Nihil Obstat Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Goodness, Nihil. Please don't try to fan the flames. But I do appreciate the gif - I though you didn't like this version? You would be shocked at how hard it is to find a good burn appreciation gif. :sad2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 You would be shocked at how hard it is to find a good burn appreciation gif. :sad2: I don't look for gifs - I'm rather pleased it was P&P, because I'd probably have called Darcy a prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippo buono Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I understand how translation works, I've done enough of it myself. That being said, the Vatican decided that the theory being used to translate liturgy, dynamic equivalence, was inappropriate for the liturgy. When it comes to liturgy, although the translations are authorized, the authentic belief is held in the Latin (or in some cases Greek or Hebrew) originals which is the language of the Church. That may be the case in the liturgy, but I don't see how this scratches out that an interpretation can be and has been made to understand "by the Holy Spirit" along the lines of "by the power of the Holy Spirit." Can you please clarify how you see that this policy in translation nullifies the sense I have proposed? It seems you are arguing for what translation should be used, which is not in question for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 Debate table isn't really the place for this sort of thing, ask the question in the Q&A section. Also, this doesn't answer your question, but here's an interesting reflection on the Holy Spirit from Scott Hahn. It uses the analogy of a mother to come to an understanding of the Holy Spirit. Actually it is the right place for this as I intended this as a debate instead of just a simple Q & A but thanks for pretending you are the boss of what ever it is you think you are the boss of. An since you stated what ya posted didn't answer my question I don't really need to read it. An I doubt Scott Hann is the expert either. Even though I have one of his books, but what ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippo buono Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Allow me to explain my confusion on your point a little more. You have said that the use of dynamic equivalence has been considered inappropriate for the liturgy. This makes perfect sense to me. I can understand the Church's desire to remain close to, what is most commonly, the original Latin and Greek and these cases. What I don't understand is how the argument "dynamic equivalence is considered was considered inappropriate in the liturgy" leads to the conclusion "the interpretation of the phrase as 'by the power of the Holy Spirit' was theologically incorrect." If we continue along this line, that's what I think needs to be discussed. A direct translation might be more appropriate for the liturgy than a dynamic one, but that necessarily lead to the conclusion that the dynamic one was a wrong way of interpreting the phrase. If you mean to say that the direct translation was chosen because it was decided that the profession of faith before was theologically erring in this point before and you can show it, I would have no choice but to admit that what I have said up until now is incorrect. If that cannot be shown, it seems rather that the Church has already shown this understanding of the phrase to be at least in one sense legitimate in itself, though it is less appropriate for the liturgy. Edited September 12, 2014 by pippo buono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Okay, I've been a bit focused/stand-offish on the translation aspect of your point (although I'll still hold that dynamic equivalence is generally unacceptable for the translations of theological texts). I'm a bit lost now in what it is we are debating/discussing. Pippo, could you quickly restate your argument; I might even agree with you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Actually it is the right place for this as I intended this as a debate instead of just a simple Q & A but thanks for pretending you are the boss of what ever it is you think you are the boss of. An since you stated what ya posted didn't answer my question I don't really need to read it. An I doubt Scott Hann is the expert either. Even though I have one of his books, but what ever. Apparently my post came off in a way that I didn't intend it to, my apologies. Your second post was about the lack of responses, I was trying to suggest that if you were looking for an answer to your dilemma, Q&A would be a good place for your question. I realize now that I unthinkingly worded my reply in a commanding tone, that wasn't my intention. My apologies. As to the second half of your reply, Dr. Hahn IS an expert. Now, Trinitarian theology isn't exactly his specialty, but he does have a doctorate in systematic theology, and I can assure you that he is much more knowledgeable than his popular books would suggest. The pdf I posted is an article of his on the Holy Spirit, and while it doesn't directly pertain to your question, I think there could be a lot in there that could be helpful, which is why I posted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippo buono Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Pippo, could you quickly restate your argument... When the Creed states that Christ was "incarnated by the Holy Spirit," it's less of a reference to the Holy Spirit as the father of Jesus and more of a reference to Christ's Incarnation being realized by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus we can understand how the Holy Spirit is not the parental father of Christ, but rather "the hand" by which the Incarnation takes place as the Father willed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 When the Creed states that Christ was "incarnated by the Holy Spirit," it's less of a reference to the Holy Spirit as the father of Jesus and more of a reference to Christ's Incarnation being realized by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus we can understand how the Holy Spirit is not the parental father of Christ, but rather "the hand" by which the Incarnation takes place as the Father willed. Yes, I would tend to agree with you. Although, it would be necessary not to divorce the other members of the Trinity. Truly, "and the Word became flesh" is of high importance to this discussion. But absolutely, the Holy Spirit isn't "the parental father" as you put it anymore than the Father or even Christ himself. But the action of the incarnation is through the Holy Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now