tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post3805051731676001606..comments2023-06-01T09:22:18.917+01:00Comments on Liturgiae Causa: New Sunday...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-70442333727001826732011-09-12T22:56:54.911+01:002011-09-12T22:56:54.911+01:00The "Douai Rheims" that is commonly used...The "Douai Rheims" that is commonly used is the Chancellor revised version and more similar to the KJV. The traditional DR is almost impossible to buy but you can read it online here: http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/etext/bie-idx?type=header&bible=Rheims%20DouaiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-72459470493963134792011-09-07T19:19:35.776+01:002011-09-07T19:19:35.776+01:00Dale, that IS interesting, and I had not forgotten...Dale, that IS interesting, and I had not forgotten it. It would be interesting to know when that variation crept into the Sarum and other mediaeval local Uses.<br /><br />JM, I have heard of heretical ''Trinitarian'' formulae. Wasn't one French priest put under interdict for baptising in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, or something? <br /><br />Even so, we don't use inclusive language on Liturgiae Causa. Neither do we use kilometres and metres, which many of you may find strange for someone of my generation.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-55473038936351589492011-09-07T18:52:59.205+01:002011-09-07T18:52:59.205+01:00It is interesting to note that the Sarum mass cont...It is interesting to note that the Sarum mass contains the following for the "Orate": "Orate, fratres et sorores..."Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431501238259860462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-72536941308564483952011-09-07T17:51:43.630+01:002011-09-07T17:51:43.630+01:00Patricius: It [inclusive language] is an unwholeso...Patricius: <i>It</i> [inclusive language] <i>is an unwholesome veneer imposed on the translation and inspired by principles inimical to Christianity. That is the chief danger.</i> (my brackets)<br /><br />There are different types of inclusive language. The translation of <i>hominibus</i> as "people" is not theologically problematic and entirely orthodox. Yes, it could lead to heresy if "horizontal inclusion" is deceptively conflated with "vertical inclusion". When taken alone it is not a problem.<br /><br />The Gloria is a post-Constantinian composition introduced to the West at the very end of the late antique age. The high visibility of women in congregations and Christian life at this point suggests "persons" (or "people") as an accurate translation. Given the composite of early institutional Christianity, <i>viribus</i> would be strange.<br /><br />What we need to be afraid of is "Father-Mother", "Son-Sophia", and the like. None of these have scriptural, patristic, scholastic, or systematic precedent. I've heard a few groovy (and inherently heretical) "alternative" Trinitarian formulae in my time, such as "Creator God, The Christ, and Life-Giving Spirit." I suspect you would have an aneurysm if you ever heard that. This is where the real issues of inclusive language lie, and not the translation of <b>ἀδελφοί</b>/<i>fratres</i> as "brothers and sisters". <br /><br />Do I prefer that "orate fratres ..." be translated and prayed as "pray brethren ..." Heck, I would prefer that we used the BCP translations for the Mass ordinary. Still, sometimes it's better to give a bit of ground on inclusive language for humankind, rather than let heresy creep by.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-35665096735525569782011-09-07T16:57:48.657+01:002011-09-07T16:57:48.657+01:00"...homo in the Gloria is gender-inclusive.&q..."...<i>homo</i> in the <i>Gloria</i> is gender-inclusive."<br />So is "men".<br />And what do you think of "mortals", which now appears in many liturgical texts? Perhaps the liturgists have been reading <i>The Pink Fairy Book</i>.Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-2987047882948254292011-09-06T19:24:15.529+01:002011-09-06T19:24:15.529+01:00Forgive the delay in response but blogger wouldn&#...Forgive the delay in response but blogger wouldn't let me comment on my own blog for a few days and I've finally had the problem sorted.<br /><br />JM, your contribution is welcome, however I think you misunderstand my objection, which was to the use of inclusive language. It is an unwholesome veneer imposed on the translation and inspired by principles inimical to Christianity. That is the chief danger.<br /><br />Jack O'Malley, and also with you!<br /><br />Pete, I like the Douay Rheims translation. To my knowledge the Authorized translation drew heavily from it, though I have no citation for that. In terms of the dignity of expression and idiom, however, I prefer the style of the pericopes in the Prayerbook of the Church of England.Patrick Sheridanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995907911415177074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-85262247959712661952011-09-05T21:38:40.532+01:002011-09-05T21:38:40.532+01:00>>>>Why, for exampIle, translate consu...>>>>Why, for exampIle, translate consubstantialem into ''consubstantial''?<br /><br />I agree, but does not the D-Rheims bible translation also suffer from this foible? What is your opinion of this publication?<br /><br />I think the idiotic first comment has been duly dealt with by 'sam'!Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09469768137152442790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-12298618693299265452011-09-05T20:02:49.187+01:002011-09-05T20:02:49.187+01:00The Lord be with you.
