By the Waters of Babylon

     A flash from the Religious News Service today -- stop the presses!  Catholic liturgical tsars and tsarinas are angry that for the first time since the Novus Ordo was instituted in the 1960's, the Mass will be translated into English.  For those of you who aren't Roman Catholic, the Latin text had been folded, spindled, and mutilated, stretched like bubble gum, amputated here and there, diluted everywhere, phrases lopped off, others twisted out of joint, in general to bring the Father down to earth where he belongs.  Italians say that every traduttore is a traditore, meaning that every translator is a traitor; but that treachery can never be laid to the charge of the people who brought us the Novus Ordo in Anguish, because they never really bothered to translate in the first place.

     Still, the press release is a study in bureaucratic vagueness and ecclesiastical subterfuge, such as the faithful of any denomination can enjoy.  Since the committee here named is not strong on translating, I will provide the service myself, in interpolated remarks:

     The Catholic Academy of Liturgy met on January 4, 2007, in Toronto, Canada, prior to the annual meeting of the North American Academy of Liturgy. The keynote speaker was Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania and chair of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

     Bishop Trautman, who it is said does not like to be called Bishop Trautperson, has been one of the two or three bishops most responsible for the desacralized language of the liturgy.  It is no surprise that there are fewer seminarians in his diocese than there used to be fish in Lake Erie.  The government cleaned the one pool --

In his address entitled "When Should Liturgists be Prophetic?"

Nothing like donning the mantle of prophecy -- after one has doffed every other liturgical mantle in sight.  Of course, bishops should be obedient first, and if they are, they may be granted a gift of prophecy, or even a gift of speaking in tongues.  Alas, too often the bishops of every denomination speak out from their balconies, and all the assembled people below hear them -- and they seem to each to be speaking in somebody else's language.

Trautman raised concerns

Everybody these days "raises concerns."  If they raised welts, they'd be more honest.

about current directions in the revision

It is, as I've said, the first real translation, rather than paraphrase.

now underway of the English edition of the Roman missal being prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). The first edition in English of the Roman Missal was issued in 1973.  Drawing on biblical scholarship, historical theology, and his many years of pastoral experience as a bishop,

None of which are to the point.  A translator from Latin into English needs to know two things: Latin, and English.  Now if the Latin is ecclesiastical, and highly allusive to Scripture, and steeped in theological terminology, in exegesis, and in typological symbolism, then he ought to know those things too, which is another way of saying that he ought to know the peculiar form of the Latin he is translating.  But what Bishop Trautman neglects to say is that the old transmuters of the text had bleached away the scriptural allusions.  Two egregious examples: the clear and potent spatio-temporal allusion to Malachi, "ab oriente ad occasum," "from the rising of the sun to its setting," has been flattened down to "from east to west"; and the powerful words of the centurion, "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum," "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof," has been flattened down to "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you."  With what pastoral consequences, every wise Catholic knows: empty liturgies in vacuous non-scriptural language make for empty pews and churches converted to antique shops.

he contended that the new translations do not adequately meet the needs of the average Catholic

Note the condescension.

and expressed fears that the significant changes in the texts no longer reflect understandable English usage.

The Bishop is worried about two things.  One, he thinks that if you say, "Peace on earth, good will to men," some people will actually be in doubt whether Cissy and Flossie are included.  Nobody is in doubt about that; nobody, upon hearing, "It's a night not fit for man nor beast," will recommend that therefore Lulabelle should go out to corral the horses.  I could argue at great length that the troweled-over Ken-doll language is unfaithful to the original text, sometimes confusing and often plain dumb in English, and ultimately heretical (for one thing, it leads to the dilution of the name "Father"), but I'll leave that for another blog.  His Excellency is also worried that the people will not understand theological terms such as "consubstantial," which will replace "one in being with" in the Creed.  No question he's right about that.  You dumb down your liturgy, dumb down your sermons, dumb down your catechizing, dumb down your schools, and then, then you discover that your people are not too bright.  Well, there is an alternative.  Why not try teaching?

Trautman argued that the proposed changes of the people's parts during Mass will confuse the faithful and predicted that the new texts will contribute to a greater number of departures from the Catholic church.

He meaneth, forsooth, an even greater number of departures.  You're sinking in quicksand and there's a willow branch over your head.  Don't grab hold of it -- it might snap.  By the way, let it be noted that solicitude for the feelings of Catholics in the pews was never very high among liturgical innovators, who didn't care at all, say, whether anybody would be confused by revisions of well-known Christmas carols.  Then the rubes had to learn their lessons.  Call it the post-Vatican II Eat Your Peas ecclesiology.

The Bishop cited various problematic texts, criticizing their awkward structure and arcane vocabulary

Repeat after me: nothing is worse than the banal.  For the innovators, any periodic sentence was too long; any complex subordination was awkward.  As for the arcane vocabulary, well, it's just not the lingo of the man in the street, nor should it be.  The Bishop makes it sound as if we'll all be speaking the language of Richard Hooker, rather than some other more recent person of that denomination.  'Tain't so.

that would be very difficult for the priest to pray aloud and for the people to follow.  Just as problematic for Trautman was the recent decision to change the words of consecration that refer to Christ's blood being shed "for all" to "for many." That change could easily be misinterpreted as denying the faith of the Roman Catholic Church that [sic] Christ died for all people.

The Latin reads "pro multis," "for many" or, thinking of the Greek, "for the many."  It does not imply that Christ did not die to save all men; it also does not imply that all men will be saved.  Got a problem with it?  Change the Latin.

Bishop Trautman challenged Catholic liturgical scholars of North America to assist the bishops in promoting a liturgy that is [sic] accessible and pastorally aware [sic].

A liturgy cannot be "aware".  That distinction is reserved for people, and often not for too many of them, either.  Of course, he is worried that the liturgy will offend the feminists.  If only!  As for its being inaccessible, I have a well-worn missal used by my grandmother long ago that makes our current Mass look like The Poky Little Puppy.  If she could be taught, so can we.

He urged them, in a spirit of respect and love for the Church,

The Bishops have consistently defied the Church

to be courageous in resisting those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible and betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

Never, though, courageous in opposing the Spirit of the Age, or courageous in calling one's own fraternity to repentance.  Note that the Second Vatican Council is called in, exactly as certain justices conjure up not the Constitution (which does not say what they wish) but the Specter of the Constitution (which always does).  Such Specters can be awfully obliging -- for a time, and times, and half a time.

Comments

[coco]

A most excellent article. But for the high style and erudition, I would have called it a "fisking" of Triteman. Sorry...my Lord Trautman.

[James A. Altena]

Touche, Tony!

[Darren]

Dr. Esolen seems to be channeling Mr. Podles today.

[John Hetman]

Thank you, Prof. Esolen! Does the Bishop mind having Troutman spelled that way or are we limited to the modern Trautman?

His Excellency's comments remind me of a homily once given at a local Chicago area parish by a lady friend of the pastor. She started her profound lesson with a bit of information about herself, "My name is Karyn, spelled with a 'y' and not an 'e'. It upsets me when people assume that I spell my name with an 'e'.'" The homily never got any better after that.

When I protested Karyn's improvisational act to the pastor and advised him against allowing lay homilists, I was accused of being an anti-Christian element within the parish.

[Beth]

I always love your posts, Tony, but when you get going on translation and/or so-called "generic" language, I LOVE them! Thanks for this.

I am waiting impatiently to get your translation of Dante. You write eloquently and you care about language -- it's got to be excellent.

[Ethan Cordray]

Believe you me, Beth, it is excellent.

[Peter P]

>>>Bishop Trautman, who it is said does not like to be called Bishop Trautperson<<<
Funny, funny, funny!

[Bob Gardner]

'Lex orandi, lex crendi' - way you pray is the way you believe.
His Excellency is also worried that the people will not understand theological terms such as "consubstantial," which will replace "one in being with" in the Creed. No question he's right about that. You dumb down your liturgy, dumb down your sermons, dumb down your catechizing, dumb down your schools, and then, then you discover that your people are not too bright.

If it his Excellencies concern that consubstantial will be too much for his flock to comprehend then he needs to be more concerned about their fundamental lack of Christology than he appears to be. I’m no fan of the Novus Ordo, indeed if I was Pope for a day I would go back to the 1963 missal, albeit in the vernacular, and any reforms from that point forward would be organic, not striking departures like the Novus Ordo. Does anyone know what became of the ‘universal indult,’ that was supposedly coming down the pike that would allow priests to say the Tridentine Mass without needing permission from the bishop?

[Mark in Spokane]

If Prof. Esolen's translation of Dante is anything like his translation of Tasso, then it is bound to be a dramatic improvement over most of the existing translations. He is one translator who is definitely not a traitor to his material.

[chloesmom]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! For a long time, I've felt the same way about the hymns our choir sings (don't really get me started!) -- the use of "inclusive" language -- fie upon it! -- and other sins like it. Last night at practice, for instance, we rehearsed "The Church's One Foundation" which is now entitled, "O Christ, the Great Foundation" -- whaaa??? You're right, the liturgy has been dumbed down to the point of idiocy, and this is reflected in the lack of reverence at Mass, people strolling past the Tabernacle w/out genuflecting, chewing gum while receiving Holy Communion (yecchh!), etc., etc. Well, I obviously got started, sorry for the rant, but as a "fossil" of 60, all this s***t going on in the Presence of Our Lord is really starting to get to me. Thank God He has infinite patience ...

[James A. Altena]

The most vile "inclusive language" "anti-patriarchal" version of a hymn I ever encountered began thus:

Joy to the world,
Our Christ is come
On earth Shalom to bring!

[TG]

We have an overly energetic young priest in Chicago who refuses to say "He/Him" or "Father" at all during the Mass, substituting "Christ" or "God" wherever (in)appropriate.

This creates such memorable moments as:

"Blessed is Christ who comes in the name..."

"On the night Christ was betrayed, Christ took bread in his hands. Christ broke the bread. Christ gave it to Christ's disciples....when supper was ended Christ took the cup. Again Christ gave you thanks and praise..."

I am not making this up. My personal favorite:

"Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, Almighty God..."

Listening to the endless repetitions of names, I sometimes find my mind wandering back to the old "School House Rock" song from my youth about pronouns, in which a cartoon narrator named Rufus Xavier Sasparilla intones: "Sayin' all those nouns over and over can really wear you down..."

But please don't tell Bishop Trautman that I slack off in my expected, post-Vatican II "full and active participation"...

