Skip to main content

Link to "Ryan Grant's Less-than-Stellar Latin Translations"

Here is Catholic Monitor's commenter Charmaine's link to "Ryan Grant's less-than-stellar Latin translations":

https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/3059170627461661

"The fact that he plugs the Salza/Siscoe screed, which is so replete with spurious scholarship and sophistry -- as well as out and out fraud, speaks volumes about Mr. Grant's uncritical bias in matters that require rigorously critical judgment. For a man who knows Latin as well as he does, he cannot be easily excuses for his lack of attention in translation which one encounters from time to time; such as when he translated "manavit" as "remain", in a passage of De Romano Pontifice lib. iv cap. iii (and forgot to translate "fortasse" in the same passage); and in the interview linked by Brother Bugnolo, both Grant and Taylor Marshall mistranslate Bellarmine's expression "baptism of spirit" (baptismus flaminis) as "baptism of flame". Flaminis is the genitive form of flamen (gust of wind; breeze); whereas the Latin word for "flame" is flamma, gen. flammæ. Manat is the 3rd person sing. of mano, manare (to flow or extend) -- thus, Bellarmine was saying that St. Peter's grace that his personal faith would not fail "possibly" (fortasse) did not EXTEND to Peter's successors. Mr. Grant rendered it wrongly as "did not remain to". Thus, Bellarmine's passage in Latin (Ex quibus privilegiis, primum fortasse non manavit ad posteros : at secundum sine dubio manavit ad posteros , sive successores.); is translated by Ryan Grant as "From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.” Here is the correct translation: "From these privileges, we see that the first possibly did not extend to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.”

***

"Passage from De Romano Pontifice lib. ii cap. xxx
«Nam iurisdictio datur quidem Pontifici a Deo, sed hominum opera concurrente, ut patet; quia ab hominibus habet iste homo, qui ante non erat Papa, ut incipiat esse Papa; igitur non aufertur a Deo nisi per hominem, at hæreticus occultus non potest ab homine iudicari; nec ipse sponte eam potestatem vult relinquere.»

Grant's translation: "For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men."

Correct translation: “For jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, it is not removed by God unless it is through men.”

"Notice that the subject of the final clause is a pronoun which grammatically must refer back to the subject of the principal clause. Grant makes it refer to the subject of the subordinate clause. I flagged the error quickly, because I remember St. Bernadine of Siena's explanation of this rule of grammar."

"Here's Bro. Alexis Bugnolo's precise translation of the passage:
"For jurisdiction is, indeed, given to the Pontiff by God, concurring with the works of men, as is clear: because from men this man, who was not before the pope, has it that he begins to be the Pope; therefore, it is not taken from him by God, except through men, but an occult heretic cannot be judged by man; and the same does not want to relinquish that power voluntarily."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-non-theologian-ryan-grants-so-called.html]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

Comments

Alexis Bugnolo said…

Dear Frank,

Every translation can be improved, so please add


but as One

before before Concurring...

Because that translation was done hastily.
Fred Martinez said…
Br. Bugnolo,

I posted this piece because it used your translation as an example of a "precise translation" therefore I thought it waw accurate and also it put forward exact examples explaining why they thought Grant's translations weren't "stellar." I totally trust your judgement. Do you think this piece was fair to Mr. Grant. If you think it is not honest and fair I would be happy to delete and apologize as well as make a post apologizing and explaining why it was wrong as reparation to Mr. Grant. I would like to to see an exchange between you and Grant on the value of his Latin translations.
Fred Martinez said…
Typo alert: waw should be was

Popular posts from this blog

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

High-profile Lawyer Barnes: Amy Coney Barrett would be a Disaster

High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that Amy Coney Barrett would be a disaster. The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has " sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech ." The Avvo.com lawyer directory reports that attorney "Robert Barnes embraces the challenge to defend the little guy and stand up for what is right. This is why he left the prestigious Yale Law School, whom publicly stated their unwill

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b