The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Liturgy needs not 'sacred language' but pastoral language
Bishop Trautman says major flaws afflict new Mass translation
Oct. 26, 2009
Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., presents the third annual Frederick R. McManus Memorial Lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington Oct. 22. (CNS)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionWASHINGTON -- There is much good in the new English translation of the Roman Missal, but "there is much more that still needs improvement to make the text grammatical and accessible to the people," Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., said Oct. 22.
"The present text still contains improper syntax, incomplete sentences, archaic and obscure words and idioms, lengthy and incomprehensible sentences and fails to respect the natural rhythm and cadences of the English language," he said.
He also criticized Rome's decision to try to create a "sacred language" for worship, so that in the new version of the Nicene Creed, "born of the Virgin Mary" becomes "incarnate of the Virgin Mary" and "one in being with the Father" becomes "consubstantial with the Father."
The new translation introduces words "like 'ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' 'incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' precursor,' 'suffused' and 'unvanquished,' " he said. "This vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic."
Trautman spoke on the nearly completed Missal translation project in the third annual Msgr. Frederick R. McManus lecture at The Catholic University of America.
McManus, an internationally renowned canon lawyer and liturgist who taught at the university for almost his entire career, was a theological expert at the Second Vatican Council and a leading figure in liturgical reform throughout the English-speaking world before, during and after the council.
As an example of the problems in the new Missal translation, Trautman quoted the opening lines of the preface for the Second Sunday of Lent: "Who, after he told the disciples of his coming death, manifested his glory to them on the holy mountain to show, as the law and the prophets also bear witness, that the path of suffering leads to the glory of the resurrection."
"This is a lengthy subordinate clause ending with a period," he commented. "While represented as a sentence, it is not a sentence. This is incorrect English grammar."
He said this was just one of many prefaces in the new translation that begin with a relative pronoun -- "who," "in whom" or "whose" -- treating a subordinate clause as if it were a sentence. "This is not acceptable English grammar," he said. "The translators have slavishly transposed a Latin Qui clause into English without respecting English sentence word order."
In 2001, the Vatican issued new norms for translating the Roman Missal from its original Latin edition into modern languages, and in recent years bishops' conferences around the world have been engaged in the lengthy process of reviewing and approving new translations developed by scholars in accord with those norms. After a bishops' conference approves a translation, the Holy See must confirm that text before it can be published for use in that country.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is scheduled to take up the last four segments of the new translation when the bishops meet in Baltimore this Nov. 16-19.
Since 2006, when they approved the main texts used daily or regularly for Mass, at each national meeting the bishops have steadily worked through segment after segment of the prayers used in the course of the liturgical year, on the feasts of saints and for various other occasions.
Trautman, a scripture professor before he was made a bishop, has been one of the more outspoken opponents of the more literal translation of the Latin texts decreed by the 2001 Vatican norms. At last June's meeting, after he strongly criticized language problems in one segment – containing the texts of Masses and prayers for various needs and intentions – it barely received the two-thirds vote of the bishops needed for approval.
"The Latin text is not inspired," he told his Catholic University audience. "It is a human text, reflecting a certain mind-set, theology and world view. There are good Latin texts – balanced, carefully crafted – and there are bad Latin texts – convoluted, lengthy, complicated, abstract – that become a translator's herculean task. Because of literal translation in the new Missal, complicated Latin wording has become complicated English wording."
"For example, in the Preface of Christ the King there are 13 lines and 88 words in one sentence. How will this promote intelligible and meaningful prayer?" he asked.
He noted that the current English version of the Nicene Creed divides it into four parts, introducing each with the phrase "we believe."
The new version opens with "I believe" -- which "goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts" -- and does not repeat it even once through the rest of the prayer, he said.
"This results in incomplete non-grammatical sentences for the different articles of faith," he said, noting that one sentence 26 lines down into the Creed begins, "And in the Holy Spirit, the lord, the giver of life." The so-called sentence "lacks a subject and a predicate," he said.
