Being true to the Latin: Good idea? Bad Idea?
- Sun 20th November 2011, 9:12 am
The church’s decision to adopt a translation of the mass that’s more “true” to the master Latin text for English speaking Catholics has been met with controversy in all quarters. In the end it came down to a battle between two groups of bishops, ICEL, or the International Committee for English in Liturgy and Vox Clara, a group headed by Australian Cardinal George Pell who has a bit of a conservative and traditionalist bent to it. In the end ICEL lost and Vox Clara won, leading to the changes we’re going to see come the beginning of advent this year.
While being close to the Latin is laudable, it does cause some issues because it expresses a different mode of thinking that is in a number of ways radically different than English. Also, as liturgical language, the mass has much more in common with lyric poetry than with narrative. As such, most experts in translation would say that the main task is not so much to be slavishly literal to the original language as it is to find a way to covey the same basic meaning or feeling in the language the original is being translated into. Because of this, a lot of the new translation comes off in English as being a bit stilted. A classic example of this is the way the Gloria comes out from the new translation. While it more closely resembles the Latin word for word, it doesn’t flow as lyric poetry at all – which it should and does in Latin. Instead of “Lord God, Heavenly King, Almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks we praise you for your glory” it says: “We praise you, we bless you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly king, O God almighty Father” – no flow to it whatsoever. And this isn’t the only place you see this kind of destruction either. The Confetior ends up pretty badly mangled as are the prefaces for the Eucharistic prayers. At a conference for priests in the Archdiocese of Portland OR about a year ago, the justification was made that the Latin version of the prefaces of the Eucharistic prayers really makes up a crescendo of titles for God the Father himself and that in order for it to be a proper sacrifice, this form must be followed. That goal is laudable, however it needs to be done and can be done in a way that makes more sense in English than what is coming – something Vox Clara seems to have forgotten or just utterly ignored.
All of this and the fact that we’re headed into Advent lead me to think of the old Advent Hymn “Oh Come Oh Come Emmanuel.” Its English form has been accepted for a long time. In Latin, its language of composition, it makes more sense and has much more powerful imagery. If we were to translate it in a way that is truer to the Latin, we’d loose the lyric poetry that the English translation currently has. On in the first verse for example it goes:
Veni Veni Emmanuel
Captivum Solve Israel
Qui Gemit in exilio
Privatus Dei Filio
We translate that as:
Oh come Oh come Emmanuel
And ransome captive Israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the son of God appear
That’s good Lyric poetry in English. However it’s not as true to the Latin as it could be. Therefore, if we’re going in the vein of Vox Clara, the lyric should be:
Oh come oh come Emmanuel
Release Israel of captivity
Who groans in exile
Deprived of the son of God
Then the refrain:
Gaude, Gaude, Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te Israel
Current translation:
Rejoice, rejoice, Emmanuel
Shall come to you oh Israel
Literal (Vox Clara)
Rejoice, rejoice, Emmanuel
Will be born for you oh Israel.
If we were to use the literal translations, as Vox Clara would have us use, this hymn would completely fall apart even with use of Gregorian chant. While the imagery might be better conveyed in some of the verses with a literal translation and some of the allusions to early Roman culture might be better preserved, it would make no sense. For example “oh come oh dayspring from on high” becomes “oh come, oh come Oh East” (Veni Veni O Oriens). “Oh come Oh Come thou Lord of Might” becomes “Oh Come Oh Come My Lord” (Veni Veni Adonai). That verse in English looses some of its punch from the Latin, but that’s largely because English expression is understated when compared to Latin. In Latin, it’s clear from the first line that you’re talking about Moshe (Moses) ascending Sinai to get the Torah (law) and that it’s a story from Hebrew due to the word “Adonai” which means “My Lord/Master” and is what is said in spoken Hebrew instead of the proper name of the god of Israel. In English, it’s only clear after the verse is over what just happened and the imagery isn’t quite as striking. Yet if we were to translate it literally, the poetry would die completely and look something like this:
Latin:
Veni Veni Adonai
Qui populi in Sinai
Legem dedisti vértice
In majestate gloriae
Vox Clara English:
Oh come Oh Come My Lord
Who to the people in Sinai
You gave the points of law
In majestic glory.
Again – does not work as lyric poetry.
Since liturgical language needs to be handled ala lyric poetry, what Vox Clara has rammed through the Vatican, while laudable in its focus on staying close to the Latin, did it so slavishly that the net effect is some English that’s pretty badly mangled and does not generally stand up as lyric poetry. When translating lyric poetry the main task is to preserve the meaning and not necessarily be slavishly literal. The old translation did loose some of the subtleties of the Latin, yet the new one does not express them in a way that makes sense in modern English lyric poetry. Again, while laudable in its goal and overall a good idea. This translation in the end falls far short in terms of what it was intended to do for Catholics whose main language is modern English. Further, it’s sad because Vox Clara, is Latin for “Clear Voice” and the translation they put out is anything but.