[Judy Warner]

>>>Joy to the world,
Our Christ is come
On earth Shalom to bring!<<<

So what was the problem -- "let earth receive her king" is sexist?

[Penny]

TG:

"Young?" But I thought all the young RC priests were of the JPII generation and didn't do that sort of thing?

[Pat and Brendan's mom]

Dr. Esolen:
I have been appreciatng you by proxy for several years now (must get around to cracking your Dante one of these days), and laughed and cheered my way through this commentary, with a special place in my heart for the "rising/setting sun....under my roof" passage. I had already declared this a "fisking" even before reading the comment to that effect.

From there my slightly 60's-addled brain free-associated to "Traut-fisking in America" (not addled enough that I ever read Brautigan, despite growing up in proximity to him--insufficient grooviness on my part, I'm sure).

I have often described our Catholic lifetime as forty years of wandering in the liturgical desert-- is't possible we are at last laying wearied eyes upon the distant Promised Land?

[TG]

Penny, I think that characterization is certainly true among young *diocesan* priests, who are indeed much more orthodox in my experience. There are exceptions, though, especially in the religious orders (see the Jesuits), where a very small number of young ordinands keep the flame of the 60's burning as best they can...

The priest in question is a Vincentian, actually, at DePaul University, which has long since abandoned even the pretense of respect for Catholic teaching.

[Fr Fitzgibbons]

Is it me or telling our good Lord to make me(a phrase contained in many of the prayers) seem a bit arrogant? I wonder what the original Latin was for (make me)? Will this phrase be changed? It is so meaningful.

[John Hetman]

TG, if you had simply written Vincentian at DePaul University, everyone would have nodded their comprehension.

DePaul was once a great urban university that now has decayed into moral corruption, and capitulation to our degenerate society.

[Tony Esolen]

John, Chloe's Mom, Pat and Brendan's Mom, Ethan, Beth, everybody,

Thanks for taking up the rallying cry! One day we will be able to say, to the tsars and tsarinas, "Um, THAT PERSON who laughs last, laughs best."

Funny thing about the Dante translation: in the intro and the notes I used standard old fashioned perfectly understandable and even eloquent "man" and "mankind" to refer to "a human person, like" and "humanity all summed up in one representative being, you know" and "the race of all people, taken like together." Nobody has complained. Nobody at secular Random House complained; no readers have complained; as far as I know, no reviewers have complained. It may be that some feminist teacher of Dante somewhere in the world broke out in a bad case of acne, but I'm not aware of it, and in any case Dante scholars tend not to be too politically correct, Deo gratias.

[Ethan Cordray]

Tony, that's just begging some zealous womyn's studies department chair to go through it with a black marker, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson.

Looking at pop culture is sometimes heartening, just to be reminded that certain tendencies are a lot weaker than their proponents would like them to be. Some things just haven't clicked with the average man on the street.

[Christian]

"Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum," "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof," has been flattened down to "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you."

Maybe this will be the last year that I have to explain this to my 6th grade Sunday School class.

[slowboy]

I prophosize that 99% of the changes would go completely un-noticed by the average catholic if made unannounced.

I futher prophosize that, announced, 89% of the changes will go un-noticed and the remining 24% will be greeted, not with the great apostosy, but with a collectve, "Huh? Oh, Ok, So what's for lunch"?

[Todd]

Anthony, I don't find your arguments terribly convincing. Like most of the commentariat at St Blog's, and most blog hosts, you can't seem to avoid the trap of petty insults and namecalling. If you have a good point to make, make the point and get on with it. If you need to resort to sandbox language, it can be hard to sort out an otherwise valid opposition to Trautman from, say, a difference of opinion between first graders in the sandbox.

I do agree with the sense that English-speaking lay Catholics will eventually render a thunbs-up or down on the new liturgical texts. Yours, mine, or Trautman's input won't alter that a whole lot. Problem is, once we're in that situation, there's not a whole lot the laity can do about it, is there? Maybe the CDWDS is playing us all for rubes.

The list of possible choices should be wider than 1967-75's admittedly poor job and 2002-07's mixed effort. I wouldn't see the problem with having an English edition used as a source for modern languages in which the curia lacks competence, so long as individual English nations could have the option of their own rendition.

I also don't see the problem with original prayers composed in the vernacular of any nation, given Roman approval. If we wanted to have a Book of the Chair, say, that harmonized more closely with the Lectionary cycle, why wouldn't that be a positive development? Is the Vatican in favor of a tighter integration of the Word of God, or not?

"A translator from Latin into English needs to know two things: Latin, and English."

What if we need more than simple translators? Computers know English and Latin, too. Why wouldn't we turn it all over to them?

The reason, my friend, is that prayer that has a prayer of accomplishing a deeper sense of the sanctification of the faithful, should include much more than the literal rendering of Latin words to another language. Ben Stein can deliver a great line in a comedy movie looking for Ferris, but do you really want him doing MacBeth? A press publicist from the White House or Hollywood can communicate what they want you to know, but wouldn't you prefer to read the prose of an author who has a deeper grasp of the truth and can communicate it as well? Is Catholic worship more about the setting of a Catechism to recto tono chant or the sublime poetry produced by the countless medieval poets who gave us a Catholic hymn tradition?

The bottom line is this: an accurate translation of Latin should not be the goal here. What we need is an inspirational one. I don't see the new regime at ICEL as capable of giving us that. But you do have a point on how the laity are treated in all this mess. This translation business is too important to be left in the hands of linguists and bureaucrats alone, no matter what their Latin IV final exam result may have been.

[James M.]

"The bottom line is this: an accurate translation of Latin should not be the goal here. What we need is an inspirational one."

You miss the point Todd - the position of the Church is that the official text of the Mass, which is the Latin text, is not just inspirational, but quite literally INSPIRED. The images and allusions are intended for all (or at least for the many)Catholics everywhere, and are intended to communicate on several levels. Take out the specific image, you lose 70% -90% of the message, and instead of the Church's universal vision, you get the translator's personal vision, with all his personal limitations.

Translating a passage such as "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" literally is not simply an exercise in Latinity: it reconnects us directly to the scriptural context and puts us, the speakers, directly in the sandals of that centurion (the word becomes flesh, as it were).
In addition, the specificity and concreteness of the image grabs our attention and sticks in our memory; "I am not worthy to receive you" is so abstract and generic that it has no emotional impact.
The earliest English translations of the Mass translated this passage literally. When I was about seven years old (1969-70)they switched to the current translation. I felt sad, if only because the first way was more interesting. And even at seven years old I could figure out what it meant.

Ave atque vale!

[Michael Tait]

While agreeing with much of what you say, I'd be just a bit cautious about using the 'from East to West' example. Two difficulties: (a) if Catholics are to recognise the Scriptural allusion, then Scripture text and liturgical text need to match up. For better or worse, the Biblical text which most Catholics use is the JB and that renders Malachi 1:11 as 'from east to west'; (b)for us, 'from the rising of the sun' etc probably conveys more a temporal than a spatial meaning (morning to evening), yet the Hebrew is clearly spatial as indicated by the parallel clause in Malchi 'and in every place...' The Latin is also predominantly spatial so it's a question more of poetic expression than accuracy of translation. In which case, rather than 'from the rising of the sun' etc you would probably be beytter with an expression like 'from earth's wide bounds to ocean's farthest coast' which would put in play another set of resonances!

[Karen]

It's 8:15 a.m. and my day has already been made.

Of course, it can only go downhill after reading that.

I needed to hear that and I REALLY needed to laugh out loud, so THANK YOU.

[solibeata]

Only those who have a particular agenda will react to any change in the liturgy. The average Catholic in the average Church be they man, woman, adult or child will be ho hum before the month is out. We are in a culture that changes so fast; and has so many options that most people accept these changes without too much comment. It is only those who understand what is at stake here react in positive or negative ways (depending on their particular agenda).
Reaction from conservative or progressive is gauged by how serious the change might affect their particular "political" stance.

All this being said;
I will out as a conservative and from my heart say this. We are living out the prophecy of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Paul VI. The smoke of Satan has entered the church. Now notice the wording here "smoke" - Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail; but fires set(outside the gates)with a strong wind behind it tend to penetrate deeper. Fire damages structure and can be rebuilt. Smoke penetrates so deep that somethings are damaged permanently and thus are destroyed...liturgy; hierachy; priesthood; religious life; laity life.

So we see if Leo XIII did have an accurate estimation, some of us may yet see the end of this 100 years and perhaps participate in the rebuilding of this earthly kingdom. But wait - aren't we supposed to be seeking a heavenly kingdom; our eternal home?

[IPSO Lady]

Where have I been, not finding Mere Comments earlier? Found you through AngelQueen's daily eletter. IPSO is HIM, and stands for Information Piety Society of Orthodoxy. So, please visit our site IPSOpa.com, sign guestbook, add prayer requests, visit our Traditional Mass, et cetera. Thanks and God bless you all.

[st. Jimbob of the Apokalypse]

You know, making a liturgy for the average Catholic would also have to account for the average catholic being late, so skip everything up to the first reading, and they'll also have to cut everything after communion, as the church doors are usually swinging by then.

How about this, instead: Challenge us! Make thinking during Mass necessary. Don't give us room to be pondering our 2 o'clock tee time, or last night's movie, or any of the myriad things that average catholics probably think about during Mass. Church should not be just a Eucharistic vending machine.

My parish, in Lincoln, is pretty good, compared to other diocese that I've been in. Pray that our shepherds will lead us to sustaining pastures, not just pretty ones.

[Stuart Koehl]

Rule of thumb: If the bishops set the bar low, the laity will live down to their expectations.

[Todd]

"You miss the point Todd - the position of the Church is that the official text of the Mass, which is the Latin text, is not just inspirational, but quite literally INSPIRED."

A question and a comment:

Where does it say that?

And yes, I would agree about "inspired" except with no caps, not even the first letter. And it's inspired in the same way that a Monteverdi Vespers, or an impulsive gesture of kindness is inspired. But not the same way as the Scriptures.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"You miss the point Todd - the position of the Church is that the official text of the Mass, which is the Latin text, is not just inspirational, but quite literally INSPIRED."<<<

That's a minor overstatement. I would also say that, insofar as the Ordo Paulus VI is something of an artifact rather than the culmination of organic development, it's only as inspired as the conclave of liturgical experts who put it together.

[Tony Esolen]

Todd,

Thanks for your comments.

Let's back up a little bit. I've published translations of Lucretius (Latin), Tasso (Italian), and Dante (Italian). That's poetry, almost 50,000 lines of it. I know that you can't translate poetry on a word-by-word basis; you can't even translate prose that way. Languages don't allow for it.