He quoted from Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said that liturgical rites and texts "should radiate a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, free from useless repetition. They should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation."
"If a translated text -- no matter how exact and faithful to the original Latin -- does not communicate in the living language of the worshiping assembly, it fails pastorally; it fails to dispose God's people to participate fully, consciously and actively in the Eucharist," Trautman said.
On the imposition of a new "sacred vocabulary" in the new Missal texts, he cited several examples, including the passage in Eucharistic Prayer I, "When supper was done, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands." The current text says, "… he took a cup… ."
"Did Jesus at the Last Supper use a precious chalice or a cup?" Trautman asked. "The Gospels clearly say "cup." The Greek uses the word poterion which is a drinking vessel or cup."
Jerome's Vulgate used calyx, but standard Latin dictionaries define that term as "cup, goblet, drinking vessel," he said.
He said no English translation of the Bible, current or older, uses "chalice" to translate poterion or calyx, yet the Vatican "has imposed the word 'chalice' on the inspired text to carry out this 'sacred language.' … To say not just 'chalice' but 'precious chalice' in Eucharistic Prayer I is clearly not a reflection of the biblical texts."
He said the U.S. bishops tried to change the new text back to "cup," but "the Congregation [for Divine Worship and the Sacraments] in Rome changed it. All of this is being done in the name of restoring transcendence."
"Certainly translated liturgical texts should be reverent, noble, inspiring, uplifting, but that does not mean archaic, remote, incomprehensible," he said. "The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language."
He said scripture "presents God under a two-fold image: king and neighbor, transcendence and immanence," and "an exaggerated attention to the sacred distorts the balance."
"Our liturgy needs not a 'sacred language' but a pastoral language that will fulfill the mandate of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for full, conscious and active participation," Trautman said. "The noble simplicity recommended by the Council Fathers needs to be emphasized."
He said amendments made by the U.S. bishops to the new translations done by the Vatican-approved scholars of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy have resulted in a text that "is vastly improved but not mature at this point for the worship life of the church."
At its present stage the new translation "does not have a pastoral style" that would lead American Catholics to "own the prayer text, its vocabulary, its style, its idiom, its cadence," he said.
"If the Roman Missal does not speak to our culture, the church in the United States will suffer," he said.
[Jerry Filteau is NCR Washington correspondent.]
Link to our earlier story: 'Slavishly literal' translation of missal criticized
We, who look askance at
We, who look askance at biblical fundamentalists, now have become liturgical fundamentalists. The language of the liturgy as given to us in Latin, was subject to the same cultural and personal filters as the language and syntax of the bible. The language of our liturgy was not handed literally to us by Christ, as stated by one local ordinary who shall remain nameless.
"The language of our liturgy
"The language of our liturgy was not handed literally to us by Christ..."
Indeed. The use of Latin in the mass was authorized by Pope Damasus I for the benefit of his people in Rome who no longer understood Greek, their original liturgical language. This approval of the vernacular was a concession to Christians to help them better understand the sacred liturgy.
One is reminded here of the observations of a young German priest, Joseph Ratzinger, in his THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, published in 1966:
"It was not uncommon that glowing panegyrics in favor of Latin were themselves delivered in labored pidgin Latin, while the most forceful advocates of the vernacular could express themselves in classical Latin...
