Continuity and Change
I’ve lived in South Bend, Indiana for over a decade now, and for most of that time, we stayed on eastern standard time all year round. We never changed to daylight savings time. We stayed the same. But everyone changed around us. In the winter time, we were on New York time. But not in the summer. New York sprung forward in daylight saving time–we did not. In the summer, Chicago sprung forward to meet us. The net effect: In the winter, we were on New York time, in the summer, we were on Chicago time.
Not changing meant changing a lot–all the time. Our television schedules changed dramatically–in the summer, prime time was 7 p.m.-10 p.m, not 8 p.m. – 11 p.m. Restaurant reservations in nearby Michigan had to be recalibrated –they were on eastern time, and sprang forward. Friends and family members got used to us being on “Chicago time,” we went back to “New York time.”
The only way an institution, a community, or a person can not change is if everything around them doesn’t change. If that’s not possible, then the question beomes, how to evaluate the change that comes from not changing versus the change that comes from changing.
I think this applies to the Church as well. Take Latin. The Church made Latin its official language in a situation where most people understood it–and had a reason to understand it, given the Roman Empire. Jerome didn’t produce the Vulgate to make the scripture more esoteric–he did it in order to make it more accessible.
Over centuries that changed. Only highly educated people read Latin, and only real afficionados speak it. The Church can could decide that it will would continue to use Latin exclusively, in every aspect of its life and existence. But unless it had a way to ensure that Latin is the common language of the people –spoken by tax collectors and prostitutes, as my friend Reginald Foster is wont to say, it can’t couldn’t keep its use of Latin from becoming esoteric and academic. It can’t couldn’t keep Latin, and keep things natural.
So you’re faced with the prospect of deciding which change is worse. You keep the language the same, but lose the immediate connection of the people with the language. Or you change the language, and , keep the connection –with living people, but not with the past. Or you muddle through and compromise.
In thinking about O’Malley’s book, one of the things that the first part impressed upon me was the change foisted upon the Church whether it wanted it or not. Modernity–was here to stay whether or not the Church went along with it. The loss of the papal states, the increasing commitment to democracy, the liberal values of freedom of the press, freedom of speech. What a sea change in political culture during the “long nineteenth century” –as O’Malley calls it. And what a change for the context in which the Church proclaimed the Gosepl.
Finally, my part of Indiana changed. We now go to daylight savings time. In some ways, the change allows us to stay the same–at least in important things, like restaurant reservations and phone calls and television schedules.
A nice post,Cathy and a blessed post Christmas reflection as we start toward the NewYear and change here.
A few weeks before Christmas, my wife and I were watching PBS and they had “Secrets of the Dead” on- abou tWycliff and the translation of the English Bible.
It was not, IMHO, the most balanced presentation, but I think correctly that many many folk were reacting then, as the program stated, against the power of the clerical Church which controlled a lot through Latin.
Your post made me think of that and how folks today see the returen of the Latin Mass being allowed as more clericalism/ power .
I also think (as the post by some in the threads below on this topic show) want to go back to a past that can never be the same, because not only is there change, but our high information age and the global shift away from the West make that process even more inevittable.
So I think that going back is not an option; adjusting, engaging and broadening participation may make keeping what is valuable not only possible, but probable. If not, howver, I fear good things may be cast aside under the “protection” of the unwitting own worst enemies.
Change is good at times especially in pastoral matters. It is true that some clerics, especially bishops, may find it uncomfortable that now a mere parish priest can choose to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass without seeking episcopal approval. This kind of empowerment of the lower clergy, and through them, the laity, demonstrates the important role of Peter in the Church.
Another challenge to change can be seen in those clergy who resist the change to a more accurate translation of our Roman Missal.
Another challenge to change can be seen in those clergy who resist the change to a more accurate translation of our Roman Missal.
I guess that’s true, in a sense, but the definition of “change” is starting to get stretched beyond recognition!
Cathy: I don’t quite understand your point, at least not as illustrated by the example of Latin. You write: “The Church can decide that it will continue to use Latin exclusively, in every aspect of its life and existence.” But the Church doesn’t “use Latin exclusively, in every aspect of its life and existence.” In fact, I’m trying to think of a single area in which the western Church (so, not “the Church” simply–a point made vigorously by eastern rite Catholics at the Council) uses Latin exclusively.
