Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] a few odds and ends from Cardinal Medina's letter

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Lawson
    ... -- Daniel Lawson dlawson1@nd.edu Maintainer of Daily Office web site, http://www.nd.edu/~dlawson1/office.html
    Message 1 of 28 , May 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:54 PM 5/2/2002 +0100, David Waller wrote:
      >Is the text of the letter available on the web?

      At 01:42 PM 5/1/2002 +0100, Avril Baigent wrote:
      >You can find the text at http://www.webelieve.cc/html/medinalet.htm with the
      >permission to make it public.
      >Avril



      --
      Daniel Lawson dlawson1@...
      Maintainer of Daily Office web site, http://www.nd.edu/~dlawson1/office.html
    • fbauerschmidt
      I also found Thomas three points interesting. As he knows from another forum where we have met, I m a big fan of the dependent clauses in the collects, but
      Message 2 of 28 , May 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I also found Thomas' three points interesting. As he knows from
        another forum where we have met, I'm a big fan of the dependent
        clauses in the collects, but had pretty much despaired of ever seeing
        them return in the English translations. So I'm glad to see that they
        have another chance. Likewise, I'm happy with the retention of the
        traditional text of the Lord's Prayer.

        On the other hand, I find the bit about paten vs. plate and chalice
        vs. cup a bit silly. I can't believe that they are really proposing
        to have the institution narrative say "Likewise after supper he took
        the chalice. . ."? But this is in fact what the group CREDO proposes
        (see their proposed translation at http://www.credo.org/sample.htm),
        and I'm afraid some of them may have the ear of Medina. If they want
        the rubrics to say "chalice," fine. But in the context of the
        institution narrative I think this would be a highly misleading
        translation.

        F Bauerschmidt
      • Douglas Cowling
        ... I was surprised: the CREDO translation is pretty good. However, there are plenty examples where exact translation does not produce modern English. To
        Message 3 of 28 , May 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          on 5/3/02 3:30 AM, fbauerschmidt at fbauerschmidt@... wrote:

          > On the other hand, I find the bit about paten vs. plate and chalice
          > vs. cup a bit silly. I can't believe that they are really proposing
          > to have the institution narrative say "Likewise after supper he took
          > the chalice. . ."? But this is in fact what the group CREDO proposes
          > (see their proposed translation at http://www.credo.org/sample.htm),
          > and I'm afraid some of them may have the ear of Medina. If they want
          > the rubrics to say "chalice," fine. But in the context of the
          > institution narrative I think this would be a highly misleading
          > translation.
          >
          > F Bauerschmidt


          I was surprised: the CREDO translation is pretty good. However, there are
          plenty examples where exact translation does not produce modern English.

          To translate "in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas" as "into His holy and
          venerable hands" is to ignore that "venerable" now measn "old, ancient" in
          modern usage. Christ sounds positively dottery.

          "Offerte vobis pacem" as "Offer the peace to one another" sounds pretty
          cranky to me.

          Using "chalice" is just plain wrong. There is a historic difference between
          a "cup" and a "chalice".

          One doesn't expect inclusive language from this group, but why the archaic
          "brethern" for "fratres"? But even this group can't ignore the changes in
          gender terminology. "et operis manuum hominum" is translated "and the work
          of human hands"

          I'm curious about the Tudor language Lord's Prayer. In the Anglican Church
          at least, people use both versions without much problem now. Certainly
          catholics can pick it up easily.


          Doug Cowling
          ____________________________________________________________
          Director of Music & Liturgical Arts
          Church of the Messiah
          Toronto
        • Scott Knitter
          ... I rather doubt it. Roman Catholics who pray the Rosary and novenas have said the traditional Lord s Prayer (or the second half of it, if praying with a
          Message 4 of 28 , May 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Douglas Cowling <dcowling@...> wrote:
            > I'm curious about the Tudor language Lord's Prayer.
            > In the Anglican Church
            > at least, people use both versions without much
            > problem now. Certainly
            > catholics can pick it up easily.

            I rather doubt it. Roman Catholics who pray the
            Rosary and novenas have said the traditional Lord's
            Prayer (or the second half of it, if praying with a
            group) hundreds or thousands of times more than most
            Anglicans. It's automatic, even subconscious, and
            would be hard to change, methinks. Not impossible, though.

            =====
            Scott Knitter - zz4j9m@... - Chicago, Illinois USA

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
            http://health.yahoo.com
          • Thomas R. Jackson
            ... perhaps, but it is hard to imagine why one would want to. We were talking about common liturgical language earlier. It is hard to find any prayer text
            Message 5 of 28 , May 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              >I rather doubt it. Roman Catholics who pray the
              >Rosary and novenas have said the traditional Lord's
              >Prayer (or the second half of it, if praying with a
              >group) hundreds or thousands of times more than most
              >Anglicans. It's automatic, even subconscious, and
              >would be hard to change, methinks. Not impossible, though.


              perhaps, but it is hard to imagine why one would want to. We were talking
              about common liturgical language earlier. It is hard to find any prayer
              text which so many English speaking Christians can share. Other than the
              usual stumble over the doxology, I can start up that prayer with just about
              any group and be assured a truly communal prayer experience. Messing with
              it has to be one of the poorest conceived of liturgical changes, ISTM.

              thomas.
            • fbauerschmidt
              ... than the ... just about ... Messing with ... ISTM. I wish that there was a common translation of the Our Father in the Dutch speaking world. Believe it or
              Message 6 of 28 , May 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In liturgy-l@y..., "Thomas R. Jackson" <thomas@l...> wrote:
                >It is hard to find any prayer
                > text which so many English speaking Christians can share. Other
                than the
                > usual stumble over the doxology, I can start up that prayer with
                just about
                > any group and be assured a truly communal prayer experience.
                Messing with
                > it has to be one of the poorest conceived of liturgical changes,
                ISTM.