And with thy ghost.The Lord be with you.<br /><br />And with thy ghost.Jack O'Malleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15166859194793478315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-13735938898628796272011-09-05T19:51:54.501+01:002011-09-05T19:51:54.501+01:00Patricius: Glory to God in the highest, and on ear...Patricius: <i>Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people [''people''!?! ffs, hominibus is a dative plural form which refers to MEN, not men and women - see the botched confession above] of good will.</i><br /><br />Consider Cicero's use of <i>homo</i> in this famous passage, <a href="http://goo.gl/1LA7v" rel="nofollow"><i>De. Leg.</i>I.22 -- 23</a>.<br /><br />I. <i>quem uocamus hominem</i> is more than a non-vegetative being. This being possess a list of unique attributes <i>generatum esse a supremo deo.</i> We do not know if Cicero is using <i>homo</i> exclusive to anatomical males, or <i>homo</i> as gender-inclusive. All that is know is that the human being archetype possesses certain god-given qualities that facilitate cognition and the formation of "state".<br /><br />II. Wouldn't Cicero use <i>vir</i> (anatomical men) instead of <i>homo</i> (anatomically inclusive "people") if he intended only anatomical men to receive the divine genesis, create law, and establish communities? If one might argue that De. Leg. is a response to Platonic political philosophy, one would have to admit that the Republic also contained women. <br /><br />However, koine roughly contemporary to Cicero's Latin suggests that ἄνθρωπος can be freely used instead of ἀνήρ through context. Compare John the Evangelist's introduction of John the Baptist, "<b>Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης</b>" (John 1:6) with the proclamation of the baptism of God the Son: "<b>κἀγὼ ἑώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ</b>."(John 1:27) Both <b>ἄνθρωπος</b> and <b>υἱὸς</b> can be gender-neutral (<b>υἱὸς</b> = <i>puer</i>, "boy" or "child"), but John's references are contextually male-gendered without doubt.<br /><br />The problem with an automatic assumption that <i>homo</i>/<b>ἄνθρωπος</b> denotes anatomical males resides in the assumption that context is irrelevant. Given the high profile of women in early-post-Constantinian churches, I would suggest that <i>homo</i> in the <i>Gloria</i> is gender-inclusive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-55933707825076332802011-09-05T18:23:03.194+01:002011-09-05T18:23:03.194+01:00If you always prefer Latin in the liturgy, then yo...If you always prefer Latin in the liturgy, then you prefer to retain the use of the second person singular.Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-510119898921246632011-09-05T13:34:14.076+01:002011-09-05T13:34:14.076+01:00To be more accurate, Little Black Sambo, today bot...To be more accurate, Little Black Sambo, today both "thou" and "you" have second-person singular senses in liturgical English. "You" also maintains its former plural sense. This is hardly strange---consider that "vous" in French has both a singular and plural sense. <br /><br />So while I DO prefer the use of "thou" in liturgical English, and I would have liked to see it in this new translation, I will not condemn the use of "you" as wrong. It isn't.<br /><br />Of course, all things being equal, I will always prefer Latin in the liturgy.Geraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02204199533749851084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-41436372646026422002011-09-05T13:19:14.198+01:002011-09-05T13:19:14.198+01:00"English hasn't had a separate second per...<i>"English hasn't had a separate second person singular personal pronoun (with the exception of Yorkshire dialect) for well over two hundred years."</i><br />But it HAS! The second person singular has survived in liturgical English. Don't you think that counts? If you try to abolish it you are effectively saying that liturgical and devotional usage must be conformed to <i>something else</i>.Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-16194177416564556332011-09-05T13:06:06.319+01:002011-09-05T13:06:06.319+01:00I agree that the new translation is bald and does ...I agree that the new translation is bald and does not match the cadences of English. With that said, you talk an awful lot of nonsense here, particularly about translation.<br /><br />"There is something inherently distasteful about addressing God in the plural."<br /><br />Except it isn't addressing God in the plural, because English hasn't had a separate second person singular personal pronoun (with the exception of Yorkshire dialect) for well over two hundred years. It was already dying in the 17th Century, for heaven's sake. This is absolute a complete dud of an argument, and that you continue to refuse to accept the patently obvious in this regard only weakens your overall argument and shows you up as either intellectually mendacious or a fool.<br /><br />"My God, I've read better literature in the waiting area of the Maudsley Hospital,"<br /><br />So what? The liturgy isn't some half-baked aesthetic experience. It is for the worship of God and to stand with fear and trembling before the Sacrifice of Calvary, not to make you go wobbly-kneed at some fine vestments and 16th Century poeticism.<br /><br />"or that Watchtower magazine the Jehovah's Witnesses left with me yesterweek after I demanded they get off my land."<br /><br />Once again, your living example of Christianity astounds.<br /><br />"It isn't really a ''translation'' in the proper sense if you keep using latinate words is it?"<br /><br />So presumably the Coptic Orthodox have never used Coptic in their liturgy <i>really</i>, since their liturgical/religious language is riddled through with Greek borrowings? Or even the Latin Church, which has consistently used Greek terminology. Presumably, Tyndale didn't 'really' translate the Bible either, by your measure, since he kept inventing words to cover Hebrew terms. This is another ludicrous argument. <br /><br />"why shy away from a goodly name used by our Catholic forebears?"<br /><br />Because 'ghost' no longer has the same meaning as it did in times past; it has undergone semantic shift to the point where 'spirit' now fills the role it used to have.<br /><br />The translation is simply a lightly edited formal equivalence rather than a dynamic one. It should be no surprise that it therefore does not sound 'natural'. That this is far from an ideal translatioin is obvious; but your arguments are ridiculous, hysterical and manage to be at once nit-picking and inaccurate. <br /><br />In short, this blog-post represents a triumph of screeching condemnation over sound criticism, and not only does nothing to critique the new translation, but seriously undermines your credibility as a commentator on anything at all, let alone the liturgy..https://www.blogger.com/profile/04611694996611765479noreply@blogger.com