Text Of The New Icel Translation

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1247018' date='Apr 17 2007, 11:55 AM']Precisely my current thoughts.
But suppose the infallibile authority a Church may wield is more narrowly defined in scope and application? Suppose, for the sake of discussion, a Church is infallible only in Fundamental Principles of Faith and Morals? I am not advocating Fundamentalism, but assurance of the Foundations, not details, in teaching and communicating an understanding of God?[/quote]

Hmmm ... an interesting proposition. We could split this discussion to a separate thread if you like?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1247023' date='Apr 17 2007, 12:01 PM']Hmmm ... an interesting proposition. We could split this discussion to a separate thread if you like? [/quote]
Sure. Debate Table may be good, though we'd have to be willing to ignore the Catholic Fanatics with the tiresome 'The Church says its infallible in all matters of faith and morals.' without defining or understanding what that really means or entails.

Just a thought. Maybe start a thread in Phormation? We may limit some of the less thoughtfull zealouts...

Edited April 17, 2007 by Anomaly

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1247026' date='Apr 17 2007, 12:05 PM']Sure. Debate Table may be good, though we'd have to be willing to ignore the Catholic Fanatics with the tiresome 'The Church says its infallible in all matters of faith and morals.' without defining or understanding what that really means or entails.

Just a thought. Maybe start a thread in Phormation? We may limit some of the less thoughtfull zealouts...[/quote]

Well, I'm not looking for a debate so much as a discussion--a chance for you to unfold your views on what issues the Charism of Infallability does and does not cover, and a chance to look at the history on those issues. But Transmundane looks like a great place for such a discussion. Shall I let you start?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1246967' date='Apr 17 2007, 08:09 AM']You have Bishops building Churches without Tabernacles, refusing to adhere to the sexaual abuse guidelines, and clearly dissenting from the Principles of the Church, but Catholics will tell me I must obey the Bishop when they agree, but the same Catholics will point out the Bishop errors and still tout the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium in matters of faith and morals.[/quote]
"[T]he individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility" ([url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html"]LG 27[/url]). We must assent to their teaching when it does not contradict Rome, but we have no obligation to follow any bad example they are setting. Mt 23:2-3 seems relevant here to me. Arius was a bishop too I believe - this is not a modern phenomenon. A bishop, or even a few rogue ones together, are not the Ordinary Magisterium. My reading of the section of Lumen Gentium quoted in the beginning suggests that even all the bishops together, if they are not in communion with the Pope, are not infallible.
[quote]If the Magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals, then how the heck did the Roman Rite get into such a pickle over the previous ICEL translation?[/quote]
The grumbles are over preferences, not heresy in the text. No translation can be perfect, but it can be free of doctrinal error. I remember reading (in the Catechism, I believe) about how we must continually alter our language to better describe the truths they are presenting. One may make the case that the current translation does not even use the best language available to us, but that does not make its content erroneous.

I do not consider my knowledge in this area to be suffiecient, but hopefully someone else can reply. I am still very much a student in the Faith. God bless!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1247034' date='Apr 17 2007, 12:27 PM']Well, I'm not looking for a debate so much as a discussion--a chance for you to unfold your views on what issues the Charism of Infallability does and does not cover, and a chance to look at the history on those issues. But Transmundane looks like a great place for such a discussion. Shall I let you start? [/quote]Yeah. I'd like to discuss a number of points and there are posters who are willing to discuss, not argue. I don't want to debate, I've got too many questions to ask. I'll start a thread later today, the rest of my day looks to be quite busy.
Thanks.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='thedude' post='1247046' date='Apr 17 2007, 12:49 PM']The grumbles are over preferences, not heresy in the text. No translation can be perfect, but it can be free of doctrinal error. I remember reading (in the Catechism, I believe) about how we must continually alter our language to better describe the truths they are presenting. One may make the case that the current translation does not even use the best language available to us, but that does not make its content erroneous.[/quote]One of my English teachers had a great example of evolving language. A girl had received a sweater from her grandmother. She liked it so much that she said, "This sweater is awesome." From this, the grandmother concluded that she had made the sweater too large for the girl.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1243091' date='Apr 14 2007, 02:43 PM']Well, first and foremost, I did not say that the generic use [i]is[/i] a minority position--only that it is becoming so.[/quote]
As I said before, this is an opinion without any supporting evidence.

Now, the fact that the new "translation" of the creed in the Roman Rite fails to translate the Greek word "anthropos" (a masculine noun), by simply dropping the word altogether from the creed, is not a proper method of translation of the original text into the receptor language. In fact, the English language has a masculine noun, i.e., the word "man," which serves the same function that the word "anthropos" serves in Greek, because both words are masculine nouns that have a specific (i.e., referring to an adult male) and a generic (i.e., referring to human species in general) meaning. That said, modern ideologies that try to manipulate language in order to promote a specific non-Christian worldview should not be allowed to influence the worship of the Church. It is a sad reality today that many of the new "translations" of liturgical texts into English have an unintentional Nestorian quality, since they often fail to convey the theological reality that Christ is the Man ([i]anthropos[/i]) in whom all men ([i]anthropoi[/i]) are one Man ([i]anthropos[/i]), while they also divide the subsistent unity of the incarnate Logos.