                I wish that there was a common translation of the Our Father in the
                Dutch speaking world. Believe it or not, here in Belgium they use one
                version and in Holland they use another. And these are two tiny
                countries right next to each other! It get's very confusing.

                F Bauerschmidt
              • asteresplanetai
                Blessed be God. ... Yes but parts of it don t mean much any more. Hollowed ? Lead us not into temptation ? Not to mention the difference between forgiving
                Message 7 of 28 , May 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Blessed be God.

                  > From: "Thomas R. Jackson" <thomas@...>
                  > Subject: Re: CREDO translation
                  >
                  > >
                  > >I rather doubt it. Roman Catholics who pray the
                  > >Rosary and novenas have said the traditional Lord's
                  > >Prayer (or the second half of it, if praying with a
                  > >group) hundreds or thousands of times more than most
                  > >Anglicans. It's automatic, even subconscious, and
                  > >would be hard to change, methinks. Not impossible, though.
                  >
                  > perhaps, but it is hard to imagine why one would want to. We were talking
                  > about common liturgical language earlier. It is hard to find any prayer
                  > text which so many English speaking Christians can share. Other than the
                  > usual stumble over the doxology, I can start up that prayer with just about
                  > any group and be assured a truly communal prayer experience. Messing with
                  > it has to be one of the poorest conceived of liturgical changes, ISTM.

                  Yes but parts of it don't mean much any more. "Hollowed"? "Lead us not
                  into temptation"?

                  Not to mention the difference between forgiving somebody for
                  trespassing on the land that still remains yours after you've been so
                  generous, and forgiving them something they owe you.

                  Regards,

                  John Burnett
                • fcsenn@aol.com
                  In a message dated 5/3/2002 8:27:33 PM Central Daylight Time, ... I think the above-mentioned parts of the Lord s Prayer MEAN something. The question is
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 5/3/2002 8:27:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
                    asteresplanetai@... writes:


                    > Yes but parts of it don't mean much any more. "Hollowed"? "Lead us not
                    > into temptation"?
                    >
                    > Not to mention the difference between forgiving somebody for
                    > trespassing on the land that still remains yours after you've been so
                    > generous, and forgiving them something they owe you.
                    >
                    >

                    I think the above-mentioned parts of the Lord's Prayer MEAN something. The
                    question is whether by these translations we express the MEANING of the
                    biblical text. It is quite likely that the biblical text is infused with
                    eschatological, even apocalyptic, notions. Thus there would be a difference
                    between withstanding moral temptation and the test to which one's faith is
                    put in persecution. The forgiveness imagined in the biblical text might be
                    in reference to the jubilee, in which case "debts" are forgiven (ours owed to
                    God, what others owe to us) rather than "trespasses" or even "sins" in
                    general. So do we try to make the biblical sense plainer than it is or go
                    with what is familiar and comfortable? I suspect that if we considered their
                    original meanings, the petitions of the Lord's Prayer could make us very
                    uncomfortable.

                    FCSenn


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • meh
                    Dear Everyone, I would like to chime in on the translation issue. IMHO the point of all these words is that we are in relationship to God as we are in
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Everyone,
                      I would like to chime in on the translation issue.
                      IMHO the point of all these words is that we are in relationship to God as
                      we are in relationship to each other. It does not matter how we express our
                      sin and faith as long as we know who and what we are. We are God's beloved
                      creation, given to lapses in faith, morals, whatever with God and creation.
                      We return to God and become whole with God and the creation when we live in
                      harmony with creation.
                      m.e. hill
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: fcsenn@... <fcsenn@...>
                      To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
                      Date: Friday, May 03, 2002 11:00 PM
                      Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] CREDO translation


                      >In a message dated 5/3/2002 8:27:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
                      >asteresplanetai@... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      >> Yes but parts of it don't mean much any more. "Hollowed"? "Lead us not
                      >> into temptation"?
                      >>
                      >> Not to mention the difference between forgiving somebody for
                      >> trespassing on the land that still remains yours after you've been so
                      >> generous, and forgiving them something they owe you.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >I think the above-mentioned parts of the Lord's Prayer MEAN something. The
                      >question is whether by these translations we express the MEANING of the
                      >biblical text. It is quite likely that the biblical text is infused with
                      >eschatological, even apocalyptic, notions. Thus there would be a
                      difference
                      >between withstanding moral temptation and the test to which one's faith is
                      >put in persecution. The forgiveness imagined in the biblical text might be
                      >in reference to the jubilee, in which case "debts" are forgiven (ours owed
                      to
                      >God, what others owe to us) rather than "trespasses" or even "sins" in
                      >general. So do we try to make the biblical sense plainer than it is or go
                      >with what is familiar and comfortable? I suspect that if we considered
                      their
                      >original meanings, the petitions of the Lord's Prayer could make us very
                      >uncomfortable.
                      >
                      >FCSenn
                      >
                      >
                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/
                      >
                      >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      >liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                      >liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • Thomas R. Jackson
                      Ah, here is the rub. In defending the traditional English wording of the Lord s Prayer, I never suggested that the translation is a good one, or that it
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ah, here is the rub. In defending the traditional English wording of the
                        Lord's Prayer, I never suggested that the translation is a good one, or
                        that it brings all the meaning of the original out, or that better
                        translations aren't possible. But I look at all the controversy about the
                        prayer and its translation, and I am not sure that getting all the meaning
                        and nuance is really an achievable goal for one, brief, memorized, English
                        language prayer. You might do better than the traditional text, but you
                        won't really get it right, an you will have to embalm one particular
                        reading to achieve the goal.