Paul the Retired Gladiator
- Fri 25th February 2011, 11:17 pm
Normally, the readings for both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the mass don’t generally have much in common. This past Sunday, which was Septuagesima Sunday on the Extraordinary Form’s calendar, was the exception because in both forms, Paul the Apostle is using both the body and athletic competition to make his point about the character of Christian life and what it takes to compete. This is important because in the broader cultural context of his time and place, the human male body was glorified and athletic competition in the games, which often included racing, was both a religious as well as a civic observance. Therefore it’s interesting to look at what Paul is writing from that perspective, since under house arrest in Rome during the bulk of his writings, he cannot continue the fight himself, yet rather is training others to continue it for him.
We all know the phrase, “I have run the race, I have fought the good fight” (2 Timothy 4:7). In Greek, the term he uses for fight, αγων (agon) can also mean to compete in an athletic competition. In the reading from the Extraordinary Form’s epistle for Septuagesima Sunday (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, 10:1-5), this athletic competition metaphor is clear. Idiomatically translated into today’s English, the first few sentences read something like this: “Don’t you all know that while many run the race, only one runner wins the prize? This is the reason you run. For all of the competitors compete, and exercise self discipline therefore that they might have won a perishable crown, but on the other, we win an incorruptible one.” This is powerful imagery because in the games, the winners of the events would be crowned with laurel wreaths. Being perishable, these would inevitably shrivel up and decay over time. Paul on the other hand is talking about winning the ultimate prize that cannot go away and is very appealing to his audience – a reprieve from Hades, as hell was known at that time. Because of this, every blow he throws counts – he does not strike in vain and wins every time. This is again very competitive language. Writing as we think he did from Rome during the time he spent under house arrest there, it’s as though he’s a retired gladiator training others to carry on the competition and the games for him by passing down what he’s learned during his time in the arena.
This is further carried on in the epistle from the Ordinary Form – 1 Corinthians 3:16-23. It starts out “Don’t you all know that you are a shrine of God and that God’s spirit lives in each of you?” followed by an exhortation to maintain the shrine and not let it fall apart. On the surface, this might not seem to be related athletic competition and gladiatorial combat. Yet it very intimately is because per Greek metaphysics of the day, the spirit resides in the body. Per Christian metaphysics, the spirit of God resides in the body. Therefore the body must be maintained in all respects – including the physical. Anybody who has done any kind of physical conditioning will tell you that it takes commitment and discipline more than any real athletic ability to make it work. In that context, the exhortation to “maintain the shrine” could really be taken by his students as an exhortation to stay in the kind of shape they need to be in to compete.
In Paul’s day, successful gladiators and athletes would often retire when they could no longer compete and spend their retirement running schools to train other gladiators and athletes to continue the games. Paul’s house imprisonment in Rome after appealing to the Emperor serves as that forced retirement – he can’t go back on the road like he used to be able to. Therefore, he’s teaching others what he’s learned so that they may carry on the competition for him. There is military and athletic language all over his writings, not just in these two spots and it’s no accident. He is truly training competitors for Christ in the competition against the evil one, now that he can no longer continue the fight himself. His writings serve as the curriculum for the gladiatorial school he founded which continues to this day – Christianity.
Diabolus and Fidelius – Act IV
- Sun 16th January 2011, 11:31 am
Diabolus: Oh my God, what happened here?
Fidelius: Not you again! What are you doing here?
Diabolus: Oh, the usual, Patrolling the world for the ruin of souls.
Fidelius: Well then, you must be enjoying what you see here.
Diabolus: Oh no, property destruction is hardly a turn on for me. I hardly envy the task you and Cynthia have before you of rebuilding your life after this fire – your whole house is gone.
Fidelius: You don’t need to tell me the obvious.
Diabolus: But there is something more obvious than that. You look like you have seen a ghost.
Fidelius: How would you know whether I’ve seen a ghost or not?
Diabolus: Well, you did seem a bit shocked that David Farnsworth and his boyfriend Gary showed up and started helping you salvage what you can.
Fidelius: I could have sworn David was dead from AIDS – his divine punishment for being gay.
Diabolus: I could see your jaw drop through the floor when you saw them. They were just in the area on business, saw the fire truck, went to see what was up – he recognized you and they both dropped their lives to help you out. Would you have done the same for them?
Fidelius: I… um….sure
Diabolus: Oh come on! You disappoint me.
