The bishops and translations

It would seem the Vatican is reserving the right of translating the Antiphons to itself, having observed the mess the USCCB is making of it all (including inserting "this precious chalice" into the very words of consecration as if we had found the Holy Grail, and that alone were what we worship), and that Rome is taking its traditional time about it, as it sees the anglo-speaking Church in this hemisphere crash and burn by its own infighting.

Why bother rushing translations for a Church in such spiteful, total deconstruction?

George's using his "power" to politicize the process produces a useless text, quickly forgotten, as we pray in Spanish, with English as unheard in our pews as any other European tongue which has come and quickly gone.

It's called upward mobility. Does tend to keep them from looking around them or down to us.

George's flippant arrogance toward Bishop Trautman during the meeting will one day come back to bite him in the....as will Serratelli's PAROUSIAL backstrokes in the river of denial:

Effort to stop new liturgical translations at USCCB meeting fails

Baltimore, Md., November 18 (CNA) .- On Tuesday, a motion from Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Penn. to reject the new liturgical translations failed to garner sufficient votes from the U.S. bishops. The prelates went on to approve the new liturgical texts which will be implemented in the U.S. beginning in 2010.

Bishop Trautman, who has headed the bishops' liturgy committee in the past and is a strong supporter of gender-neutral translations, tried to stop the vote on the new liturgical texts by arguing that handing the translation of antiphons for the Psalms to the Congregation for Divine Worship at the Vatican was in violation of Church laws.

In front of his colleagues, gathered in Baltimore for the Fall USCCB general assembly, the Bishop of Erie argued that "no matter how well intended," a Vatican dicastery "cannot trump the magisterial authority of the constitution of an ecumenical council."

Bishop Trautman was referring to the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Liturgy, "Sacrosanctum Concilium," which establishes that, in general, translations must be approved by the bishops of the territories where they will be used.

He then suggested that Cardinal George was breaking Church laws by giving authorization to the Vatican to handle the antiphons which only a small portion of the liturgical translations being reviewed. He then proposed that the bishops insist on being given a final draft from the international translation committee in order that they be able to review it, suggest improvements, and vote on it.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the USCCB, explained that permission was given to Vatican officials after other English-speaking nations had complained that the U.S. bishops were taking too long to approve the translation.

As Bishop Trautman continued to insist, Cardinal George responded, "I feel as if we're doing guerilla warfare here."

"Maybe the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops could sue the Congregation [for Divine Worship] in the Apostolic Signatura," said Cardinal George, drawing laughter from the audience.

It is highly unlikely for an episcopate to sue a dicastery over such an issue, though it is technically possible.

Bishop Trautman's proposal was submitted to vote, with the majority of bishops supporting Cardinal George's decision to accept the Vatican translation 194-20.

The final five groups of prayers passed each with support from at least 88 percent of the bishops.

Bishop Arthur Serratelli, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, thanked the bishops after approving the last group of texts, calling it "a historic moment."

"I know the text isn't perfect, but perfection will come when the liturgy on earth gives way to that of heaven, as all the saints praise God with one voice," Serratelli said.

The new liturgical translations which have been approved by the bishops will include minor changes, mostly aimed at making the English liturgy more faithful to the original in Latin.

Some of the changes are minor. For example, after the changes are implemented, the faithful will respond to the priestly invocation of "The Lord be with you" by saying "And with your spirit" which is a more faithful translation of the original in Latin "Et cum spiritu tuo," than the phrase currently in use "and also with you."

Other changes are more significant and theologically sound, such as those made to the Gloria and Apostles' Creed.

Nevertheless, most of the changes apply to the parts of the Mass that are recited by the priest.

The translation will be sent to the Vatican for approval, which is expected sometime in 2010.

What's in a word? A Russian psycholgist once said, "A word is a microcosm of human consciousness."

We are people of the Word. In its roots, the definition of "word" grows from the concept "to call."

The importance of words is vital at this juncture especially as a significant number of bishops work to reestablish their authoritative role over the hearts and minds of Catholics. One only need remember George Orwell's "Animal Farm" to understand possible ramifications.

Will changing "And with you" to "And with your spirit" alter our religion and faith practice? No. But the return to the Latin as a source of "original meaningfulness,", however it distorts English translations, is a clarion call to a return to a church of empire.

When a bishop forbids a "fellow" bishop from entering "his" diocese because the visiting bishop thinks differently, has different opinions that the diocesan bishop thinks will harm the consciousness of the people, in essence when a bishop attempts to control the thoughts of people within his diocese, they are attemtping to micro-manage human consciousness. Bishops have neither that ability, capacity or authority. If bishops want to truly be apostle-like, then they need to get out of their mansions, take off their capes, and walk humbly amid those Christ commanded them to walk.

"And the American idiom these days, by the way, is gender inclusive"

Well, no, it isn't. It is in the academy and certain other elite circles, but it's far from universal, especially in common speech. E.g., actress, duchess, fireman, etc. It's class snobbery to pretend otherwise.

More to the point, the "inclusivists" usually (if not quite always) overplay their hand and try to apply the same gender-neutering to God. The original and revised ICEL Psalters come to mind: Monuments to ideological ego and fervor.

Bishop Trautman lost because he'd long since given himself over to silly, shrill arguments. There are decent arguments to be made with respect to the translation, but Trautman is the wrong spokesman for the cause.

The bishops would not have to waste time on this translation issue if the old ICEL and gender-neutral-agenda "progressives" had not so badly botched all previous efforts.

Now back to work on climate change!

I'm thrilled beyond words with the revised, authentic translation of the Sacred Liturgy. I am also thrilled with Cardinal George's actions in dismissing Bishop Trautman's petty concerns and attempts to derail this translation process. He has tried, in every way possible, to stop this translation from becoming liturgical law, and it is highly gratifying to see that he has failed.

God bless the bishops and the Holy See for bringing back a sense of holiness, reverence, prayerfulness and beauty to the Sacred Liturgy. God bless them for returning to us words that actually communicate the fullness of the mysteries that we celebrate.

Too bad The Book of Common Prayer is out of favor. Talk about wonderful English as it is lived & in touch with tradition ...