Long time no blogging …
I’m writing now because I think I’ve finally worked out how to address the question of the recent changes to the texts of the Lord’s prayer into several modern languages.
The “temptation” line is a particularly difficult one to accurately and elegantly translate into modern languages from either the Greek or the Latin, mainly because the verbal forms of those two ancient languages did not survive as such into the modern European ones.
I’ll look at this from the Latin for two reasons, with the clarification that the problem is basically the same from both the Latin and the Greek. First, the Western churches have always traditionally used the Latin rendering, not the Greek ; second, it’s also easier for me personally from the Latin.
I will be approaching this from a generally linguistic direction, even though I hope through that to perhaps help give some clarity to the strongly related theological matter.
It goes : et ne nos inducas in temptationem.
First, “inducas” is a subjunctive, not an imperative ; and “ne” expresses a negative will or desire, not the straightforward negation expressed in Latin by “non”.
So “ne” should neutrally be translated “may I/you/we not” or “may it not be so that I/you/we” — literally that is. It’s basically a negative form of “may”, except that no such word exists in English, nor pretty much in any modern Western European language.
The verb “inducere” means, literally, “to carry in/be carried in/bring in/” etc.
But what is really difficult here is that the combination of the meaning of “ne” with the second person of the verb “inducas” and the subjunctive mood leads to a rather complicated meaning, something along the lines of “May you not let it be so that”.
… which then automatically creates a difficulty on how to best render the semantic element of the verb, particularly in English where in time the subjunctive has become so weak that many native speakers no longer even recognise it when it’s used.
Adding to this difficulty is the double use of “in” — “inducas in temptationem”
What’s not evident is that this is not two separate uses, but the same use repeated for purposes of both insistence, and to qualify the meaning of “inducas” so that its “in” element concerns the “temptationem” rather than the verb being used in its most literal manner, thus not just qualifying but changing the meaning of that verb — so that it means more “to bring temptation in” rather than “to bring in into temptation”. In context, this is not the sort of subtle difference as appears at first glance.
Another non-self-evident and so difficult element is that the “nos” is actually in the Nominative, not the Accusative, so that it’s the subject of the subjunctive phrase “nos inducas”, not its object.
So we end up with a rough idea of : “And // may You not let it be so // that // we to bring temptation in”
Or cleaned up, “And may You not let it be so that we shall take temptation in.” — though as you can see, even that falls short of the full meaning, as it fails to fully express the prayer that God might let us be neither the place where temptation is suffered or succumbed to, nor to be those who might cause temptation in others.
So you see, literally, it is not God here who is bringing in the temptation, but it’s us ; and we are praying to Him that He shall not let us do this thing.
But that is very difficult to render, in a translation that’s both formally accurate and elegant in the modern European languages, especially the non-Romance and non-Greek ones.
Confession : I am a True Pilgrim.
Photo by Bill Bennett
I’m not entirely sure myself what it means to be a “True Pilgrim” — except that it’s not something that you can ever decide for yourself, but only be recognised as, by other True Pilgrims.
I do know that I can instantly recognise another True Pilgrim when I see one, though, even when he might not know it himself yet.
As I didn’t myself when I was told.
It’s a strange status and position to be in — humble, yet humbling ; responsible, yet free ; truthful, yet tolerant.
The True Pilgrim cannot, frankly, be defined nor understood, though I certainly have my own silly old understanding of the idea …
But it’s certain that the True Pilgrim is only met along the Way as a strange & providential oddity.
Coming usually to share some manner of strangely purposeful and meaningful wine and good times with you and curious transient sympathy ; but sometimes more.
He can be your strange elsewhere friend and our own more abstract love along the Way of Saint James, perhaps the one who never compromises with his own Way, but certainly the one who will NEVER compromise with yours !!
Though probably, in practice, just that weirdo pilgrim guy over there you can’t wrap your head around.
I am, for my sins, just such a pilgrim — one imagines the men of Purgatory, perhaps, or the Exodus, to try and understand this continuing presence of ours along this Path — but you would be wrong to think of these matters in mythical & biblical story terms only !! These are the works and worries of every foot pilgrim over every kilometre of the Way, and we are not called to ignore them.
