No Latin yet

Well…, it seems my guess was right.

Tomorrow’s L’Osservatore Romano.  No Latin text yet.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to No Latin yet

  1. Benjamin Newman says:

    The Latin was the first thing I looked for!

  2. Matthew W. I. Dunn says:

    Just perused the English version on the Holy See’s website; didn’t notice anything that was immediately earth-shaking.

    However, if it’s got “theocon” George Weigel ticked off, then I’m in my “happy place” for the day.

    Thank you, Holy Father!

  3. Roland de Chanson says:

    It’s called « Osservatore Romano » not « Observator Romanus! » ;-)

    BTW, have other encyclicals been published in the daily edition in Latin?

  4. Samuel Reliance says:

    Fr. Z.,

    If the first thing you look for is the Latin and – NOT – the answer to the question
    “What does this encyclical mean to the people I shepherd? How do I preach this?” then you aren’t doing your job. [Once of the silliest comments on the blog in a long time.]

  5. Brendan says:

    I’d gone to look up the Latin this morning in hopes of getting insight into some of the sections that come off as very heavily written in translation-ese in the English version, but was it wasn’t posted yet on the Latin version of the Vatican website. Given that my Latin is much better than my Spanish, and my French and Italian are far, far worse than my Spanish, I figured the Latin version was my best hope of some clarity,and it is supposed to be the official, version, no?

    Are modern encyclicals actually written in Latin, or as they written in Italian and then translated into Latin afterwards?

  6. Rob F. says:

    Samuel Reliance:

    With all due respect for the rhetorical quality of your “zinger”, how are we supposed to know what the encyclical might mean if we don’t have the Latin?

    “What Does The Encyclical Really Say” might be an appropriate subtitle to Fr. Z’s blog. Telling the people what the Latin really says has been an invaluable service that Fr. Z has provided to the people he shepherds for a while now, a service for which most of us have no convenient alternative.

  7. Jordanes says:

    Samuel Reliance said: If the first thing you look for is the Latin and – NOT – the answer to the question “What does this encyclical mean to the people I shepherd? How do I preach this?” then you aren’t doing your job. ***

    Absolutely wrong. It’s the Latin that is the official version of the encyclical, not any other language. Without the Latin, there is nothing definite a priest can preach to the people he shepherd. If he gives people firm teaching about the encyclical before we know what the Church has actually said, then he isn’t doing his job. Until the Latin appears, anything he may say on the subject is only provisional and subject to possible revision.

  8. Brendan: “Are modern encyclicals actually written in Latin, or as they written in Italian and then translated into Latin afterwards?”

    No, they are not written in Latin these days.

    They are written in some modern language, perhaps even several if there are different contributors. Eventually everything goes into Italian and then it is rendered from Italian into the other versions… including Latin.

    This causes problems, of course.

    However… all of that having been said… the official version of an encyclical or other document will be the version that appear in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, a monthly (usually late) official instrument by which the Holy See promulgates its documents. The version of important documents in the AAS is usually Latin, though there are some notable exceptions.

    What is really interesting to do is to compare the Latin at the time of the release of a document to the Latin that appears in the AAS.

  9. Samuel Reliance says:

    Some fool said: “Absolutely wrong. It’s the Latin that is the official version of the encyclical, not any other language. Without the Latin, there is nothing definite a priest can preach to the people he shepherd. If he gives people firm teaching about the encyclical before we know what the Church has actually said, then he isn’t doing his job. Until the Latin appears, anything he may say on the subject is only provisional and subject to possible revision.”

    ROFL LMAO!!!! Um, … no. Actually: NO!! If you hold those opinions, then you have no understanding of how language works. Also, if you think it is Fr. Z’s job to do what you describe, then you are quite seriously delusional. Let’s let the Regie Fosters of the world do what they are supposed to do.

    But, so long as I am at it, by your own principles you are suggesting that (1) Fr. Z would have to preach the content of C in V in Latin, (2) that it would have to be heard and understood by the people in Latin, and (3) by virtue of the Vatican’s not posting the letter in Latin, it has laid the groundwork for preaching on C in V that is provisional and whatnot.

    Epic fail, dude! Epic fail!