"[The future pope then favorably quotes the "profound insights" of Melchite Patriarch Maximos Saigh]: 'It appears to me that the almost absolute value which is attributed to the Latin language in the liturgy, in instruction and in the administration of the Latin Church presents a kind of anomaly for the Eastern Church; for without doubt Christ spoke to his contemporaries in their own language. He used a language which was understandable to all his hearers, namely Aramaic, when he celebrated the first eucharistic sacrifice. The apostles and disciples acted likewise. It would never have occurred to them that the celebrant in a Christian assembly should read the passages of scripture, should sing the psalms, should preach or break the bread, using a different language than that of the congregation. Paul himself says explicitly: "If you bless with the spirit [i.e., in an unintelligible language], how is one who is present as an outsider to say 'Amen' to your thanksgiving when he does not understand what you are saying? You may give thanks well enough, but the other is not edified....In church I should prefer to speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in [unintelligible] tongues" (1 Cor. 14, 16-19). All the reasons one can bring forward in favor of the untouchability of Latin --- a liturgical language but a dead one --- must give way before this clear, unequivocal and precise reasoning of the Apostle. The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living language since it is intended for men and not for angels....' (pp. 17-18, brackets original)
"[I]t can hardly be denied that the sterility to which Catholic theology and philosophy had in many ways been doomed since the end of the Enlightenment was due not least to a language in which the living choices of the human spirit no longer found a place. Theology often bypassed new ideas, was not enriched by them and remained unable to transform them.... (p. 18)
"History has said much about whether the Uniate Churches are good or bad. Sometimes it has been said with good reason that the Uniates were more of a barrier than a bridge to the Orthodox. However that may be, during Vatican Council II the union of Eastern rite Churches to the Catholic Church proved to be of the utmost positive value. For the East was present in these Churches, with its own voice and vote as an inner corrective to Latin exclusivity. The East was able again and again to open up the narrow Latin horizon and to force the Council to think not in a Latin but in a catholic manner, and to avoid the fateful equating of Catholicity with Latinity" (p. 19).
Ratzinger would turn into a fearfilled man only two years later.
Subsequent events have demonstrated how papal fear and autocratic behaviors have led to a church characterized by dysfunction and sin.
And now Pope Benedict XVI betrays a desire to continue mandates guaranteed to perpetuate papal centralization with its inherent dysfunction and sin.
What a downright shame.
The meaning of what Jesus did
The meaning of what Jesus did and what God is must be the primary focus of whatever is being said in a liturgy. Latin does not have dibs on conveying that best. In fact, from time to time, as language changes, it might be necessary to modify liturgical texts to bring them up to date with people's understanding.
So "he took a cup" is now to
So "he took a cup" is now to be translated as "he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands."
Clearly there is an agenda at work here, and producing a more faithful translation of the Latin prayers is only a smoke screen.
Why is the Nicene Creed being translated from Latin and not Greek?
it's being translated from
it's being translated from the new MISSAL. This is a translation of the MISSAL, not of some other source. Hence it translates what is there. If you want to change the missal, that is a separate question.
but the correct translation
but the correct translation of Latin calix is cup, not chalice.
The agenda was enacted years
The agenda was enacted years ago when the Mass was so poorly translated in the first place following the Council. The English translations are unique in the world in being so far and so distant from the Latin. The Spanish, French, Italian, German bishops translated faithfully. Only the English-speaking bishops approved a translation that was, at best, a paraphrase of the Latin text.
So now the Holy See has decided to implement a translation that actually says what the Latin Missal says. The Holy See wants the Church to accurately and faithfully translate the Mass of the Second Vatican Council. That is what this is all about -- faithfully carrying out the work of the Council.
Improved translations were
Improved translations were submitted to Rome in 1998 and buried. By all accounts they were excellent and could have spared us the farce that now looms.
The details of how VOX CLARA
The details of how VOX CLARA torpedoed both ICEL and the 1998 translations have been excellently documented by former editor of The Tablet, John Wilkins in his "Lost in Translation? The Bishops, the Vatican and the English Liturgy," (Commonweal, Dec. 2, 2005).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/?tag=...
especially page TEN:
"Somewhere on a shelf in the Vatican lies the 1998 ICEL missal, the fruit of thirteen years of work, denied Rome's approval. Though it was passed by all eleven bishops' conferences as the long-awaited revision of its 1973 precursor, it has never been seen by the English-speaking world at large. Its rendering of the Mass achieves a beautiful flow, and the abbreviations and paraphrases that so seriously marred the 1973 version have been addressed. The quality of what it contains can be gauged from the collects. These opening prayers had drawn vehement and damaging attack as the weakest element of the 1973 book. Among the completely redone translations, here is one for the twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time:
Almighty and eternal God,
Whose bounty is greater than we deserve or desire,
Pour out upon us your abundant mercy;
Forgive the things that weigh upon our consciences
And enrich us with blessings
For which our prayers dare not hope."
