Why a "dead" language?

[brotherhrolf]

I’m hardly ignorant on the matter. I personally own an altar size Roman Missal, and I’ve spent a lot of time looking at it. And to be candid, the ones that seem foolish to me are the ones that keep carping for things the way they were 40 years ago.

Sorry

Were you alive 40 years ago? Did you have your “roots” ripped out and thrown away? Did you have a say in it? Did you experience the wrenching change of the transistion from the TLM to the NO? The “less than two year period” in which it was announced from the pulpit that we will no longer chant the Gloria…it will be in English and that same Gloria is not the one we use today?

Tell me. I was a teenager during the period and in a Catholic high school. Do you honestly believe that ALL of us embraced what happened with open arms? Sorry, I’ve waited forty years for an end to what in many cases is a nightmare. I’m not carping. I had my roots ripped out in 68. Carping? See how you would feel if the NO was abrogated and we went back to the TLM. Forty years from now we would have folks waxing poetic about On Eagles Wings.

 

[japhy]

…we will no longer chant the Gloria…it will be in English and that same Gloria is not the one we use today?

Here’s what the US bishops said about the Gloria (Music in Catholic Worship, n. 66):
This ancient hymn of praise is now given in a new poetic and singable translation. It may be introduced by celebrant, cantor, or choir. The restricted use of the Gloria, i.e., only on Sundays outside Advent and Lent and on solemnities and feasts, emphasizes its special and solemn character. The new text offers many opportunities for alternation of choir and people in poetic parallelisms. The “Glory to God” also provides an opportunity for the choir to sing alone on festive occasions.
Already, in 1972, the bishops were fawning over the (poor) English translation of the Gloria (which would prove not good enough, since many composers have seen fit to alter its wording even further to fit their melody); you’d think the Latin Gloria was unsingable and not conducive to “alternation of choir and people”.

See how you would feel if the NO was abrogated and we went back to the TLM.

You can’t get rid of the N.O.! It’s 40 years old! It’s tradition!

 

[brotherhrolf]

EEECH! The Gloria was one of the first things to go. “Peace to men of good will” is not the same as “peace to his people on earth” or the other translation before the NO was solidified.

 

[EasterJoy]

EEECH! The Gloria was one of the first things to go. “Peace to men of good will” is not the same as “peace to his people on earth” or the other translation before the NO was solidified.

Was this a "that’s not what it says, that’s what, and it should say what it says!" kind of EEECH!, or is more being implied? Which part of the circle containing “Men of Good Will” and the circle containing “His People on Earth” don’t overlap on the Venn diagram? Are you concerned that the one translation is leaving someone out, is that the problem?

Who is being left out that shouldn’t be, or not left out that should be, and why? You can’t be concerned that the Heavenly Router is going to rain peace on the wrong people, so is the catechisis sloppy, or what?

 

[japhy]

You can’t be concerned that the Heavenly Router is going to rain peace on the wrong people, so is the catechisis sloppy, or what?

Well, if “His people on earth” is probably a wider scope than “men of good will”, since, at the time of Christ’s birth, the Pharisees, as Jews and members of Israel, would consider themselves “God’s people” for sure… but it is evident they were not of “good will”. (This is just me trying to explain the situation… I don’t know the official stance on the matter. My argument is that it is sloppy catechesis.)

It’s also just not a good translation of et in terra, pax hominibus bonae voluntatis (Luke 2:14b), which leads one to wonder why they couldn’t translate it more closely, considering the other parts of Mass that are translated better. I’m curious if the ICEL never heard the Gloria Missa de Angelis, since the US Bishops tout the English Gloria as “now a new poetic and singable translation”.

 

[agr4028]

How many years back is acceptable to ask things to be? 5? 10? 20? 40? “1900”, perhaps?

.

Isn’t our journey of faith a “forward” one?

 

[brotherhrolf]

Was this a "that’s not what it says, that’s what, and it should say what it says!" kind of EEECH!, or is more being implied? Which part of the circle containing “Men of Good Will” and the circle containing “His People on Earth” don’t overlap on the Venn diagram? Are you concerned that the one translation is leaving someone out, is that the problem?

Who is being left out that shouldn’t be, or not left out that should be, and why? You can’t be concerned that the Heavenly Router is going to rain peace on the wrong people, so is the catechisis sloppy, or what?

It was an EEECH in reference to the fact that the correct translation of the Gloria “men of good will” was the translation used when we were transitioning to the NO. The Gloria was changed to the current His people on Earth after the NO was implemented. Besides - which is more inclusive “men of good will” (OK, granted it’s not PC) which would include all humankind of good will or His people on earth - which would limit it to just Christians?