                        Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about this subject in one of his works when
                        talking about Latin versus vernacular. He pointed out that, while the use
                        of the vernacular was promoted so that people would understand the liturgy,
                        that simply saying the words in the vernacular did not in itself guarantee
                        a true spiritual understanding. He pointed out that some might actually
                        have a deeper understanding of what is being said praying in Latin than
                        many people do praying in the vernacular. His words were widely
                        misrepresented (as so many of his are), by both friend and foe as
                        expressing opposition to use of the vernacular, but that wasn't his point.

                        It seems to me that the traditional English wording of the Lord's Prayer is
                        an _idiom_ . Like all idioms, it means something more, even different
                        from, the plain words on the page. While the plain words that are recited
                        do convey some of the meaning of the prayer, I dare say that the greater
                        meaning is infused into it from our experience, our spiritual life, our
                        catechism, our theological training. I suspect that most Christians, even
                        the least formed, can give a reasonable accounting of its general
                        meaning. I suspect that a very large number can expand upon that basic
                        meaning from what they recall from homilies, Sunday School, reading,
                        personal reflection. I am very doubtful that any change in the standard
                        wording will produce an appreciable advance in this expanded understanding
                        of the prayer. In fact, to the degree that a change of wording might upset
                        the recitation of the prayer, the frequent and common usage of the prayer
                        in common, or dilute some of the power of the prayer that only comes from
                        such deep cultural entrenchment, a change of wording might actually
                        _obscure_ our deeper appreciation of the prayer that Jesus taught us.

                        I think that fresh translations of the prayer have an important place. I
                        just don't think that we need to go disrupting such a profound consensus of
                        communal prayer life. There is a certain misguided arrogance in
                        trying. Instead, I think we need to help deepen the appreciation for the
                        meaning of our established idiom.

                        thomas.


                        > >> Yes but parts of it don't mean much any more. "Hollowed"? "Lead us not
                        > >> into temptation"?
                        > >>
                        > >> Not to mention the difference between forgiving somebody for
                        > >> trespassing on the land that still remains yours after you've been so
                        > >> generous, and forgiving them something they owe you.
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >
                        > >I think the above-mentioned parts of the Lord's Prayer MEAN something. The
                        > >question is whether by these translations we express the MEANING of the
                        > >biblical text. It is quite likely that the biblical text is infused with
                        > >eschatological, even apocalyptic, notions. Thus there would be a
                        >difference
                        > >between withstanding moral temptation and the test to which one's faith is
                        > >put in persecution. The forgiveness imagined in the biblical text might be
                        > >in reference to the jubilee, in which case "debts" are forgiven (ours owed
                        >to
                        > >God, what others owe to us) rather than "trespasses" or even "sins" in
                        > >general. So do we try to make the biblical sense plainer than it is or go
                        > >with what is familiar and comfortable? I suspect that if we considered
                        >their
                        > >original meanings, the petitions of the Lord's Prayer could make us very
                        > >uncomfortable.
                        > >
                        > >FCSenn
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/
                        > >
                        > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > >liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > >
                        > >To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                        > >liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        > >
                        > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/
                        >
                        >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        >liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                        >liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • Heavyruner@aol.com
                        Thomas wrote that Cardinal Ratzinger has argued: while the use of the vernacular was promoted so that people would understand the liturgy, that simply saying
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thomas wrote that Cardinal Ratzinger has argued:
                          "while the use of the vernacular was promoted so that people would understand
                          the liturgy, that simply saying the words in the vernacular did not in itself
                          guarantee
                          a true spiritual understanding."

                          Such an argument leads us, ultimately, back, not to Latin, but to Greek and
                          Aramaic (maybe Syriac), since they are the original "holy" languages. If a
                          case can be made for such an argument, it must be made that the scribes
                          stepped on the slippery slope long, long ago. Since I love Greek, and
                          appreciate Aramaic and love Ephrem of Syria who wrote in Syriac, I say, Let
                          the Reform Begin!

