Talk:Alfred Loisy

Untitled

the page: http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/l/loisy.shtml says he was born on 28th Feb. 1857 in Ambrières (Marne), and he died on 1st June 1940 in Ceffonds (Haute-Marne) - may it helps :-)

and is it possible maybe that someone can copy and translate this article into the german wikipedia? - this would be very nice - Thank you

Fr Alfred Loisy did NOT come into conflict with the so-called Church conservatives, but rather, was found in decent of the Church's orthodox beliefs and teachings. In addition, according to Loisy own personal writings, he suffered from no faith in the Christian religion and the divinity of Christ.

My Encyclopedia has an extensive article on Loisy. I think it gives a better sense of his thought than this and I'll paraphrase parts of it.--T. Anthony 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway you're right. From what I'd always read it wasn't some intense reactionary group that went against him. His ideas would be unacceptable to today's Church as well. I might check other sources on this in case that one is seen as biased.--T. Anthony 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation of Loisy's "most famous observation"

I've refined the translation of "Jésus annonçait le Royaume et c'est l'Église qui est venue’". My rationale:

• 'annoncer' is translated better in this context by 'preach'; Harrap gives 'preach the Gospel' for 'annoncer l'Evangile'.
• 'et c'est l'Église qui est venue’ is translated by 'what arrived was the Church' to express the force of 'et c'est', which is not captured by 'and it was'.

- Jmc 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The translation of Loisy's aphorism is too mild, not reflecting its emotional ferocity

I happen to disagree. I much prefer "Jesus was announcing the Kingdom of God, and it is the Church that came".
The contrast in Loisy's remark is the heralding of a new age ("annoncait") and the appearance of a different phenomenon ("et c'est...qui est venue"). It is important to save the contrast in English.
Moreover the use of "was announcing" marks the continuation in duration of the action. It's not the action of a definite time (as "he announced in March that he was going to go to the Temple"), but a prolonged action over time, in fact over his whole life. "He was announcing" means he was doing it all the time, obsessively, unremittingly. So yes, the idea of "preaching" is conserved in "was announcing", but "announcing" far better preserves the original French contrast between "annoncer" and "venir", that is "announcing" and "came". We have a herald going around the countryside and the city clamoring for a new arrival, and the surprising appearance of something totally different. "Appeared" would be a good meaning of the French text, but "came" is much stronger and faithful to the text. It's subtle, but the English must preserve the strength of the French language, and not substitute an interpretation of the thought by a commentator. There's no intimation of "preaching" at all in the French. The meaning is about "heralding", trumpeting a future arrival, going around and harassing people with the repetition of the same news. The problem with "preaching" is that it relates to communicating ideas, doctrines, and it does not catch the concept of predicting an arrival. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

After much consideration, I've reverted. ROO BOOKAROO's rendering is just too bald, literal and awkward. Consequently, it fails to capture the startlingly radical effect of Loisy's observation. -- Jmc (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As a follow-up, it's interesting to compare English translations in other works. 'Preach' seems pretty prevalent. Here's a topical version, in Thomas P. Rausch's Pope Benedict XVI: An Introduction to His Theological Vision: "Jesus preached the Kingdom; what came was the Church". -- Jmc (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2013

(UTC)

Again, I disagree, Rausch's translation again shows lack of familiarity with French. "What came.." is too mild. Agreed, "it was" pushes the arrival in the past, while "it is" maintains the actual presence of the party that arrived. Not only did the church arrived, but it is still with us, alas. Loisy could have easily said "et ce fut.." instead of "et c'est..."

Again, "prêcher" is too mild, if acceptable, but not as strong. But it's too difficult to battle lack of learning and trying to convince amateurs who don't have an extensive practice and experience of the French language. You simply don't "feel" the French, so you're resorting to dictionaries and other translators who are in the same situation as you. You're using reason, and don't catch the emotional fervor of the aphorism.

However, your "rationale" is an effort to inject more literacy into Loisy's words, beautifying his quip. He could easily have prettified his aphorism if he had so wished. What you are unconsciously doing is undermining the shock value of the epigram. From lack of intimate familiarity with French. You miss the brutality and the rawness of the witticism in French. You make is sound pleasant, as an amusing banter in an elegant soirée in a French salon. When in fact it is a blow below the belt addressed against the Church, it is plebeian, proletarian, reflecting Loisy's own origins, and the viciousness of the conflict. No wonder that it got him excommunicated. But the French government supported him and gave him the best teaching position in the French educational system.
You guys simply miss the ferocious battle of the French revolutionists against the Catholic Church. The French Revolution was not just against the monarchy, but against the Catholic Church, a battle to the death to sever the connection of the State with the Catholic Church, and to strip it of all its privileges, estates and social status. The battle raged on in France, and Loisy simply joined it, from inside, while Couchoud and Guignebert were attacking the Catholic Church from outside.

I feel that it's your lack of familiarity with the French language and the historic attack of the French population against the privileges of the Catholic Church that leads you to dampen the ferocity of Loisy's brutal saying. The French did not miss the intent.

--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whom ROO BOOKAROO might be targetting when he addresses "you" and " You guys" as "amateurs who don't have an extensive practice and experience of the French language" and talks of ""lack of familiarity with French", "lack of learning", "lack of intimate familiarity with French" and, again, "your lack of familiarity with the French language".

It can't be me, since he knows nothing of my fifty-year intimate familiarity with French and my having lived in France and New Caledonia.

-- Jmc (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, no Bibliography

Yes, amazing, no effort at a bibliography. This cannot be considered a professional article.