In light of the historical events as outlined herein, JP2's Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001 can only be seen as a power-grab to disenfranchise bishops' conferences as well as justify, support, aid and abet this right-wing liturgical sabotage of ICEL by Cardinal Medina and his minions. Once again, it's not about LITURGY, it's not about LANGUAGE, it's about (quelle surprise!) POWER and CONTROL!
well, Clint, it would makes
well, Clint, it would makes sense that the "Latin" languages would be closer to the Latin than English would be. It is obviously necessary to move the language to one with meaning to people. That's what V2 asked for.
I think the bishop's
I think the bishop's patronizing of the faithful is deplorable. Does he think we are all idiots unable to understand beautiful prose? Some of us actually like beautiful 'archaic' language, bishop...especially this Latina!
Those who are patronizing you
Those who are patronizing you are the ones who dump on you an ungrammatical, graceless. styleless translations, thinking you won't know any better.
Bishop Trautman's response to
Bishop Trautman's response to this scary initiative is hopeful! I am so proud and grateful that he is being publicly vocal against the new translation for all the ways it may be harmful, isolating, or inauthentic for the Church's experience in Mass.
I'd respond to the Bishop but
I'd respond to the Bishop but he insists on using words like, "transcendence", "immanence", and "herculean", and I find these words to be archaic and convoluted.
Your jocularity is misplaced.
Your jocularity is misplaced. This is a very serious issue.
Does Bishop Trautman think
Does Bishop Trautman think we're stupid?!?!?!?!? To be quite frank, I'm disappointed by this condescending language used by Bishop Trautman. This kind of language may be incomprehensible to Bishop Trautman and the rest of the hippie era 70's bishops, but not to today's average Catholic. Get with the times Bishop Trautman!!!
Wow, "anonymous" is out of
Wow, "anonymous" is out of touch with today's average Catholics. I've worked with Catholic college students for 6 years and I have yet to hear a single one of them use any of these terms ('ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' 'incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' precursor,' 'suffused' and 'unvanquished') in reference to their faith, in prayer, or quite frankly even in their daily conversation(maybe with exception to "incarnate").
This is no slouch university either, these are students attending a top ten school. I have no doubt that they could come up with dictionary type definitions for these words, and I certainly give them lots of credit when it comes to their intellect - but in the context of their faith expression these words mean nothing to them. They are philosophical terms that are not used by the average Catholic. I praise Bishop Trautman for actually being in touch with the average Catholic (the majority of Catholics in the world) and trying to keep the liturgy accessible to every Catholic and meaningful to every Catholic. I'm not sure what "times" and who "anonymous" is referring to when they imply that these words are common usage amongst average Catholics - it just isn't reality - 6 years of working with thousands of average lay Catholics disputes their claim.
Well since you work at a top
Well since you work at a top ten school, I'm sure you're aware that students are at least capable of of learning what these words mean. Afterall, isn't one of the bishops duties is to teach? Catholics today are more educated than ever, and dumbing down the liturgy is foolish. If wonder if Donald Trautman would want mass to start with something along the lines of "Yo, sup? Todayz mass we're going 2 drop it like its hot"
So, let's dumb down the
So, let's dumb down the language. Great!
When they fob off a mediocre
When they fob off a mediocre and almost illitarate translation on you, can't you see who's doing the dumbing down?
today's average catholic uses
today's average catholic uses street talk, cuss words, slang and texting-type language: can't keep up with reading newspapers let alone going back to the better day of the Oxford dictionary, not that anyone ever did that. That was one of the actions of V2--vernacular, not poetry and high-flatoonin's because "the people" weren't listening.