I am not accusing the old ICEL committee of having come up with a bad translation. I am accusing them, over and over, of having come up with NO translation at all. And this, as a translator, I find offensive and unconscionable. When I read the Novus Ordo in Latin a couple of summers ago -- I'd been asked to provide commentary on the second draft of the translation -- I was stunned by how poetic the language was, how filled with Scriptural allusions, and how sacral -- it was not the language of the street, or of a business memorandum. I don't have a copy of that Latin available to me now, but I can tell you that my first reaction was astonishment at how much the "translators" simply didn't bother to translate at all, but just chucked; and how much they watered down the rest, or altered it to fit a clear theological agenda.

I've said many times that I know that translators make mistakes; I can point you to plenty of my own. But these people at ICEL back in the old days weren't making mistakes. They chose to suppress the denotative and connotative meanings of the text, the eloquence and pace of the original syntax, the Scriptural allusions, and the sacral character of the diction. When you examine exactly what they did, it becomes clear that they had a theological agenda.

Now Bishop Trautman and his allies are losing, thanks be to God. I pray that the next battle will be over the inane revisions of hymns.

A final point: the reason the average Catholic cannot remember any of the text of the Mass is that the language is simply not memorable. Does anybody remember an office memorandum? But EVERYBODY remembers, say, pieces of the text of the Anglican wedding service. That's because it IS memorable. Dante is memorable. The parables of Jesus are memorable. Your kid sister's poetry is not. An office memo is not. The current Novus Ordo is not.

[Bill Loughlin]

As a pre-Vatican II cradle Catholic I'm happy to join in the applause for Mr. Esolen's analysis of Latin and the liturgy. Consistency demands calling attention to the designation of Bishop Trautman as the "chair" of the bishops' committee. That would be true only if he were a piece of furniture, which he obviously is not. Such a designation is a relic of the dark age of political correctness which willy-nilly abandoned "chairman" and its opposite-gender equivalent.

[Andy K.]

Dear Dr. Esolen:

I wanted to correct your numbers regarding the number of seminarians in Erie, PA. According the Catholic World Report story in 2005 (here), Erie ranked 53rd of all US dioceses. Not all that great, but not all that bad either, as it is in the top third of all US dioceses.

Now, regarding the rest of your post, well, I look forward to a new Missal. Perhaps not as much as you, but that doesn't matter.

[James M.]

“A question and a comment:
Where does it say that?”
Try the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1099: “The Spirit and the Church cooperate to manifest Christ and his work of salvation in the liturgy . . . The Holy Spirit is the Church’s living memory.” You might want to read the entire section from 1091 - 1112 entitled “The Holy Spirit And The Church In The Liturgy.” I submit that this does require a capital “I”. In any case, the Church appears to be claiming a higher level of inspiration than one finds in “a Monteverdi Vespers, or an impulsive gesture of kindness.”
Also, you don’t address my main point, which is that the current translation is faithful to neither the letter nor the spirit of the authoritative text of the Mass, and that we do better to rely on the wisdom of the Church than on the choices of a human translator in rendering the language and imagery of the liturgy. I suggest that a Mass closer in language and spirit to the authoritative text (whether in English, Latin, or a mix of both) would be a great improvement over what most of us experience in our parishes. Tony Esolen’s most recent post seems to confirm this, as do the following: The Spirit of the Liturgy by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Mass of Vatican II” by Joseph Fessio, S.J. (www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp - 60k - ). Also the following by our own Pr.Esolen: http://crisismagazine.com/september2006/esolen.htm

[terry]

Dr. Esolen:

Thank you for this and thank you for your response to Todd. Especially.

[Todd]

"I am not accusing the old ICEL committee of having come up with a bad translation. I am accusing them, over and over, of having come up with NO translation at all."

Well. This could be a question of semantics. You start with a body of work in Latin. You end up with something in English. Rome and English-speaking bishops all approve it. And everything is done by the rules set down in 1969.

Some of the contemporary complaints about the English translation of Roman Missal I strike me as a bit disingenuous. "Jerry West wasn't such a great shooter. He never made a three-point basket in his whole career" The last statement would obviously be correct, but does the first follow from it?

"A final point: the reason the average Catholic cannot remember any of the text of the Mass is that the language is simply not memorable."

A lot of it is "memorable" in the sense that people have it memorized. But I do agree with you on the poverty of the translation of the 70's. It was only intended to be in place till the 80's anyway. My progressive colleagues were chafing at the many delays with Roman Missal II long before it became an issue with people who were reading the Latin texts.

One doesn't need a close translation of Latin to produce something memorable. Dickens didn't. Nor Frost, Cather, or any number of artists of the English language. I've been disappointed with the language of the Mass since I was in grad school twenty years ago. But I honestly don't see much to be relived about with what's coming down the pike soon. More pedestrian work, when what we needed was artistry.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well. This could be a question of semantics. You start with a body of work in Latin. You end up with something in English. Rome and English-speaking bishops all approve it. And everything is done by the rules set down in 1969.<<<

There are generally considered to be two different schools of thought on translation. One is called "word for word" or "phrase for phrase"; it attempts to stay as close to the language of the original text as possible, making accommodations only for grammar and syntax, and altering the text only when an idiom would be completely incomprehensible. The second approach is called "dynamic equivalence", in which the translator determines what the text MEANS, and then puts it into words that best capture the meaning. However, this injects the opinions of the translator into the text far more than does the word-for-word approach. In fact, it makes the translator an overt mediator of the text, in effect TELLING the reader what the text says, rather than presenting the text to the reader and allowing him to make up his own mind. By determining a priori the MEANING of the text and then presenting it in language that precludes other meanings, the translator using dynamic equivalence hijacks the author's original intent and interposes his own.

All this of course, is well beyond paraphrasing, to which, I am afraid, ICEL does at times descend--as I am forcefully reminded several times every year with particularly infelicitous renderings of certain readings in the lectionary.

[Tony Esolen]

An invigorating discussion. I'll bet that Todd and I would agree most of the time on what we regard as faithful and unfaithful, or felicitous and infelicitous renderings of the text. I'd like to add one remark, about something that we're apt to forget, and please forgive me, everyone, if you've heard it from me before.

As translators, ICEL worked with several considerable advantages that somebody like me does not enjoy:

They were translating prose into prose, or unmetered verses into rhythmic prose (the Psalms).

They had plenty of tradition to back up their renderings; they also could use somewhat old-fashioned words without embarrassment. I'm not talking about obsolete inflections ("doth", for instance), but rather such words as "hallow," which are almost never used outside of the liturgy.

They could do NOTHING and be praised for it; they did not have to worry about plagiarism. In fact, had they retained most of the renderings in the Saint Joseph Missal, they'd have produced something vastly superior to what we've had all these years. Or had they just stuck to the first translation of the Novus Ordo, we'd have been better off.

I agree that committees often -- the KJV is a most notable exception, but also only a partial exception at that -- produce poor work. But ICEL under the self-styled "progressives" never gave a rat's tail about poetry or eloquence. If they HAD, they'd not have vandalized and whitewashed and castrated the hymns. Don't get me started on that one ... I could list for you, if I had enough time, over 400 hymns they botched, getting the grammar wrong, the theology wrong, the meter wrong, the poetry wrong, the imagery wrong, suppressing Scripture and blurring the idea of the Fatherhood of God, not to mention the manhood of Jesus, all to pursue their theological ends.

And then there are the daily collects -- chopped, watered down, drained of all grandeur....

[Dennis Martin]

Dr. Esolen is completely accurate in his assessment of the ICEL translations. He does not go far enough theologically. The language of sacrifice was suppressed consistently, rendering the theology of the English liturgy Protestant (one of two matters on which all the Reformers agreed was that the Mass is not an expiatory sacrifice; the other was that bishops in apostolic succession was a man-made, ungodly, unscriptural innovation never intended by Christ). Quaesumus (we humbly beg, we beseech) along with a good bit of the subjunctive mood was suppressed (ostensibly because "beseech" was archaic but they could have found perfectly modern ways of expressing it). Whatever the reason for suppressing it, the upshot was a quasi-Pelagian theology embedded in the prayers of the Mass. And that's on top of all the problems Dr. Esolen points out. He's absolutely right that they produced no translation at all, rather, they produced a body of theological propaganda, not so much deliberately heretical as bumblingly erroneous.

For these reasons it is perhaps good that the ICEL translations were so unmemorable, so utterly banal, so awful. Unlike in the 16th century, when Cranmer, in beautiful language modified the theology of the Mass and everyone paid attention and chose sides (sometimes at the cost of their lives), in the late 1960s and early 1970s, almost no one in positions of authority cared. That's the real tragedy. People who cared pointed out how awful the translations were but those who had the power to do something about it thought the complainers were being petty. That's the real scandal--that bishops didn't get it, didn't understand how important the language of the liturgy is.

[David Gray]

>one of two matters on which all the Reformers agreed was that the Mass is not an expiatory sacrifice

And if I've been informed correctly by the Eastern Orthodox they do not hold that either (while they do hold to transubstantiation).

[Todd]

"But ICEL under the self-styled 'progressives' never gave a rat's tail about poetry or eloquence."

Not entirely accurate. It is common to speak of ICEL as if it were a monolithic organization from the late 60's to 2001. In fact, members shifted into and out of the committee. In many matters, there was wide consultation with clergy and laity, not to mention poets, musicians, and others who had important expertise to offer.

In the early years, ICEL was working under the direction from the Council itself to complete reform as expeditiously as possible. I might quibble with that priority, but there was always the sense in the 60's that the curia would try to snatch back control from the bishops as they attempted before Vatican II. Personally, I think a Sacrosanctum Concilium of 1965 and a lengthy reform of ten to twenty years might have served the Church far better. Needless to say, it's all a moot point, except for sf writers exploring alternate universes.

Certainly by the 80's when ICEL produced revised translations for Pastoral Care of the Sick, the Order of Christian Funerals, and RCIA, something of a clearly higher quality was being provided. I hear very little complaint from conservatives on that score.

I suspect that Dr Esolen and I would indeed agree on renderings of quality. But I don't see the trade of one political agenda for another is of any advantage for the Church.

It's almost become a cliche that a committee can't produce anything of value. The council documents aren't bad. Neither is the Constitution. It might take more discipline to steer a committee well. But even if you dismiss my argument, you still have to struggle with the CDWDS's thinking that two committees are better than one.

