Text Of The New Icel Translation

[Era Might]

I agree that he wasn't speaking specifically of translations, but he was speaking of anything related to the Sacred Liturgy. The translation of Mass is a major issue, because it is the public worship of the universal Church in the local Church. I don't think you can make any distinction from the Latin in terms of doctrinal fidelity. It's like separating the orthodoxy of the Latin creed from the original Greek. They are both guaranteed by the authority of the Church. Whether a Liturgical translation expresses clearly and precisely the Latin edition, and whether it can be improved linguistically, I think, are different questions. From Liturgiam Authenticam:

[quote]The practice of seeking the recognitio from the Apostolic See for all translations of liturgical books accords the necessary assurance of the authenticity of the translation and its correspondence with the original texts. This practice both expresses and effects a bond of communion between the successor of blessed Peter and his brothers in the Episcopate. [b]Furthermore, this recognitio is not a mere formality, but is rather an exercise of the power of governance, which is absolutely necessary[/b] (in the absence of which the act of the Conference of Bishops entirely in no way attains legal force); and modifications — even substantial ones — may be introduced by means of it. For this reason it is not permissible to publish, for the use of celebrants or for the general public, any liturgical texts that have been translated or recently composed, as long as the recognitio is lacking. Since the lex orandi must always be in harmony with the lex credendi and must manifest and support the faith of the Christian people, the liturgical translations will not be capable of being worthy of God without faithfully transmitting the wealth of Catholic doctrine from the original text into the vernacular version, in such a way that the sacred language is adapted to the dogmatic reality that it contains. Furthermore, it is necessary to uphold the principle according to which each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only as regards the doctrine of the Faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards those practices universally received through Apostolic and continuous tradition. For these reasons, the required recognitio of the Apostolic See is intended to ensure that the translations themselves, as well as any variations introduced into them, will not harm the unity of God’s people, but will serve it instead.[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1242988' date='Apr 14 2007, 12:47 PM']Just to make clear, I am not saying that the Holy See cannot approve a translation that is linguistically inferior, or that cannot be improved to better express doctrine (this was even true of the Tridentine Missal). However, when it comes to orthodoxy, we have no authority to correct the Holy See, especially in such an important matter as the Liturgy, which touches on the indefectibility of the Church.[/quote]

The Tridentine Missal much better expresses the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass than the Novus Ordo Missæ does.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Sorry, Era, but I don't see any relevance in the text.

Anyway, I don't think the translations can contain theological error, which is why I wouldn't say heresy...but I do think they can be lacking in precision. It is true, for instance, that Christ died for all, but that is not the most precise translation. While either wording doesn't make a difference to Catholic theology (Christ died for many, He also died for all), I do think that theological nuances can be reflected in translation and heed should be given accordingly.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1243020' date='Apr 14 2007, 03:18 PM']Anyway, I don't think the translations can contain theological error, which is why I wouldn't say heresy...but I do think they can be lacking in precision. It is true, for instance, that Christ died for all, but that is not the most precise translation. While either wording doesn't make a difference to Catholic theology (Christ died for many, He also died for all), I do think that theological nuances can be reflected in translation and heed should be given accordingly.[/quote]
I would say even the Latin edition can be lacking in precision. The Liturgy is always going to be somewhat the work of human hands, and we can never perfectly express everything. However, what I am concerned about is any hint that the Liturgy of the Church approved by the Holy See can be doctrinally heterodox, and I don't think we have any disagreements there. A Liturgy can be improved (in word as well as in form), but that doesn't mean it was heterodox previously. The reform of the Roman rite implied that the Tridentine Missal could be improved in certain ways, but it was in no way a judgement on the doctrinal fidelity or suitability of the Tridentine Missal.

[mortify]

[quote]"The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world."[/quote]

Pope Pius XII was obviously not referring to the Novos Ordo, he was referring to movements that sought to change the liturgy on the basis of certain practices being more ancient. For example, modern liturgists claimed ancient priests faced the congregation (as oppose to facing East) and that therefore this practice should be restored. Much of what happened in the 60's sought to remove many such "aberrations" and restore what [i]they believed[/i] to be a more ancient liturgy. Josef Jungmann, who was at that time a great supporter of priests facing the congregation later came out to denounce it, saying there is absolutely no evidence the early Church worshipped this way.

Many liberals use this line of thought to change the liturgy. It's ok to dance in the aisles of the church because the early Christians did it. It's ok to take communion in the hand because that's what the early church did. It's ok to put the Tabernacle in some obscure place because when the early Christians worshipped in the catacombs there was no place for a tabernacle. And this type of thinking goes on and on, and if the liberals had it their way they'd go much further.

Pope Pius XII was condemning such behavior, and defending the Mass as it was in his time, affirming that the way it was practiced was also DIVINELY INSPIRED. So those who criticize the Tridentine Mass criticize the work of the Holy Spirit and the Saints contributed to the work of the Spirit.