Some of you are so pretentious about your generation that you wish you were that you can't think straight about what you are.
...and they are listening
...and they are listening now???? C'mon, the pews are empty, the seminaries are empty, and the orders are dying off for lack of vocations. Yeah, the vernacular worked real well these last 40 years!
Talking about dumbing down
Talking about dumbing down the future...Have you studied logic? science? Basic cause-and-effect principles are not in effect in your response. C'mon, use some of that education. Are there are possible variables? Others than the ones you just like for ideological reasons? What you think is so obvious is just uninformed.
The fact that college kids do
The fact that college kids do not know these words does not reflect well on those "working" with college kids these days. If we taught LATIN and GREEK again, kids could figure out the root words and would have no difficulty learning vocabulary.
Tom A. on Oct. 27, 2009. You
Tom A. on Oct. 27, 2009.
You stated:
"The fact that college kids do not know these words does not reflect well on those "working" with college kids these days. If we taught LATIN and GREEK again, kids could figure out the root words and would have no difficulty learning vocabulary."
-----------------------------------------------
We are not living in the days of the Roman Empire---it collapsed in the Fifth Century. English is the world's universal language in business and commerce,
not Latin and Greek.
The Vatican is too Euro-centered (in its governance) to even understand how the rest of the world communicates.
English to too Euro-North
English to too Euro-North American centered. What about Spanish? Catholicism is a world wide intstitution, not just for the English speaking world. Besides, Europe and U.S. are demographically declining and will be irrelevant in a generation or two thanks to abortion and contraception. Latin unites all cultures and does not favor any. We are in case you did not notice, the ROMAN Catholic Church.
Tom A. on Oct. 28,
Tom A. on Oct. 28, 2009.
English to too Euro-North American centered. What about Spanish? Catholicism is a world wide intstitution, not just for the English speaking world. Besides, Europe and U.S. are demographically declining and will be irrelevant in a generation or two thanks to abortion and contraception. Latin unites all cultures and does not favor any. We are in case you did not notice, the ROMAN Catholic Church.
-----------------------------------------------------
We belong to the Catholic Church, Roman Rite. Just as there are 20 other Catholic Rites that make up the Catholic Church. When the Anglicans join the Catholic Church, they won't be having to use this horrid translation of English in THEIR liturgies---why should we. They will have their own 'Anglican Rite'.
Littlebear...look up the Book
Littlebear...look up the Book of Divine Worship. This is the official worship of the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church. Notice how the language isn't the horrible translation we use now but a much more sophisticated English.
Anonymous on Nov. 01, 2009.
Anonymous on Nov. 01, 2009.
You stated:
"Littlebear...look up the Book of Divine Worship. This is the official worship of the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church. Notice how the language isn't the horrible translation we use now but a much more sophisticated English."
------------------------------------------
I am quoting Fr. Robert Taft--a bi-ritual liturgical scholar-- who is featured in the November, 2009 issue of the "US Catholic". He states:
"The reforms of the council were carried out under Pope Paul VI in a spirit of complete collegiality. Every suggested adaptation, change, or modification was sent out to every Catholic bishop in the world, and the responses that came in were treated with the utmost respect. When changes were severely questioned or opposed by a large number of bishops, they were revised according to the will of the bishops and then sent back again.
So the notion that the liturgical reform was somehow forced on an unknowing church by some group of "liturgists," as if that were a dirty word, is a lie, and that needs to be said."
------------------
The Book of Divine Worship that the Anglicans use was written originally during the reign of James I (who also commissioned the King James Bible). This was also the life span of Shakespere. The Book of Divine Worship underwent a few modifications over the centuries---but the language is a 20th century version of English.