[James A. Altena]

". . . (one of two matters on which all the Reformers agreed was that the Mass is not an expiatory sacrifice; the other was that bishops in apostolic succession was a man-made, ungodly, unscriptural innovation never intended by Christ)."

This is tendentiously false. As to the first statement, it depends on how one understands "expiatory" in the relation of the Eucharist to Calvary. (E.g., whether the sacrifice of the Mass is in some sense a sacrifice de novo or simply a re-presentation of the one sacrifice on Calvary.) To reject a particular notion of expiatory sacrifice (e.g. that enunciated by Trent) is not to reject all notions of it. In short, this point is much more complex than Mr. Martin's simplistic assertion supposes. He might try reading Darwell Stone's 1,2000 page "History of the Theology of the Eucharist" before making such rash and uninformed statements.

The same goes for the second part. If one counts the Church of England as Protestant (as Mr. Martin presumably would), then both it and several Scandinavian Luthran churches were most careful to preserve episcopacy and apostolic succession. Other ceontinental Reformers, including Calvin, did not believe in apostolic succession in the strict (e.g. tactile) sense as necessary, but nonetheless thought it quite desireable (e.g. see Calvin's commendation of the preservation of the episcopate to certain English Reformers). However mistaken that view, that is something very different from a claim that they regarded it as a "man-made, ungodly, unscriptural innovation never intended by Christ." Again, Mr. Martin needs to read a few standard histories of the Reformation before propounding such shopworn, threadbare, and false partisan denominational polemics.

Dear David Gray,

Actually, the Eastern Orthodox Church does *not* hold to "transubstantiation" -- at least not in the strict sense. They do hold that the elements of bread and wine are actually and mystically changed into the body and blood of Christ, but they do not endorse transubstantiation as a particular explanatory theory of that mystery. (A proper discussion of transubstantiation would require a prefatory esaay-length explanation of Aristotle's thoery of substance, and I don't propose to burden either myself or folks here with that right now.) There was a brief period where some EO writers under Western influence carelessly used the term, but subsequent EO writers have decisivley abandoned it.

As to whether the EO do or do not hold the Eucharist to be an expiatory sacrifice in any sense -- that's a point on which I'm not properly informed, and will leave for comment our EO bloggers (and Stuart). I would only point back to my previous observation that it depends on what one means by "expiatory" in relating the Eucharist to Calvary.

[ContraMundum]

Todd, you said:

"One doesn't need a close translation of Latin to produce something memorable. Dickens didn't. Nor Frost, Cather, or any number of artists of the English language."

A truly amazing statement. Indeed, one doesn't need a close translation of Latin to produce something memorable. One doesn't need a translation of anything at all to produce something memorable--Dickens' Little Dorrit is highly memorable, though it is not the translation of anything from another tongue; its original is English.

But if one wishes to produce a GOOD translation of a text, it must be a CLOSE translation of it. You could wind up with brilliant, beautiful, evocative poetry in translating Homer without paying too close a mind to the original Greek--and people may love it. But it that case, the English is more an original oeuvre of the "translator" than a translation of Homer. It's the terminus ad quem that would be praised in that case, rather than the transference of meaning of one tongue to another.

And I get the impression that what you have said here in your several posts is that it really doesn't matter whether the terminus ad quem reflects the terminus a quo: something those disputing you disagree with entirely in principle. A translation--we say--is supposed to be just that, a translation, not a lovely work out of whole cloth by the would-be translator. And the only good translation is a literal translation. And that DOESN'T mean a wooden translation. I am amused that so many people add "slavish" to literal, as if a literal rendering of something must come off as stilted, stiff, and unbearably anachronistic.

You have stated before, Todd (on this thread, I think) that this liturgical project needs to be MORE THAN just a literal translation of the Latin. I think we all agree with you. Dr. Esolen and I both want a translation that is both literal AND beautiful; and it appears the new translation is moving us in that direction, though I imagine there is room for improvement. But it seems that what you are after is something that is less, not more, than a literal translation.

[ContraMundum]

James Altena:

It may interest you to know that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation does not depend in the least upon the Aristotelian (or any philosophical) understanding of substance. This has been repeatedly stated by popes, e.g. by Paul VI in MYSTERIUM FIDEI and John Paul II in ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA to name two recent examples. Paul VI states very clearly that it is a common-sense notion of substance, not any philosophical theory, that is at work when one talks of the substances of bread and Christ. Paul VI even states that the fact that "bread" is not a substance in the strict scientific sense is evidence that the term is used loosely--and that, in any event, what results in the Eucharistic sacrifice (viz., the substance of Christ) is all that is important for the use of this term.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And if I've been informed correctly by the Eastern Orthodox they do not hold that either (while they do hold to transubstantiation).<<<

It's usually an error to try to force Orthodox beliefs into Western categories. On this issue, I strongly recommend two taped lectures by Bishop Kallistos of Deiocleia:

WK-91-03 This Sacrifice Without Shedding of Blood
WK-91-04 (continued) What is sacrifice? Who offers what to whom? What is the relation of Eucharist to the cross?

Both available at: www.orthodoxtapes.org/catalog/ware_bishop_kallistos.html

I had the privilege to hear this lecture in person at St. Nicholas Orthodox Cathedral in Washington, as part of the Orientale Lumen Conference in 2000. Addison Hart reviewed the conference for Touchstone, in the archives at: www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-08-048-r

[David Gray]

>It's usually an error to try to force Orthodox beliefs into Western categories.

True, but very human.

[David Gray]

>On this issue, I strongly recommend two taped lectures by Bishop Kallistos of Deiocleia:

>WK-91-03 This Sacrifice Without Shedding of Blood
>WK-91-04 (continued) What is sacrifice? Who offers what to whom? What is the relation of Eucharist to the cross?

Well I ordered the set on "Heaven on Earth: The Inner Meaning of the Divine Liturgy" Should be interesting...

[William Tighe]

"The same goes for the second part. If one counts the Church of England as Protestant (as Mr. Martin presumably would), then both it and several Scandinavian Luthran churches were most careful to preserve episcopacy and apostolic succession."

Actually, one would have to reject the phrase "most careful" as regards the Church of Sweden, the only Lutheran Church (in Scandinavia or elsewhere) that claims to have preserved the apostolic succession of its bishops. To assert that the succession was preserved one would have to have to answer in the affirmative three questions: (1) when Paul Juusten was consecrated "after Luther's fashion" (as a contrmporary chronicler recorded) by a Lutheran-leading Swedish bishop in 1554 as Superintendent of Viborg -- King Gustav was in the process of abolishing the episcopate by stages and replacing bishops with (for the most part unconsecrated) "superintendents" (a process that was cut short by the king's death in 1560) -- was he really made a bishop; (2) if Paul Juusten participated in the consecration of Laurentius Petri Gothus as Archbishop of Uppsala on July 14, 1575 alongside three Swedish "bishops" (originally "superintendents") who themselves had received no form of episcopal consecration from bishops -- Juusten was present at the event, but the official record, while it does list him as "Gospeller" at it, lists only three bishops (or "bishops") as the archbishop's consecrators, of whom he was not listed as one -- and if he was really a bishop after all, would this suffice to effect a valid consecration of a bishop in the apostolic succession; and (3) even if one can give an affirmative to the preceding questions, would the form of episcopal consecration provided in the Swedish Church Order of 1571 -- a form which departs far more radically from the form provided in the Medieval Pontifical than does Cranmer's Ordinals of 1550 and 1552, and which contains a prefatory statement to the effect that bishops and presbyters are one order, and that bishops are presbyters who are entrusted with the task of ordaining and supervising other presbyters -- be sufficient to consecrate a bishop in the Catholic sense.

I have occasionally wondered whether the facts of the Swedish case were fully known to the Anglican bishops of the 1920 Lambeth Conference who recognized "Swedish Orders" and endorsed intercommunion between Anglican churches and the Church of Sweden.

[Todd]

Thanks for replying contramundum.

"But if one wishes to produce a GOOD translation of a text, it must be a CLOSE translation of it."

True. But ICEL wasn't only in the business of translation. As I said, what they did with Roman Missal I was within the rules set down and approved by English-speaking bishops and Rome. It wasn't as though they were trying to pull the liturgical wool over anyone's eyes.

"Dr. Esolen and I both want a translation that is both literal AND beautiful; and it appears the new translation is moving us in that direction, though I imagine there is room for improvement. But it seems that what you are after is something that is less, not more, than a literal translation."

My priorities would be these: a beautiful and faithful translation, with room for texts composed in the English vernacular. From what I saw of the English version of Roman Missal II, we were on the right track then.

[ContraMundum]

"But ICEL wasn't only in the business of translation. As I said, what they did with Roman Missal I was within the rules set down and approved by English-speaking bishops and Rome. It wasn't as though they were trying to pull the liturgical wool over anyone's eyes."

Well, this is what needs to be demonstrated, I think. What do you mean when you claim that translation is not the only thing they were supposed to be doing? What else was it their business to do?

I agree that the mess we have is not entirely the fault of ICEL, since the Missal we got somehow received ecclesiastical approbation. But I tend to think that's rather because some prelates were snoozing on the job than because there was some other task that had been confided to them. I don't think it makes any sense to say that various vernacular languages are supposed to both translate the editio typica, plus make various insertions or paraphrases suitable to their countrymen.

Thanks for replying.

[Todd]

"Well, this is what needs to be demonstrated, I think."

Rome approved all these translations, didn't they?

"What do you mean when you claim that translation is not the only thing they were supposed to be doing? What else was it their business to do?"

Overseeing the composition of texts in English. Just like the Italians and most of the other Western language groups. You find it in various prayers and considerations that were never in the Roman Rite: prayers for deceased infants, suicides, catechized Christians becoming Catholics: all the special circumstances which were unknown to prelates at the time of Trent ... or ignored by them.

While I can accept the criticism of ICEL's early work, after all, I signed on to such criticism myself in the 80's, I don't see much honesty in applying criticism for a group that simply played by the rules of its day. They were not asked to provide a lteral translation. They were asked to compose original material.

The problems with the existing Roman Missal rendered into English is old hat. The cottage industry that has popped up among Latin-savvy conservatives the past few years is amusing, but largely a wasted exercise. The progressives covered it already; you're just late to the game.

[ContraMundum]

Todd:

Yes, I'm aware of those other texts in English, but this whole thread is about the Missal. Why bring those other matters in? Even so, just because they were delegated the task of composing prayers in English doesn't make those English originals good Catholic prayer, even if they received approbation from on high. I agree that there are plenty of people to share the blame for the wretched texts we are asked to use--but that in no way means ICEL did a good job or is immune from serious criticism.

