|
1 members (Fr. Al),
411
guests, and
118
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,523
Posts417,635
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1
Cantor Member
|
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1 |
Personally, I'm not a fan of changing the existing translations with modern inclusivisms. It may be a reflection of the vernacular PC grammar of this liberal age that inclusive language has crept into even our liturgical translations!  It is unfortunate that the translations and music being done at the same time has caused so much negative reaction. However, it is much more practical to do both changes simultaneously, though it is harder for the parishioners to accomodate the changes. With that in mind, it seems that whenever the translation is mentioned, so too, is the music. The music changes are actually a RETURN to our musical heritage which was largely lost in the mid sixties due to the objective at the time of "to keep it simple and dignified" * Some of it got oversimplified in my opinion. At the time the music commission was formed in Dec. of 1964, the translations had just been approved by Rome earlier that year. There was no input or review from the laity 'at large'. * the text of the quote from ECL(?) "Music Comission Formed" around March of 1965 is: "Immediately after returning to the United States from the third session of the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Kocisko established the Diocesan Commission of Church Music on December 21, 1964. In the process of Americanizing the Byzantine Rite the change from Slavonic and Hungarian to English has been effected. The use of the new English translation has just been approved by the Congregation for the Oriental Rites in Rome. Now a uniform chant that corresponds ot the vernacular has been completed and awaits official approval. The main objective of the new music is to keep it simple and dignified. His Excellency appointed the following to the music commission: Rt Rev. Msgr. Michael Dudick, Very Rev. Msgr. Andrew Sokol, S.T.L., Rev. Father Gregory Moneta, Mr Peter Zeleznyak and Mr. John Petach. The first meeting of the new group was held on Feb 3, 1965" It is interesting to note how much Western influence was in the wording of the article. :rolleyes: Steve Petach
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070 |
If memory serves, one of the PCisms coming into use, or in use already, is substituting "people" for "mankind". I read somewhere that that change was actually required by the Vatican. If so, PCism is not an exclusively American thing, is it? (Somehow that doesn't make me feel better.) 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135 |
Originally posted by Jim: If memory serves, one of the PCisms coming into use, or in use already, is substituting "people" for "mankind". I read somewhere that that change was actually required by the Vatican. If so, PCism is not an exclusively American thing, is it? (Somehow that doesn't make me feel better.) The Vatican has issued no such directive. The only inclusive language it allows is horizontal inclusive language (�brothers and sisters� for �brothers�). Even here it has very strict rules. Substituting �people� or �us all� for �mankind� is prohibited. See Liturgiam Authenticam [ vatican.va] : �When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word �adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation.�
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Substituting �people� or �us all� for �mankind� is prohibited. John your quote from LA is at odds with such a general prohibition. The quote in fact gives a qualification: "When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community ... " One could surmise that a use of generic terms in the original text in situations in which there is not an intention of "expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community", then it could be the translation need not, and sometimes ought not, adhere to the single, generic term. Indeed LA cautions against a mechanical word-for-word subtituion in translations; each situation is to be analyzed individually for meaning and the most apt trnalation worked out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135 |
30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the �inclusive� sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word �adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.
31. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation. Some particular norms are the following:
a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.
b) Particular care is to be taken to ensure that the fixed expression �Son of Man� be rendered faithfully and exactly. The great Christological and typological significance of this expression requires that there should also be employed throughout the translation a rule of language that will ensure that the fixed expression remain comprehensible in the context of the whole translation.
c) The term �fathers�, found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church.
d) Insofar as possible in a given vernacular language, the use of the feminine pronoun, rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church.
e) Words which express consanguinity or other important types of relationship, such as �brother�, �sister�, etc., which are clearly masculine or feminine by virtue of the context, are to be maintained as such in the translation.
f) The grammatical gender of angels, demons, and pagan gods or goddesses, according to the original texts, is to be maintained in the vernacular language insofar as possible.
g) In all these matters it will be necessary to remain attentive to the principles set forth above, in nn. 27 and 29.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070 |
I'm glad I was wrong!  I HATE wordsmithing. In the corporate world I was continually having to do it in technical documents. All the time I was thinking, "WHO CARES?!" But it was the politically correct thing to do. American corporations eat that stuff up.
|
|
|
|
|
