there is an inconsistency here: "congregation" is a protestant term and we're talking here about a "priest" so it's probably catholic...

From glancing over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor
it seems they're not mutually exclusive, even in Christianity. Furthermore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation
reveals the use of "congregation" in Catholicism.

"Congregation" is *certainly* used in Catholicism.

>"Congregation" is *certainly* used in Catholicism.

Yes, but not in the same sense. In Protestantism it is all the people who attend the mass. By default they're all members of the congegation of all the believers.
In Catholicsm, congegations are sub-groups of supporters of the Church.
Here, it sounds like the priest is blessing the audience, not a specific congregation.

I'm sorry, but that is quite wrong. In English the people attending Mass or any other ceremony in the Catholic church are referred to as the "congregation". I was a Catholic for the early part of my life and I heard the term used that way repeatedly. As far as I know the term is used in English the same way in most if not all Christian denominations. (It may be different in Belgium.)

well, as indicated in the wikipedia link that Swift provided, you can see these 2 definitions for a Congregation in the Catholic Church:
1)Congregation (Roman Curia), an administrative body of the Roman Catholic Church
2)Congregation (Catholic), a religious institute in which only simple vows, not solemn vows, are taken

None of these 2 definitions refer to the audience of mass.
To refer to it as "the congregation" may work for the Anglican Church, because it is a mix catholic/protestant, although it is curious because to be part of a congregation, you have to make a vow, when the mass, as far as I know, is open to all faithful in the Anglican churches...vow or not.
But in any case it doesn't work in the Catholic Church. I too was born a catholic and I would never be referred to as a member of a "congregation" and neither anybody that I know of except an Uncle of mine who is part of a congregation, but that matches definition 2) and it is probable that they get a blessing, but I doubt the japanese phrase refers to that particular case.

So, we have to check with an Anglican...

You should refer to a dictionary, not to encyclopedia, to determine the meaning of the word.

The Wiktionary does list this meaning:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/congregation
1. A gathering of faithful in a Christian church, Jewish synagogue, mosque or other place of worship. It can also refer to the people who are present at a devotional service in the building, particularly in contrast to the pastor, minister, imam, rabbi etc. and/or choir, who may be seated apart from the general congregation or lead the service (notably in responsary form).

If you don't believe the Wiktionary, please check other sources. I can say that Müller’s English-Russian dictionary does list this meaning too:
congregation _n. ...3> _церк. прихожане; молящиеся (в церкви); паства

Not all Christians are the same, and according to your own reference :
"A Roman Congregation, a main department of the Vatican administration of the universal church"

So, I insist: In the Roman Catholic Church, a "congregation" does NOT refer to the audience of the mass.
So I still find there is an inconsistency between the terms of this phrase.
1) Could someone confirm that the japanese sentence does not refer to a specific "congregation" other than the audience at a mass?
2) Could an Anglican (NOT a protestant) confirm that "congregation" can be used to apply to the audience at a mass? Because, - how strangely ! - I cannot find this word in any document about the Anglican Church...

If neither 1 nor 2 is confirmed, we'll have to conclude the sentence is not right, unless there is a 3rd religion, that I ignore - maybe in Japan ? -, in which there are "priests" who "bless" "congregations"...

I used to be Catholic and my family still is, and "congregation" was commonly used by everyone to refer to the group of people attending the church. So I'm not going to change this.

>I used to be Catholic and my family still is, and "congregation" was commonly used by everyone to refer to the group of people attending the church. So I'm not going to change this.

well, the problem is, wikipedia states that "congregation" means something different for the Catholic Church, and this confirms my own experience.
So on one hand, we have a personal experience + reference, and on the other we have 2 personal experiences...
Maybe you could provide references to the specific use of "congregation" to refer to people attending a catholic church service?

@sacredceltic: I forgot to say, feel free to add another translation that fits with your technical definitions. I think the vast majority of native English speakers would have no problem with this sentence. The fact that YOU think a word means one thing doesn't mean it can't be used in other ways. Word choice is about accurately evoking the wanted ideas in the listener's mind - not complying with dictionary definitions.

> So I'm not going to change this.

Because you just adopted the sentence in order to "lock" it.
Adopting a sentence in the midst of a controversy about it is pretty lame! Shame on you!

> well, the problem is, wikipedia states that "congregation" means something different for the Catholic Church, and this confirms my own experience.

Wikipedia does not constitute a solid reference. You should find an expert to confirm your argument.

