die zum festen Bestand der stabilierten Kirche gewordenen Dogmen

Discussion in 'Deutsch (German)' started by Löwenfrau, Aug 17, 2013.

  1. Löwenfrau

    Löwenfrau Senior Member

    São Paulo
    Brazilian Portuguese
    I'm in doubt as to the phrase in blue:

    "die zum festen Bestand der stabilierten Kirche gewordenen Dogmen sollten zuerst aus der Vernunft bewiesen werden; dann fing man an, zwischen den beweisbaren und den unbeweisbaren Dogmen zu unterscheiden" (Mauthner)

    Assuming that "festen", "Bestand" and "stabilierten" mean almost the same, my first attempt to translate the construction is:

    "the dogmas that arised [in order] to provide stability to the Church which was seeking to stablish itself..."

    or, in a slightly different interpretation:

    "the dogmas that arised [in order] to provide stability to the Church which was [in a process of] stablishing itself..."

    Is one of these attempts correct?

    Thanks a lot in advance!
     
  2. dubitans Senior Member

    Vienna, Austria
    German - Austria
    the dogmas that had become constitutive to the stabilised church
     
  3. Edinburgher Senior Member

    Scotland
    German/English bilingual
    Did you copy stabilierten correctly? I've a feeling it should be etablierten.

    "ArisedArose" is the wrong word. Dubitans's "had become" is better, but I don't like "constitutive".

    The dogmas which had become an integral part of the established church...
     
  4. dubitans Senior Member

    Vienna, Austria
    German - Austria
    stabilieren is an older form of stabilisieren. I don't deem stabiliert/stabilisiert and etabliert to be synonymous.
    Can dogmas, i.e. intellectual and spiritual concepts, become part of an institution? They can become part of that institution's thinking, but part of the institution? That's why I chose ​constitutive.
     
  5. Löwenfrau

    Löwenfrau Senior Member

    São Paulo
    Brazilian Portuguese
    Yes, I did copy the word stabilierten correctly. Dubitans remark might explain it.

    As to become part or constitute, I think that both fit. I think that in a figurative sense concepts can indeed make part of an institution. But I too prefer the word constitutive for this particular context. Just seems to sound better. But I also note that Edinburgher is a bilingual speaker... So now I don't know whose Sprachgefühl to follow; for my language, in particular, the word constitutive sounds better.

    Another question: do you make a clear distinction between "stablished" and "stabilized" in this context?

    I'm only asking because in Portuguese the equivalent for "stablished", estabelecido, sounds more idiomatic.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2013
  6. dubitans Senior Member

    Vienna, Austria
    German - Austria
    I don't think it was necessary for the church to become established as it had certainly been well established before. But I can well imagine that it had been destabilised (by Reformation and the secession of Lutherans?) and, hence, had to be stabilised again.

    And then: The author wrote stabiliert: Idiomatic or not, it's stabilised in English. Had he wished to write etabliert​, he'd have done so, wouldn't he?
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2013
  7. Edinburgher Senior Member

    Scotland
    German/English bilingual
    There is a little overlap in meaning between stabilized and established (stablished is just an archaic form of established), in that they can both mean "make stable" (or remove instability). Where they differ is that establish also means to bring into being, which is like to constitute. So I think you need to determine from context whether the church as it existed before the scholastics came along was in a state of turmoil and instability which needed to be tamed (did the church need to be strengthened, buttressed, secured against collapse?), or whether it was simply coming into existence, perhaps in a new and philosophically and theologically more rigorous form. There is probably some overlap there too. Perhaps the church was being metaphorically re-born with greater structural underpinning by being able to reason how its concepts are connected together.
    Yes, I think they can, because when you say it, you are almost making the institution and its thinking synonymous; you are using the name of the institution to represent all that it stands for, its principles, its thinking, its maxims. I think your choice of word constitutive has the right meaning, but I just have a feeling that the word itself is a little obscure, which is why I preferred to express the same idea in different words.
    This makes sense too, and points to a need for stabilising (or perhaps re-stabilising) the church, but then it becomes more difficult to work with constitute, because constitute goes better with establish. Perhaps the differences are not that great. Were the scholastics' changes fundamental enough that one could talk about re-establishing and re-constituting as a method for the purpose of stabilising it?
     

Share This Page