 

[agr4028]

It was an EEECH in reference to the fact that the correct translation of the Gloria “men of good will” was the translation used when we were transitioning to the NO. The Gloria was changed to the current His people on Earth after the NO was implemented. Besides - which is more inclusive “men of good will” (OK, granted it’s not PC) which would include all humankind of good will or His people on earth - which would limit it to just Christians?

But, aren’t we all “his people” unless we choose otherwise by how we live?

 

[Crumpy]

We can probably all agree, that our purpose on this earth is to seek eternal life with God after this tour is done.

That being said, why would we want to pursue the most important purpose for our existience, by adhering to a dead, foreign language to do so?

Does it not make more sense, to evangelize the nations in their native tongues? Is that not what the Holy Spirit provided to the Apostles?

Until 20 or 30 years ago, the word “gay” meant something different than it does today. All modern languages are very dynamic and changing.

A “dead” language is one that is not spoken routinely by any living population so it is not undergoing the changes in meaning that modern languages do.

A friend of mine who was raised speaking Greek cannot understand ‘church’ Greek, because the language has changed so much. And, that’s really significant, because, as I understand it, the NT was written in the Greek language that was very common. That’s what helped it spread so quickly in the early church.

But, that’s your point, too, that is why we need the gospel in modern languages.

There are many more protestants than Catholics who study Greek and Hebrew and even Aramaic. There’s only one population in the MIddle East who still speaks Aramaic, which Jesus spoke.

What’s really interesting and spooky at the same time, is that the NT says things that would be almost impossible to say in Aramaic (or so I’ve heard). Even back then, there were liberties taken with the translation, and so we get conceptual paraphrasing even in the NT.

Something is always lost.

The OT has at least four names for God, but they get boiled down to God or LORD in English. Is that progress?

 

[japhy]

Isn’t our journey of faith a “forward” one?

The point of my comment was that there was this belief that the liturgical reforms following Vatican II were “restoring” our liturgy to what it once was (some “golden age” of the Church)… if it’s silly for us today to want things to be the way they were 40 years ago, isn’t it silly for us to want them to be the way they were 1900 years ago?

And if our journey is forward one, forward from what? Shall we go burning our bridges behind us? Do we take anything with us? I really don’t understand where you’re going with your line of reasoning here. Please make your point and be done with it.

 

[agr4028]

The point of my comment was that there was this belief that the liturgical reforms following Vatican II were “restoring” our liturgy to what it once was (some “golden age” of the Church)… if it’s silly for us today to want things to be the way they were 40 years ago, isn’t it silly for us to want them to be the way they were 1900 years ago?

And if our journey is forward one, forward from what? Shall we go burning our bridges behind us? Do we take anything with us? I really don’t understand where you’re going with your line of reasoning here. Please make your point and be done with it.

My point is, our Church is based on Tradition and Scripture, but has moved forward and changed over the centuries as well. All things have NOT stayed the same since the days of Peter.

So, moving forward and changing with time isn’t going to cause the destruction of the Church, as some would imply.

 

[Freshman88]

My point is, our Church is based on Tradition and Scripture, but has moved forward and changed over the centuries as well. All things have NOT stayed the same since the days of Peter.

So, moving forward and changing with time isn’t going to cause the destruction of the Church, as some would imply.

As long as its organic growth.

 

[agr4028]

As long as its organic growth.

touche`

 

[EasterJoy]

The OT has at least four names for God, but they get boiled down to God or LORD in English. Is that progress?

Do you mean names that Jews would not translate as “Adonai”?

 

[EasterJoy]

It was an EEECH in reference to the fact that the correct translation of the Gloria “men of good will” was the translation used when we were transitioning to the NO. The Gloria was changed to the current His people on Earth after the NO was implemented. Besides - which is more inclusive “men of good will” (OK, granted it’s not PC) which would include all humankind of good will or His people on earth - which would limit it to just Christians?

“I’m sure that’s a very nice prayer, but this is the part in the Mass where we sing the Gloria, and THAT IS NOT THE GLORIA ANY MORE!” is an OK reason for me.

Forgive me for presuming to have an opinion on what makes your blood pressure rise, but that does rate an EEECH!

 

[Lapell]

Yes, I find it bad, and so does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (formerly the Sacred Congregation of Rites). From Wikipedia’s French edition (on the History of the Roman Rite):
En mars 2001, la Sacrée Congrégation des Rites a publié la 5e instruction pour une correcte application de la réforme liturgique, « Liturgiam authenticam » : dans ce texte, le Vatican demande de revoir les traductions de la liturgie : « il est nécessaire que le texte original ou primitif soit, autant que possible, traduit intégralement et très précisément, c’est-à-dire sans omission ni ajout, par rapport au contenu, ni en introduisant des paraphrases ou des gloses »(n°20).

