L
livingwordunity
Guest
Where did you get that from?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Very nice, but why the modern English? Why not use the English translation used on the left page in older Missals, where the English is reverent and uses all the thous and thees?My first comment is to those that have said they agree the language of the Roman Missal 3rd Edition is “distracting”. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is extremely sacred, so should we be using the same, everyday language for it as we would use to order food at a restaurant or talk casually to a friend? The language is meant to be distinct and set-apart of course because the new translation is much more faithful to the original Latin, the language of the Church, but also to make us THINK about what we are saying and what we are doing. If we keep repeating the same responses at Mass without thinking about them we begin to loose our focus on the sacred Liturgy. So these big words such as consubstantial, are not a bad thing at all.
In my opinion if we ever re-translate the Roman Missal, we should return to the actual, ORIGINAL translation, which was the 1965 Missal, not the Mass of Paul VI. It was basically a literal translation of the Latin Missal with very few major changes, and it also retained the use of Latin for some parts. It is in my opinion a very beautiful Missal.
You can read the Order of the Mass here:
coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/nov/15/1965-missale-romanum-online/
Instead the only use of reverent English is in the Our Father. The rest is all you and yours.
Do the Anglican use parishes use the thees and thous?
I must confess that I am a former Anglican myself and when we used traditional English one knew that Mass was special. Not so with contemporary street English.
B
Brendan
Guest
No it didn’t. A great example was the ‘One in Being with the Father’. It was a claim of existence (to be), not of subtanceThe language should reflect what is taking place, which the previous translation in fact did.
Jim
That said nothing about the particular relationship that Christ has with the Father. ALL Existance come from God, it is impossible to have existence apart from the Father.
The grass on my lawn is “One in Being with the Father”.
But the front yard is of a separate Substance from the Father. So while my yard is one in being with the Father, it is not Consubstantial with the Father.
That is why the bishops settled on that particular word, because there is no more common word that shares the meaning that the Creed was looking to impart.
Did the bishops of Nicea really think that your average Roman and Greek used words like consubstantialis and homoousios in THEIR daily conversations? Somehow I doubt it, but they choose those words over more common terms for exactly the reason that they alone had the theological precision that the Council demanded.
Ignorance on the part of the laity is not a valid reason to not use the correct terms. And that was probably why +Trautman was voted down by his fellow bishops.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Brendan
Jim
“Being” means the existing God who is, not what is to be as you’re putting here.No it didn’t. A great example was the ‘One in Being with the Father’. It was a claim of existence (to be), not of subtance
Jim
P
pnewton
Guest
I sure hope they do not change it again. It was hard enough the first time. Of course the language is awkward, as would any literal translation be awkward. The tremendous gain of accuracy and precision are well worth it. I do not think people are as dumb as others do though. No, it is an SAT prep. It is much more important.
B
Brendan
Guest
That is not what the verb ‘to be’ means in English. Even in the Latin, sub (below, apart) = stare (to be). It is a state that is foundational to existence, but distinct from. So we cannot use the verb ‘to be’, since it does not convey the same concept. If the Bishops of Nicea had desired it to address the shared existence of God, they would not have chosen the prefix sub. Instead, they made a very specific claim as to the shared NATURE. And in doding so, they chose a term that was not in the common parlance of Latin at the time.Brendan
“Being” means the existing God who is, not what is to be as you’re putting here.
Jim
And our claim that ‘being’ addresses something OTHER than existance Unless you are claiming that the previous translation used it in a way that was not the common vernacular. If so, you just defeated your own premise.
I will grant you that the translation could have chosen “One in Nature”, or “One in Substance” and have been theologically accurate. “One is Being” is not
P
ProVobis
Guest
The older missals all had different English translations. I have several missals and can show you. (One 19th century missal actually had “consubstantial to the Father” in the Creed.) THERE HAD BEEN NO OFFICIAL TRANSLATIONS, such as the Anglicans had. I believe the English translation used in the 65 missal was that of St. Joseph; there were some problems with the propers though. Perhaps with the copyrights too.Very nice, but why the modern English? Why not use the English translation used on the left page in older Missals, where the English is reverent and uses all the thous and thees?
