Text Of The New Icel Translation

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1242908' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:36 AM']Todd, in modern understanding, the language you just used excludes women from salvation. Now, I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that is the ultimate result.[/quote]
This is simply your opinion.

In revealed theology woman came from man, and that is precisely why the generic masculine includes all of humanity.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1242908' date='Apr 14 2007, 12:36 PM']I'm not referring to "contemporary" or "cutting edge," but to fundamental comprehension. Languages change, and once they change past a certain point, comprehension is lost.
Any tradition that fossilizes runs the risk of irrelevance.
Todd, in modern understanding, the language you just used excludes women from salvation. Now, I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that is the ultimate result.
It's not "modern sensibilities" or "manipulation of language," Todd--languages are not fixed.[/quote]


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.

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1242746' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:28 AM']Man ... it wasn't that long ago I learned the current one.[/quote]

Me too

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1242912' date='Apr 14 2007, 01:46 PM']Third, liturgical languages are "traditional" in nature, that is, they do not absorb uncritically linguistic changes that may occur in a culture.[/quote]
I agree that changes are not introduced uncritically, but that is why the Holy See approves the translations of the Mass. We don't just introduce new words on our own.

[quote]It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

--Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Mediator Dei"[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1242935' date='Apr 14 2007, 12:01 PM']I agree that changes are not introduced uncritically, but that is why the Holy See approves the translations of the Mass. We don't just introduce new words on our own.[/quote]
The generic use of "man / men" is to be retained in translation as the last liturgical instruction issued by the Holy See itself indicated.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1242940' date='Apr 14 2007, 02:04 PM']The generic use of "man / men" is to be retained in translation as the last liturgical instruction issued by the Holy See itself indicated.[/quote]
You may be right, I'm not familiar with these particular Liturgical documents. However, my only point is that if we are going to receive a new translation, it will be approved by the Holy See, so there is no need to worry about individual countries doing their own thing, because the Holy See always has the final word.

[Apotheoun]

The approval of a translation by the Holy See does not automatically make the text in question a good translation. In fact, the Holy See has clearly made mistakes in this area before, and that is one reason why a new translation is being done.

Clearly, any translation of the Roman Rite needs the approval of Rome, but that does not address the fact that the "inclusive language" ideology is Christologically problematic.

God bless,
Todd

[Era Might]

We have no authority to instruct the Holy See on doctrinal orthodoxy. If the Holy See decides that a particular translation is doctrinally orthodox, then we must accept her judgement. Whether something is linguistically as beautiful as it can be is a different question from whether it is doctrinally orthodox. The Holy See is the guardian of orthodoxy.

[Apotheoun]

You have the gift of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i], and so you can judge such matters. Moreover, the faith is not something foreign to you, as if it was something that had been imposed upon you by the Magisterium; instead, it is a God given gift that is intrinsic to your being.

Finally, the fact that the previous "translation" was so poor should tell you that the Holy See is not infallible in its judgments concerning translations of liturgical texts. As members of the Church we have a right, and even a duty, to make our needs known and to use the gifts we have been given for the good of the whole Church, and this may even involve calling the Pastors to task when they fail in their duties to God and man.

[Era Might]

We cannot judge the Holy See. We can recommend, but to say that a translation approved by the Holy See is doctrinally heterodox is to usurp the authority given to the Magisterium alone. If the new translations have not been approved yet, it is fine to offer constructive criticism, but if the Holy See decides that our constructive criticism is incorrect, then we must respect the judgement of the Holy See. It is impossible for the Holy See to promulgate a heterodox Liturgy.

[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.

--Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Mediator Dei"[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

We will have to agree to disagree on the lay faithful's right to judge the Holy See's approval of past (and even present) translations of liturgical texts.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The use of generic masculine words in translation was approved by the Holy See in its last general instruction on the Roman liturgy.

[Era Might]

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 Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult — when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors...The purity and the unity of the faith is in this manner also upheld by the supreme Magisterum of the Pope through the liturgical laws.

--Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, former Prefect of the Holy Office[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Era, I think the quote from Mediator Dei is out of context. When the pope spoke of a rite, I believe he means to the rite itself, which is the official text, which is always in Latin (in our rite). Personally, I don't think that extends to the translation.

However, because we are to submit to our pastors, I do not believe we may irreverently pick at the translation, accurate or not. We must say, "I respect the bishops and submit to their translation, but I would like to see it improved." That is a constructive and pastoral approach.

I think I agree with both of you. In the absolute sense of basic theological expression, I agree with Todd that the translation could use some work, but in the pastoral sense of not rising up against the bishops and their approved translation, I agree with Era.

In other words, I think there's room for improvement, but I don't think we should be too negative or picky in the meantime.

God bless,

Micah

[Era Might]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1242990' date='Apr 14 2007, 02:48 PM']Era, I think the quote from Mediator Dei is out of context. When the pope spoke of a rite, I believe he means to the rite itself, which is the official text, which is always in Latin (in our rite). Personally, I don't think that extends to the translation.[/quote]
That would mean that most of the Masses in the world (celebrated in the vernacular) could be heretical, but only the Masses in Latin are protected. Even the Pope offers Mass in the vernacular, so his Masses might be heretical as well. This is impossible. The Liturgy is always the public worship of the Church, and so the approval of translations by the Holy See is a judgement that there is nothing contrary to faith and morals.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1242994' date='Apr 14 2007, 01:52 PM']That would mean that most of the Masses in the world (celebrated in the vernacular) could be heretical, but only the Masses in Latin are protected. Even the Pope offers Mass in the vernacular, so his Masses might be heretical as well. This is impossible. The Liturgy is always the public worship of the Church, and so the approval of translations by the Holy See is a judgement that there is nothing contrary to faith and morals.[/quote]
Heretical? No, I wouldn't go that far. All I'm saying is that I think the pope was speaking of the form of the Mass, not translations. Besides, the Church hadn't approved of the vernacular at that time, so it couldn't have been the pope's intention.