or what it is for. God is to exist.

However, when one discusses substance, one is speaking of a different aspect, though not a division in God. Substance, in reference to beings is basically the most fundamental identifier, that which stands below all the rest of the being, so to speak. In the case of an animal, the substance would be bodily sentience. In the case of a man the substance would be spiritual and bodily sentience. In the case of an angel, the substance would be spiritual. In the case of God, the substance would be divinely spiritual. This, substance (Greek “ousias;” Latin “substantia”), is not used here in the same sense as the word hypostasis (Greek “hypostaseos”), which is used to denote the three subsistences or persons in the Holy Trinity, but rather one nature which is proper to both the Father and the Son denoted by the term consubstantial (Greek “homoousion;” Latin “unius substantiae”).

When one looks at the essential aspect of God, his being/existence, it’s obvious that is one.

That does not mean to say God is “one in being” is necessarily error. It is to say, though, that “one in being” is not equivalent to the concept of consubstantial, and to say that one is a dynamic equivalent of the other is error.

– Nicole

 

[pnewton]

Opinion is a different formation of the intellect than belief and knowledge. I do not have an opinion regarding consubstantiality, but rather a belief and knowledge.

That is why I have my signature. Like I said earlier, at least some in the Church see this differently, hence the 1973 translation. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am not dissuaded that it is still an opinion. By the way, this is not my thinking. It is something I gleaned from Kreeft.

 

[fall_fox]

The only change I would be excited about, would be the change back to the traditional mass

You know, when the mass changed from Latin, I thought I wouldn’t like the change. I’m pretty conservative when it comes to the Catholic Church. After some time had past we went to a latin mass and I realized that I prefered the mass in English. I feel that I’m more a part of the mass now. I started serving mass in 1954, it was never required for us to understand what we were saying only to say it properly. I have wondered at times if the priests really understood word for word, what they were saying. A priest friend told me that he flunked Latin. Those guys are the same as we are, and when 100% of the priests were to say the Latin mass back then, it makes me wonder. I do enjoy singing or just hearing the old Latin songs, but I like knowing what I am saying or singing. No, I can’t go back.
The main thing I want my Parish to do is to abide by all the rules that come from the Vatican. We have some trouble there.

 

[ProVobis]

The main thing I want my Parish to do is to abide by all the rules that come from the Vatican. We have some trouble there.

Actually when it comes to the vernacular it is the bishop, or rather the bishops in that country, who decide the limitations and wording of the translations. The Vatican promulgates liturgies in Latin but recently has had to step in and force the correction of some of the translations, though it’s important to realize no translation can be perfect and can pick up all of the codified Latin nuances.

A priest friend told me that he flunked Latin.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[ProVobis]

I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am not dissuaded that it is still an opinion.

But aren’t all translations opinions, or in this case, a consensus of opinions? And as these “opinions” change due to changing meanings in a vernacular (the word “gay” as an example), technically aren’t all translations dynamic (as opposed to static)?

 

[pnewton]

But aren’t all translations opinions, or in this case, a consensus of opinions? And as these “opinions” change due to changing meanings in a vernacular (the word “gay” as an example), technically aren’t all translations dynamic (as opposed to static)?

Most of the time I think you are right. Language is always dynamic. Latin is almost an exception. As I understand it, the language still changes with the time, just very slowly. English compared to Latin is rather fluid. Some translations, like the new Mass revision, are very literal, in other words, trying to use one to one correspondance, as much as possible. The result is stilted language and confusing phrases. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. It may prove to be the springboard for a new catechisis.

 

[centurionguard]

Most of the time I think you are right. Language is always dynamic. Latin is almost an exception. As I understand it, the language still changes with the time, just very slowly. English compared to Latin is rather fluid. Some translations, like the new Mass revision, are very literal, in other words, trying to use one to one correspondence, as much as possible. The result is stilted language and confusing phrases. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. It may prove to be the springboard for a new catechisis.

English compared to Latin is rather fluid.

Guess I’m lost somewhere in fluidic space seeing how in Canada got stuck with the badly translated NRSV inclusive language liturgy readings. Its as awful as it gets.

However; its not easy translating one vernacular into another and get the same precise meaning. Being bilingual I see this very much when speaking French and English.

Latin into English presents its own problems when translating on most accurate terms.
The Catholic Church has drifted noticeably in English language from the original Douay Rheims English into the more modern language customs and slang language usage of today’s English speaking people. One can’t help but see differences in translation in Scripture even if there are some who claim its only marginal.

Inclusive language is anything but fluid

Peace
Chris

 

[pnewton]

Inclusive language is anything but fluid

Gender neutral language is one area that is most fluid. Like it or not, there is far less use of words like spokesman (spokesperson), postman (postal worker), etc. When referring to people, it is totally correct and accurate to translate words like Man as humanity.

If you are referring to gender neutral language for God, that is a theological problem, as opposed to a linguistic issue.

 

[ProVobis]

Guess I’m lost somewhere in fluidic space seeing how in Canada got stuck with the badly translated NRSV inclusive language liturgy readings. Its as awful as it gets.

However; its not easy translating one vernacular into another and get the same precise meaning. Being bilingual I see this very much when speaking French and English.

Latin into English presents its own problems when translating on most accurate terms.
The Catholic Church has drifted noticeably in English language from the original Douay Rheims English into the more modern language customs and slang language usage of today’s English speaking people. One can’t help but see differences in translation in Scripture even if there are some who claim its only marginal.

Inclusive language is anything but fluid

Peace
Chris

I think anyone who is cradle bilingual or trilingual will fully agree with your assessment. I used to translate Polish to English when I worked in the laboratories at the Dental Association and found after a while it was tough to find common terms. The thought flow is different for one thing. I needed to cut a lot of corners in order to properly communicate the idea, sometimes having to reparaphrase and hope each side understood correctly. A simple (1-1) translation just doesn’t exist between languages, even in computer languages, where I was fluent in several. While in mathematics it is possible to translate between, say, rectangular and spherical co-ordinates, a simple equation in one is overly and needlessly cumbersome in the other. Thus there is no question as to which system to use going forward and which one will work better in the long-run for all concerned.

 

[fall_fox]

Sorry to hear that.

He was ordained after the Mass was in English.

 

[mirandajb]

Can’t wait to see what is in store and how it will impact the youth…I used to serve Mass in Latin when I was a kid.

Joe Miranda