Played by the rules of the day? They got away with what they did because of the laxity of the rules, if that's what you mean. Take some of the prayers for Catholic Wake services: they are so nauseatingly bland there that there is hardly anything there that even a Buddhist could disagree with! If lex orandi is lex credendi, ICEL has given us a faith without substance.

But let us stick just to the Roman Missal: it is a horrible translation, plain and simple. I know whereof I speak. I could pick any number of collects and point out numerous problems with the way it is translated, and not simply matters of taste. Or better, as Dr. Esolen states, in many cases they are no translations at all but rather ideologically-driven compositions.

As for what you call the "wasted exercise" of the "amusing" conservative insurgency, I think those conservatives (and they are by no means all conservatives) are to be credited with procuring for the Church in America a much improved Massbook, which will soon be issued, please God.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Prof. Tighe,

As always, your eruditon is most welcome here.

First, as I recall, the Lutheran churches in Finland and the modern Baltic states also preserved the historic episcopate. Second, while the historical details of the Swedish case are interesting, but I don't think they obviate my basic point. When I say "most careful," I say that with respect to *their* understanding of the historic episcopate, which of course is not the same as Rome's. To insist on Rome's definition as the standard is simply to beg the question and engage in circular reasoning.

Dear Contramundum,

Your response on transubsutantiation -- that "the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation does not depend in the least upon the Aristotelian (or any philosophical) understanding of substance" -- is at best misleading. I spoke with reference to history, not to the recent statements by Paul VI and John Paul II. In the last 40 years Rome has chosen to distance its doctrine of transubstantiation from Aristotle, and adopt a "strict scientific" one or "common sense" one that you cite instead of Aristotle's orignal metaphsyical one. But this does not eradicate the historical fact that for almost 1,000 years before that, the RC doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated and argued with specific reference to the Aristotelian metaphysics of substance. Apparently you've never read any works of Aquinas, the other medieval scholastics, or the Reformation era apologists for Rome who debated the Reformers regarding the nature of the consecrated elements and Christ's presence therein. Their writings are saturated with references to Aristotle on this point. (And various Protestant Reformers attacked Rome's position by arguing either that it violated Aristotle's theory of substance or else by rejecting that theory.)

It is technically true that the various Western councils (Lateran to Trent) did not formally bind the Church to Aristotle's theory. But that does not change the fact that the doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated with explicit reference to Aristotle's theory, and was so understood by e.g. the Council of Trent. You are in effect arguing a logical fallacy that because transubstantiation is not *now* officially based on Aristotle's theory, that it *never* had such a basis. And that is simply wrong.

You might try consulting works by scholars such as G. R. Evans, Steven Ozment, Jaroslav Pelikan, Heiko Obermann, and above all Etienne Gilson to correct your knowledge and understanding here. The article "Eucharist" in "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" has an extensive bibliogrpahy with numerous citations to works on the medieval and Reformation era understandings of the Eucharist.

[ContraMundum]

Dear James Altena,

Misleading? Not so. Some key distinctions are needed that you have failed to acknowledge.

For the sake of full disclosure (well, partial), I'm a Dominican, and I'm well acquainted with the writings of both Aquinas and the Church councils. I'm also well familiar with the sources you cite in your last paragraph.

Don't confuse what Thomas Aquinas says with RC Church doctrine (in fact, don't confuse scientific theology of any kind with Church doctrine--they're obviously related but quite distinct). From the beginning--centuries before Aquinas, in fact--the notion of "substance" in the authoritative teachings of the Church has been altogether independent of any philosophical school. The fathers at Nicea and Constantinople and Chalcedon all spoke of "substance" (ousia, hypostasis, substantia) in elaborating trinitarian and christological dogma. Were they Aristotelians? Hardly. If anything, they were in the main quite anti-Aristotelian, being more Platonist or Neoplatonist in their sympathies. Yet even then, they were not formulating doctrines in compliance with Plotinus, or anyone of his school. And as for the Eucharist, the term "transubstantiation" was in play well before Aquinas and his so-called baptizing of Aristotle for use in theology.

What Aquinas says about the substance of the Eucharist in the Summa theologiae and other works certainly owes quite a lot to Aristotle; what the Church councils say, not so much. If Church teachings (any of them) were based upon philosophical concepts (rather than being formulated in a way that is philosophically defensible, which is quite another thing), we would be in big trouble.

I don't understand why you think there's any real difference between the way the Church employed the term substance one thousand years ago (or two thousand years ago, really) and now. How could it change? It's the same faith we profess, the same Creed we recite. If it was Aristotle-laden then, it must still be now, and no Pope could divest it by merely saying so. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the fallacy in reasoning you accuse me of. The teachings on these matters have not, in fact, though admittedly distinguishing between the interrelated scientific uses of terms and their commonsense uses is not easy. What theologians deal with is certainly the philosophical sense of a term; the Church's Magisterium can avail themselves of such research as it finds useful, but is never beholden to it, nor bound by peculiar (school-bound) meanings.

I would recommend you consult one of the sources you recommended to me: the OXFORD DICTIONARY. There you find very ably set out the distinction I mention here, viz., between doctrine proper and theology. The term "transubstantiation" was promulgated at Lateran IV de fide, well before Aquinas and while Aristotle was still a nasty pagan to the Church. Only later--with Aquinas--was the elaboration (read: theological account) given.

[William Tighe]

Dear James,

Thank you for the reply. All Lutheran churches in the world today that claim to have an episcopate in the apostolic succession -- the Finns, the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanian Lutherans and various Lutheran churches in Africa and Asia -- derive their successions from Sweden and, hence, from Paul Juusten. If anyone was "careful" about trying to preserve the episcopate in Sweden it was the "catholicizing" King Johan III (1568-1592) who forced the bishops to "consecrate" Laurentius Petri Gothus in 1575 (rather then simply "installing" him), and who seems to have taken some care to procure Juusten's presence at the event. The strange thing about it, though, is that within two years the king had embarked on a scheme to send two or three Swedes abroad and to get them consecrated bishops by either a Catholic or an Orthodox bishop and then to appoint them to dioceses back in Sweden and then to have them reconsecrate all Swedish bishops, or at least all future ones. Johan had been kept under a form of house arrest for some years during the reign of his unstable brother, Erik XIV (1560-1568), and had occupied much of his time by extensive reading in the Church Fathers, both Western and Eastern. As a consequence, his theological views were uniquely his own, and he was held in strong suspicion by dogmatic Lutherans (Sweden did not formally adopt a Lutheran Confession of Faith until 1593) and also by the Jesuits, whose company he sought and who cultivated him assiduously. He had a Polish Catholic wife, and had their son Sigismund (1568-1632) educated as both a Catholic and a Lutheran, until, at age 16, he chose Catholicism. His Catholicism ensured his election as King of Poland in 1587, but it also enabled his uncle Karl to seize control of Sweden in the 1590s and ultimately to depose Sigismund and replace him as King of Sweden in 1604. King Johan's theological learning was as deep as that of James VI and I of Scotland and England, and was much more focused on the Fathers than was James'.

[Lee]

We have an accurate translation. It is known as the 1962 St. Joseph Missal. Latin on the left - English on the right. Simple

[James A. Altena]

Contramundum,

Your post is simply disingenuous. You conveniently set up a row of phony strawmen and then pat yourself on the back for knocking them down, relying upon contorted logic-chopping and definitional legerdemain in so doing.

Firstly, I didn't refer to just Aquinas -- I refered to the medieval scholastics and Reformation era apologists in general.

Secondly, I never said that the doctrine of the Church was identical to that of Aquinas or any other single theologian. Nor did I say it was identical to Aristotle tout court. What I said was that the concept of substance on which transubstantiation was based was drawn from Aristotle. That is an incontrovertible fact, which you try to evade by misrepresenitng what I said and throwing clouds of rhetorical dust in the air.

Third, the claim that "the notion of "substance" in the authoritative teachings of the Church has been altogether independent of any philosophical school" is not merely false, but risible. Altogether independent? You claim that the Church has never drawn upon any philosopher's thought in any way whatsoever? You can only make try to that claim in the most narrow technical sense of a legalistic loophole of formal endorsement, while ignoring substantive content -- a point I already raised and dealt with in my previous post. You may be a Dominican, but you argue like a classical Jesuit casuist -- and I emphatically don't mean that as a compliment.

Fourth, the claim that "they were in the main quite anti-Aristotelian, being more Platonist or Neoplatonist in their sympathies" is evasive. That is true of the early patristic fathers, but not of the scholastics and Reformation era apologists to which I chiefly referred. Among the latter, there was in fact a wide spectrum of philosophical allegiance, from neo-Aristotelian to neo-Platonic to neo-Plotinian. But the fact remains that, with reference to Eucharistic theology, it was Aristotle who was completely dominant. It was Aristotle who framed the concept of ousia. Both the patristic fathers and the medieval scholastics repeatedly cited Aristotle and his related categories and terms -- ousia, to ti en einai, symbebekos, pathos, energeia, dynamis, physis, hyle, arche, genesis, phthora, aiton, stoicheion, holon, soros, morphe, eidos, kinesis, steresis, metabole, enantiosis (to give their Greek originals -- my Ph.D. dissertation research centered on Aristotle's theory of substance in relation to chemical theory) -- were all taken from Aristotle and specifically used by the scholastics with reference to him. I never said they had to wait for Aquinas to be used. They were being used all along, being explicitly borrowed from Aristotle. Perhaps you ought to re-read Harry A. Wolfson as well as the other authors I mentioned -- whose works you claim to have read, but whose contents you evade and deny.

Fifth, "If Church teachings (any of them) were based upon philosophical concepts (rather than being formulated in a way that is philosophically defensible, which is quite another thing), we would be in big trouble." Agreed -- and having done so is a big part of why the Church got into such big trouble with the 16th c. Reformation.

Sixth, "I don't understand why you think there's any real difference between the way the Church employed the term substance one thousand years ago (or two thousand years ago, really) and now. How could it change?"

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor after a bout of hysterical laughter at this statement. The combination here of self-serving circular definition, explicit denial of bald historical fact, and effective denial of Cardinal Newman's doctrine of development (which certainly applies to the theolgoical development of the concept of substance over almost 2,000 years, if it applies to anything at all) is too rich for words.

Finally, I have the Oxford Dictionary, and am quite well aware of the distinction between doctrine and theology. Would that you showed the same awareness of the proper use of both logic and historical evidence, as distinct from rationalism and legalism.

