1 members (EastCatholic),
451
guests, and
84
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,528
Members6,161
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
CHRIST IS RISEN!
djs writes that: "If the changes seem unwarranted, ill-considered, and disoriented (does you mean Latinized ?), it would be worthwhile to find out what the changes actually are, what the rationale is, what the considerations are".
Correct. But to do this, am I supposed to use a ouija board? The text itself is being guarded like the gold in Fort Knox, to say nothing of the rationale and the considerations!
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 129
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 129 |
I'd still like to know WHO mandated the INCLUSIVE language. That in itself poisons the whole translation for me........
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2 |
All these threads are running together, but a poster somewhere mentioned ICEL involvement in the translations. That raises a red flag with me, since ICEL is the group responsible for the horribly inaccurate translation of the Novus Ordo. I have heard ICEL has been "reformed" and is not as ideologically driven these days, but I don't know how trustworthy that body is. I do regard them with some suspicion until they prove they are capable of producing accurate translations. Does ICEL have anything to do with this, or was it IECL which is a different body? I could have misread this.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Originally posted by byzanTN: All these threads are running together, but a poster somewhere mentioned ICEL involvement in the translations. That raises a red flag with me, since ICEL is the group responsible for the horribly inaccurate translation of the Novus Ordo. I have heard ICEL has been "reformed" and is not as ideologically driven these days, but I don't know how trustworthy that body is. I do regard them with some suspicion until they prove they are capable of producing accurate translations. Does ICEL have anything to do with this, or was it IECL which is a different body? I could have misread this. ICEL = International Committee on English in the Liturgy IELC = Intereparchial Liturgical Commission The IELC modeled the inclusive language translation of the Liturgy and other texts after the patterns established by ICEL (which Rome has now condemned).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
Originally posted by nicholas: The IELC modeled the inclusive language translation of the Liturgy and other texts after the patterns established by ICEL (which Rome has now condemned). And your evidence for this is? What if it were to turn out that the Oriental Congregation decided that "Lover of Mankind" was not the best translation of "Celovikol'ubce"? And again, I hope you HAVE noticed that the "vertical" inclusive language in the Uniontown books has been decisively un-done in the Liturgical Commission's work? To answer ByzanTN's question: someone posted a link to old and new ICEL translations of the Roman Mass, then someone else commented in another thread on the website's becoming unavailable. Our own Liturgical Commission is QUITE a different body, and given the comments I have heard from members, I would wager than the ICEL experience serves much more as a cautionary lesson than as a model. Yours in Christ, Jeff Mierzejewski
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2 |
Jeff, thanks for the information. I wondered if I misread that. Accursed bifocals - may the flames of hell consume them forever. 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
I just visited the USCCB site to see if there were Eastern Catholic Bishops listed as members and it appears to me that some are. This leads me to the conclusion that some "may" have had contact with the committee that had some involvement with the inclusive Psalms and New Testament readings rejected by Rome.
Just a thought and by no means do I want to start any heated arguments or debates.
They are listed under the Bishops tag at the top of the site.
james
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
All bishops who have jurisdiction in the US are members of the USCCB by law, including all Eastern hierarchs. However, obviously decisions concerning liturgical and like matters decided by USCCB have no bearing on Eastern Churches. On the otherhand, things like the Chrater for the Protection of Children do.
Please note that the Metropolia's Lectionary is the old uninclusive NAB and the Psalter for the Office is the uninclusive Grail Psalter.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
djs writes that: "If the changes seem unwarranted, ill-considered, and disoriented (does you mean Latinized ?), it would be worthwhile to find out what the changes actually are, what the rationale is, what the considerations are".
Correct. But to do this, am I supposed to use a ouija board? The text itself is being guarded like the gold in Fort Knox, to say nothing of the rationale and the considerations! I am glad that you concur. But then please enlighten me: what is your basis for claiming that the changes are apparently unwarranted, ill-considered, and disoriented? A ouija board? btw, you should know that a rough draft was smuggled out of Fort Knox, posted here a year or two ago, discussed at length, with the participation of Fr. Petras - who also was kind enough to receive pages of detailed notes from at least one member of the forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
Deacon Lance,
I am glad that the Metropolia is using the older NT text and Grail Psalter, unlike the inclusive and revised Psalter and NT listed at the USCCB site, I know for a fact that the inclusive NT is used in our(RC) lectionary readings but have not reviewed the Psalm usage yet.