We are called to embrace and love and transcend them.
I have a project to walk from my home Parish to Arles, then Andorra, Toledo, Fatima, Santiago, Saint Jean Pied de Port, Lourdes, Arles, home.
This is a CRAZY idea from pretty much any rational perspective, I mean 4000-4200 Km and so on …
So it’s not a matter of when — but if — it’s still very hypothetical, though it’s the logical conclusion of several things that have been brewing in me since the 1993 Way that I made with some Parisian friends, and ended up making me into the pilgrim that I am.
Surprisingly — and he has a lovely tendency to surprise me in the best of ways — it’s my godfather’s idea originally, as such.
His understanding of the Camino is astounding for one never having set foot on it, better IMO than most pilgrims themselves.
And though neither he nor I really understood what he was actually suggesting to me at the time, my thinking now is that I’ve finally realised that if I’m ever to do the return pilgrimage as such, then not only does it need to be all the way, but it also needs to be after pilgrimage all the way back here ; and by consequence both in the same all-the-way foot pilgrimage. Anything else would be half-way from my perspective, because from the “purist” point of view, you can’t just chop the Camino up into convenient bite-sized portions for this sort of purpose. (though others who do just that for other purposes do very well indeed)
Scary of course, but at least I know now since the 2014 Camino that the “reverse” Camino is something I can actually handle psychologically — it’s far easier to handle solitude in anticipation of company than transient company in anticipation of solitude, and it’s taken me 25 years to get my head ’round that difficulty, but that’s done.
It would take FAR more organisation than I’ve ever had to create so far in the previous pilgrimages. Also, not even thinkable until well after I’m installed back at my old/new place with that GREAT view etc. over Monte-Carlo. Plus some training etc.
The most beautiful thing about this is that I’m now more seriously thinking of our Parish altar as the End of the Camino than I ever have before — the perspective of walking home from such a Pilgrimage back to the altar of our own Parish church is strikingly powerful.
But crikey — Six. Months. (or more) ; and only Fatima to Santiago in the midst of it with typical pilgrims that I might hope to see more than just once only then gone forever !!
Well, maybe a few compañeros for a few days near Arles hmmmmm ….
Lots to think about …
Hasn’t it been a long time since the last blog entry !!!
I am going on pilgrimage (again) to Santiago de Compostela, and after much thought, I have decided to put my blog posts about this new journey up at my friend Bill Bennett’s pilgrimage blog, PGS The Way.
Bill has written a very amusing account of his own pilgrimage, The Way, My Way (which can be found HERE ), and he also plans to direct a film that he’s written about the Camino.
Bill is not a Catholic, nor even a Christian (though he had a Christian upbringing), but his blog has evolved into a meeting place for some of the more thoughtful and/or experienced multi-Camino pilgrims of whichever religious or philosophical background.
Several of the members there have expressed interest in reading about and discussing my pilgrimage ; so there’s a broader audience than the Catholic for these writings, and I concluded that they would be better published there than here.
I have seen Our Lady Saint Mary, the Mother of God, Pregnant with the Godhead Itself, and filled with the Shining and Eternal Light and Love of God and of Heaven.
Henceforth, I will proclaim this to all the world, and I will accept any and whichever consequences may arise therefrom, for the reason that there is only One God, One Christ, and One Heaven that we are called towards for the love in our souls in the utter imperfection of our flesh.
May God have mercy on my soul.
There seems to be a certain amount of confusion among English-speaking Catholics over how to properly understand Pope Francis — and particularly how to understand the “off-the-cuff” homilies that he has been providing at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, as they are reported variously by Radio Vatican and L’Osservatore Romano.
I’ve no idea how much help the following will be, nor how many people will even see it, however it is certainly possible to make better sense of these homilies, and through this better understanding, to gain a better perspective on the actual personality and ministry of our Pope, in the face of the masses of disinformation that have (inevitably) started circulating about our Holy Father.
First of all, which source to use to make sense of them ?
Straight to the source — http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/cotidie/2013/index_it.htm (Italian)
1) The English-language translations of these homilies, even those provided at the Vatican website itself, have demonstrated that they are, at least for the time being, untrustworthy sources of information. Avoid them !!!