I’ve been reading a lot about the Lindisfarne Gospels lately. It is believed that they were created around 715-720 on the island, but, interestingly,a member of the community translated the Gospels from Latin into a Northumbrian dialect of English some thirty or forty years later, the first English translation of the Bible. And St. Bede is said to have been working on a translation of John’s Gospel into English when he died. This was a century of so before Cyril and Methodius were to translate the Bible and the liturgy into old Slavonic; they encountered critics who said that there were only three languages sacred enough for them: the three posted on the cross of Jesus: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Rome backed the two great patrons of the Slavic peoples.
Unfortunately, this openness to change in this area had ended by the end of the Middle ages, as the sad story tells.
Fr. Komonchak — Maybe it would have made more sense to say “The Church could have decided” (or “The Church could decide”)? I don’t think Cathy means to describe a present state of affairs.
Mollie’s right. My tenses should have been more reflective of a hypoethical. (In Latin, imperfect subjuncitve–present contrary to fact condition, or pluperfect subjunctive–past contrary to fact condition).
But I was rushing-I was keeping people wating to go to the mall.
Black Friday, you know.
My point is simply that we couldn’t have what would in some ways be ideal for all Latin lovers, including me–the richness and beauty and historical continuity of Latin as the pervasive language of the Church, and it also the language of everyday use. We can’t control the second prong.
John O’Malley compiled (?) essays by himself, Joseph Komonchak, Stephen Schjloesser and Neil Ormerod, entitled Vatican II: Did Anything Happen? I assume that the book under mention, similarly named, is not the same book?
Why closer adherence to the Roman Missal is important escapes me. It came after something else. What the RM a better translation of source documents? Was it a more readily understood translation? Is it not feasible that, with the change of time, a more up to date edition is called for? Also, those who blame V2 for a variety of sins and wish to return to the “good old days” seem to forget that the total times were changing rapidly. If the church has not adopted many of the changes of V2, do you really think that the status quo would have been maintained? I suspect that the clergy, religious and lay drain would have started and continued pretty much as it did. The only difference would be that the Church would be viewed as more of a fossilized archaic power structure than it is viewed today. Just because the Spirit blows in a manner that is not where you think it should be blowing doesn’t mean that it still isn’t a better way to go.
What s/b Was.
Cathleen
“the richness and beauty and historical continuity of Latin as the pervasive language of the Church”
Better to say “the Western Church”. There are also Eastern Churches. Actually the Church of Rome originally and for some time after had its liturgy in Greek. The early Councils were largely Greek affairs.
Vatican II was not the cause of change. It was a response to change. As John XXIII noted, it was time for the church to acknowledge the signs of the times and proceed accordingly. Indeed, as Jimmy Mac wrote, were it nor for the Second Vatican Council, “the Church would [likely] be viewed as more of a fossilized archaic power structure than it is viewed today.”
On the other hand, there are people who not only feel uncomfortable with change but, sadly, react rather than respond to this reality. In the church, these are (for lack of a better description) “timewarp Catholics.” They are caught up not only in the trappings of a dying organizational culture but, just as important, in the underlying beliefs, values, and assumptions of said culture. As others have noted elsewhere, these folks see the apex of ecclesial history and belief at a point just before Vatican II.
It takes time to implement change or, more accurately, a response to environmental change. The clerical culture, epotimized by the Tridentine, began more than 1500 years ago for many different historical reasons, some well intentioned, no doubt, and others anything but. We cannot do anything about the past, but we can press forward and tell church leaders that we expect them to do the same.
Recent years have revealed hundreds if not thousands of “sacrificial lambs” made possible by a culture that elevated the ordained and subordinated the laity. There are people who will resist change for any and all reasons, but we cannot allow continuation of a culture that can perpetuate the abuses that came to light only recently.
“This kind of empowerment of the lower clergy [who can choose to say the Tridentine mass without the bishop's approval]…demonstrates the important role of Peter in the Church.”
No, Lester, it “demonstrates” the pope’s refusal to respect the church’s teaching on collegiality and subsidiarity. This interference, if judged against the behavioral/organizational standards of the primitive church, is unwarranted.
Bishops today are mere lackeys of the Vatican. They do not behave like true bishops — again, if we compare today with the earliest days of the catholic church.
Joseph, G. you are right, of course. Thanks.
Jimmy Mac, this is a book by O’Malley himself–just published.
By the way, eventually there will be another anthology dealing with these same issues arising out of a symposium on O’Malley’s book tobe held this coming February sponsored by by the Institute of Advanced Catholic Studies in LA. Joe K., Francis Sullivan SJ, my colleauge and Joe K’s former colleague, the patristics scholar Robin Darling Young, and I are among the participants. O’Malley will be attending and commenting. I’m sure development of doctrine continuity and change and reformation will be at the center of the discussion.
It should be fun.
