Tattoos

[INPEFESS]

"Yes" and "no" are powerful statements.

What about languages like Latin, Chinese and Irish, which have no words for "yes" and "no"?

So you are saying that there is no way to decline or give consent to anything in those languages?

This is one of the reasons (besides translation), that people marry with "I do" rather than "yes".

Not that it is significant in light of this discussion, but isn't it, "I will"?

At least, that is how it is answered in the traditional rite.  ;)

I thought it was all in Latin in the traditional rite...that is how I would do it if I were to marry.

I do not know how it is translated.

N. Vis accípere N. hic præséntem in tuam legítimam uxórem juxta ritum sanctæ matris Ecclésiæ?

Respondeat sponsus: Volo.

"velle" can be translated multiple ways. The question is asked and the person responds with the verb in first person indicative singular. It means "to will, wish, to be willing" and it is used with "accípere" (accept, receive). To say "I will" in English is a bit vague, as the word is also used in the future tense ("Did you go to church today?" -> "I will"). Translating "volo" directly would yield "I will" (or worse, "I wish").

It would depend on how the question is asked I think how one would translate this. One could translate it as "Desirest thou to accept..." but a pure subject-verb reversal for questions is rarely done in English now, so it would be "Do you desire to accept" and using "do" in this way would make it an appropriate translation because it is the verb. There was always diversity in the marriage rite in the vernacular. I wonder how the TLM handles it? Is there a traditional translation which is used by all using the language?

I believe that priests have been provided the English translation approved by the Church, correct? I don't think they are allowed to translate the Latin according to their own personal knowledge of Latin.

[Rosarium]

"Yes" and "no" are powerful statements.

What about languages like Latin, Chinese and Irish, which have no words for "yes" and "no"?

So you are saying that there is no way to decline or give consent to anything in those languages?

This is one of the reasons (besides translation), that people marry with "I do" rather than "yes".

Not that it is significant in light of this discussion, but isn't it, "I will"?

At least, that is how it is answered in the traditional rite.  ;)

I thought it was all in Latin in the traditional rite...that is how I would do it if I were to marry.

I do not know how it is translated.

N. Vis accípere N. hic præséntem in tuam legítimam uxórem juxta ritum sanctæ matris Ecclésiæ?

Respondeat sponsus: Volo.

"velle" can be translated multiple ways. The question is asked and the person responds with the verb in first person indicative singular. It means "to will, wish, to be willing" and it is used with "accípere" (accept, receive). To say "I will" in English is a bit vague, as the word is also used in the future tense ("Did you go to church today?" -> "I will"). Translating "volo" directly would yield "I will" (or worse, "I wish").

It would depend on how the question is asked I think how one would translate this. One could translate it as "Desirest thou to accept..." but a pure subject-verb reversal for questions is rarely done in English now, so it would be "Do you desire to accept" and using "do" in this way would make it an appropriate translation because it is the verb. There was always diversity in the marriage rite in the vernacular. I wonder how the TLM handles it? Is there a traditional translation which is used by all using the language?

This forum needs a red herring smiley.

It isn't a red herring. Not everything is confrontational you know, despite your efforts to make it so. This thread is 20 pages long.

It is a deliberate changing of the approach based on the statements in the posts people made which were interesting (such as the Chinese tattoo, the statement about "yes" and "no", etc). It is much less confrontational and probably more interesting than 20 more pages of "it is a sin, you are inked to hell" and "I was young/it isn't offensive/nobody sees it".

[INPEFESS]

"Yes" and "no" are powerful statements.

What about languages like Latin, Chinese and Irish, which have no words for "yes" and "no"?

So you are saying that there is no way to decline or give consent to anything in those languages?

This is one of the reasons (besides translation), that people marry with "I do" rather than "yes".

Not that it is significant in light of this discussion, but isn't it, "I will"?

At least, that is how it is answered in the traditional rite.  ;)

I thought it was all in Latin in the traditional rite...that is how I would do it if I were to marry.

I do not know how it is translated.

N. Vis accípere N. hic præséntem in tuam legítimam uxórem juxta ritum sanctæ matris Ecclésiæ?

Respondeat sponsus: Volo.

"velle" can be translated multiple ways. The question is asked and the person responds with the verb in first person indicative singular. It means "to will, wish, to be willing" and it is used with "accípere" (accept, receive). To say "I will" in English is a bit vague, as the word is also used in the future tense ("Did you go to church today?" -> "I will"). Translating "volo" directly would yield "I will" (or worse, "I wish").

It would depend on how the question is asked I think how one would translate this. One could translate it as "Desirest thou to accept..." but a pure subject-verb reversal for questions is rarely done in English now, so it would be "Do you desire to accept" and using "do" in this way would make it an appropriate translation because it is the verb. There was always diversity in the marriage rite in the vernacular. I wonder how the TLM handles it? Is there a traditional translation which is used by all using the language?

