The only time I can ever remember being tempted to break the law was on a trip to Eugene Oregon. My wife was shopping in an area near the University of Oregon campus so I decided to take a walk while she explored different shops. During the walk I came across a wall that had been "tagged". Tagged is a euphemism for vandalising property by spray painting or marking it with an indelible marker. The marking can be a symbol or words.The tag stated; We cannot be certain of anything. My first thought was I need to find a hobby shop or hardware store. I needed paint. My reply, had I a marker would have been; If we cannot be certain of anything, then we can be certain of being uncertain. Certainty does exist.
The choice of "we" rather than "I" in the statement is significant because the writer is really stating that if he cannot be certain neither can you. The first implication is that there is a communal or collective intellect. The second implication is that there is no objective truth or reality because existence of that truth or reality is dependent upon all of us agreeing that it exists.
I have spent the last few days following the comments of various writers as they describe their own reactions, or report on the reactions of Catholics to the new Roman Missal. As one would expect there are positive and negative comments from both clergy and the laity.
One of the most important changes in the New Missal is the Profession of Faith. "We believe" is now "I believe". When you say I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, you are affirming with your intellect and your heart your belief. Salvation is not a communal or a collective action. One may have private doubts from time to time, but it is your profession of faith, and it is made to God out of your love, you cannot make a profession of faith for another.
I have included some background information and links that the reader might find interesting. I am not going to comment on the article from America Magazine except to say that the writer seems to have more of a problem with the authority of the Holy See than he does with the New Missal. You can draw your own conclusions.
Just Thomism is one of those treasures you find when you least expect it. There is a link below to the Just Thomism blog.
The following quotes are from a NY Times article on November 28th, 2011.
"Catholics throughout the world worshiped in Latin until Vatican II, when the church granted permission for priests to celebrate Mass in other languages. The English translation used until this weekend was published in the early 1970s and modified in 1985. Scholars then began work on a new translation, and by 1998 a full draft of the new missal was completed and approved by bishops’ conferences around the English-speaking world".
"But Rome never approved that translation, and instead, in 2001, issued new guidelines requiring that the language of the Mass carefully follow every word of the Latin text, as well as the Latin syntax, where possible. That marked a dramatic philosophical shift from the more flexible principle of “dynamic equivalence” that had guided the earlier translations."
These two paragraphs from the NY Times are a fairly accurate summary of the time line concerning the old and new Roman Missal.
Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence
The following quotes come from the blog Just Thomism. The entire article is well worth reading and is an excellent explanation of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence concerning translation.
"The usual way of explaining the transition to the Third Edition is by a shift in the method of translation from dynamic equivalence (DE) to formal equivalence (FE). For those who are critical of the previous editions, this has been the basis of much ironic berating of DE. I’m in an odd position, for I think both that DE is necessary and that there are very severe criticisms that one can make of the old editions. One has two options: if “dynamic equivalence” is taken as a method of translation, then the criticisms of the old edition are not entirely and for the most part a critique of DE; and if one insists that the old editions are faithful workings out of the principles of DE, then DE is not a entirely a kind of translation. I favor the first interpretation, since we miss crucial things about translation unless we see it as a tension between FE and DE; and the criticism of the old editions is not a criticism of a method of translation but of theological and philosophical premises that were used to change and suppress ideas in the original text."
"It is wrong to call the older editions dynamically equivalent. This distorts the nature of DE and sets it in facile opposition to FE, whereas they are really two tools necessary for proper translation. A criticism of the old editions is not based on looking at the principles of translation, but on the philosophical positions that served as tools of suppression of ideas of changes in meaning. For example, the old editions as a rule suppressed any reference to a soul or a human spirit. To the extent that one was taught only by the old editions of the liturgical texts, he would have no idea that he had a spiritual existence or part of himself. This is, to my mind, an insuperable criticism of the old texts, but (to hit the horse one last time) it is not a criticism of translation, still less of dynamic equivalence – at least if DE is taken as a method of translation, and there is very good reason to do so."
http://content.ocp.org/shared/pdf/general/TL-NewRomanMissal-TheCreed.pdf
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/patience-with-new-translation-expected-to-pay-dividens/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/nyregion/for-catholics-the-word-was-a-bit-different-amen.html?ref=romancatholicchurch
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/Missal/inserts/Preparing_the_Way_Insert_1.pdf
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12045
https://thomism.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/on-dynamic-equivalence/