I pray that the Eastern Lung stays clear from what has occured in the Western half.
I will refrain from further posting in this thread.
james
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Jakub,
Please note: the RNAB and the Revised RNAB Lectionary are not exactly the same. The Vatican refused approbation to the RNAB as a lectionary text and required changes to it that were made and included in the Revised NAB Lectionary. Any inclusive language remaining in the Lectionary is Vatican approved. Other than the Lectionary one cannot buy a published book that contains the Vatican revised RNAB.
The USSCB site has the Non-Vatican revised RNAB. I am unaware if The "Today's Reading and Psalm" is from the RNAB or the Revised RNAB Lectionary.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
CHRIST IS RISEN!
The Grail Psalter was devised several decades ago to fit specific needs which Roman Catholics had at the time, and it was most certainly not based upon the Septuagint. So please explain why we should use it.
What basis am I using for my own criticisms? Sorry; I seldom give away my sources. But I certainly don't use a ouija board!
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
The following is an excerpt from an article by Father Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory. Needless to say "Papa" Schmemann was not a liturgical lightweight: This brings us back to the problem of translation. There can be no doubt that if Orthodoxy is to become truly American, it will be an English-speaking and an English-praying Orthodoxy. But precisely because of the tremendous importance of this linguistic integration and of all that we have said about the function of the liturgy in our "secularistic" predicament, the mere notion of translation is not sufficient. I have explained why, for as long as American Orthodoxy is only translated it is neither fully American nor fully Orthodox. It is not fully American because the literal translations of Byzantine or Russian texts (and these are the only translations we have so far) remain odd and alien to the genius of English language, result in�to say the truth Greek or Russian services in English, but not English services. And it is not fully Orthodox because what gives these texts their real power and fulfills their liturgical function�their beauty, is simply lost in these literal renderings. But again a situation which seems hopeless is hopeless only as long as we do not dare to take the problem in all its seriousness and apply to it the only remedy: the faith in the Church which "never grows old but always renews her youthfulness." And it means, in this particular case, that the true continuity with the living Tradition of the Church requires from us more than translation: a real re-creation of the same and eternal message, its true incarnation in English. One example will help to understand what I mean. Recently the diary of Dag Hammarskjo1d�a deeply poetical and mystical document in which the late Secretary General of the United Nations expressed his religious life, was translated from Swedish into English by the poet W. H. Auden. In his preface, Auden confesses that he does not know one single word in Swedish. He used a literal translation�but he recreated it and gave it, so to speak, a value and an existence, independent from the Swedish original. Yet he could do it only because he was in "sympathy" with the content of Hammarskjo1d's book, understood from "inside" his religious experience. Mutatis mutandis this example can be applied to our situation. The problem is not just to translate but to give again the hymns and the texts of the Byzantine liturgy the power they have in the original and which is rooted in the organic unity of meaning and "beauty." Yet to achieve this, one must go beyond the literal meaning and understand the place and the function of a given text or series of texts within the whole, their relation to the entire message of the service of which they are a part. Here again, the understanding of the whole precedes and conditions the real under-standing of any part of this whole. It provides us, first, with the criterion by which to judge what-in this particular "whole"�is essential and must be preserved and what is merely accidental, repetitious and of doubtful liturgical quality. It will, then, provide us with a method of translation which is not necessarily a blind "faithfulness" to the original' it may be that in order to convey the meaning and the power of the original, one has to paraphrase it and shorten it, rather than try to "squeeze" into the sober English the luxurious and untranslatable "richness" of the Byzantine text.