[url="http://www.dappledthings.org/adv06/essay01.php"]http://www.dappledthings.org/adv06/essay01.php[/url]

[Era Might]

The Liturgy of the Church is the Liturgy of the Church. It doesn't matter what year it is. The words of Pope Pius XII do refer to the current Roman rite, because it was validly promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, whose right he affirmed "to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification." It was not only the present which concerned Pope Pius XII, but the future as well. The Popes today possess the same authority as their predecessors, and it extends to the Sacred Liturgy.

There is no Liturgy beyond constructive criticism, as I said, because they are in many ways the work of human hands. It was implied by the reform that the Tridentine Missal could be improved. However, the Liturgy is beyond doctrinal judgement, because the orthodoxy of the Liturgy, of the Pauline Missal as much as the Tridentine Missal as much as the Byzantine Missal, is ensured by the Magisterium.

[mortify]

"There is no Liturgy beyond constructive criticism, as I said, because they are in many ways the work of human hands. It was implied by the reform that the Tridentine Missal could be improved. However, the Liturgy is beyond doctrinal judgement, because the orthodoxy of the Liturgy, of the Pauline Missal as much as the Tridentine Mass as much as the Byzantine Missal, is ensured by the Magisterium."

The Liturgy is the work of Divine Hands, and to depart from the way it was practiced for thousands of years is problematic to my simple brain. I'm not saying what exists now is invalid, but quite frankly I'm confused. It seems the liturgical changes introduced in the 60's followed the mentality Pope Pius XII criticized. We shouldn't have the priest face the congregation simply because we (wrongly) speculated that to be the ancient practice. Having the priest face the congregation with his back to the Tabernacle/East certainly carries huge theological implications.

There is a non-infallible magesterium and not all practices are stamped with infallibility.

[Era Might]

Pope Pius XII himself changed the Liturgy when he reformed the rites of Holy Week. Among his reforms, I believe, was the restoration of the rite of foot washing on Holy Thursday. He did this because the Roman rite had gradually drifted away from ancient practice. Our Lord did not give us a Liturgy, even though he did so in great detail for the Israelites. The Church is sent to all nations, and her worship must develop and adapt in every age. This development is always done with the Church, and never apart from her, which is why we must stay close to the authority of the Holy See and the Bishops. The Liturgy has been entrusted to their Apostolic authority.

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

[quote]So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm[/url][/quote]

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1242912' date='Apr 14 2007, 02:46 PM']First, you have not proven your assertion that the generic use of "man / men" is a minority position. You have simply asserted it to be so.[/quote]

Well, first and foremost, I did not say that the generic use [i]is[/i] a minority position--only that it is becoming so.

Secondly, I would have thought that the statement was self evident enough that it would not require rigorous evidentiary support. We can both agree that the Latin "homo" would be a person, whereas "vir" is specifically a male person--homo does not intrinsically indicate gender. But it has been noted in academics ([url="http://www.marquette.edu/wac/neutral/NeutralInclusiveLanguage.shtml"]1[/url], [url="http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.html"]2[/url], [url="http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/writecenter/web/genderfair.html"]3[/url], [url="http://www.usask.ca/policies/2_03.htm"]4[/url]), and even in world culture ([url="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001149/114950mo.pdf"]5[/url]), that gender-specific language can provide confusion. The document from the University of Pennsylvania is especially informative:

[quote]Man once was a truly generic word referring to all humans, but has gradually narrowed in meaning to become a word that refers to adult male human beings. Anglo-Saxons used the word to refer to all people. One example of this occurs when an Anglo-Saxon writer refers to a seventh-century English princess as "a wonderful man." Man paralleled the Latin word homo, "a member of the human species," not vir, "an adult male of the species." The Old English word for adult male was waepman and the old English word for adult woman was wifman. In the course of time, wifman evolved into the word "woman." "Man" eventually ceased to be used to refer to individual women and replaced wer and waepman as a specific term distinguishing an adult male from an adult female. But man continued to be used in generalizations about both sexes.

By the 18th century, the modern, narrow sense of man was firmly established as the predominant one. When Edmund Burke, writing of the French Revolution, used men in the old, inclusive way, he took pains to spell out his meaning: "Such a deplorable havoc is made in the minds of men (both sexes) in France. . . ." Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of "males," and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise. Looking at modern dictionaries indicate that the definition that links "man" with males is the predominant one. Studies of college students and school children indicate that even when the broad definitions of "man" and "men" are taught, they tend to conjure up images of male people only. We would never use the sentence "A girl grows up to be a man," because we assume the narrower definition of the word man. The examples below seem disconcerting precisely for this reason:

*"Development of the Uterus in Rats, Guinea Pigs, and Men" (title of a research report)

*"The Pap test, which has greatly reduced mortality from uterine cancer, is a boon to mankind."