>@sacredceltic: I forgot to say, feel free to add another translation that fits with your technical definitions. I think the vast majority of native English speakers would have no problem with this sentence. The fact that YOU think a word means one thing doesn't mean it can't be used in other ways. Word choice is about accurately evoking the wanted ideas in the listener's mind - not complying with dictionary definitions.

I never said I wanted to change this sentence. I just wanted to give information about its potential inconsistency. I don't see a problem with that. How do you? Do you mean you are debating my right to comment sentences here?
My point is to determine whether this sentence is consistent or not in terms of information delivered to somebody, say, who doesn't know about christian faith and rites. I suggest it is interesting to inform them, through comments and tags, that this sentence applies to a specific type of religion.
Who are you to deny me that right?

When Zifre isn't in school studying hard for exams, he is secretly planning out ways to abolish human rights across the world. Indeed, sacredceltic, you are right to point this out. Denying you rights is just a stepping stone to something far more far-fetched and villainous for this guy...

@FeuDrenais>Wikipedia does not constitute a solid reference. You should find an expert to confirm your argument.

I agree, and I am often the first to say this. I do not trust wikipedia AT ALL.
But :
1) I wasn't the one to refer to it. Swift and Demetrius did. I merely elaborated on their own links
2) As a matter of fact, I cannot find a proper reference of usage of "congregation" for the mass audience at a catholic Church, precisely because I don't think this word applies...
So, it should be those who defend the consistency of that sentence who should have the charge of the proof here.

@FeuDrenais>When Zifre isn't in school studying hard for exams, he is secretly planning out ways to abolish human rights across the world. Indeed, sacredceltic, you are right to point this out. Denying you rights is just a stepping stone to something far more far-fetched and villainous for this guy...

This is off topic. Please refer to Tatoeba rules.

I want to deliver correct information to people, as this community permits, and a moderator denies me that right and locks controversial sentences for some obscure reason. This is nothing personal at all. It is a question of protocol on Tatoeba.

> 1) I wasn't the one to refer to it. Swift and Demetrius did. I merely elaborated on their own links

But this makes it even weaker! You're using an untrustworthy reference from a (potentially) untrustworthy party!

> 2) As a matter of fact, I cannot find a proper reference of usage of "congregation" for the mass audience at a catholic Church, precisely because I don't think this word applies...
So, it should be those who defend the consistency of that sentence who should have the charge of the proof here.

Is a sentence guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty? What kind of constitutional approach is this?!

Every dictionary I can find has basically the same technical definition that sacredceltic gave. I don't think it's worth debating here.

@sacredceltic: Sorry. Of course you can always leave comments to point out things like this. I thought you were suggesting that we change it.

@FeuDRenais: You got me. Why else would I study languages? :P

>Every dictionary I can find has basically the same technical definition that sacredceltic gave.

see... So can you please add a tag to that sentence "nondescript liturgy", please? Thank you.

> I don't it's worth debating here.

I beg your pardon? What is not worth debating? Says who?

> This is off topic.

You're right. That WAS off-topic.

> I beg your pardon? What is not worth debating? Says who?

Typo. (I edited it.) "I don't think* it's worth debating." I mean that I don't think arguing over Wikipedia is very productive here.

>I mean that I don't think arguing over Wikipedia is very productive here.

Alas, wikipedia is always used by moderators as a two-blade sword: On one side, they refer to it, and on the other they state it's worthless.

At least, I'm being consistent, because I always stated wikipedia, and even more wiktionary are just crap. I never trust them.

I do not think it is worthless (though it is not always reliable, I find the English wikipedia rather accurate in most cases). I just wanted to say that it is no replacement for a dictionary.

Quoting from the OED, congregation (sense #6) "A body of people assembled for religious worship or to hear a preacher; the body of people regularly attending a particular church, etc. E16". The "E16" means the first recorded use of this sense was in the period 1500-1529.
The Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co...%28Catholic%29 is quite accurate, but it refers to a specific use of the word in the context of religious orders. That should not be taken to mean that the more general meaning (quoted above) is not used in the Catholic church in English speaking countries, because it is. If people want more support for this, I will be seeing a group of current and former Catholics later today, and I can do a quick poll on their understanding of the word in a church context. I am quite sure what the views will be.

>the first recorded use of this sense was in the period 1500-1529.

Indeed! Precisely at the time of the Protestant reform! Mrtin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses were published in 1517.
The very notion that the believers form a "congregation" is a notion entirely foreign to the Catholic Church, in which a "congregation" is a group of clergy people and sometimes laymen who give a special vow, and engage in religious activities to do with supporting the church. For instance, what we usually call "the Inquisition" is actually the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" up to this day.