This forum needs a red herring smiley.

I'm sorry. I did distract him from you discussion and I apologize.

I thought it would be quickly acknowledged that the approved translation of the Latin is "I will". The "I do" was introduced by Protestants, I believe, and became acceptable as a matter of independence from the Church.

[Rosarium]

I believe that priests have been provided the English translation approved by the Church, correct? I don't think they are allowed to translate the Latin according to their own personal knowledge of Latin.

I do not know. That is what I as wondering Now, the "translation" issues are a mess. The English used by the Americans is not used by all English translations for example. In the TLM, I was wondering what the process was, because this part of the marriage was usually in the vernacular, since marriage is a sacrament done by two people on themselves.

I know most translations of the traditional rites are usually precise (number of the second person pronouns, etc), but I do not know if this translation was formerly approved by anyone higher than the local bishop. Traditionally, a higher approval would have been cumbersome because it was always intended to be in the vernacular, which varied in history (in some languages, this is still present, simple statements in Irish can be very different according to regional dialect).

[Rosarium]

I'm sorry. I did distract him from you discussion and I apologize.

I thought it would be quickly acknowledged that the approved translation of the Latin is "I will". The "I do" was introduced by Protestants, I believe, and became acceptable as a matter of independence from the Church.

But there is no reason to stay focused on this thread. As long as the posts follow another, it doesn't matter.

For tattoos, there are there criteria for what is a mortal sin. If an act of getting a tattoo is a sin (a particular tattoo or all), then if one repents, it is forgiven. Removing it is not necessary, because it is not easy, sure or safe. The only sure way to remove a tattoo is mutilation. Flaunting an immodest tattoo would be sinful. Merely having one would not necessarily be.

[dark lancer]

I'm sorry. I did distract him from you discussion and I apologize.

I thought it would be quickly acknowledged that the approved translation of the Latin is "I will". The "I do" was introduced by Protestants, I believe, and became acceptable as a matter of independence from the Church.

But there is no reason to stay focused on this thread. As long as the posts follow another, it doesn't matter.

For tattoos, there are there criteria for what is a mortal sin. If an act of getting a tattoo is a sin (a particular tattoo or all), then if one repents, it is forgiven. Removing it is not necessary, because it is not easy, sure or safe. The only sure way to remove a tattoo is mutilation. Flaunting an immodest tattoo would be sinful. Merely having one would not necessarily be.

If someone got a tattoo that was unquestionably graphic XXX pornography on their arm and then converted to Catholicism, what would happen?

[INPEFESS]

I believe that priests have been provided the English translation approved by the Church, correct? I don't think they are allowed to translate the Latin according to their own personal knowledge of Latin.

I do not know. That is what I as wondering

Yes, and that is my fault for not having evidence to back up my supposition. I am fairly certain that the English translations were approved by extension of the Church's authority, but I do not have any books with me at the moment to definitively substantiate it.

Now, the "translation" issues are a mess. The English used by the Americans is not used by all English translations for example.

True.

In the TLM, I was wondering what the process was, because this part of the marriage was usually in the vernacular, since marriage is a sacrament done by two people on themselves.

I know most translations of the traditional rites are usually precise (number of the second person pronouns, etc), but I do not know if this translation was formerly approved by anyone higher than the local bishop. Traditionally, a higher approval would have been cumbersome because it was always intended to be in the vernacular, which varied in history (in some languages, this is still present, simple statements in Irish can be very different according to regional dialect).

I don't actually know either. But I think that the text and its translation together are approved insomuch as all the text contained within the book itself is approved.

Regardless, the local bishop would be an extension of Church authority to my way of understanding, so this eliminates unique, individualized interpretations done by the priest.

[INPEFESS]

I'm sorry. I did distract him from you discussion and I apologize.

I thought it would be quickly acknowledged that the approved translation of the Latin is "I will". The "I do" was introduced by Protestants, I believe, and became acceptable as a matter of independence from the Church.

But there is no reason to stay focused on this thread. As long as the posts follow another, it doesn't matter.

Well, then nothing counts as an interruption in the real world, either. I mean, as long as someone's interrupting statement follows other statements, it doesn't matter.

[Spooky]

If someone got a tattoo that was unquestionably graphic XXX pornography on their arm and then converted to Catholicism, what would happen?

Oooh! Oooh! I know! The earth would immediately open up and swallow the person whole, sending them directly into Hell, because, as we all know, sinners need not apply.


Herr: the character I got was this one:


the one on the left. As you're looking at it.

[dark lancer]

If someone got a tattoo that was unquestionably graphic XXX pornography on their arm and then converted to Catholicism, what would happen?

Oooh! Oooh! I know! The earth would immediately open up and swallow the person whole, sending them directly into Hell, because, as we all know, sinners need not apply.

Why does everyone have to blow everything I say out of proportion?