[Hugh McDonald]

In response to the comment:

"Both the patristic fathers and the medieval scholastics repeatedly cited Aristotle and his related categories and terms -- ousia, to ti en einai, symbebekos, pathos, energeia, dynamis, physis, hyle, arche, genesis, phthora, aiton, stoicheion, holon, soros, morphe, eidos, kinesis, steresis, metabole, enantiosis (to give their Greek originals)"

Aristotle recognized, and Thomas did after him, that in using language we could not be arbitrary individualists. In the metaphysics, and elsewhere, he gives several definitions of common terms according to how they are commonly used. Aristotle did not invent change, or matter, or form, or substance, but was using commonly understood terms to express his philosophical conclusions. If I say that something moved in the world, if I were Greek I might speak of kinesis, which says nothing of whether I am an Aristotelian, but says that I am not a Parmenidean. If I see a wolf stalking a deer, I might say it was acting with a purpose, and use the Greek word telos, but that would make me simply a good hunter, not an erudite Aristotelian. It would mean possibly that I was not a follower of Democritus. So, the language of Aristotle lent itself to the purpose, because unlike the language of Plotinus, it actually did not stray so far from the way people use words in real life that the listener could not "cash in" the meaning.

[James A. Altena]

While there is some truth to what Hugh McDonald says, he overlooks the fact that Aristotle (like any philosopher) does not stop with the everyday meaning of the terms he uses, but rather develops them with very specific and intricate technical nuances. Any person who reads the Metaphysics can quickly see that Aristotle does not simply use "substance" (ousia) in the everyday generic sense of "specific type of matter." The same is true of his use of words such as "form" (eidos), "matter" (hyle), "movement" (kinesis), etc. And the Scholastics took the specific terms and connotations that Aristotle had developed and refined them to an extremely subtle degree of precision. So, in fact, Aristotle and the Scholastics "strayed" much further from everyday usage than Mr. McDonald supposes. The latter only provides a first step over the threshhold, not a panorama of the entire house.

One readily sees a similar occurrence today with scientists who speak of "chance" (which has at least three distinct meanings in their usage) or physicists who speak of "black holes", or "colors" and "flavors" of quarks, or the "spin" of electron orbitals, etc. etc. All these words are very common, but none is being used in their generic or commmon-sense meanings.

Or, just to go back to philosophy -- how many folks out there know the technical distinction between a "sound" argument and a "valid" one? In everyday usage the two would be thought identical, and yet they are not.

[Bill R]

"...how many folks out there know the technical distinction between a "sound" argument and a "valid" one?"

I'll bite. What is it?

[Beth]

A syllogism can be valid without being true (I assume that's what Mr. Altena means by "sound").

All cats are dogs.
Sophie is a cat.
Therefore, Sophie is a dog.

That is a "valid" syllogism, because it is correctly constructed in the major and minor premises, and the conclusion follows logically from these. However, it is not a "sound" argument, because the major premise has no truth value. It would also be unsound, of course, if the major premise were true but the minor premise untrue.

[RP Burke]

Dr. Esolen and I both want a translation that is both literal AND beautiful ...

So who is working on making this text more beautiful? No one that I can see, with all the focus on literal, with Latin syntax and idiom as well as cognate vocabulary passed over directly into English in the way an 8th-grader might.

Here's an example in an early part of the Mass, the penitential rite. To say that it is a "translation" to set "et dimissis peccatis" as "and, sins having been forgiven" is a joke. No one past first-year Latin translates the ablative absolute in that way.

Sure, you can argue that the current text is a paraphrase, but then you need to accept that the new version is a transliteration, and hardly a translation -- indeed, ICEL, Arinze and the boys have given us a lazy version that did not incorporate the necessary work to make the text into idiomatic English.

Just because the text is a change does not mean that it's better.

[ContraMundum]

James,

Your ad hominem style of argument is unbecoming, not to say unwarranted. I thought we were having a serious discussion here. Do you find it difficult to avoid personal insults in such exchanges?

I know the matter of Aristotelian substance and transubstantiation is somewhat off the main topic of this thread (I hope Dr. Esolen doesn’t mind the tangent), but I wanted to chime in on your remark about it because I think it is a very common mistake, and works a lot of mischief in the lives of many people--I mean, thinking that the Church’s teaching is tied to philosophical schools.

Let's take the notion of substance itself for a moment. "Substance" was a major theme of every philosophical system known to the Middle Ages, the Aristotelian no more than any other. Some historians of philosophy think that substance is quite simply THE philosophical issue of all time, or at least from Thales to the Scientific Revolution. It is a key issue in Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Neoplatonism, Augustinianism (to that extent one can speak of a philosphical system of Augustine himself), as well as in all the many tributaries of these schools. “Substance” is not a proprietary issue of any one school of philosophy, and for that matter is not an exclusively philosophical issue. “Ousia” is not of philosophical coinage. People were using it in Greece before philosophers came along. In the same way that one can say “substance” in English without being in the least philosophically committed. You may have different ideas about the meaning and practice of philosophy than I do, but I think the only good philosophy is one that grapples with problems that come up in pre-philosophical experience, that at its best philosophy is not esoteric but tries to uncover the causes and principles of things and problems accessible to everyone.

However that all may be, it is simply wrong to insist that the Mediaeval Church had Aristotle in mind in its formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. To think that Aristotle’s metaphysics was popular in the early and high Middle Ages is—-to use your candid term—-risible. Aristotle’s logic was the only part of his work that was taken over by the early and late Middle Ages. His metaphysical principles, seeming as they did to subvert key doctrines of Jewish and Christian revelation, were forbidden reading in most universities. Thomas Aquinas was an odd man out on this score. And he took some serious hits, both during his lifetime and posthumously, for his adoption of Aristotle. The majority of scholastic theologians before and during Aquinas’ lifetime, and for a good while after his death, were decidedly anti-Aristotelian. The situation admittedly changed by the time of the Council of Trent, but that is not really to the point since the doctrine of transubstantiation was expressed well before then.

But I think all this may be beside the point; I think you mistake my point altogether. Do you think I’m denying that various Churchmen have been philosophically influenced throughout history? Or do you think I'm denying that various popes have agreed with Aristotle on things? I didn’t say that, and I certainly don’t think that. I’m talking about the doctrines themselves—-the expressions or formulations in official conciliar decrees or papal statements, the very texts. No matter what the philosophical sympathies of various popes and bishops, the expressions themselves—-the texts-—are not tethered to any philosophical system; they can be read and understood apart from any philosophical worldview and still make perfect sense. Indeed, any and all of those philosophical systems could be discredited tomorrow and yet the doctrines held and professed by Catholics would not be imperiled. Given your previous gales of laughter, I understand you don’t agree with that. But perhaps we could solve things this way: Could you show me how what Lateran IV (or any other official decree) has to say about transubstantiation entails commitment to Aristotelianism? Or any other school of philosophy? I’ve read all the major teaching texts on the Eucharist, and I can’t find any such fetters. Let me put it this way: even had Aquinas been Pope, with all his Aristotelianism, I’m sure he would have expressed things when speaking as Pope in a way that did allow doctrine to stand or fall with Aristotle. He was as aware as anyone the dangers lurking there. This is all that I’m claiming, and that’s all that is important for Church doctrine to avoid being fettered to philosophical systems.

Finally, with respect to your claim that I am arguing circularly and self-servingly (I don’t see it), I simply say again: what the Church taught then in 1215 is what Catholics believe now in 2007. It’s certainly what I believe now. How has the Church gone back on what it taught then? Please enlighten me. (I’m not saying there has been no development of doctrine—but your point is that Catholic teaching has finnessed its Aristotelianism.) Your laughter and rolling on the ground are not an argument—as long as we’re pointing out fallacies.

[James A. Altena]

Beth has it right. A valid argument is one where the formal structure is correct regardless of the factual truth of the propositions. A sound argument is one in which all the propositions are factually true (even if they do not form a proper syllogism, if memory serves me correctly.)

A onetime friend of mine who had a Ph.D. in logic enjoyed creating such entertainingly absurd syllogisms as:

Richard Nixon is a wooden Indian.
All wooden Indians are cumquats.
Therefore Richard Nixon is a cumquat.

and then saying, "And that's a valid argument!"

[ContraMundum]

RP Burke:

I certainly don't think that any new translation will be an improvement. From what I've seen of the new, it's far better, though I haven't seen all of it. Is that really how the penitential rite is translated in the new? If so, I agree with you that it's painful and wooden.

What else do you take issue with? And for that matter, where can one read portions of the new translation? Is there a website offering progress reports or something? I have only seen what has come out in news reports on Catholic sites.

[James A. Altena]

Contramundum,

You have *no* room to complain about ad hominen remarks, etc., considering that you launched the first one with a snidely insulting remark telling me to consult a dictionary (as opposed to a scholarly reference work) -- and put that in capitals to boot, which you surely know is the equivalent of rudely shouting in someone's face.

If you want a "serious discussion", then your first business is to read and respond acccurately to what I actually wrote, instead of fabricating your little straw men, as you have now done once again.

Once again, *for the record* -- I did not say that the RC Church formally adopted Aristotle's theory of substance to explain transubstantiation. Nor did I say that the Church's teaching on transubstantiation is "tethered" to Aristotle, or rises and falls with acceptance and rejection of his philosphy, or is "tied to any philosophical schools." Stop putting words and meanings in my mouth which I never said or intended.

I said that the theory as it was developed by the scholastics and Reformation era apologists could not be understood apart from Aristotle's theory, which exercised tremendous influence over them all. In saying "specific" (or "explicit") "reference to", I was and am speaking in terms of historical influence, not dogmatic allegiance. You tendentiously keep trying to twist my words into a claim that I said the Church formally adopted Aristotelian principles as doctrine. I never said or implied any such thing.

You write: "I’m talking about the doctrines themselves—-the expressions or formulations in official conciliar decrees or papal statements, the very texts." You havve vrey right to talke about that if you wish. But I was never talking about that in your sense of official formulation. I was talking about intellectual influence. But you keep trying to impose your narrow Procrustean definitional bed on me and trying to assert that I am talking about the official formulations, as opposed to the influences upon them.

Nor did I say that the word ousia was originally coined by any philosopher, nor did I say that no other philosophers or systems have used it or found it important. I said that Aristotle framed a particular philosophical concept of substance that was the dominant influence on the scholastics and Reformation era apologists with respect to Eucharistic theology. (I already dealt with this in my response to Mr. McDonald.) And it was so. That is an incontrovertible historical fact.