Should have listened to Veterum Sapientia.
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.
Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
You’re mixing apples and oranges. We’re not referring to the verb, 'to be," but the noun, Being.That is not what the verb ‘to be’ means in English. Even in the Latin, sub (below, apart) = stare (to be). It is a state that is foundational to existence, but distinct from. So we cannot use the verb ‘to be’, since it does not convey the same concept. If the Bishops of Nicea had desired it to address the shared existence of God, they would not have chosen the prefix sub. Instead, they made a very specific claim as to the shared NATURE. And in doding so, they chose a term that was not in the common parlance of Latin at the time.
And our claim that ‘being’ addresses something OTHER than existance Unless you are claiming that the previous translation used it in a way that was not the common vernacular. If so, you just defeated your own premise.
I will grant you that the translation could have chosen “One in Nature”, or “One in Substance” and have been theologically accurate. “One is Being” is not
be·ing
noun \ˈbē(-i)ŋ\
: a living thing
: the state of existing
: the most important or basic part of a person’s mind or self
He is one in the same “Being,” God who is.
However, I’m not an expert in linguistics, nor will I pretend to be, so I’ll leave that up to the experts, who did use the term, “one in being,”
Jim
A
andrewstx
Guest
I agree, Latin would be better than what we have now!The older missals all had different English translations. I have several missals and can show you. (One 19th century missal actually had “consubstantial to the Father” in the Creed.) THERE HAD BEEN NO OFFICIAL TRANSLATIONS, such as the Anglicans had. I believe the English translation used in the 65 missal was that of St. Joseph; there were some problems with the propers though. Perhaps with the copyrights too.
Should have listened to Veterum Sapientia.
F
Fransea
Guest
Question?
From what I have read the ‘original’ language was Greek until the split in 1098 when Greek lands were taken over in war. Wasn’t it then that Rome decided to make Latin the language of the church?
If this is correct, and we want the ‘original’, should we not go all the way back to speaking Greek? Since, other than Aramaic, Greek was the predominant.
From what I have read the ‘original’ language was Greek until the split in 1098 when Greek lands were taken over in war. Wasn’t it then that Rome decided to make Latin the language of the church?
If this is correct, and we want the ‘original’, should we not go all the way back to speaking Greek? Since, other than Aramaic, Greek was the predominant.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually the Church decided to do the liturgy in Latin (almost) exclusively by the 4th century in the West. In the Roman Empire documents were written and administrative acts had been conducted in (Classical) Latin since Cicero. I read where the Greeks actually wrote a lot of the Latin. There is evidence that the Roman Canon as we know as EP1 was written from scratch in Latin, not translated per se.From what I have read the ‘original’ language was Greek until the split in 1098 when Greek lands were taken over in war. Wasn’t it then that Rome decided to make Latin the language of the church?
If this is correct, and we want the ‘original’, should we not go all the way back to speaking Greek? Since, other than Aramaic, Greek was the predominant.
That said, if you want to do Greek or Aramaic and could provide the original text, I would support that. The Maronites, in fact, have the consecration in Syriac, which is a form of Aramaic, and it’s very beautiful.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It would be far worse. Been there done that.I agree, Latin would be better than what we have now!
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Isn’t the Mass of St John Chrysostom in Greek ?Actually the Church decided to do the liturgy in Latin (almost) exclusively by the 4th century in the West. In the Roman Empire documents were written and administrative acts had been conducted in (Classical) Latin since Cicero. I read where the Greeks actually wrote a lot of the Latin. There is evidence that the Roman Canon as we know as EP1 was written from scratch in Latin, not translated per se.
That said, if you want to do Greek or Aramaic and could provide the original text, I would support that. The Maronites, in fact, have the consecration in Syriac, which is a form of Aramaic, and it’s very beautiful.