Les règles sur la supervision et la conformité de la traduction ayant été rendues plus strictes, les abus dénoncés par ces critiques ne seraient effectivement plus possibles. L’échéance pour la réalisation de ces corrections était de 5 ans après la publication de l’instruction soit mars 2006. Si les corrections des traductions anglophones ont été soumises à Rome, les traductions francophones en cours ne sont toujours pas achevées : « La règle est … le missel de Paul VI, actuellement dans la version publiée en 2002 en latin, et qui est en cours de traduction en français, ce qui prend du temps, car c’est un travail très important. », ce qui paraît alimenter la méfiance des traditionalistes.
As you readily admit, the French people say something rather different than the Latin text demands. It’s not that what you say is bad, but rather that it is not what the Church teaches us to say at that time; for example, I like that the priest mentions that the sacrifice is that of “the whole Church”! But still, the French translation does no justice to the official Latin text.

1. The Latin text gives us direction for our prayer: “that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father”. The French does not.
2. The Latin text is an invitation to the faithful to pray. The French is a “we” prayer.
3. The Latin text says “for the praise and glory of His name, for our good, and for the good of all His Holy Church”. The French simply mentions “the glory of God and the salvation of the world”.

Again, it’s not that the French text is bad text, it’s that it’s the wrong text. (It could, conceivably, be bad text, but I don’t perceive it as such.)

O.K. Japhy, I think I understand more what you mean. I was replying to the “Bleigh” remark…
But… why does the English Mass use the “we” instead of “my (…) and yours” ? Is it considered proper?

 

[japhy]

O.K. Japhy, I think I understand more what you mean. I was replying to the “Bleigh” remark…

My “blegh” was because the French “translation” is not much of a translation at all, and entirely omits portions of the Latin.

But… why does the English Mass use the “we” instead of “my (…) and yours” ? Is it considered proper?

Because the ICEL translated it that way, and Rome approved of it in 1985. The same poor translation renders et cum spiritu tuo as “and also with you”… although the French, German, Spanish, and Italian translations accurately translate spiritu. There are other defects in the translation.

Things have changed since then, however, and I would not be surprised if the English translation of the 2002 Missal is more literal here. It will, at the very least, include the word “Holy” in “for all His Holy Church”.

 

[Scott_D]

My “blegh” was because the French “translation” is not much of a translation at all, and entirely omits portions of the Latin.

Because the ICEL translated it that way, and Rome approved of it in 1985. The same poor translation renders et cum spiritu tuo as “and also with you”… although the French, German, Spanish, and Italian translations accurately translate spiritu. There are other defects in the translation.

Things have changed since then, however, and I would not be surprised if the English translation of the 2002 Missal is more literal here. It will, at the very least, include the word “Holy” in “for all His Holy Church”.

Thank you Japhy. I said much earlier in this thread that I’ve struggled with the purpose of the mass in Latin. However, when I think of the abuses which have gone on I see the wisdom to at least a partial restoration of Latin. Although one priest I talked to doesn’t think it will happen in our lifetime. The Gloria discussion helped to convinced me. I don’t know if your parish plays the Gloria with the handclaps, but you have to hear it to believe how trite it sounds. It sounds like the music which is played on Barney. Then I think of the days when I heard it at a Tridentine Mass. It really puts the Glory in Gloria and lifts one up. You also don’t even hear of the Mass being referred to as a sacrafice anymore. When my wife and send off our kids(we have 6) to CCD to be trained for first communion, we have to beef up their education considerably because Mass is only called a “community meal.”

I believe that eventually, Pope Benedict will decide matters justly.

 

[japhy]

Thank you Japhy. I said much earlier in this thread that I’ve struggled with the purpose of the mass in Latin. However, when I think of the abuses which have gone on I see the wisdom to at least a partial restoration of Latin.

(You’re welcome.)

One reason the Church retains Latin is that “it has long since been enriched with a vocabulary of appropriate and unequivocal terms, best calculated to safeguard the integrity of the Catholic faith”. (Veterum Sapientia, Provision 5) And that, I think, is linked to this translation issue: when we poorly translate from Latin into another language, the person who only knows of the poor translation only has a poor understanding of the truths of the faith. One example is the Creed: “By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man” could be understood as saying he was not man until his birth (which undermines Catholic doctrine that human life begins at the moment of conception). A better translation is “And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man.”

Simply put, incarnatus does not mean “born”, it means “incarnate”.