                          Grace and Peace,
                          David Oliver-Holder
                          Roundy Memorial Baptist Church
                          Milwaukee, Wisconsin
                        • Douglas Cowling
                          ... As someone who has only a hobbyist s acquaintance with Greek and Hebrew, I ve often pondered if the original language is part of the charism of a work of
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            on 5/5/02 4:05 PM, Heavyruner@... at Heavyruner@... wrote:

                            > Thomas wrote that Cardinal Ratzinger has argued:
                            > "while the use of the vernacular was promoted so that people would understand
                            > the liturgy, that simply saying the words in the vernacular did not in itself
                            > guarantee
                            > a true spiritual understanding."
                            >
                            > Such an argument leads us, ultimately, back, not to Latin, but to Greek and
                            > Aramaic (maybe Syriac), since they are the original "holy" languages. If a
                            > case can be made for such an argument, it must be made that the scribes
                            > stepped on the slippery slope long, long ago. Since I love Greek, and
                            > appreciate Aramaic and love Ephrem of Syria who wrote in Syriac, I say, Let
                            > the Reform Begin!
                            >
                            > Grace and Peace,
                            > David Oliver-Holder


                            As someone who has only a hobbyist's acquaintance with Greek and Hebrew,
                            I've often pondered if the original language is part of the "charism" of a
                            work of literature. As a student of Shakespeare, I would never hesitate to
                            say that there is an essence of the Bard which never gives himself up to the
                            translator; that to take away his English language is to take away
                            Shakespeare himself. To recite the Nicene Creed in English is to know that
                            something has slipped away in the translation.


                            Doug Cowling
                            ____________________________________________________________
                            Director of Music & Liturgical Arts
                            Church of the Messiah
                            Toronto
                          • M. Thannisch
                            I agree with you that any Christian who has had good Catechises will know what the Lord s prayer is supposed to mean, whether or not he actually aware of this
                            Message 13 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I agree with you that any Christian who has had good Catechises will know
                              what the Lord's prayer is supposed to mean, whether or not he actually aware
                              of this when he prays it or uses it in Liturgy.


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Thomas R. Jackson" <thomas@...>

                              > It seems to me that the traditional English wording of the Lord's Prayer
                              is
                              > an _idiom_ . Like all idioms, it means something more, even different
                              > from, the plain words on the page. While the plain words that are recited
                              > do convey some of the meaning of the prayer, I dare say that the greater
                              > meaning is infused into it from our experience, our spiritual life, our
                              > catechism, our theological training. I suspect that most Christians, even
                              > the least formed, can give a reasonable accounting of its general
                              > meaning.

                              Do they really disrupt the consensus of communal prayer life? I have been
                              using the "new" Lord's prayer in English and Spanish for about 20 years. In
                              fact my family only knows the new prayer in Spanish and learned the
                              traditional Lord's prayer when they came into the US. I admit, when I first
                              learned the ICET it took a little while to get used to, but for
                              consistancy's sake I liked it. Sooner or later, English will transform to
                              the point it cannot be used, but why can't we get together, (the liturgical
                              churches anyway) and agree on a text, and let people be bilingual for a
                              while. Then they can use which ever is appropriate to their situation.

                              > I think that fresh translations of the prayer have an important place. I
                              > just don't think that we need to go disrupting such a profound consensus
                              of
                              > communal prayer life. There is a certain misguided arrogance in
                              > trying. Instead, I think we need to help deepen the appreciation for the
                              > meaning of our established idiom.

                              BTW, I am not sure how traditional to all traditions the traditional Lord's
                              prayer is. Back in the days when we started public school in Texas with the
                              Lord's Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, we prayed, "forgive us our debts
                              as we forgive those who have debts against us" and I note that the English
                              BCP that I have handy says, "And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive
                              them that trespass against us..." not to mention our Father whcih art om
                              Heaven." just goes to show that even our "Traditional" Lord's prayer has
                              gone through some changes. We did survivie them.

                              Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach

                              Michael Joe Thannisch
                              mjthan@...
                            • fcsenn@aol.com
                              In a message dated 5/5/2002 8:42:09 AM Central Daylight Time, ... You can express this relationship in free prayer however you want, but we re talking about
                              Message 14 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 5/5/2002 8:42:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                baydame@... writes:


                                > I would like to chime in on the translation issue.
                                > IMHO the point of all these words is that we are in relationship to God as
                                > we are in relationship to each other. It does not matter how we express
                                > our
                                > sin and faith as long as we know who and what we are. We are God's beloved
                                > creation, given to lapses in faith, morals, whatever with God and creation.
                                > We return to God and become whole with God and the creation when we live in
                                > harmony with creation.
                                >

                                You can express this relationship in free prayer however you want, but we're
                                talking about using texts that are only versions of original texts, and which
                                therefore may have original meanings that might, in fact, convict us of
                                deeper sin (e.g. "forgive us our debts, as we forgiveour debtors" instead of
                                "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us") or
                                provoke us to greater faith (e.g. "save us from the time of trial" as opposed
                                to "lead us not into temptation").