[Apotheoun]

The Christological doctrine of the Church, as expressed both in scripture and the patristic tradition, requires that the word "anthropos," in connection with the Logos and His relation to humanity, be translated with a single masculine specific and generic term, because to do otherwise loses the sense of the unity of the many in the One, and of the indivisible division of the One in the many. Moreover, in connection with the doctrine of the incarnation, the newer "translations" fail to convey the proper hypostatic unity of the Logos made man as decreed by the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), because Christ is not a "human person" nor is He a "human being"; instead, He is a divine person and a divine being who has become man by assuming a complete human nature into His eternal and uncreated [i]hypostasis[/i]. In other words, the Son of God incarnate is both a specific male individual, while He is also the universal recapitulation of all of mankind, and so the doctrinal tradition itself requires that the use of the generic masculine be retained in Christian liturgical and theological translations, because to fail to do so leads inexorably to the promotion of the Nestorian heresy.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1247846' date='Apr 18 2007, 07:47 AM']As I said before, this is an opinion without any supporting evidence.[/quote]

Excuse me, but you deleted the portion of my reply where I provided support for the stattement. Now, you may disagree with the opinions and statements provided, but I would greatly appreciate it if you did not suggest that I failed to provide support when I did so. Thank you.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1247851' date='Apr 18 2007, 05:58 AM']Excuse me, but you deleted the portion of my reply where I provided support for the stattement. Now, you may disagree with the opinions and statements provided, but I would greatly appreciate it if you did not suggest that I failed to provide support when I did so. Thank you. [/quote]
Yes, I discount the four additional opinions in your post, because they are from universities, which -- like almost all institutions of higher learning in the United States and England -- have a liberal bias, and as such they are not objective evidence. Opinions that support your opinion are not proof that the traditional use of the word "man" as a generic term in English is disappearing.

Nevertheless, even if I accepted your opinion, which I do not, it does not follow that the Church should adopt a linguistic form of communication that undermines her Christological doctrine.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The bibliography given at the end of one of the essays reveals the ideological motivations of the essays author.

[quote]Additional options and much more advice on this matter are available online:

Guidelines for Gender-Fair Use of Language, from the National Council of Teachers of English

Nonsexist Language, from Purdue University's Online Writing Center

Guidelines for the Elimination of Sexual Stereotyping in Language and Visual Material, from the Web site of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

And in these two well-respected handbooks:

Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing (1995) by Marilyn Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-Free Language of the Association of American University Presses, available in Raynor Reference

Handbook of Nonsexist Writing for Writers, Editors, and Speakers (1988) by Casey Miller and Kate Swift, on reserve in Memorial Library[/quote]
These are hardly objective sources.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1247920' date='Apr 18 2007, 10:31 AM']Yes, I discount the four additional opinions in your post, because they are from universities, which -- like almost all institutions of higher learning in the United States and England -- have a liberal bias, and as such they are not objective evidence. Opinions that support your opinion are not proof that the traditional use of the word "man" as a generic term in English is disappearing.

Nevertheless, even if I accepted your opinion, which I do not, it does not follow that the Church should adopt a linguistic form of communication that undermines her Christological doctrine.[/quote]

Todd, your post demonstrates what is called the "generic fallacy." Unfortunately, it also demonstrates ... what [i]appears[/i] to be a marked willingness to not just reject, but to deride as useless or irrelevant, anything but agreement with your position. If this is not, indeed, your attitude, then I apologize, but text format only gives a limited range of possible interpretations. However, if this is an accurate depiction of your attitude, then perhaps we should part company to prevent a degeneration of the amity of this conversation.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1247936' date='Apr 18 2007, 08:41 AM']Todd, your post demonstrates what is called the "generic fallacy." Unfortunately, it also demonstrates ... what [i]appears[/i] to be a marked willingness to not just reject, but to deride as useless or irrelevant, anything but agreement with your position. If this is not, indeed, your attitude, then I apologize, but text format only gives a limited range of possible interpretations. However, if this is an accurate depiction of your attitude, then perhaps we should part company to prevent a degeneration of the amity of this conversation.[/quote]
Your posts reveal that you have an ideologically biased perspective that is opposed to the traditional use of "man" as a generic word in English.

The word police are active at liberal institutions, and are trying to enforce their "new speak," and since I do not buy into their ideological paradigm, I will continue to use the word "man" as a generic term.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Thank you for your opinion. Please be assured that I will give it all the due consideration it so richly deserves.

Good day to you.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1247957' date='Apr 18 2007, 09:03 AM']Thank you for your opinion. Please be assured that I will give it all the due consideration it so richly deserves.

Good day to you.[/quote]
I wish you -- and all mankind -- happiness and joy.



God bless,
Todd