Even when authors insist that "man" is a general term of all humans, they can lapse into meaning it as a term for only males:

*"As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth . . . "

*In James Baldwin's essay "Stranger in the Village" Baldwin refers to "white men" and "black men" (seemingly generic terms), but then he eventually refers to "that peculiar, intent, paranoiac malevolence which one sometimes surprises in the eyes of American white men when, out walking with their Sunday girl, they see a Negro male approach."[/quote][quote]Second, the Christological and Soteriological doctrine of the Church is tied up with the generic masculine, because Christ is not simply a concrete male individual; instead, His assumption of human nature is universal and not merely particular. Thus, the "inclusive language" ideology has Monophysite tendencies, and as such it cannot be accepted by the Church.[/quote]

*shakes head* I think you will agree that this is an area that, as a non-Christian, I would be somewhat presumptuous to comment. However, I will note that the Latin liturgical language uses "Homo," not "vir." Thus we are dealing not with "generic maleness," but simply with "generic humanity" in the Latin.

[quote]Third, liturgical languages are "traditional" in nature, that is, they do not absorb uncritically linguistic changes that may occur in a culture. [/quote]And precisely what is "uncritical" about this absorption? You have bishops, archbishops, and cardinals on the ICEL, scholars all, and all ordained (of course). They work under the the authority of the Ecclesiastical structure in the English-speaking areas of the Church, and that authority ultimately stems from the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. Now, you may disagree with their work, but there comes a time when you have to decide to accept the authority of the work ... or break from that authority.

[quote]Fourth, there is no evidence that the English language is actually changing in the manner that you assert. All through my college career I used the generic masculine and no one ever questioned what I meant when I used it (and I went to a very liberal school for my undergrad degrees - SFSU).[/quote]

Anecdotal evidence is not useful for broad phenomena. Please see the references provided above.

[quote]Finally, the Church's prayer is fixed theologically, and is not based upon cultural norms that may be prevalent at any given time.[/quote]

Fixed theologically does not mean fixed linguistically.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1242917' date='Apr 14 2007, 02:51 PM']Which is why there is education. All that is needed is to teach what is forgotten. And I think people today understand what is meant by "men", they do not see it as excluding women, if they do they only need to be taught. And in modern understanding "man" does not nessiarly exclude women. "Whats up man" "Man, thats crazy" are used all the time by both women and men, to women and men.

It wouldnt be that hard for men today to understand this, man.[/quote]

Teaching can only stem the tide of change to a point--beyond that point, one is rather like King Cnut, attempting to hold back the tide by command alone.

[mortify]

I think this article is appropriate for the present discussion:

[b]THE JARGON OF LITURGISTS: BRAIN-WASHING THE FAITHFUL[/b]
by Calvert Shenk

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SMJARGON.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SMJARGON.TXT[/url]

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='mortify' post='1243172' date='Apr 14 2007, 07:38 PM']I think this article is appropriate for the present discussion:

[b]THE JARGON OF LITURGISTS: BRAIN-WASHING THE FAITHFUL[/b]
by Calvert Shenk

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SMJARGON.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SMJARGON.TXT[/url][/quote]

I like that...pretty informative...

[kateri05]

great!!! article!

and unfortauntely, so true!

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1243172' date='Apr 14 2007, 07:38 PM']I think this article is appropriate for the present discussion:

[b]THE JARGON OF LITURGISTS: BRAIN-WASHING THE FAITHFUL[/b]
by Calvert Shenk

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SMJARGON.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SMJARGON.TXT[/url][/quote]

While he makes some interesting suppositions, do any of you suppose, even for a moment, that the Holy Father is not aware of the changes in the liturgy used in English-speaking countries? Why, precisely, would these changes be made without the knowledge and approval of the Pope? And ... if the Pope does approve of these changes, isn't complaining about or disagreeing with them the first step on the road to "Opinions savouring of heresy?"

I'm not asking these questions as a form of attack--I'm honestly and sincerely wondering what the problem is. While I am not Catholic, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Benedict, and for John Paul II before him. I do not agree with the doctrine of papal infallibility, but you people do--yet with each disagreement, you seem to be resisting that doctrine, at least to a subtle degree.

I would assume that there are no sedevacantists here, and would further assume that the members here agree with Catholic Doctrine, therefore it troubles me to see what looks very much like dissent against the Holy Father from those who claim him as the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Justin (Wiccan)

[mortify]

Justin,

Papal Infallibility does not mean everything the Pope says is infallible. There is a non-infallible magesterium. It's not as if the Pope can't sin or can't make a personal error.

The Pope does not write the translations, there are committees made to do such things. Why do you suppose the Pope constantly requires new translations to be made? Obviously he sees problems in them.

There is so much to read on what is going on in the contemporary earthly Church.
Here's some more [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CONSELIB.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CONSELIB.TXT[/url]