                                FCSenn


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • fcsenn@aol.com
                                In a message dated 5/5/2002 12:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time, ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Message 15 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 5/5/2002 12:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
                                  thomas@... writes:


                                  >
                                  > Ah, here is the rub. In defending the traditional English wording of the
                                  > Lord's Prayer, I never suggested that the translation is a good one, or
                                  > that it brings all the meaning of the original out, or that better
                                  > translations aren't possible. But I look at all the controversy about the
                                  > prayer and its translation, and I am not sure that getting all the meaning
                                  > and nuance is really an achievable goal for one, brief, memorized, English
                                  > language prayer. You might do better than the traditional text, but you
                                  > won't really get it right, an you will have to embalm one particular
                                  > reading to achieve the goal.
                                  >
                                  > Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about this subject in one of his works when
                                  > talking about Latin versus vernacular. He pointed out that, while the use
                                  > of the vernacular was promoted so that people would understand the liturgy,
                                  >
                                  > that simply saying the words in the vernacular did not in itself guarantee
                                  > a true spiritual understanding. He pointed out that some might actually
                                  > have a deeper understanding of what is being said praying in Latin than
                                  > many people do praying in the vernacular. His words were widely
                                  > misrepresented (as so many of his are), by both friend and foe as
                                  > expressing opposition to use of the vernacular, but that wasn't his point.
                                  >
                                  >



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • fcsenn@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 5/5/2002 12:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Correct. You never get it right. So it s not bad to have options. Those of us who have
                                  Message 16 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 5/5/2002 12:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
                                    thomas@... writes:


                                    >
                                    > Ah, here is the rub. In defending the traditional English wording of the
                                    > Lord's Prayer, I never suggested that the translation is a good one, or
                                    > that it brings all the meaning of the original out, or that better
                                    > translations aren't possible. But I look at all the controversy about the
                                    > prayer and its translation, and I am not sure that getting all the meaning
                                    > and nuance is really an achievable goal for one, brief, memorized, English
                                    > language prayer. You might do better than the traditional text, but you
                                    > won't really get it right, an you will have to embalm one particular
                                    > reading to achieve the goal.


                                    Correct. You never get it right. So it's not bad to have options. Those of
                                    us who have used the LBW (and I presume also those who have used the BCP)
                                    have used the ICET translation and the Prayer Book (note: it's not the KJV)
                                    versions of the Lord's Prayer alternately for twenty-five years. A whole
                                    generation has grown up using both versions. I don't know how many versions
                                    we could internalize simultaneously, but we've done O.K. with two, and our
                                    understanding of the text is, I dare say, richer because of this.

                                    >
                                    > Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about this subject in one of his works when
                                    > talking about Latin versus vernacular. He pointed out that, while the use
                                    > of the vernacular was promoted so that people would understand the liturgy,
                                    >
                                    > that simply saying the words in the vernacular did not in itself guarantee
                                    > a true spiritual understanding. He pointed out that some might actually
                                    > have a deeper understanding of what is being said praying in Latin than
                                    > many people do praying in the vernacular. His words were widely
                                    > misrepresented (as so many of his are), by both friend and foe as
                                    > expressing opposition to use of the vernacular, but that wasn't his point.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    I understand what Cardinal Ratzinger is saying. Those who have even a modest
                                    understanding of another language have a deeper understanding when they can
                                    at least follow that language. This morning our choir sang Bach's Cantata
                                    BXV 93, "Wer nur den lieben Gott laesst walten," auf Deutsch. The text with
                                    a parallel translation was made available to the congregation. Apart from
                                    the recitatives which fly along pretty fast, the arias provided more
                                    elongated meditations on the text and gave those of us who know some German a
                                    chance to really appreciate what Bach was doing with the text. In any event,
                                    I find German the most difficult of all the languages I've studied to put
                                    into good English, especially German verse. This may be why there are so few
                                    good translations of the chorales. And the translations that are good
                                    English verse, like those of Catherine Winkworth's, take liberties with the
                                    German text. So she renders "Wer nur den lieben Gott laesst walten" as "If
                                    thou but suffer God to guide thee." Those who know a bit of German will see
                                    my point. Good English verse. But it's not Georg Nuemark.

                                    FCSenn



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • bpglenn
                                    I think the exception you mention behooves us to always have translations that are understandable. I m all for beautiful liturgical language, but if the
                                    Message 17 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I think the exception you mention behooves us to always have
                                      translations that are understandable. I'm all for beautiful liturgical
                                      language, but if the average worshipper doesn't understand it it's of
                                      little use. We might as well go back to Latin or Greek and let the
                                      assembly pray private prayers (NOT!). That said, in my church the folks
                                      always reverted to the traditional Lord's Prayer regardless of what was
                                      printed.