The idea that ousia was being used by all these philosophers and theologians in only a non-technical, everyday, common-sensical way is ludicrous. The man on the street does not spend his time arguing about whether and how accidents exist apart from essence, whether and how a substance exists apart from all of its normal accidents, whether the presence of a divine substance can be spatially localized, whether two substances can occupy the same physical space at the same time, etc., etc. -- all of which (and much more) the scholastics did with respect to the Eucharist. And all of those terms and questions are specifically drawn from Aristotle, not Plato, Epicurus, etc..

The pretense that by c. 1250 Aristotelianism was not already highly influential and claiming a great many adherents is, as I said before, risible. While there is much debate about, e.g. the Paris condemnation of 1277 (most historians now hold that this hadd very little influence), one thing that is certain is that it would not have been necessary were not Aristotelianism already widespread and exercising considerable influence. And Aristotle simply was not forbidden reading in most universities. There were a few universities that sought to issue bans, which were generally quickly overturned. By c. 1350 Aristotle was the mainstay of virtually every philosophy faculty in Europe (which is one reason why the Nominalists were fighting so hard against him). Your other remarks on history are similarly inaccurate.

To correct yet another one of your historical errors, Darwell Stone notes that the earliest use of the term "transubstantiation" that he could trace is in the treatise "An Exposition of the Canon of the Mass," attributed to Peter Damien and dating from c. 1050 - 1070 A.D. So much for the claim that the Church has always subscribed to the specific doctrine of transubstantiation (as opposed to less specific formulations of the doctrine of the Real Presence), or that the term was long in use before the Aristotelian revival of the High Middle Ages. (Indeed Damien's use of the term was almost certainly due to his exposure to works of Aristotle newly transmitted through Spain.)

You also write: "Do you think I’m denying that various Churchmen have been philosophically influenced throughout history? Or do you think I'm denying that various popes have agreed with Aristotle on things? I didn’t say that, and I certainly don’t think that."

Well, you are the one who originally wrote: "the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation does not depend in the least upon the Aristotelian (or any philosophical) understanding of substance" and "the notion of 'substance' in the authoritative teachings of the Church has been altogether independent of any philosophical school." *Not in the least* and *altogether independent* -- as in total -- as in unqualified -- as in *no* influence or relation whatsoever. If that isn't what you meant, then don't blame me for your mis-statements. I responded to exactly what you wrote. Unfortunately you don't repay that courtesy toward me.

As for "Could you show me how what Lateran IV (or any other official decree) has to say about transubstantiation entails commitment to Aristotelianism? Or any other school of philosophy?"

Since, for the umpteenth time, I *never* argued that, I don't have to show any such thing. But, since -- per your remarks just quoted -- you assert that there is and have never been any relation between Aristotle's doctrine of substance and the formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation by the scholastics, I'll present a counter-challenge:

Cite by name, work, and specific quotation three reputable historians of the period 1100 - 1600 who explicitly assert that Aristotle's doctrine of substance exercised absolutely no influence whatsoever upon the formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Also simiarly cite three scholastic theologians of the period who explicitly state the same with reference to themselves and their own formulations of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

As for the final paragraph -- my figurative mirth is aroused your effort simply to *define* away actual history and assert a fallacy of composition -- that because the "faith" is "the same" in its fundamentals -- the Trinity, the Incarnation, and other points of the catholic creeds, that it is therefore the same throughout time in each and every one of its particulars, such as its particular understanding of the Real Presence and particularly transubstantiation. But if that were so, then there would be no need for Newman's doctrine of development.

What is present here is the fallacy of reification (or hypostasization -- choose your preferred term), in which "the Church" is posited as an abstract Platonic ideal or Hegelian entity (like "History" or the "World Spirit") that exists apart from any and all actual members or historical content and context, and miraculously formulates all doctrine de novo, utterly independent of and without any reference to any actual human beings and their philosophical principles. It is the grand Houdini-like trap-door through which to escape from all difficulties and disclaim all sins, errors, and inconsistencies. Just posit the abstract Platonic-Hegelian "Church" as completely independent of any relation the actually existing Body of Christ composed of real human beings, and constantly blame the latter while absolving the former. Works every time! How convenient.

[contramundum]

James:

What I meant to deny is precisely what you originally claimed: that the RC teaching on transubstantiation cannot be understood apart from Aristotelian philosophy--this is what, in your last post, you say is what your original claim was. That is what I deny, and I think I've made the case, though it could certainly be made better, and this is the sort of dispute that could go on for a very long time without satisfactory resolution.

And I never said that no Aristotelian reasoning took place prior to Lateran IV's formulation, only that most of the council fathers were surely not Aristotelians, and that that formation was intelligible then and still is now apart from Aristotle.

The reason I put that title in all caps was not to "shout" at you but as a form of surrogate italics or underlining--I can't get my keyboard to peform those functions on typepad, though others seem to know how to do it.

If I've said anything ad hominem in any of my posts I retract them, but I am not aware of having done so. If I misinterpreted something you wrote (which is surely possible), I don't think that's the same thing as adopting a disrespectful, taunting air.

I've rather lost my appetite for this discussion, thanks.

[Bill R]

"Beth has it right." - JAA

Of course. I knew that by the time I woke up this morning. Gotta stop taking these gambits at 11 at night! (yawn...)

[peterspence]

I find the amount of bullying and arrogance on this blog troubling. This is how Christians are at their worst.

[Brian Kelly]

Enjoyed the exchange between Contramundum and James Atena. Neither, however, brought up the fact that the inspired Greek of the New Testament employs the terms substance and form both in regard to the generation of the Son from the Father and in the Our Father itself as given in both Matthew's Gospel and Luke's. The latter reads: Give us this day our supersubstantial bread (ton arton hemon ton epiousion dos hemin semeron. The early Church surely knew that Sts Matthew and Luke were referrring to the Eucharist, which Christ had announced in Matthew's own home town. And in Phil. 2:6 Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal to God. (hos en morphe theou . . . Again in Hebrews 1:3: the splendor of His glory and the figure of His substance. (. . . kai karacter taes hupostaseos autos) Notice, too, the Greek word karacter being translated as figura in the Vulgate. What does figura mean philosophically? I think Saint Jerome should have kept it as the greek "characterum", which the church later adopted for the permanent mark of three sacraments. These terms were inspired through the medium of a well educated theologian and a tax collector who held his post at the busy city of Capharnaum where Greeks and Jews mingled commerically. Although it seems most probable that all of the apostles knew Greek, had either of these inspired writers any knowledge of Aristotle? Or of any Greek philosophy? Doubtful, but who knows for sure. In any event God wanted the terms used as they were understood by Jews and Gentiles in their highest sense, that is non-technical, but above the ordinary common sense.

[Reid]

If I remember my formal logic correctly, an argument is valid if the proposition

(premise1 and premise2 and ... and last premise) implies (conclusion)

is a tautology (i.e., true by form, regardless of the truth values of the variables in the premises).

An argument is sound if it is valid and there is an instantiation of the variables that makes all the premises true.

Thus

p
~p
----
q

is valid, since ((p and ~p) implies q) is tautologically true, but it is not sound since there is no truth value for p that makes both p and ~p true.

On the other hand

p
~q
-------
(p or q)

is valid and sound since if p is true and q is false then both premises (the first being p and the second being ~q) are true.

[Bill R]

"supersubstantial bread"

I've never heard this before. Why is it always translated "daily"?

[Bill R]

"This is how Christians are at their worst."

No, I suspect we've done much worse, sinners that we are. But what exactly do you consider "bullying and arrogance"? It's really unfair to make an unsupported allegation like that.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill R.,

The Greek word translated "daily" here in the Lord's Prayer, "epiousios", is absolutely unique -- there is no other recorded usage of it. It is not the normal word for "day by day." "Super-substantial" is an extremely literal translation of epi-ousios (ousia - substance). There is much debate among scholars over the exact meaning, but the general sense of "Give us this day our daily bread" seems to be "Give us that sustenance which more than suffices to bring us through this day" -- i.e. a sense of God sustaining us rather than mere natural means. Of course, this has rich Eucharistic references among the pastristc fathers.

[Bill R]

"The Greek word translated "daily" here in the Lord's Prayer, "epiousios", is absolutely unique -- there is no other recorded usage of it."

James, you are indeed my font of wisdom! Thanks. This provides much food (ahem...) for thought.

[William Tighe]

St. Jerome somewhere made an interesting comment on "epiousios" when he reported that the small remnant of Jewish Christians in his day (the "Nazoreans" -- not the Ebionites) used the word "mahar" (Latin, "crastinum") for "epiousion" -- that is, "The bread of tomorrow give us today," tomorrow's bread being the Eucharist, the antepast of the world-to-come.

[craig]

The "bread of tomorrow" would, of course, have for Jews a particularly strong association with the manna from heaven given to the OT Israelites in the desert for their following day's sustenance. Not a bad analogy at all.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>>...that is, "The bread of tomorrow give us today," tomorrow's bread being the Eucharist, the antepast of the world-to-come.<<<

Whoah! My mind has just been blown.

Reid,

I sure wish I understood what your last post means. I knew I should have taken a course in symbolic logic while I was in school. Anybody wanna recommend an introductory text? It'll go on my list...

[James A. Altena]

I'll second Ethan's request to Reid. While I've had training in logic, it was not symbolic logic.

[Reid]

The text I used as an undergraduate is Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. More recently I put my son though a semester of symbolic logic in homeschooling with a book I liked much better, but I do not have the reference handy.

I've been unsuccessfully looking though Suppes trying to find the definition of sound that I gave above, so I may have it wrong. As I recall, though, and without so many symbols, the idea is as follows:

Deductive logic investigates the circumstances under which knowledge of certain truths (premises) logically implies other truths (conclusions). Consider, for instance,

If I am a man, then I am mortal.
I am a man.
----------
Therefore I am mortal.

The truth of the first two sentences (premises) guarantees that of the third (conclusion). This guarantee comes, however, not from the content of the argument but from its form. Namely, if I let p be "I am a man" and q be "I am mortal", then the form of the argument is

if p then q
p
----------
Therefore q.

Whenever the two premises are true, the conclusion is true regardless of the actual content of p and q (this requires a little proof, which I will not try your patience with). We call a form of this sort a valid rule of inference. This particular one is so common as to have a tradition name, modus ponens.

Sometimes people have a strong intuition that a certain form is a valid rule of inference even though it is not. Such a fake rule is called a fallacy. For instance the famous fallacy of affirming the conclusion has the form

If p, then q.
q
----------
Therefore p.