It would be even more fun if I could organze a field trip to Disneyland. Or at least Univeral Studios. Or maybe a tour of movie stars’ homes. How ’bout it, Joe K?
When we speak of change we should always acknowledge the earth shaking change in Christianity in the fourth century. For the worst. For the most part it was quite unfortunate and it is astounding to see people defend it. The richest pagan church buildings became Christian churches, the emperor began to call and control councils, bishops killed each other to control dioceses, Christians were killed for not joining the “Catholic” church. Other religions were persecuted and abused. People became Christian because it was politically and financially expedient. Christians killed other Christians for the first time. What is most scandalous is that many who participated in these evil acts were called saints. Leadership became a far cry from Peter and Paul. Relics and “holy” people became more important than the sermon on the Mount. Instead of praying for the martyrs, martyrs were prayed to and their relics were given the most magical power. Since Christianity was now lukewarm attention to the martyrs became a sort of substitution for real living of the gospel. As long as one was orthodox it was
acceptable. Mediocrity set in.
As Marcus points out this was the Age of Hypocrisy. Christians outwardly but not inwardly. The cult of the Saints became important since pursuing the Christian life was not as impelling any more. A sad Christianity followed. As Marcus points out:
“As saints became ubiquitous, they also changed their functions. In the
early Christian community the living faithful prayed to God for their dead;
now the dead saint is asked to pray for the living: a whole new liturgy came
into being. As the martyr is , literally, detached from the place of his
martyrdom and made present wherever his relics have become the center of a
cult, so relics began to be seen in a new way…..relics soon became
themselves, the seats of holy power, God’s preferred channels for miraculous
action. A new nexus of social relationships centered around their shrines;
their cult provided ways of securing social cohesion in the locality, and
one of the means on which bishops depended to consolidate their authority.”
The Oxford History of Christianity.pg90.
Vatican2, the best council and the first one not controlled by secular powers, tried to correct some of this.
Just a small note about translations, from or to Latin or any other language. There is no such thing as a “perfect “translation. Likewise there is no way to measure how close, or far, some translation comes to the original. To be sure, mistranslations and some translations are more successful for their intended audiences than others are.
I offer in support of these remarks the Introduction to the highly acclaimed Robert Fagels’ translation of the Aeneid. The language cops at the Vatican ought to think again about what they are claiming when they proclaim that they have to make sure that translations are fully faithful to the original Latin.
I have just finished O’Malley’s Four Cultures of the West and as a New Year’s resolve I plan to read more O’Malley.
Mr. Dauenhauer: If there is no way to measure how close, or far, some translation comes to the original,” how can one judge that an effort is a “mistranslation” or more or less “successful.” Presumably the latter adjective means more than its intended audience like it; it has to have some reference to the original. I would think that there are two criteria for a successful translation: one, that it convey accurately the meaning of the original, the other that it be intelligible to speakers/hearers of the language into which it is being translated.
Both criteria need to be applied. “Fully faithful” need not mean “literal”, so that one doesn’t have to translate the Virgilian phrase: “Sunt lacrimae rerum” as “There are tears of things”. (What does Fagels make of the statement?)
A fellow Jesuit opines: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025822889234825.html
I think one bit of Latin an arriviste like myself might counsel the “continuity/rupture” crowd to consider is “post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
Then again, it is difficult to prove a negative–how would the church be different had the Council not taken place? Or had it turned out differently?
Fr. Komonchak, let me offera few remarks by way of a response. I hope that they will be of some use.
First, re Fagels and his translation of the Aeneid. In his “Translator’s Postscript,” ( not an introduction as I mistakenly called it), he says among many good things the following:
” So frequent is tVirgil’s use of the historical present that he can intersperse the imperfect among his verbs, producing a confident shuttling back and forth in time, even within the same verse paragraph. The translation[Fagels' own translation] suggests the effect in a more cautious, discretionary way, to spare the English reader some confusion.” (p. 391). Soon thereafter, Fagels says that he seeks to bring out some of the ways some parts of the Aeneid “echo” other parts, “when Latin context and English sense and syntax will permit.” (p. 392). I take it that what Fagels says points to the constraints operative in both languages involved in a translation project affect the translator’s work. Furthermore, apparently each language brings its own constraints — as well as facilitating resources — to the translator’s table.
Now more generally, juat a few indications of what I’m trying to say. I’ve learned these things from Gadamerian and Ricoeurian reflections on hermeneutics in general and on translation in particular.
1. There are mistranslations. One particular annoying one is the use of false cognates. Another leads translators to try to preserve sentence structures from one language. Early in my career, a review rightly charged that a translation I had made of a book from French to English read as though English was a foreign language for me, one that I had not particularly mastered.