Thus, for example, if one understands the meaning of Palm Sunday as being the great messianic feast, the solemn liturgical affirmation of Christ�s Lordship in the world, and, therefore as the inauguration of the Holy Week, which is the fulfillment of Christ's victory over the "prince of this world," if one has, in other words, the vision of the whole�the interdependence of the Lazarus Saturday, the Palm Sunday and Pascha, one has the key to the proper "recreation" of the liturgy of Palm Sunday. One sees, first of all, the central position and function within the service of the messianic greetings: "Hosanna" and "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord," the theme of Jerusalem as the Holy Sion, as the place where the history of salvation is to find its fulfillment, the constant reference to Zachariah�s dichotomy: "King" and "lowly" as reference to the Kingdom of peace and love which is being inaugurated, and, finally, the leit motiv of the whole service "Six days before the Passover" by which this feast is set as the "ante-feast" of the Holy Week, the real entrance of the Messiah into His glory. Then having "seen" all this, having truly entered the mind of the Church as she celebrates this feast and the mind of those who expressed this celebration, one will not simply translate, but, indeed, express the same celebration, although maybe in texts somewhat different from the original, shortened here, paraphrased there, omitted or even replaced in certain places. I do not claim to be a specialist in English, which is not my native tongue. But, as a very "tentative" example let me once more hint at what I mean by "re-creation." Here is one stichera of Palm Sunday in literal translation:
"Six days before the Passover, thy voice, O Lord, was heard in the depths of Hades, by which Thou hast risen Lazarus of four days; as to the children of Israel, they were shouting 'Hosanna'; O our God glory to Thee."
If we remember that this text is to he sung, and yet heard as a whole, all these "by which," "for which cause," "as to," the endless genitives, the heavy forms such as "for which cause, the Hebrew children, bearing branches of trees in their hands, exalted him with the shout," not only create an anticlimax to music (as if someone were singing a paragraph from a newspaper), but they simply do not communicate the synthetic image underlying these words. The structure of Greek language is different: there "for which cause," or "in which" never acquire the phonetical independence which they have in English: they frame the main word or symbol without burdening it to such a degree that it is completely lost in this heavy gravy. A first requirement, therefore, is to cut the Byzantine period into short affirmative (kerygmatic!) sentences, centering each in one clear image and by-passing all words or even images, that "fit" into the Greek, but dissolve the English sentence. A possible rendering could be then something like this:
Six days before Pascha Thy voice was heard in Hades. It raised Lazarus. Hosanna, glory to thee..."
Another stichera from the same service in literal translation:
"When Thou was entering the Holy City sitting upon an ass, Thou was speeding to come to suffering in order to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. As to the Hebrew children, foretelling the victory of the Resurrection, they met Thee with branches and palms, saying, Blessed art Thou O Saviour, have mercy on us�"
Possible translation:
"Entering the Holy City Riding upon an ass, He was coming to suffer, To fulfill the Law and the Prophets. The palms and the branches Announced the victory of the Resurrection. Blessed art Thou, O Saviour, Have mercy upon us."
Needless to say, this work of "re-creation" cannot be amateurish. The whole point of my thought is that it requires a very serious liturgical and theological study of the liturgy, of its structure, of its connotations. We need, indeed, a liturgical movement: the rediscovery of the meaning first, then its "reincarnation" in adequate words and categories. But nothing short of that serious and patient work will make our liturgy again what it has always meant to be and to fulfill in the Church. The full article may be viewed at The Liturgical Problem [ jacwell.org]
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Originally posted by ByzKat: What if it were to turn out that the Oriental Congregation decided that "Lover of Mankind" was not the best translation of "Celovikol'ubce"? Is this just a suggestion? If the Oriental Congregation directed it the bishops can publish the letter and end all speculation. If Rome directed the change from �for He is gracious and loves mankind� to �for Christ is gracious and loves us all� they are violating their own directives. Avoiding the masculine pronoun �He� is vertical inclusive language. �Loves us all� is not a valid translation for �loves mankind.�
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976 |
Originally posted by nicholas: Originally posted by ByzKat: [b]What if it were to turn out that the Oriental Congregation decided that "Lover of Mankind" was not the best translation of "Celovikol'ubce"? Is this just a suggestion? If the Oriental Congregation directed it the bishops can publish the letter and end all speculation. If Rome directed the change from �for He is gracious and loves mankind� to �for Christ is gracious and loves us all� they are violating their own directives. Avoiding the masculine pronoun �He� is vertical inclusive language. �Loves us all� is not a valid translation for �loves mankind.� [/b]Dear nicholas, The Slavonic (and the Greek IIRC) neither repeats Christ nor does it have a pronoun there. The nouns "good" and "philanthropos/chelovekol'ubets" are simply in the masculine and obviously refer back to Christ (I am referring to the dismissal, this language is used elswhere as well). So, really it is up to English to resolve it. I can't see how this is vertical inclusive language, please explain that to me. And, how would Rome be violating their own directives? What are their directives? I look forward to your reply! Tony 
|
|
|
|
|