Here it is possible for both premises to be true but the conclusion false. For example

If I am a man, then I am mortal.
I am mortal.
----------
Therefore I am a man.

If I am, for instance, a parrot reciting logic by rote, then both premises are true for me, but I am still not a man.

This is the only way a formal argument of this sort can be invalid. If you can fill in all the p's and q's (and perhaps other variables) with statements that make all the premises true but the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid. Otherwise it is valid.

Thus, if your argument has premises that are inconsistent with each other -- that is, if there is no way to make them all true -- the argument is vacuously valid. An example is the form

p
not p
----------
Therefore q.

Again it takes a little proof to demonstrate the validity of this rule of inference, but it happens to be valid precisely because it is never possible for both p and (not p) to be true simultaneously. This produces valid but silly arguments like

I am a giraffe.
I am not a giraffe.
----------
Therefore pigs can fly.

As I recall from my logic course, a rule of inference is sound if it is valid but not vacuously. Specifically it must be a form in which the premises are not logically inconsistent with each other -- that is, there must be some way of filling in the p's and q's to make all the premises true simultaneously as in the example of being a man and being mortal above.

Sound arguments are the sort that are useful in reasoning together. The classic argument, in keeping with the theme of Mere Christianity, is that of C.S.Lewis regarding Christ being the Son of God. It has the sound form

s or l or m
not l
not m
----------
Therefore s.

Here s is "Jesus is the Son of God," l is "He is a liar" (that is, He is not the Son of God and He knows it), and m is "He is a madman" (that is, He is not the Son of God and He does not know it). The first premise is a tautology (true by form). The second and third are true by observation of the testimony of the Apostles. The conclusion, Jesus is the Son of God, follows unavoidably.

Checking Wikipedia, though, I have found a definition of soundness for informal logic that matches James Altena's above (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness), so I suppose we really have to specify what branch of logic we are studying before we define our terms. :-)

[Brian Kelly]

Can't help putting in my two bits worth. Symbolic logic is an invention that tries to reduce the quality of a judgment or argument to quantitative analysis. It totally ignores truth, which is the formal object of the mind, and of reason. It is tactics as opposed to the "strategy" of correct reasoning so as to acquire truth. It is a waste of time. It is boring and futile in regard to the end of the proper discipline of logic. That is the whole problem of todays false "scientism." It enthrones mathematics above scientia (knowledge), which ought to serve sapientia (wisdom). Mathematics takes quantity and considers it only as a numerical abstraction, ignoring the purpose of the material things themselves that God has caused to be extended into space. "Laws" of physics, "laws" of chemistry, etc. etc. All of this mechanistic kind of materialism aims at subjecting God to the laws He established in His universe. Which "universe" would not be a "uni-verse" without an Intelligence that made the cosmos (beauty) for man's as a means to contemplate the beauty of creation's Author.
Symbolic logic is a game that insults the contemplative in man.

[Ethan Cordray]

Reid, mightn't symbolic logic stillhave somevalid place forthe contemplative man,if it remained humbly conscious of its limitations? You still use math for certain things, don't you? Or when you go to the grocery store, do you just guess which items are cheaper? Sure,neither math nor symbolic logic are sufficient for knowledge in themselves, but that doesn't make them "a waste of time." Soldiers need tactics as much as generals need strategy if one is to win the war.

[Ethan Cordray]

And by Reid, I mean Brian. My apologies to both.

[Hugh McDonald]

to sum up the exposition on logic:
ex falso quodlibet
i.e., from a falsehood anything follows.
This is reflected in the every-day expression "monkey's uncle":
if p and not p, then I am a monkey's uncle.
If the moon is made of green cheese (and I assume it is not) I am a monkey's uncle.

The Darwinian version: "I am a monkey's nephew"

[Reid]

Brian, I do not follow all that you say about logic and mathematics. I think I agree with the thrust of your post though I might disagree gently with a couple of the details.

As a mathematician (though not a good one), I see mathematics and symbolic logic as humble parts of God's creation that are sometimes useful and sometimes beautiful. They are good tools, sometimes extending the reach of our thought, but the man trying to make something more of them will get either arid philosophy or a pathetic idol.

As humble tools, however, (as you rightly say, Brian) they have some value. The man who wants to deal justly in the marketplace is better able to do so if he knows some arithmetic. The man seeking some obvious demonstration of the existence of absolute truth may find it in 2+2=4 and, thus reassured, go on to look for truth of genuine importance. The man tempted to think that all religions are valid ways to God may use symbolic logic to expose that notion for the nonsense that it is. C.S.Lewis found in such logic a plain way to dismiss the lie that Jesus was simply a good moral teacher. Blaise Pascal found in his mathematics some excellent reasons for faith and zeal.

Obviously no one needs mathematics or logic to follow Jesus and neither mathematics nor logic suffices to usher a man into the Kingdom. But for some men mathematics and logic, when made subject to Christ, have been a small help along the way.

None of this is to deny the emptiness of the materialistic and mechanistic view of the universe that predominates today. On that point I fully agree with you.

[James A. Altena]

Symbolic logic is simply an abstract technical tool for reasoning, like algebra or geometry. One might as well also denounce those mathematical sciences for attempting to "reduce the quality of a judgment or argument to quantitative analysis" which "totally ignores truth," since e.g., those sciences make it capable for us to make a nuclear weapon but do not inform us of the moral value of its use. The logical outcome of Mr. Kelly's argument is that mathematics, and indeed all forms of mental abstraction (including *any* form of logic), are inherently immoral.

Philosophy has traditionally been divided into five branches: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, and aesthetics. Logic is concerned to determine what the rules of right reasoning are. Ethics is concerned to determine whether the processes and results of logic are morally right or wrong, directed toward good or bad ends. Epistemology is concerned to determine what is knoweldge, how we know something, and how we know that we know something (verification). The three are logically distinct functions. But Mr. Kelly is insisting instead that logic must be a subdivision of a melded ethics and epistemology, limited a priori to acquiring truth. It does not seem to occur to him that we cannot know either what truth is, or if we are in fact acquiring truth, if we do not have objective rules (independent of particular content) for determining whether our reasoning processes to make such judgments are correct or erroneous. His approach simply begs the question.

To put it a bit differently and more simply, logic gives us the form, and ethics gives us the content. Mr. Kelly's complaint is essentially an assertion that forms without contents are amoral or even immoral.

I also wonder if it has ever occurred to Mr. Kelly that the generalizations regarding nature that we term "laws" of physics, chemistry, etc., to which he objects so strongly, are not inherently evidence of "scientism" or a "mechanistic" outlook, but rather creations and evidences of a God who is a logical being, the God of order and not of chaos? Again, there is a distinction to be made here between right use and abuse. The fact that an atheistic scientist can misuse a natural law to tout his non-belief does not make natural law itself inherently evil.

[Bobby Winters]

Was it Wesley or Augustine that said mathematics was an invention of the devil, invented to darken the spirit of man? I get quite of few that would agree with that every year.

Symbolic logic and math and grammar etc are just tools. Cain could have used the rock he killed Abel with to build another altar.

[peterspence]

Amazing how one can bring in a viewpoint opposite to one the esteemed Mr Altena holds, and the aforementioned Mr A jumps all over him or her in the role of the alpha male of the pack. Was he trained by Jesuits? I would assume so. AGMD.

[peterspence]

After reading some of the earlier entries...
Certainly, Vatican II ushered in a lot of silliness--but would Christians of so many stripes be having this discussion had Vatican II never happened? Would B-XVI have made his trip to Constantinople? The Archbishop of Canterbury to Rome? Indeed, would Touchstone magazine exist?
I think not.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Peterspence,
I think James may have been a little harsh in his postings with contramundum, but what are you babbling about now?

[Bill R]

"Amazing how one can bring in a viewpoint opposite to one the esteemed Mr Altena holds, and the aforementioned Mr A jumps all over him or her in the role of the alpha male of the pack. Was he trained by Jesuits? I would assume so."

Ah, so THAT'S what it stands for: James A. (for "Alphamale") Altena! ;-)

[Tony Esolen]

Bobby,

I'd find that hard to believe about Augustine, who was fond of quoting Wisdom: "God created the world in measure, weight, and number." Must have been Wesley. All the medieval and Renaissance Augustinian artists and poets were wild about number.

Peterspence,

Here's not the place for a long discussion on the merits of Vatican II. I'm doggedly diffident about the Council; I'll freely admit that the greatest good it did was to prepare the way for such enterprises as Touchstone; I'll also assert that V2 missed, amazingly, the out of control train that was about to smash into Western Civilization -- I mean the sexual revolution. I don't know how it could have missed that one. That terrible blind spot makes all the self-satisfied prophetic posing in the documents sound really grating, to me anyhow. Still, the documents themselves are not the problem. It's what we all did with them afterwards that speeded up the emptying of the churches.

[Craig Goodrich]

Sigh ... As one raised Episcopalian, back when there still actually was an Episcopal Church (before it became the liturgical arm of the terminally Politically Correct), I find the discussion of mediocre, leaden liturgy very moving -- and familiar, since the Advanced Thinkers replaced our Book of Common Prayer, which had been praised by both Roman and Orthodox as some of the most beautiful devotional literature ever produced in English (whatever reservations they may have had about its theology) with a volume of services that combined the theological sophistication of a bumper sticker with the poetic, flowing cadences of a chemistry textbook. I wish you the very best.

And if you get a chance, drop in on an Anglican Use Mass sometime...

[peterspence]

Dear Dr. Esolen,

I couldn't be more in agreement with you about V2. Thanks for all of your posts. You must be a lot of fun in the classroom.

[James A. Altena]

Interesting that Mr. Peterspence does not cite anything wrong with my analysis of the implications of Mr. Kelly's statements, and so can only criticize me for disagreeing with him -- which is, ironically, his criticism of me. (Likewise, that he does not similarly attack Bobby Winters, who repeated my main point.) And if he objects to the use of irony and/or sarcasm, then he should not employ it (and so lamely) himself.

[Frank]

...why doesn't the Church just go back to Latin???

[James A. Altena]

Latin is beautiful and most welcome -- but every language has its own beauties, even English (and German!) I prefer the vernacular for worship myself.

And I'm sure our Orthodox participants will ask, "Why doesn't the Church just go back to Greek?" :-)

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill R.,

"Growl! Snap! Yip!" (Excuse the alpha male while he scratches for fleas and other parasites, and scavenges local garbage cans for dinner. . . .)