    Besides, Latin is no longer the official language of the Church. [Nooooo…. wrong again.] Since Vatican II — and, as a matter of fact, since the Council of Alvira (and earlier), the languages of the peoples of the Church have been the language of preaching, for example. [“For example”. Just because we don’t preach in Latin, Latin isn’t the official language of the Church? Got it.] Most people are aware of that fact. Granted, — but thankfully –, most conservatives are not most people, know that.

  10. Zilly says:

    If the first thing you look for is the Latin and – NOT – the answer to the question
    “What does this encyclical mean to the people I shepherd? How do I preach this?” then you aren’t doing your job. [Once of the silliest comments on the blog in a long time.]

    You are disgusting Father Z. All you do in this crappy blog of yours is to sow lies and deceit against the catholic church. I don’t see any tinge of holiness in you in fact you are the perfect example of wolf in a sheep’s clothing. The commenter above is just saying his opinion, you could have just courteously answered him yet you dismissed it as silly in your old sarcastic way. You are such a disgust. If I were your parishioners I would never listen to your crap because all you have is a forked tongue. Do us a favor and molest someone so that you’ll be stripped of your ministry. You give all PRIESTS a bad name. Such a hypocrite! I puke at your blog. May hell bind you until your death! What you sow is what you reap. No wonder you cant find peace. It shows on all your posts which is a reflection of your thoughts. Such a lonely and bitter priest. I Pity you in your time of death!

    And by the way, don’t pretend that you are not biased. Obviously you are. Thanked God the Vatican already said that SSPX has no canonical status and cardinal Hoyos is now replaced. It will be such a pleasure if Vatican will excommunicate you on the grounds of Haughtiness and utter bitterness towards those who do not subscribe to your anti-Vatican II crap!

    [I am guessing he didn’t vote for WDTPRS for Best Blog in the latest round of web awards. This is a good example of how many dupes of the liberals really think. Scratch them and under the surface this is what you find. What a wretch.]

  11. Rob F. says:

    Zilly, you should THINK, and then POST.

    I think we should ALL be glad (and you in particular) that the Vatican does not excommunicate people on the grounds of haughtiness or bitterness.

  12. jarhead462 says:

    Zilly is silly.

    Semper Fi!

  13. jarhead462 says:

    What’s that I smell?
    I think it’s …..a….Bitter Old Hippie! (B.O.H.)
    Probably overcome by the Spirit of Vatican II(and the scent of patchouli).

    Semper Fi!

  14. Jordanes says:

    Wow, there sure have been a few flibbertygibbets and nasties showing up to spew their stomach contents on Father Zuhlsdorf’s weblog this week.

    Samuel Reliance, you may kindly address me as “Jordanes,” not “some fool.” In addition, what I said clearly cannot mean or imply that Father Zuhlsdorf would have to preach the content of the encyclical in Latin, or that it would have to be heard and understood by the people in Latin. But yes, since the official version of the encyclical is not yet available, the Vatican has indeed laid the groundwork for preaching on the encyclical that is provisional and might have to be modified if and when translation errors are discovered, or the final, official version that is published in the AAS is changed in any way from the vernacular versions that were released Tuesday. The Vatican does go back and alter official texts before they are officially promulgated through the AAS (and until a Vatican document is published there, its form or content is not final). You seem not to have much if any understanding of how language works, especially in the Catholic Church.

    I don’t know who told you that Latin is no longer the official language of the Church, but you’ve been seriously misinformed. Why do you think the bishops have been working on new, accurate translations of the Missal into vernacular to replace the embarrassing mistranslations currently in use? If Latin weren’t the Church’s official language, what would there be to translate? As Father Zuhlsdorf said, the languages of preaching have nothing to do with the Church’s official language, which is Latin.

  15. Samuel Reliance is Back and Can't Be Beat says:

    Let us strive for honesty and fair representation on this blog, which means not kicking people off of the site because they hold a different opinion. [Different opinions are fine. Being a jerk is not. That’s why your IP was banned and I why I will simply delete your comments until you can be more civil.]

  16. Samuel Reliance says:

    Padre,

    Have you read Jordanes’ comment? The comment I posted — twice now, in fact — was civil, to the point, and contributed to the discussion. You can check your records. And, one you have done so, I look forward to your re-posting my comment.

    Thanks!

  17. Samuel Reliance says:

    Also, I would very much appreciate it if you could point out how the comment was uncivil. I do not believe it was. And, accusing me of a lack of civility amounts to slander.

    I believe you owe me an apology.