2. All natural languages (i.e., non-technical languages) have lexicons whose words are mostly polysemous. Thus, the literal is not the univocal. What holds true for individual words holds true, mutatis mutandis for sentences and for strings of sentences. That is, we gain some precision by saying more words, but without arriving at complete univocity. Thus, we say things like: “Saying x is tantamount to saying y.” Or, “Couldn’t you have said what you want to say by saying q instead of saying p?” It does not follow that there is some “perfect” way of saying what I wanted to say. Nor does it follow that when I try to say something I am in such control of what I utter or write that there is something that, without qualification, can be called my “original meaning.”
3. Not least in importance is the fact that all living natural languages evolve. Each has its own history. Thus what may have been a good translation of some text from another language 100 years ago is not a good translation today, at least not for all reasonably relevant audiences.
4. If what I’ve just said is reasonably accurate, then how in the world do we effectively communicate? The answer I glean, and accept, from Gadamer and Ricoeur is that we are born into a particular language community and grow into the competence to be able to handle a good deal of polysemy as a mattr of course. Thus our language use is a practical ability that we exercise with an easy familiarity. Of course, as we grow and try to deal with less familiar matters, e.g., Cartesian philosophy, apophatic theology, etc., we have to struggle to make their strangeness familiar to ourselves. For doing so , we have to work with a community of people who are familiar both with what we can do linguistically and also familiar with the strange toics. This is the historical community of teacher and students. Along the way, there can be new discoveries and new weedings out of mistakes. But there is no ahistorical way for this to happen.
If all this makes sense, then, there is no “original” meaning that is in any relevant sense univocal. Translations either faithfully render what is said or written familiar to a targeted audience or they don’t. If they do, they are successful. If not, they fail. In real life, few transaltions are wholly successful and, we can hope, only a few are abject failures. But all of them have only a limited shelf life.
I hope that I’ve been responsive, Father. If you wish, I am willing to try to say more about all this.
Jimmy wrote “Just because the Spirit blows in a manner that is not where you think it should be blowing doesn’t mean that it still isn’t a better way to go.”
I agree with your point here. This is advice that those who oppose the revival of the extraordinary usage and the new translation in the ordinary usage would do well to consider.
Joseph – don’t generalize too much about those who appreciate the liturgical diversity contained in the two equally valued forms of the Roman rite. As it has been said – the two forms may now enrich one another. Already we see the vernacular readings being used in the extraordinary form and new saints are increasingly being celebrated in it. Increasingly celebrants are noticing that the ordinary usage may be celebrated with the priest and people facing in the same direction during the Eucharistic Prayer and the introit and antiphons proper to each Mass can be sung at the appropriate times in the ordinary form. We need not always try to insert hymns in place of the propers. Recently I learned that the Gradual can be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm. This is an enriching discovery for a cantor.
The “time-warp” accusation could be easily applied to those who remain stagnant in a kind of 1970’s Church where banners and butterfly stoles (always) warn over the chasuble were presumed to be mandatory. Latin was out, lay homilies were in, Fellowship of Catholic scholars was out, CTSA was in, Fr. Manuel Miguens was out, Fr. R. Brown was in, Mother Angelica was out, Sr. Joan C. was in, Benediction was out, fair trade coffee was in, Gregorian chant was out, “Anthemn” by Tom Conry was in, and the list could go on.
Mr. Dauenhauer: I suppose I am less sceptical than you about the possibility of univocity. Technical language aims at it, and sometimes achieves it. Everyday language may not. I don’t agree that there is no relevant sense in which original meaning might be univocal. In any case, whether univocal or not, it remains that something was uttered in the original language, and something was meant by the utterance. Translations, as you say, want faithfully to render what was said or written, and they wish to convey that to the target audience. What may be important, however, is for the target audience to recognize how unfamiliar what was originally said or written. I see my two criteria of a successful translation in what you say.
I’ve never thought that translations are meant to last forever. I’m familiar with a number of translations of Augustine into English; and some of those from the 19th century would be almost as unfamiliar to my undergraduate students as the original Latin. The same thing can happen within the history of a single language, of course. Two examples from my own family: My mother wrote a memoir in which she spoke of how my Slovak grandmother was convinced that my mother’s first child, suffering from colic, had been “overlooked”. When I questioned my mother about the verb, she said that was the one my grandmother had used. When I went to a 19th-century Websters’s, I discovered that “overlook” could mean “to look at with the evil eye, to bewitch by looking at.” Convinced the baby had been cursed, my grandmother concocted a remedy: she took a piece of wood, burned it, and put it in a glass of water and then had my mother bathe the baby’s head with it. It didn’t work.