Jim
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, but it’s in the Eastern Rite.Isn’t the Mass of St John Chrysostom in Greek ?
Jim
E
estesbob
Guest
Nothing is missing for those who concentrate on what is being done, not how it is being said.Anglican use is 100% Catholic and more like the tridentine mass…i apologize for my previous post. If gets so discouraging sometimes that the sense that something extraordinarily Holy is happening at the altar is missing sometimes from our current liturgy
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good argument that could have been used before they went vernacular and started translation wars in the first place.Nothing is missing for those who concentrate on what is being done, not how it is being said.
English is always changing though. No one can read Chaucer and Shakespeare isn’t easy. Today’s kids know only one meaning of “gay.” Not only is it changing but it’s spoken differently in the U.K. and other places. It’s ironic that in attempting to understand the Latin we end up not understanding one another in the English.It would be far worse. Been there done that.
Jim
Personally I think the problem was that Latin hadn’t been taught properly. It shouldn’t have been such an effort for Catholics to learn the language of the Church.
.
G
GangGreen
Guest
Exactly, the Roman Rite has been in Latin since at least the 4th century. Too many bring up all of the other Rites way too often that 99% of us don’t belong to.Yes, but it’s in the Eastern Rite.
The cure to the ails of the people not understanding Latin would have been education. Teach the people Latin, teach people the Mass, teach people what every single movement and section means, teach, teach, teach. That’s what Vatican II also called for.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Latin use in the Mass was the vernacular for most of Europe at that time.Exactly, the Roman Rite has been in Latin since at least the 4th century. Too many bring up all of the other Rites way too often that 99% of us don’t belong to.
The cure to the ails of the people not understanding Latin would have been education. Teach the people Latin, teach people the Mass, teach people what every single movement and section means, teach, teach, teach. That’s what Vatican II also called for.
Why not Greek ?
Because the Church wanted a Mass that the people could understand without great amounts of instruction.
The use of Latin today would exclude too many people, who are not intellectually equipped to learn Latin,.
As Vatican II stated, the language used should be easily understood without much explanation.
Jim
G
GangGreen
Guest
As Vatican II states:Latin use in the Mass was the vernacular for most of Europe at that time.
Why not Greek ?
Because the Church wanted a Mass that the people could understand without great amounts of instruction.
The use of Latin today would exclude too many people, who are not intellectually equipped to learn Latin,.
As Vatican II stated, the language used should be easily understood without much explanation.
Jim
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
- But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Nowhere does this say that making them understand with ease = vernacular. Nor does it even speak of language.
Why not Greek? Well, how about the fact that a large portion of the prayers in the Roman Rite (you know, the one where the vast majority of Catholics belong to) of the Mass were written in Latin. Centuries of music was **written **in Latin. The entire Rite is based on Latin. Are we going to abandon the tradition of the Roman Rite and take up one of the Eastern Rites now? If we’re keeping the Roman Rite which is completely based on the Latin language and translating it into Greek, then we’ll just have more problems.
Also, if we want to start talking about people having a difficulty learning Latin… there are a whole lot of languages in the world that are based on Latin words and its alphabet. I’m not sure if there are any Greek based languages.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually Vulgar Latin was the vernacular for most of Europe. I don’t think the average Roman would have understood what a 3rd conjugation pluperfect was. Classical (or later Church) Latin was never street language.Latin use in the Mass was the vernacular for most of Europe at that time.
The rubrics/actions within the Mass were theoretically all one needed. Also that I.N.R.I. on the crucifix. Besides even in the vernacular one obviously needs explanation.Because the Church wanted a Mass that the people could understand without great amounts of instruction.
Again, it’s the way Latin had been taught. If people can accept “E Pluribus Unum,” why can’t they accept “Et cum spiritu tuo.”?The use of Latin today would exclude too many people, who are not intellectually equipped to learn Latin,.
And they’re still looking for that ideal language. It’s actually a fact that Vatican II commanded Latin to be retained in the Latin rite.As Vatican II stated, the language used should be easily understood without much explanation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.