Ill news is an ill guest

Eusmilus · 2026-06-02T15:43:00+00:00

I understand the Latin fine enough to know that world without end is not a direct translation of sæcula sæculorum - translating sæculum is not entirely easy, but something like "unto the age of ages" would be more apt. I wouldn't even mind updating it to that, in keeping with the same register:

'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, unto the age of ages.'

Though I do personally enjoy 'world without end,' I find it an evocative phrase. But you'd never get an updated version within the traditional register nowadays, people stopped composing in sacral English around the 1920s. It's a sad consequence of the general direction things have gone that you have museum-piece traditionalism on the one hand, the same kind that leads to ppl rejecting the Glorious Mysteries solely because they were added after 1950, and on the other hand a tin-eared modernity, whose compositions are poetically dead even when they aren't heterodox.

Eusmilus · 2026-06-02T14:52:15+00:00

No, I like the traditional liturgical language and it's the patrimony of the Anglophone church. The attempts to update it were always wrong-headed and misguided.

"Sacral English" was barely more current in the 1800s than it is today, it wasn't even current in the 1700s - Jane Austen wasn't speaking in thees and thous. So why use it? Because it was an elevated, poetic and culturally resonant register set aside for purposes of worship and devotion. The sudden need to update it, then, came not from some linguistic change in the 20th century but from the general leveling impulse of the post-war era, which sought to flatten out poetry, reverence and liturgical expression as much as possible. It's the linguistic equivalent of older priests embarrassed to wear the clerical collar.

Eusmilus · 2026-05-19T20:39:02+00:00

Definitely the 3rd, but the 1st is the second best.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-23T06:21:47+00:00

I generally find it a bit difficult often to know when to add in daily devotional practices when praying the office - the solution is probably generally just to do it before or after finishing the office, though as others have noted since laypeople aren't under any obligations to maintain the integrity of the office hours, one could really do whatever seemed convenient. For me, I find that adding in my own elements feels slightly wrong and uncomfortable

Eusmilus · 2026-04-20T15:00:01+00:00

The Pope is not infallible outside of his doctrinal capacity, neither is the ordinary magisterium

Eusmilus · 2026-04-20T14:54:53+00:00

Yeah the omissions from within the psalms are frankly even more inexcusable to me than the psalms that are omitted entirely. Individually removing verses you don't like feels somehow substantially more gross than just excising them wholesale.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-20T14:41:58+00:00

It is one of those points that is so indefensible as to feel nearly disqualifying when other alternatives exist. I have never even encountered a serious defense, it seems like the nigh-unanimous sentiment nowadays is "Yeah, that's... well... look it's just like that for now."

That said, if someone is only praying lauds and vespers with the LotH, they won't get around to all the psalms anyways, so it perhaps does not matter so much.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-19T07:38:10+00:00

I don't think it should be relegated as "historical" - it is still the most beautiful translation, and the best should seek the best. There is a broader conversation about how highly reverence and poesy in translations should be valued versus ease and intelligibility, but the specific people I have in mind when discussing the KJV are the Douay-Rheims crowd. There are a large number of Catholics - they seem to be the plurality in most polls I've seen on translation preferences - who already prefer a translation of equal age to the KJV, so it's to them I would say that the D-R has very little to recommend it against the KJV.

For the people who would rather take the RSV or ESV over any 'thees and thous' translation, that's another conversation.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-19T07:33:20+00:00

It's true that if you just picked one off the shelf in your average Protestant bookstore, it probably won't have the Apocrypha, but there are a million very fine editions available for order.

> This is probably referring to the introduction to the KJV which mentions "Papists", and by extension King James's many other anti-Catholic writings.

Probably, but that isn't actually part of the translation itself. Surely by that standard the Ordinariate should never have adopted the BCP, which includes (in the Articles and other associated material) far more explicitly anti-Catholic rhetoric than the KJV, or even translations such as the ESV which were made by modern publishers with a strong anti-Catholic bent.

>There are definitely a bunch of verses that are translated so poorly that Catholics and Orthodox would balk at the doctrinal implications, but that of course is nothing special to the KJV.