                                      +Glenn

                                      "M. Thannisch" wrote:
                                      >
                                      > I agree with you that any Christian who has had good Catechises will know
                                      > what the Lord's prayer is supposed to mean, whether or not he actually aware
                                      > of this when he prays it or uses it in Liturgy.
                                      >
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: "Thomas R. Jackson" <thomas@...>
                                      >
                                      > > It seems to me that the traditional English wording of the Lord's Prayer
                                      > is
                                      > > an _idiom_ . Like all idioms, it means something more, even different
                                      > > from, the plain words on the page. While the plain words that are recited
                                      > > do convey some of the meaning of the prayer, I dare say that the greater
                                      > > meaning is infused into it from our experience, our spiritual life, our
                                      > > catechism, our theological training. I suspect that most Christians, even
                                      > > the least formed, can give a reasonable accounting of its general
                                      > > meaning.
                                      >
                                      > Do they really disrupt the consensus of communal prayer life? I have been
                                      > using the "new" Lord's prayer in English and Spanish for about 20 years. In
                                      > fact my family only knows the new prayer in Spanish and learned the
                                      > traditional Lord's prayer when they came into the US. I admit, when I first
                                      > learned the ICET it took a little while to get used to, but for
                                      > consistancy's sake I liked it. Sooner or later, English will transform to
                                      > the point it cannot be used, but why can't we get together, (the liturgical
                                      > churches anyway) and agree on a text, and let people be bilingual for a
                                      > while. Then they can use which ever is appropriate to their situation.
                                      >
                                      > > I think that fresh translations of the prayer have an important place. I
                                      > > just don't think that we need to go disrupting such a profound consensus
                                      > of
                                      > > communal prayer life. There is a certain misguided arrogance in
                                      > > trying. Instead, I think we need to help deepen the appreciation for the
                                      > > meaning of our established idiom.
                                      >
                                      > BTW, I am not sure how traditional to all traditions the traditional Lord's
                                      > prayer is. Back in the days when we started public school in Texas with the
                                      > Lord's Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, we prayed, "forgive us our debts
                                      > as we forgive those who have debts against us" and I note that the English
                                      > BCP that I have handy says, "And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive
                                      > them that trespass against us..." not to mention our Father whcih art om
                                      > Heaven." just goes to show that even our "Traditional" Lord's prayer has
                                      > gone through some changes. We did survivie them.
                                      >
                                      > Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach
                                      >
                                      > Michael Joe Thannisch
                                      > mjthan@...
                                      >
                                      > Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/
                                      >
                                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                                      > liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    • M. Thannisch
                                      While I have been contemplating teaching my children Hebrew and Greek (Actually they started teaching themselves Hebrew), I do not think this is the answer.
                                      Message 18 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        While I have been contemplating teaching my children Hebrew and Greek
                                        (Actually they started teaching themselves Hebrew), I do not think this is
                                        the answer. The Jews and Muslims have done it this way. The scriptures are
                                        always read in Hebrew in the synagogue, and the only Koran that can exist
                                        must be the original in classical Arabic. Many of our Eastern brethren
                                        still sing parts of their liturgies in Koine Greek (I am thinking of the
                                        resurrection song of Easter). While I would love and desire that all
                                        Christians would learn both languages and study the scriptures in them, I
                                        see two problems. First, it's not going to happen, unless we have a radical
                                        change. (After school catechises five days a week). Second, since we are
                                        dealing with dead languages I am not sure how accurate our understanding
                                        will be. If Koine Greek had been passed along at schools the way Hebrew
                                        schools pass on Hebrew, maybe we would have a fighting chance.

                                        How many in your congregations would jump up for the opportunity to learn
                                        Koine Greek.

                                        As to the original language being part of the charisma, I agree with that
                                        100%. The Muslims have a point that the Q'uran in anything but Classical
                                        Arabic is just a translation. I have read much in translation, whether from
                                        Spanish to English, English to German, and Czech to English (and German) and
                                        vise versa. I've read the Hobbit in all four languages. The translation
                                        just does not quite catch it, even though it may come close. Whether we
                                        teach things in original or not, we do need to teach people how people
                                        thought in other languages. I find that translations that are the most
                                        faithful are done by people who understand how people think in both
                                        languages. I also note, that related languages tend to pass on ideas more
                                        easily, for example, Wilhelm Shakespeare is excellent in German, but only so
                                        so in Spanish. Ditto for Corrie ten Boom. Her writing are much more alive
                                        in English and German than they are in Spanish or Czech. I also think our
                                        catechises could be better. When I hear one substance in the creed, my mind
                                        goes back to origins of the Nicene creed. When I hear Jesus talking about
                                        eggs and scorpions and fish and snakes, while I may not remember the words,
                                        I do remember that egg and scorpion are similar in Aramaic as are fish and
                                        snakes. I also realise that when Jesus says we must hate our father and
                                        mother, He is not talking about the way we should hate sin.

                                        Anyway, I do agree, we loose things in translation.

                                        Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach

                                        Michael Joe Thannisch
                                        mjthan@...

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Douglas Cowling" <dcowling@...>
                                        > As someone who has only a hobbyist's acquaintance with Greek and Hebrew,
                                        > I've often pondered if the original language is part of the "charism" of a
                                        > work of literature. As a student of Shakespeare, I would never hesitate
                                        to
                                        > say that there is an essence of the Bard which never gives himself up to
                                        the
                                        > translator; that to take away his English language is to take away
                                        > Shakespeare himself. To recite the Nicene Creed in English is to know
                                        that
                                        > something has slipped away in the translation.
                                      • DJP4LAW@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 5/5/02 5:28:52 PM Central Daylight Time, fcsenn@aol.com ... This is why I appreciate the translations that accompany the Helmut Rilling
                                        Message 19 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In a message dated 5/5/02 5:28:52 PM Central Daylight Time, fcsenn@...
                                          writes:


                                          > I find German the most difficult of all the languages I've studied to put
                                          > into good English, especially German verse. This may be why there are so
                                          > few
                                          > good translations of the chorales. And the translations that are good
                                          > English verse, like those of Catherine Winkworth's, take liberties with the
                                          > German text

                                          This is why I appreciate the "translations" that accompany the Helmut Rilling
                                          recordings of the Bach cantatas: They are little more than word-for-word
                                          renditions (admittedly, still interpretations; but less glaring than
                                          full-scale attempts to "translate"), but they allow those with no knowledge
                                          of German to get the gist of the text while allowing those of us with some
                                          acquaintance of German to play with the text while not losing out on the bits
                                          we don't quite get. I don't contend that it's a perfect solution or that that
                                          contradicts anything that Pr. Frank says. I simply commend Rilling's (and I
                                          understand that it is the Maestro's insistence that the translations be
                                          treated that way) as an approach that seems to respect the integrity of the
                                          German text while recognizing the (economic) needs of the listening public.
                                          (All this is beside the issue of whether one appreciates Rilling's approach
                                          to the music. I listen primarily because I am a great fan of Arlene Auger --
                                          of blessed memory -- but find that I deeply sympathize with his tempi and
                                          dynamic interpretations. Those later considerations drive my musicologist
                                          friend wild. But I digress!)