Fidelius: Hey, not too long ago I thought the man had received his comeuppance from the almighty for being gay, now I find out he’s alive, I’m allowed!
Diabolus: Tut tut tut…of course the experimental antiretroviral drug he was one did save him. Regardless, it doesn’t say much about your qualities both as a man and as a Catholic.
Fidelius: Who are you to judge me as a man and as a Catholic? Besides, who knows whether it was that experimental antiretroviral they put him on or whether it was his mother saying rosaries kneeling before the Virgin and attending Latin Mass every day that saved him?
Diabolus: Maybe it was those prayers that lead to the success of this drug cocktail not just for David but for others in his position?
Fidelius: Hardly! Of course that pilgrimage to Lourdes she told me she had planned probably didn’t hurt things any either.
Diabolus: Definitely money well spent. Ask Our Lady for an intercession for her son despite the curses the institutional church has placed on him and get a chance to work on her French – she did good, unlike that check you wrote to the campaign to repeal gay marriage in Maine.
Fidelius: Who are you to judge what I do with my finances?
Diabolus:You forget who I am.
Fidelius: I know full well who you are.
Diabolus: And that would be…?
Fidelius: The tempter, the devil, Satan himself
Diabolus: You flatter me! I’ve been called much worse.
Fidelius: Try me
Diabolus: Oh, conscience and scruples come to mind. You definitely seem to have had that since that repeal you sponsored passed and David and Gary showed up to help you and Cynthia pick up and move on after this disaster.
Fidelius: I stand behind my decision to sponsor the repeal. Kids will get the wrong idea. Being gay is wrong. END OF STORY!
Diabolus: Now, now, we both know that isn’t exactly how Holy Mother church views it.
Fidelius: Okay, being gay is an intrinsic disorder. Happy now?
Diabolus: That’s better, although there is a higher authority in this matter you should not be ignoring here.
Fidelius: There IS no higher authority than the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and there are no views apart from hers.
Diabolus: It’s funny, somebody aside from the church said: “Whatever you did to the least of my people, you did it to me.”
Fidelius: So? That has no authority?
Diabolus: Not even if it comes from your Lord and master himself?
Fidelius: There are no views but those of the church and as we all know, extra ecclesiam, nulla salus! (apart from the church, no salvation!)
Diabolus: Now, now, you know that’s not totally true.
Fidelius: It is true! Despite him and Gary’s showing up to help us, I saw the rings on their fingers! They’re going to hell!
Diabolus: And you’re going directly to heaven yourself?
Fidelius: Of course! I attend High Mass every Sunday, go to confession before, attend on all holy days of obligation, make my offering for the poor, say my rosary and pray for the intentions of the Holy Father. I’m going to heaven.
Diabolus: Yet you’ve only had 3 children in 20 years. Do I smell the sins of birth control and concupiscence?
Fidelius: Hey, that’s personal!
Diabolus: You forget, I’ve been there every time and enjoyed it the same as you have. Yet David and Gary aren’t entitled to the same benefits you and Cynthia are?
Fidelius: What we have is the natural order of things.
Diabolus: A good piece of demagoguery, but it won’t help you when you talk to St. Peter at the pearly gates.
Fidelius: My salvation is assured. You know Cynthia’s female problems would have killed her if she tried to have another child. Her hysterectomy was sound medical practice!
Diabolus: Yet it precluded her from having any other kids. Therefore, every time you and Cynthia are intimate by your logic, it is a sin. Have you admitted this in confession?
Fidelius: I’m not telling you.
Diabolus: Why not? You know I was there.
Fidelius: The seal of confession is impermeable!
Diabolus: Then why are you worried about it if you did not in fact commit any sin by being intimate with Cynthia – Like Fr. O’ Flannigan told you when you confessed it to him last Saturday?
Fidelius: As far as I’m concerned, Fr. O’ Flannigan has committed apostasy. I’m going to try another priest.
Diabolus: Even though he wears his biretta and his cassock daily and almost exclusively celebrates the Latin Mass?
Fidelius: There are others who do the same and hold the traditional doctrine!
Diabolus: Doesn’t negate the fact that you did not confess that you continually participated in church sanctioned lynchings against gays – starting with how you voted and your continued sponsorship of these “family alliances.” I think that’s the sin you need to confess. Especially after a married gay couple helped you and Cynthia salvage what you could after the fire. To put it mildy, peccavisti nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere. (you have sinned greatly in thought word and action)
Fidelius: I have done nothing of the sort!
Diabolus: No, no, no,…you ought to be saying “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” (by my fault, by my fault, by my greatest fault) Not just for your sponsorship of the cause that won in Maine, at the ballot box, but for all other state campaigns against gay marriage you sponsored and voted in.
Fidelius: Don’t tell me how to say the confetior!