2) The Pope’s rhetoric is simultaneously Latinate and Italianate in nature, and his sense of humour is mischievous and ironic, so that a surefire way of misunderstanding these homilies is to read them quickly, in their poor English translation, and according to English or American expectations on how speeches should be constructed, and with the expectation that every single off-the-cuff word is to be taken 100% po-faced seriously. Instead, start your reading with the basic assumption that at least one disarming trait of humour will be provided in the homily, always remembering that you’re reading in a foreign language, translated or in the original, and read carefully, and trying NOT to engage your pre-conceptions on what the Pope must be saying. Try and remember how texts are constructed in Latin, or in 16th century literature, or perhaps as Shakespeare wrote them, because these are the sorts of rhetorics that the Pope is using, and NOT the pre-digested sound-byte rhetorics of our Mass Media.
3) There is a certain delightfully spontaneous baroque aesthetic in the Pope’s homilies that one should try and be sensitive to — this is an aesthetic with the direct purpose of causing listeners to approach its contents anew, afresh. It is NOT the type of magisterial exposition of theology and doctrine and of the related morals that Pope Benedict XVI provided for us with such consummate skill, BUT one should also understand that the inner questioning that the Pope’s rhetorics seek deliberately to foster in his listeners, and that many are confused by, is VERY firmly based on the magisterial teachings of the Pope’s immediate predecessor, both as Pontiff, and as the ex-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The baroque rhetorics are used to try and shake up our intellectual complacency, and try and revive in us the nature of the link between our Souls, our Faith, our Religion, the Revelation, God, and the nature of our vocations in this world.
4) The Pope is teaching us that an intellectualised religion is not really any kind of Christianity at all — but that the intellect should ALWAYS be a servant of the Catholic Religion, but never seek to define it according to its own terms, as ONLY the Revelation provides that definition. This, as many people haven’t quite realised, is also the beating heart of the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI !!!
5) Brush up on your Italian, or your Latin, or your other Romance languages, or by default, brush up on your Shakespeare and your Chaucer — the Italianate aesthetics that are redolent in Pope Francis’ off-the-cuff homilies can be understood better via a prism of thought that is closer to them than by trying to stick to the intellectual aesthetics of a modern UK or US Liberal Arts Education, which they are almost completely incompatible with.
Pope Francis’ deep spirituality is perhaps most comparable among recent Popes to that of Pope John Paul I. And so it may easily seem to be both mysterious, and confusing, especially in the light of the extreme shortness of John Paul I’s Pontificate.
Pope Francis’ spirituality appears to be centred on a constant awakening to the presence within one of one’s soul, and the outpouring of its divine relationship with God, which in turn provides the living source of ALL proper action, in prayer, in Liturgy, in work, and speech, in homily, in thought, and in deed.
This is not the banal exuberance of a dancing charismatic, it is a deep and thoughtful, prayerful, and Faithful attention within to the Work of the Holy Spirit. It is a devotion that is intrinsically Trinitarian, deeply Marian, and of the highest nature of the Catholicity.
And this is the kind of very deep Faith that the Pope is teaching, instead of an “intellectualism without talent”, as he puts it, an “ethicism without beauty”, that seeks to reduce the Catholic Faith to its sole intellectual, moral, social, psychological components, but that would transform the Church into just another NGO.
Our souls are the children of God, not “adopted” from out of this material world and its worldliness, but vivified in the living relationship of Love with Our Father.
And everything that the Holy Father is teaching is derived from this Eternal Source of ALL Truth and ALL Beauty and ALL Love.
And then people are surprised that his teachings are “confusing” !!! There is nothing more confusing than God when He reaches past the intellectual falsehoods of our worldly pride towards the very intimacy of our Souls.
Pope Francis is NOT of course suggesting, nor am I, that one’s intellectuality should simply be cast by the wayside !!!
He is suggesting that the Intellect is useless if it is not the servant of one’s Soul, turned towards God.