> I will be seeing a group of current and former Catholics later today, and I can do a quick poll on their understanding of the word in a church context. I am quite sure what the views will be.

It is very possible that if you live in a protestant-dominated country, the perception of the word has been altered by Protestantism. But it is wrong anyway to refer this way to the church audience for the catholics.

Er, no. England's break with Rome happened later. What was going on with Luther would have had no affect on written English.

FWIW I don't live in a "protestant-dominated country" at all. The largest single religion in Australia is ..... the Catholic Church.

This evening I checked with my rowing colleagues, and *every one* of the Catholics and ex-Catholics were of the view that "congregation" meant. among other things, the attendees at Mass, etc. In fact they were surprised that anyone could be questioning it.

>> But it is wrong anyway to refer this way to the church audience for the catholics.

Hmmm. So the entire Catholic population of Australia is committing some sort of linguistic error...

A question. How often have you attended Catholic services in English speaking countries?

>How often have you attended Catholic services in English speaking countries?

This is irrelevant. Stick to facts, history and dictionary definitions, please and stop making this personal or relying on personal hearsay!

>BTW, there is a related sentence here.
http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/245505

Yes, and it is also from the Tanaka corpus. I wonder what the Japanese who wrote this actually perceive as being a "congregation". Hardly any reference...

I rest my case.

>I rest my case.

And you provide no valid reference after hours of debate...

I wasn't going to post any more on this matter, but I just did some Googling on priest+congregation and the following are some quotations from resulting WWW pages. The pages are a mix of newspaper articles, Q&A pages, advice to parishioners, etc. and are from American, UK and Asutralian sites. I could put in hundreds of these quotations if necessary, but I think the following selection shows quite clearly that the word "congregation" is alive and well as a collective noun for the people at Mass, in a parish, etc. In other words, sense #6 in the OED entry I quoted earlier is being applied by and to Catholics.

Our priest has begun facing away from the congregation during the consecration.....

.... why Father tells congregations to stand,...

[Headline] THE PRIEST MUST GO.; DETERMINED ACTION OF THE CONGREGATION OF ST. PETERS CHURCH

Catholics view music as a special form of prayer, one that unites the entire congregation, and for this reason you should feel inclined to sing,

[Headline] Priest advises congregation to shoplift rather than turn to 'mugging or prostitution'

Congregations often abandon traditions and lose direction without guidance from priests

[Headline] Why some of the congregation hate this priest

Cardinal Seán Brady spoke to the congregation about a decision he has made concerning their Parish Priest.

[Joke] During mass, [the priest] asked the congregation, 'Has anybody got a cock?

>Headline] THE PRIEST MUST GO.; DETERMINED ACTION OF THE CONGREGATION OF ST. PETERS CHURCH

is actually a counter-exemple. The decision to expel the priest is certainly not that of the audience of the mass, but rather from a "congregation", ie an assembly of experts/advisers.

>[Headline] Why some of the congregation hate this priest

That doesn't say what the said congregation is.

>Cardinal Seán Brady spoke to the congregation about a decision he has made concerning their Parish Priest.

I doubt the Cardinal debated this at mass with the faithful, but rather behind closed doors, in a closed group, ie "a congregation"...

>[Joke] During mass, [the priest] asked the congregation, 'Has anybody got a cock?

Irrelevant. The joke might have been cracked by somebody who doesn't know shit about the Catholic Church, which is usually the case...

Again, I am not debating the presence of the word "congregation" within the Cathoolic Church. This would be silly, since it is used at the highest level of the Catholic Church and the present Pope himsel was the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
What I'm debating is the usage of that word to apply specifically to the context of the audience of a mass being "blessed", which is the context of this sentence.

Well, I won't bore the poor people who see these comments streaming past by quoting another 50 or so examples. Obviously no quantity of linguistic evidence will move you from your entrenched position.

>Well, I won't bore the poor people who see these comments streaming past by quoting another 50 or so examples. Obviously no quantity of linguistic evidence will move you from your entrenched position.

Well, nobody is forced to read comments. I think debates about the meaning of sentences and their contexts is precisely the point and the interest of this community. If it bores you, there are numerous other activities such as sewing and gardening.
The "linguistic evidence" you gave is not convincing at all. 2/3ds of it actually confirms my point, the remaining 1/3d might well be incorrect usage, of which internet abounds. As you well know, one can actually find just anything that one seeks on google and as a scholar, you should know better than swarming people with raw google results which are of no value at all.

As I said earlier, what we need is strong evidence from dictionaries and encyclopedias. So far, it has confirmed my view...