Comments on: American Sign Language and Sacramental Form http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318 Truth and the God of Truth encountered. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:44:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Dylan http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318/comment-page-1#comment-8577 Dylan Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:27:59 +0000 http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318#comment-8577 So: 1) Does ASL have the <i>ratio significandi</i> necessary for the sacramental form? 2) Is there more required of the sacramental form than simply <i>ratio significandi</i>? For example, writing the form does not seem to count (Matrimony excepted). If there is more required, does ASL meet the requirements? So:

1) Does ASL have the ratio significandi necessary for the sacramental form?

2) Is there more required of the sacramental form than simply ratio significandi? For example, writing the form does not seem to count (Matrimony excepted). If there is more required, does ASL meet the requirements?

]]> By: Dylan http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318/comment-page-1#comment-8095 Dylan Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:32:11 +0000 http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318#comment-8095 Winker, I think that the moral unity of the matter and form could be accomplished through signing; they don't have to be precisely simultaneous. Winker, I think that the moral unity of the matter and form could be accomplished through signing; they don’t have to be precisely simultaneous.

]]> By: Winker http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318/comment-page-1#comment-8087 Winker Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:02:43 +0000 http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318#comment-8087 What about the ability to do two things at once. Is it even physically possible for one person to sign the proper words while pouring the water? What about the ability to do two things at once. Is it even physically possible for one person to sign the proper words while pouring the water?

]]> By: Dylan http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318/comment-page-1#comment-8086 Dylan Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:53:11 +0000 http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318#comment-8086 I would argue that <i>in intension</i>, the definition of a word has not changed, but because of the recognition of signed languages as true languages, the <i>extension</i> of recognized types of words has changed. The Church allows the celebration of, e.g., Mass with simultaneous signed / spoken form. I'm more interested in the sacramental question of what is necessary for validity. Aquinas--if I understand it properly--even seems to say that the concept of "word" includes non-vocal things as well. An argument I could see against the validity of sign language would be that the words are not being offered <i>humano modo</i>, that is, it would be seen to be comparable to writing on a piece of paper "this is my body" and then holding it up. However, I would also say that sign language is a natural language whereas something like the written form of a spoken language is an artificial form of communication. I would argue that in intension, the definition of a word has not changed, but because of the recognition of signed languages as true languages, the extension of recognized types of words has changed.

The Church allows the celebration of, e.g., Mass with simultaneous signed / spoken form. I’m more interested in the sacramental question of what is necessary for validity.

Aquinas–if I understand it properly–even seems to say that the concept of “word” includes non-vocal things as well.

An argument I could see against the validity of sign language would be that the words are not being offered humano modo, that is, it would be seen to be comparable to writing on a piece of paper “this is my body” and then holding it up. However, I would also say that sign language is a natural language whereas something like the written form of a spoken language is an artificial form of communication.

]]> By: Jeff http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318/comment-page-1#comment-8080 Jeff Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:04:38 +0000 http://blog.ipsissima-verba.org/archives/318#comment-8080 An interesting idea. It begs the question, do we understand Church documents as speaking to their time only or to all time, are they dynamic? Thus as the definition of "word" and "hearing" changes, are we to retroactively to apply this changing definition to past documents? I'm uncomfortable with that idea for it suggests that in spite of Church's attempt to define something, mere changes in societal understanding of language can change what the Church has laid down. Can it be a "word" without being spoken? Is the definition of "word" objective or subjective? It might be a stretch to compare the two, but in Canada the definition of the word "marriage" at least in law has been changed. It might be interesting to look at what the Church has laid down in regards to celebration of the sacraments that also use American Sign Language and see what she has stipulated in regards to speaking the form. An interesting idea. It begs the question, do we understand Church documents as speaking to their time only or to all time, are they dynamic? Thus as the definition of “word” and “hearing” changes, are we to retroactively to apply this changing definition to past documents? I’m uncomfortable with that idea for it suggests that in spite of Church’s attempt to define something, mere changes in societal understanding of language can change what the Church has laid down. Can it be a “word” without being spoken? Is the definition of “word” objective or subjective? It might be a stretch to compare the two, but in Canada the definition of the word “marriage” at least in law has been changed.

It might be interesting to look at what the Church has laid down in regards to celebration of the sacraments that also use American Sign Language and see what she has stipulated in regards to speaking the form.

]]>