                                          I hope I have not encouraged an off-topic line of argument.

                                          Dwight Penas
                                          Minneapolis, MN

                                          P.S. Hope to meet some of you at the Center for Catholic and Evangelical
                                          Theology's conference -- Mary, Mother of God -- at St. Olaf in June.



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • fcsenn@aol.com
                                          In a message dated 5/5/2002 11:32:08 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Personally, I regard Helmuth Rilling as a worthy successor to Hans Richter. Both conductors
                                          Message 20 of 28 , May 5, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In a message dated 5/5/2002 11:32:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
                                            DJP4LAW@... writes:


                                            > . I simply commend Rilling's (and I
                                            > understand that it is the Maestro's insistence that the translations be
                                            > treated that way) as an approach that seems to respect the integrity of the
                                            >
                                            > German text while recognizing the (economic) needs of the listening public.
                                            >

                                            Personally, I regard Helmuth Rilling as a worthy successor to Hans Richter.
                                            Both conductors studied and performed almost everything Bach wrote. Both
                                            appreciated the religious (not just "spiritual") dimensions of Bach's music,
                                            specifically its anchorage in Lutheran orthodoxy. I also like Rilling's
                                            tendency toward 18th century performance style, although he's not ruthless
                                            about it. Richter, in his own way, liberated Bach from the 19th century
                                            romantics who thought they "discovered" him, but made his music lugubrious.

                                            FCSenn


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Doug Morrison-Cleary, OSL
                                            Of course, to say that there is only one traditional English translation of the Lord s Prayer is quite incorrect. There are at least two. The version used by
                                            Message 21 of 28 , May 6, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Of course, to say that there is only one traditional English
                                              translation of the Lord's Prayer is quite incorrect. There are at
                                              least two. The version used by most English speaking Reformed
                                              churches is not the same as the Prayer Book version (debts in place
                                              of trespasses being the main difference). Unfortunately, as the
                                              church unions have occurred over the last half century or more, the
                                              tendency has been for smaller Reformed groups to unite with larger
                                              non-reformed groups. In each of these cases that I know of, what has
                                              happened (by default) has been that numbers of people have had to
                                              make the switch from the Reformed prayer to the Prayer Book prayer.
                                              It does and can happen!

                                              For instance, while you would be very hard pressed to find an United
                                              Methodist (UM) congregation that doesn't use 'trespasses' or the
                                              modern version, prior to 1968 a small but significant portion of
                                              those who are now UM were of a Reformed tradition. The UM Hymnal has
                                              both traditional plus the modern translations in it. In handing on
                                              the Lord's Prayer to my catechumens one year when I was serving a UM
                                              congregation, I had a former member of the EUB church (the Reformed
                                              partner) pass on the 'debts' form, a former Methodist Episcopal pass
                                              on the 'trespasses' form, and the congregation as a whole pass on the
                                              modern translation.

                                              The peculiar place a particular English translation of the Lord's
                                              Prayer has in modern Catholicism has already been commented upon. I
                                              recognise that this muddies the waters somewhat for Catholics.
                                              However, it took less than a generation for an English version to
                                              completely supplant the Latin, didn't it? (Or had a vernacular
                                              version already entered the English speaking Catholic consciousness
                                              before the liturgical reforms of the late 60s and early 70s?) I
                                              realise that Latin to English is easier than English to English...
                                              but, find a good translation, have the Vatican approve it, and 'sell'
                                              it as a truly and uniquely Catholic Lord's Prayer. The conservatives
                                              will love the 'uniquely' Catholic and Vatican-approved nature of it
                                              while the liberals will appreciate the good translation. And the rest
                                              of us English speaking Western christians will soon begin teaching it
                                              and using it because its hard to argue with both good scholarship and
                                              however umpteen million Catholics!!! <grin>

                                              Doug

                                              *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

                                              On 5/5/2002 at 1:08 PM Thomas R. Jackson wrote:

                                              >Ah, here is the rub. In defending the traditional English wording
                                              of the
                                              >Lord's Prayer, I never suggested that the translation is a good one,
                                              or
                                              >that it brings all the meaning of the original out, or that better
                                              >translations aren't possible. But I look at all the controversy
                                              about the
                                              >prayer and its translation, and I am not sure that getting all the
                                              meaning
                                              >and nuance is really an achievable goal for one, brief, memorized,
                                              English
                                              >language prayer.
                                              <snipped>
                                              >I think that fresh translations of the prayer have an important
                                              place. I
                                              >just don't think that we need to go disrupting such a profound
                                              consensus
                                              >of
                                              >communal prayer life. There is a certain misguided arrogance in
                                              >trying. Instead, I think we need to help deepen the appreciation
                                              for the
                                              >meaning of our established idiom.
                                              >
                                              >thomas.

