FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Encyclical
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Am I the only one that has noticed that the new Encyclical is in Italian? I only know of three other Papal Encyclicals not written in Latin, 1) Notre charge apostolique (Our Apostolic Charge), by St Pius X, in French, 2) Non Abbiamo Bisogno (Catholic Action in Italy), in Italian, and 3) Mit Brennender Sorge (On the Church and the German Reich), in German, the latter two by His Holiness, Pope Pius XI.

In all three cases, whilst they were directed to the Church at large, they were dealing with a situation in an individual country, hence they were written in that country's language.

Is this a further attempt by Pope Francis to lessen the universality of the Church, in line with his 'Bishop of Rome' schtick?
Perhaps as a Jesuit of the 1960s generation, his Latin isn't what it should be? Even if he was comprehensively educated in Latin during his youth in the 40s-50s, he probably hasn't had much need to exercise that knowledge during his priesthood (i.e. the last 46 years). Perhaps he's just using a language more familiar to him - Spanish being less acceptable than the Italian which is spoken by the greatest number of hierarchs/cardinals/politicos in his immediate surroundings.

I, too, was taken aback by the issue of this encyclical in Italian. At first I thought it was just the incipit in Italian, as a quote from St. Francis, but it is not.
I stand corrected. Papa Emeritus' Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), was originally published on 7 July 2009, in  Italian, English, French, German, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish. The 'authentic' version in Latin wasn't released until the end of August.

Now we wait to see if a Latin version is released.
Father Z is talking about this.
(06-21-2015, 04:54 AM)xandratax Wrote: [ -> ]Father Z is talking about this.

And I like what he says:

Quote:Laudato si’ – Magisterium or Magistweeterum
Posted on 20 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In the whirl of opinions (informed and non) in the MSM about Laudato si’, I’m tempted to put down my copy and wait for the official, Latin text in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

I remember how, years ago, when Veritatis splendor came out, I found in the Latin text in AAS zillions of changes compared to the Latin version that was originally published in L’Osservatore and given to us journalists before the release.  Changes in the Latin, mind you.

In the meantime, we get to read Laudato si‘ in an unofficial translation.

Think about this for a moment.  Ponder the implications.

When big documents come out these days, they are released in many languages.  It also happens that they don’t release a Latin version, as they once did even when the document wasn’t originally penned in Latin.  Mind you, papal docs haven’t been composed in Latin for a loooong time now, friends.  However, the official version of a document is the version that appears in Acta Apostolicae Sedis… usually in Latin.

So, what does this mean?

Since the texts are amended and adjusted and changed after the initial public release (in multiple vernacular languages), people who refer to the vernacular versions (from the initial time of release) are not actually referencing the official, final document!  They don’t go back to redo the vernacular translations in light of the changes in the official, final Latin!

Students, church officials, bishops when they write pastoral letters… they aren’t reading the real thing.

Thus, I hope there will be an official, Latin version Laudato si’, to which one can refer.

I’m especially looking forward to how certain things will be translated!  I remember in my work with Fr. Foster having to do a simultaneous translation exercise from an article in TIME on economics.  I pretty much fell apart when I got to “marginal propensity for change”.  If the concepts in Laudato si‘ are comprehensible, they should be able to be expressed in Latin.

We also need the official Latin.

Otherwise, this pontificate risks having a Magistweeterum rather than a Magisterium.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/06/laudato-s...tweeterum/
Yea, I'm a bit skeptical if there will be a Latin version of this.

I'm also curious, do you think the pope was the main writer of the encyclical? Can anyone perceive a unity of style between the encyclical and other pope's stuff?
(06-21-2015, 03:06 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Yea, I'm a bit skeptical if there will be a Latin version of this.

I'm also curious, do you think the pope was the main writer of the encyclical? Can anyone perceive a unity of style between the encyclical and other pope's stuff?

As one who doesn't read encyclicals, I'm certainly the wrong person to answer that question? Grin

When push comes to shove, though, how important is it, really, who is the actual or main author of any encyclical?  If it bears the pope's stamp, seal, and signature for all intents and purposes it is his, whether he personally composed the words or not, no?
(06-21-2015, 03:06 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]I'm also curious, do you think the pope was the main writer of the encyclical? Can anyone perceive a unity of style between the encyclical and other pope's stuff?

I would doubt it. Even as far back as HH Leo XIII, the first draft of Rerum novarum was written by Tommaso Maria Zigliara, a professor at the Angelicum and was influenced by His Lordship Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, Bishop of Mainz and His Eminence Henry, Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster.

The Holy Father would then have vetted it, made what changes he thought necessary, and then sent it to the Secretariate of Briefs to Princes and of Latin Letters (now the Latin Letters Office in the Secretariate of State), for 'style polishing'. But, as J. Michael said, what difference does it make?
Oh, none at all, I was just curious.
The ghostwriter is Abp. Victor Manuel Fernández, an interesting character...
Pages: 1 2 3