Why has 'Worship' been removed?
- Thread starter Nelka
- Start date
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
Adore is a theological term.
Adoration: Strictly speaking, an act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature’s dependence upon Him;
newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm
-Tim-
Adoration: Strictly speaking, an act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature’s dependence upon Him;
newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm
-Tim-
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
As TimothyH indicated, adoration is the more theologically precise term, since “worship” could technically refer to just about any kind of honor rendered to a “worthy” person.
Also “adore” is a Latinate word, “worship” Germanic, and the word being translated is “adorátur”. The choice for “adored” makes a lot of sense then.
Also “adore” is a Latinate word, “worship” Germanic, and the word being translated is “adorátur”. The choice for “adored” makes a lot of sense then.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
When was the “worship” word introduced into this Catholic document?
Was it part of the changes that took place after Vatican II, when so many other changes were also made … such as changing the “Domine, Non Sum Dignus”? or the “protestant” version of the Lord’s Prayer?
And are we now merely getting back to the original text/translation?
Was it part of the changes that took place after Vatican II, when so many other changes were also made … such as changing the “Domine, Non Sum Dignus”? or the “protestant” version of the Lord’s Prayer?
And are we now merely getting back to the original text/translation?
H
Heuchler
Guest
Yeah I find a lot of the changes to be arbritrary and an unneccessary complication. They have also changed “one in being with the Father” to “consubstantial with the Father” which means one in being with the Father.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Again, it’s a choice of Latinate over Germanic, thus bringing the Latin word into the English as much as possible. In this case the word in question is “consubstantiálem”.
And again, it’s a choice of a theologically precise word over a more colloquial word or phrase.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
The doxology at the end of the Lord’s prayer is hardly Protestant. It is very Catholic and is found in such early Church documents as the Didache. Just because the Protestants use it at the end of the prayer does not make objectionable to Catholics. It’s originally ours.
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
I think this change was pretty silly. “Worship” has multiple meanings, yes, but all the other ones are pretty archaic. On the other hand, people talk about “adorable” babies or animals all the time.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Yes, but liturgical language should reflect the more stable and literal meanings of words. Colloquialisms are more subject to change. We don’t want to have to go through this traumatic process of comprehensive liturgical revision every few decades.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Not to be a smart alleck, but because it is the accurate translation? 
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I had another thought on the word “consubstantial”.
It’s true that no one is likely to know the meaning of the word the first time they hear it. One needs to be educated in orthodox Christology to understand the word. The words “one in being” on the other hand are understood by anyone who knows English.
The thing is, “one in being” could be interpreted in any number of ways, orthodox or heretical. In order for the Catholic to know what the phrase means, he or she needs to be similarly educated in orthodox Christology, probably including an introduction to the word “consubstantial”.
The thing is, when someone hears the word “consubstantial” and doesn’t understand it, they know they don’t understand it and, if they care, they can go and find out what it means, which is a very definite Christian doctrine since the word itself was coined to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.
If, on the other hand, they hear “one in being” and don’t understand it, they may be more prone to subject the words to their own private interpretation, which may be lead to error. Thus there is a equal need for education with both phrases, but greater danger of error with “one in being.”
- Status