To deeply understand Pope Francis’ rhetorics, always remember this : that if he asks us, explicitly or implicitly, to always keep our very souls always turned to God in the Holy Spirit and through Christ, that he himself is practicing this very ascesis. The Pope’s own intellect is properly ordered in its processes within this vivification of the Self in Faith, and to read his homilies and to try and understand this Pope via the dead letter of a simply formalistic rationality is to understand nothing either of Francis or of his homilies.
I am asking you to try and understand them in the light of the most child-like Faith that resides in the heart of our love for God and for the Church of His Christ. In the very light of what makes us Catholic Christians instead of just another organisation of intellectuals, moralists, and social workers.
In the light of our very Souls.
The EU has just adopted a very important text on the question of Religious Freedom.
Whilst its provisions are still not European Law for the time being, this is the final draft of the proposals that will be offered to the Commission for actual legislation.
Happily, several questions that have arisen in recent decades over the intellectual persecution by some radical secularist ideologues of (particularly) the Christian religious freedoms are explicitly provided against in the proposals :
Collective dimension of freedom of religion or belief
(h) It should be stressed in the Guidelines that an indispensable part of freedom of religion or belief is the right of each individual to manifest the freedom of religion or belief alone or in community with others; this includes:
– the freedom to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places and religious sites for these purposes;
– the freedom not to participate in any given religious activity or event,
– the freedom to establish and maintain appropriate religious, media, educational, health, social, charitable or humanitarian institutions;
– the freedom to solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions from individuals and institutions;
– the freedom to train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief;
– the freedom to establish and maintain communications with individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at the national and international levels; equally, it should be noted in the Guidelines that the right to exercise religion in community with others (in the context of which ‘individual freedoms must always be respected) should not unnecessarily be limited to officially recognised places of worship, and that all undue limitations to the freedom of assembly should be condemned by the EU; the Guidelines should underline that States have a duty to remain neutral and impartial towards religious groups, including as regards symbolic or financial support;
(k) As recognised by internationally accepted standards, the parents or legal guardians of a child have the liberty to ensure that their children receive a religious and moral education in conformity with their own convictions, and the child shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his or her parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle; the right of parents to educate their children according to their religious or non-religious convictions includes their right to deny any undue interference by state or non-state actors in their education opposed to their religious or non-religious convictions; the Guidelines should stress these aspects of the right to freedom of religion or belief, and should also guarantee secularisation in public education, and EU delegations should take appropriate action if this principle is violated;
I find these proposals to be an interesting mix of both some intrinsically secularist notions, and some intrinsically religious requirements — and on the face of the more general nature of the proposals, they may end up requiring of the UK that the Church of England shall be disestablished (though I will leave others to read the document for themselves and make up their opinion about these aspects).
My own interest is in the specific protections that are being proposed herein for all religiously-minded folk, including Catholic Christians.
It is a significant step forward for the EU that parents’ rights and the rights of religious communities to provide a religious education to their children is being proposed as a strongly worded inalienable human right !!! This right has been under constant assault from atheists and secularists for nearly 50 years, and it is very gratifying to finally see someone acting to put a stop to this horrendous persecution of religious families in Europe.
That public education is defined as being secularised is of little importance in the face of this great advancement, given that it already has been so secularised throughout nearly the whole of Europe — though here, the public education that is provided in Italy may sadly be put under assault (except that I have great faith in the Italian genius for finding detours around any overly oppressive lawmaking).
The proposals on the Collective dimension of freedom of religion or belief are a LOT more interesting though !!!
It is of the very NATURE of a religion to be collective, and we can see here that the EU is at last decided upon formally defining religion and the associated religious freedoms to be of a collective nature. This is amazingly good news, in the face of the constant barrage of propaganda from the atheists and secularists to try and turn religion into a purely private affair.
Noteworthy, is the expressed desire that religions and religious communities should have a right to establish charities that are consistent with their religious beliefs, and one cannot help but think of the ghastly cases of the Christian Adoption agencies that have been forced to shut down or lose their charitable status in the face of secularist legislative aggressions and persecutions, in the UK for example.
It is very refreshing to see a secular institution of the EU positively recognising that religious freedoms cannot be limited to freedom of belief and freedom of assembly.
This is a great advancement, and we should be celebrating it, notwithstanding the more secularist notions that are simultaneously being vehicled in this document.