Diabolus: Oh I know you know the confetior backwards and forwards in Latin. Why do you resist saying it now?
Fidelius: Because I haven’t committed any sins in this matter!
Diabolus: Are you sure about that?
Fidelius: Why would you care?
Diabolus: Didn’t think so. You participated in another church sanctioned lynching and this fire is just bringing it back in your face. Maybe the fire is divine retribution for all of your sins?
Fidelius: You know I don’t believe that God would come after me for this – I haven’t sinned!
Diabolus: But you DO believe that God would send David Farnsworth and Gary to at least purgatory just for being what they are.
Fidelius: What they are doing is against God’s Law!
Diabolus: (Sigh) Whatever dude. I gotta get moving. More souls to torment you know.
Fidelius: And about my life?
Diabolus: Dude, you are so beyond hopeless it’s not even funny.
Fidelius: Hopeless?!?!?!?
Diabolus: Eeeyep! No sale here! You do realize that I’m going to keep coming back to haunt you on occasions like this until you see the truth of your actions and repent, yeah?
Fidelius:I HAVE DONE NOTHING TO REPENT FOR!!!!!!
Diabolus:Tut, tut, tut…. Yes nurse Ratchet, this one’s a hopeless case . Again, I gotta scram…Later dude, et vale quando potes (be well as you are able.)
"Love your enemies" does not equal "Burn their holy scriptures!"
- Thu 9th September 2010, 3:44 pm
Today’s Gospel reading is from Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Plain. It’s the section that begins, “To you who hear me, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you and pray for those who maltreat you.” (Lk 6:27-28)
The reading spoke loudly to me today because of Pastor Terry Jones’ announced plan to have a burning of the Qur’an ceremony on September 11, the anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center and attack on the Pentagon, a date that this year also coincides with the feastive end of the penitential season of Ramadan. The plans sparked protests from believers of all faiths, leaders of Christian and Jewish faith communities, and governments around the world. Reports are that the burning has been cancelled because plans to build a mosque near the “ground zero” site in New York have been cancelled.
Both the threat to burn the Qur’an and the opposition to the construction of a mosque, a place of prayer, near a site of unspeakable tragedy for people of all faiths speak to me of a huge lack of faith among us as Christians. How can we possibly reconcile “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” with the idea that all members of another faith are enemies because a few of their number carried out acts of terrorism? And even if all members of that faith were our enemies, we would not be justified in responding in kind if we are to be faithful to the new command given by our Lord.
The kind of spouting of hate filled rhetoric that we have seen in recent weeks is not consistent with the love of God. It comes from the Deceiver, who whispers coyly to us about how we have been wronged and how others can only be trusted to harm us and how all members of another community wish us harm or are evil. It all sounds so smooth and reasonable, especially when we see wars being waged and combatants couching their actions in religious language overlaid with centuries of injustice and misunderstandings.
The desired effect of the Deceiver’s whispering has already been attained, even without a single text being burned. People all over the world are stirred up. Protests are raging. Hatreds are reignited. It matters not a whit that leaders of the United States and of all major religious have condemned the plan. Extremism doesn’t deal in facts or the distinction between truth and falsehood, regardless of which extreme is in question. I can just imagine the delighted smiles on the faces of the evil spirits involved in this huge deception.
The example of St. Peter Claver, whose feast we celebrate today, speaks to us still today. Working in Cartagena, during the early 17th century, caring for the slaves who arrived from West Africa and serving as their advocate with their new owners, Peter Claver did not ask people about their religious beliefs before ministering to them. Once their illnesses had been treated, their wounds healed, their needs for nutrition and shelter addressed, he spoke to them of the love of Jesus and many became Christians because of the love he and his helpers extended to them.
The slave trade itself was “justified” by a series of Papal decisions based on the ongoing conflict between Christians and Moslems. Basically, the reasoning was that peoples living in areas of the known world where they might have had the chance to become Christians but did not do so could be enslaved as punishment/consequence for their failure to accept Christianity. Moslems were the original target of these rulings, but they were extended to include the peoples of the entire continent of Africa on the assumption that missionaries might have reached them. The peoples of the Americas eventually were specifically protected from enslavement for the same reason. Missionaries had not reached them before the voyages of Christopher Columbus and the Europeans who followed him.
Peter Claver and his helpers rightly reasoned that it didn’t matter in the least whether a slave was a Moslem or a beliver in a tribal religion or a believer in no religion at all. That individual was a human being, a brother or sister who deserved care and respect. Through that outpouring of love, care and respect, God reached out and touched thousands of people.
May we have the courage as people of faith to do the same.
St. Peter Claver, pray for us.
(Reprinted with permission from http://blog.theologika.net.)