On the other side of the family, an ancestor, prominent in the Spiritualist movement of the 19th century, said he had founded a weekly newspaper, “The Spiritual Telegraph,” for “the elimination of truth.” At first I thought that this was perhaps a misprinit for “illumination”, but it was used so often I decided to check the dictionary again and discovered a now obsolete meaning of “elimination”: “the process of selecting and abstracting some special element; also, the process of disentangling an essential fact or principle from a mass of confused details.” So one of my footnotes aims at translating from 19th-century English into 21st-century English.
Beyond the linguistic discussion, still lies the question of change.
Strikes me that stereotype is not a useful linguistic tool to approach the issue: “stagnant in the 70′s” is another non-helpful view of one side of the divide in our Church!
How and what change will come to bear on that divide is the question as we’re almost at 2009(IMHO, further translation of the missal will have almost no impact, as good souls will go along, but see little deepening of their faith. They’ll continue to look for a more loving serving and united Church -will they find it?)
The Truth, The Word Made Flesh, exists outside Time and Space. It can not change, nor can it evolve. We can come to a deeper understanding of Truth as our relationship with God grows and develops. There will be no new revelations regarding Truth, only a deeper understanding. The Truth is absolute.
“It is finished.” To Love someone in the fullness of Truth is to desire Salvation for them. It is Christ, who defines Love. “Love one another as I have Loved you.”
I’m wondering if there is any linguistic theory in light of which this:
Father,
guide us with your light.
Help us to recognize Christ in this eucharist
and welcome him with love.
can be considered a good translation of this:
Caelesti lumine, quaesumus, Domine,
semper et ubique nos praeveni,
ut mysterium, cuius nos participes esse voluisti,
et puro cernamus intuitu, et digno percipiamus affectu.
This is the Prayer after Communion in the English and Latin sacramentaries.
Thanks, Cathleen, for your kind comment on another thread about the exchange between Fr. Komonchak and me about translation and original meaning. My sense is that though he and I have some disagreement, we’re more or less in the same ball park. You probably didn’t intend to encourage me to keep the discussion up, but, perhaps perversely, let me make one more remark about original meaning.
I’ve been told that the Canadial legal system is bedeviled by a rrequirement that much, if not all, federal legislation must be enacted in both a French and an English version. Whether this is in fact the case, it nicely raises the issue of original meaning.
Suppose that Paulette is charged with preparing both the English and the French versions of a piece of legislation. If she is serious and equally competent in both languages, she will do her best to make both versions say “the same thing.” Nonetheless, apparently interpreters, equally competent interpreters, can regularly find in these two different versions reasons for defending different interpretation of “what the law means.” Even supposing that these interpreters could appeal to Paulette to settle their differences, would she be in any better position to decide the matter than any other appropriately competent person?
From my own experience, I would say that at times I do believe that I say just what I mean to say, but that often I have the sense that I haven’t succeeded in doing so. In fact, in discussions like this one, I do have some fear that I’ve failed to say what I mean. Feelings of these sorts make me ask whether therre is ever a perfect fit between what I want to say and whatever it is that I actually do say. Perhaps that a peculiar neurosis of mine, but perhaps there’s more to it than that.
Bernard-
Paulette the Canadian isn’t the only one with trouble. Consider the problem of “the” original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia wants the Courtto appeal to ” it” when interpreting the Consttution.
but the Constitution was instituted/intended by several dozen men, and who is to say that they all intended the same meaning.
Which brings up Cathy’s Wittgensteinisn point that “theaming of a word is tts use”. That also presents terrible philosophical problems — Wittgenstein experts don’t agreeabout what *he* meant by *that•. B
Oops– hitthe wrong utton
It seems to me that these same problems which arise from the essential ambiguity of language vex Church pronouncements as well. As I see it perhaps the fundamental problem with fundamentalists of all kinds, including those in the Vatican.is that, however intelligent they might otherwise be, they have no understanding of how language works AND doesn’t work. They assume that meanings can be exchanged like coins. Not so.
It’a all very well and good to say, for instance, that Jesus is “the Truth”. But before we say that wehad better understand what it means to say Jesus is “the Word”. If we don’t understand how words work we have precious little hope of getting at truths of primary importance.
So I welcome all these discussions about language. We aren’t taught nearly enough about it in school. (Of course, English teachers don’t know much about the general topic either. Sigh.) And I think discussion of translation problems are particularly apropos for those of us who think that God has left us some books of His own.