« 'Wozzeck' at Tokyo's New National Theater | Main | Calling a Halt to the Restorationist Folly »

January 15, 2010

Comments

Andy

WHO GARNERED FOUR TIMES AS MANY SIGNATURES

More than half of those "brave signatures" are anonymous and many more are fraudulently-signed, including someone trying to put Fr. Z. on there. Grow up.

Stan Williams

The 1997 ICEL proposal was rejected becuase it contained translations that not only were non-literal but they distorted the sense of the prayers. Rather than approve an imperfect text and simply be forced to fight through a revision process yet again, Rome elected to have a new draft made. As Fr. Stravinskas points out, this new translation was undertaken with wide consultation.

Sometimes I wonder if an older generation associates the current translations with the ebullient and doctrinally-vague optimism of the 60s through the 80s, and so they see a more accurate text as threatening this more "fluid" way of speaking (or, often, not speaking) about our faith.

The new translations, far from imposing a straitjacket on or deadening our faith, open up many things that were simply left out of the old translations or were mistranslated. For instance "peace to his people on earth" is the current translation of what ought to be "peace to all people of good-will." What does it mean for me to be a person of good will? How can I become one? These are the sorts of things -- very pastoral things, things rooted in everyday life -- that the new translations will open to us. This is a thing to look forward to joyfully!

evagrius

Gee, "peace to his people on earth"

Gosh....what does "his people" mean? Am I one of them? Can I be one of them?

I think that the essential, hidden, argument is very simple;

Latin, by its very nature, is a language well-suited to theology.

English, by its very nature, is a pedestrian language, unsuited for sophisticated thinking and therefore not a language for theology.

Therefore, any translation from Latin to English must be as "Latin" as possible in its form.

Of course, the Greeks might have something to say about Latin as a theological language, ( i.e; the filioque).

Spirit of Vatican II

More than half are anonymous? No, check the facts. In fact the counter-petition backed by Fr Zuhlsdorf contains a similar proportion of anonymous signatures!

Gedsmk

Well done! the big bully doesn't like it when he gets some of his own treatment.

Spirit of Vatican II

nazarethpriest (who links to Sacra Domus Nazarena blog) has this in one of Fr Z's comboxes:

"This whole “movement” of stalling the new translations is gonna fail…big time. They’re just a bunch of whiny, self-absorbed, “has-beens” that are just screaming right now… I taught high school a long time ago… I know this syndrome… yell long and hard enough and think you might manipulate somebody. Well, Rome is in charge now. And it does not look like they’re gonna “buckle” under this adolescent you-know-what... Yeah, Msgr. Ryan and all your followers, scream all you want. Be disobedient. Thumb your noses at legitimate authority. Faithful Catholics are not gonna be impressed. Nor will they follow you, nor will they go to Mass where you were being flagrantly disobedient. Otherwise. Let the cards fall where they may. This is spiritual warfare. And those who do not know this are going to be in big trouble."

evagrius

The last comment you quote is really fascinating.

The subtext is interesting.

I guess authoritarianism is quite fashionable in the Church these days.

evagrius

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/01/just-fraction-of-catholics-wants.html

This article made me laugh.

Perhaps the Scots Catholics
are wiser than the Vatican.

me

Dear Fr.,

You write: "BUT HE MAKES AN ELEMENTARY MISTAKE IN GREEK BELOW" and "KAIROS – the author does not know basic Greek; why should we trust his Latin?] "

Fr. Stravinskas does not make a mistake in Greek. Fr. Stravinskas is engaged in the transliteration of Greek to English. Fr. Stravinskas does not use Greek characters. I might also add that you did not provide the Greek, you also gave us a transliteration.

Should we conclude that because you are unable to tell the difference between Greek and a transliteration of Greek that we should ignore your opinion on all issue of translation?

I might also add Fr. Stravinskas' transliteration is a common one. You might want to investigate the various methods of transliteration in current use. You apparently think that there is only one.

Spirit of Vatican II

kappa and chi are two different Greek letters.

chi is indeed sometimes transliterated khi, and kappa is sometimes c rather than k, e.g. catechesis.

but kappa is never correctly transliterated ch; always k or c. Only someone with no knowledge of Greek could make this mistake.

I have not met the incorrect transliteration of kairos as chairos before. But if this were, per impossibile, viewed as acceptable, it is amusing to think of the possibilities unleashed: telechinesis, chategories, chatekesis, chalos chai agathos, To Evangelion chata Marchon!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos

me

"kappa and chi are two different Greek letters."
I did not make the case that they were not.

"Only someone with no knowledge of Greek could make this mistake." This does not follow. The most you could conclude from Fr.'s usage is that he has no knowledge of how one is to transliterate Greek. You should be careful in employing universal negatives since they are refuted by one exception.

"I have not met the incorrect transliteration of kairos as chairos before." begs the question by assuming "incorrect".


"See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos"

wikipedia? come on. This is what passes for scholarship?

Spirit of Vatican II

Universal negatives are so impossible? Well, find one competent Greek scholar who spells kairos as chairos (as you earlier claimed to be common practice) and you'll have proved your point. It is like a scholar of English literature who spells Milton Millton or Shelley Shelly.

Rat-biter

"Latin, by its very nature, is a language well-suited to theology.

English, by its very nature, is a pedestrian language, unsuited for sophisticated thinking and therefore not a language for theology."

## That depends on the kind of English - The Book of Common Prayer is one of the great monuments of 16th-century English, and it has served the
worship of the C of E for four hundred years.

What's needed for liturgical texts is an "answerable style" (as Milton says) - English is as well-suited for theology as Latin is, or Greek. It it certainly capable of gfinding the words needed to express the meaning of NT categories of thought; "righteousness" does not have the misleading associations of justitia, which is important for the translation of a term such as dikaiosune in St.Paul.

"Therefore, any translation from Latin to English must be as "Latin" as possible in its form."

## Bad idea - because the genius of the one language, is not that of the other. No one now would give as English "Whom do men say that I am ?", as the AV did in 1611; the use of a Greek accusative + an infinitive reflects the usage of Greek NT syntax; but it is not English syntax. A translation into a language has to respect the syntax and grammar of the receptor-language - otherwise the result will be "translationese" or, worse, something unintelligible: such as the very intrusive Latinisms of the Reims NT.

It is not immediately clear what "He exinanited Himself" is meant to translate, or mean; what is referred to as the "Douay-Reims Bible", is almost always a modern edition of the Challoner rifacimento of the D-R.

If, by English, you mean modern standard English, you have a point; but the comparison is not a fair one, because standard English is not the language of the Liturgy, any more than Cicero's Latin was the Latin of the Vetus Itala or the Vulgate.

The question is, does one adopt the "high style" of English for the Liturgy - or, something closer to everyday speech ? There are weighty considerations on both sides of the question.

nazareth priest

Evagrius:
Well I guess being a faithful Catholic is being "authoritarian"...enjoy your your smirk...
let's just call each other names, that's it, I'm done.

Spirit of Vatican II

"And it does not look like they’re gonna “buckle” under this adolescent you-know-what... Yeah, Msgr. Ryan and all your followers, scream all you want."

Authoritarian bullying seems the staple of the defenders of the new translation.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Pages

Blog powered by Typepad