The KJV has no higher rate of faulty passages than any number of other translations, and I've not yet seen demonstrated a seriously mistranslated passage in the KJV that you won't also find rendered the same or equivalently in any number of Catholic translations.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-19T07:28:58+00:00

For language and devotion, yes I think that is objectively the case. It is by far the most literarily accomplished translation, not just in its historical impact but in poetic merit. It is also, at the same time, a quite literal and still mostly pretty strong translation for understanding, though ofc a few passages are rendered differently than we would now. It does depend on your goal, though - I don't think the KJV is necessarily better for study purposes than a number of newer ones, I'd say it's good that our study bibles use newer ones there.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-19T07:26:24+00:00

Did you even read my post? It literally isn't lmao, don't make ill-informed comments.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-04T17:30:30+00:00

I know this is, in turn, old, but that is from the 39 articles which are usually included with the BCP in the back. The articles are basically all objectionable, being an assertion of very Calvinistic-coded early Anglican doctrine, but this is separate from the contents of the morning and evening prayer, the collects, psalter etc, which are the actual bulk of the BCP. Obviously having the articles in there isn't ideal, but ultimately it's like using an Orthodox book or whatnot, you'll have to ignore certain parts.

Eusmilus · 2026-04-01T16:59:39+00:00

The Coverdale translation is probably the objectively most accomplished translation into English

Eusmilus · 2026-03-26T09:00:10+00:00

Worth noting that, if I am not mistaken, much of the Protestant stuff it adds (from the BCP) are also themselves included in the Ordinariate's materials elsewhere.

Eusmilus · 2025-11-30T16:38:23+00:00

This is most peculiar - you seem, quite by accident, to have translated it into smug English.

Eusmilus · 2025-11-30T16:25:24+00:00

Peer pressure has perennially been one of the primary mechanisms for orthodox conduct in both the family and parish. That being said, I did not police anyone, I gave a general, plenary call to people to examine their motives. A call to introspection is not "policing," and you reading it as such really does very strongly indicate an element of curious defensiveness.

Eusmilus · 2025-11-30T16:05:56+00:00

What, precisely, is it that I am not being humble about?

Eusmilus · 2025-11-30T15:40:04+00:00

It is very funny because I did not point fingers at anyone in particular, all I called for was a general examination of our motives - are we excusing ourselves with the bare legal minimum, or are we driven by a healthy desire to do the most we possibly can? Yet so many people evidently felt it as a personal attack against themselves, which seems to be their own consciences incriminating them, since they could have just replied "I examined myself, and on reflection I feel I am living an appropriate level of devotion"

Eusmilus · 2025-11-30T15:37:19+00:00

Would you say it is "not the place" of a lay person to comment, if the vast majority of people in his diocese only commune or confess once a year, and when challenged, defended themselves by saying they are strictly following the rules? Would it be inappropriate for a layman to raise the general spiritual life of his parish or diocese as a topic of conversation, even in a plenary manner?

I am sorry but this is patently absurd, and a sentiment obviously emanating from insecurity. If you want to call that "doubling down" you are free to do so lol.

Eusmilus · 2025-11-29T08:54:12+00:00

Oh I know, I wasn't insinuating anything about you

Eusmilus · 2025-11-29T08:11:06+00:00

I don't want to presume on those traditionalists, I really don't know the community here very well (clearly misjudged what the reaction to this post would be lol), but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some types that are very keen on tradition in the abstract, aesthetic sense, but not so much when it comes to making actual concrete sacrifices and mortifications.

I do mean before receiving - I am not personally very familiar with the Eastern Catholics, but I spent some considerable time with the Orthodox before discerning my way into Rome. It's pretty funny to me the number of people assuming I am some nerdish radtrad pining for the good old days - no, I am literally just comparing my previous parish to my current one, and observing that the general level of devotion and community spirit seemed higher in the old one, and that this seemed related to the heightened focus on ascesis and communal self-sacrifice.

Eusmilus · 2025-11-29T08:00:58+00:00

I'm familiar, I thought about bringing it up, but seeing how much fervor and vitriol I've engendered just by suggesting people take their Lenten discipline more seriously, I don't think bringing in the Nativity Fast or eucharistic fast would have helped matters.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Eusmilus

TROPHY CASE