                                              The Rev'd Doug Morrison-Cleary, OSL, of Chisholm, Minnesota, USA
                                              Presbyter, Uniting Church in Australia and Brother, Order of Saint
                                              Luke
                                              dougmc@...
                                              business: offering consulting services in liturgy, theology, and
                                              technology
                                              consulting@...
                                              http://www.hildormen.org
                                            • fcsenn@aol.com
                                              In a message dated 5/6/2002 8:29:18 AM Central Daylight Time, ... There are at least three. The Reformed/Baptist version has debts, the Prayer Book version
                                              Message 22 of 28 , May 6, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In a message dated 5/6/2002 8:29:18 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                                dougmc@... writes:


                                                >
                                                > Of course, to say that there is only one traditional English
                                                > translation of the Lord's Prayer is quite incorrect. There are at
                                                > least two.

                                                There are at least three. The Reformed/Baptist version has "debts," the
                                                Prayer Book version used by Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, and some other
                                                mainliners has "trespasses," and the ICET version used sometimes by
                                                Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians (Catholics use the ICET
                                                doxology separated from the last petition by the embolism "Deliver us from
                                                every evil") has "sins." Each one of these versions can claim ecumenical
                                                use.

                                                FCSenn


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • fbauerschmidt
                                                ... Actually, the BCP version was well known to Catholics before Vatican II, largely through recitation of the rosary. Why and when that particular translation
                                                Message 23 of 28 , May 6, 2002
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In liturgy-l@y..., "Doug Morrison-Cleary, OSL" <dougmc@h...>
                                                  wrote:
                                                  > However, it took less than a generation for an English version to
                                                  > completely supplant the Latin, didn't it? (Or had a vernacular
                                                  > version already entered the English speaking Catholic consciousness
                                                  > before the liturgical reforms of the late 60s and early 70s?)

                                                  Actually, the BCP version was well known to Catholics before Vatican
                                                  II, largely through recitation of the rosary. Why and when that
                                                  particular translation was adopted by English speaking Catholics, I
                                                  do not know.

                                                  F Bauerschmidt
                                                • alexdb20008
                                                  ... Vatican ... That s a very interesting question. I m not sure I know the answer, but I will say that every American version of the Latin-English missal
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , May 6, 2002
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In liturgy-l@y..., "fbauerschmidt" <fbauerschmidt@y...> wrote:
                                                    > Actually, the BCP version was well known to Catholics before
                                                    Vatican
                                                    > II, largely through recitation of the rosary. Why and when that
                                                    > particular translation was adopted by English speaking Catholics, I
                                                    > do not know.
                                                    >
                                                    > F Bauerschmidt

                                                    That's a very interesting question. I'm not sure I know the answer,
                                                    but I will say that every American version of the Latin-English
                                                    missal from the pre-Vatican II days I've ever seen -- no matter how
                                                    old -- has the Prayer Book version in the English column, minus the
                                                    doxology of course. That is not true of some of the other Mass
                                                    texts, like the Gloria or Credo, where there seems to have been a
                                                    greater diversity in translations (to my untrained eyes at least).

                                                    Oh, and the American missals I've seen always have replicated the
                                                    **American** BCP version of the Pater Noster as opposed to the 1662
                                                    English Book's translation (ie, "who art" rather than "which
                                                    art"; "on earth as it is" rather than "in earth, as it is";
                                                    and "those who trespass" rather than "them that trespass"). I'd be
                                                    curious to know how non-American versions of the pre-Vatican II
                                                    missal (or the Breviary, Ritual or other books) translated the Pater
                                                    Noster...British ones in particular.

                                                    I'd also be interested to hear if anythone knows anything about the
                                                    translation procedures for home-use missals in the old pre-ICEL days,
                                                    when the missals on the market carried the imprimatur of a cardinal
                                                    or bishop (I have number with Cardinal Spellman's imprimatur, for
                                                    example) but not a larger English language liturgical authority. Did
                                                    the English translations simply have to be approved by the bishop in
                                                    question, or was there a higher authority governing the process and
                                                    maintaining standards of English translation?

                                                    Alex
                                                  • JSFMACLJR@aol.com
                                                    In a message dated 5/6/2002 19:41:06 Eastern Daylight Time, ... Dear Alex, In the Republic of Ireland, the Pater Noster was translated (1950) as: 1. ...who
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , May 6, 2002
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      In a message dated 5/6/2002 19:41:06 Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                      alexdb20008@... writes:


                                                      > I'd be
                                                      > curious to know how non-American versions of the pre-Vatican II
                                                      > missal (or the Breviary, Ritual or other books) translated the Pater
                                                      > Noster...British ones in particular.
                                                      >

                                                      Dear Alex,

                                                      In the Republic of Ireland, the Pater Noster was translated (1950) as:
                                                      1. "...who art in heaven"
                                                      2. "...on earth as it is in heaven"
                                                      3. "...as we forgive them that trespass against us."

                                                      It appears to be the same translation as used in the Canadian BCP.

                                                      Sandford MacLean


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.