It's not about the college
It's not about the college students. It's about incorrect English and meaning. If you studied scripture to the point of understanding Jesus' mission, you would know how WRONG it is to say, “he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands.” For you to think that Jesus used a chalice at the Last Supper with His followers and friends is ludicrous and totally incorrect. I wonder if Jesus is laughing at us or crying because some of us refuse to grow. Not only that, some of us want to regress to a place in Church history filled with pomp and circumstance. What about having a relationship with God? What about understanding the need to serve those in need? That understanding does NOT get communicated, reflected upon are prayed with this new translation from Latin. What on Earth is the Catholic Church coming to? Stop the regression.May God help us all.
Anonymous on Oct. 26,
Anonymous on Oct. 26, 2009.
You stated:
"Does Bishop Trautman think we're stupid?!?!?!?!? To be quite frank, I'm disappointed by this condescending language used by Bishop Trautman. This kind of language may be incomprehensible to Bishop Trautman and the rest of the hippie era 70's bishops, but not to today's average Catholic. Get with the times Bishop Trautman!!!"
----------------------------------------------
This piece comes from Fr. Joseph S. O'Leary of Commonwealmagazine. In it he writes:
"Here is an average piece of the new version---a preface:
(Asterisks note problems, e.g. grammar, syntax, lack of subject/predicate, obtuse verbage)
It is *truly right to give you thanks, truly *just to give you glory, Father, most holy, for you are the one God living and true, existing before all ages and *abide for all eternity, dwelling in unapproachable light; *yet you, who alone are good, the source of life, have made all that is, so that you might fill your creatures with blessings and bring joy to *many of them by the *glory of your light. And so, in your presence *are countless hosts of angels, who serve you day and night and, gazing upon the *glory of your face, *glorify you without ceasing. With them we too *confess your name *in exultation, *giving voice to every creature under heaven as we sing (say):"
---------------------------------------
First, in just trying to read this (or chant) it, the presider has to read 76 words before he even comes to a period. Oh, what's comprehensible to today's Catholic is that God is certainly not the "Abba" (Daddy) that Jesus talked about. What is being reinforced is the deist concept that God is too far away---floating in golden-lit space---who smiles & nods occasionally at his people. It almost matches a description of Pope Benedict.
However, the Latin original is fine:
Vere dignum est tibi gratias agere, vere iustum est te glorificare, Pater sancte, quia unus es Deus vivus et verus, qui es ante saecula et permanes in aeternum, inaccessibilem lucem inhabitans; sed et qui unus bonus atque fons vitae cuncta fecísti, ut creaturas tuas benedictionibus adimpleres multasque laetificares tui luminis claritate.
Maybe 'Anonymous' you and others disappointed with Bishop Trautman's analysis of the situation, would prefer the Latin. It is certainly much better than the English goobledegook we have here.
As a test, I proclaimed that
As a test, I proclaimed that preface aloud. It rolled off my tongue very smoothly. Maybe its just me, but that text is nowhere near "unproclaimable." The only problem I noticed in it was the word "abide" in the second line, "abiding" would have been a tad smoother.
Liberal preferred
Liberal preferred translation: Hey Big Person, we know you are good and love us no matter what we do. There is no sin and you want us to do what makes us happy. All are welcome in our worship space. We ask this through Jesus Christ, our gender neutral sibling.
Hi, as to "abide" put a comma
Hi, as to "abide" put a comma before it and the text makes sense. The translators' omission of the comma is ungrammatical.
sure, I see that now. Okay,
sure, I see that now. Okay, so the text is flawless. I take back the Abiding thing.
You are, existing, and abide,
You are, existing, and abide, dwelling -- is odd, unrhythmical, unstylish, clumsy, and PLEONASTIC in English.
"The present text still
"The present text still contains improper syntax, incomplete sentences, archaic and obscure words and idioms, lengthy and incomprehensible sentences and fails to respect the natural rhythm and cadences of the English language,"
Muchas gracias, Bishop Trautman, for your observations and comments regarding Rome's decision to try to create a "sacred language" for worship. My language skills are not expert, but I am fluent in Spanish and English. I can read and speak Latin and German. I can struggle with Italian and French to communicate adequately. As far as I can tell, there is no "sacred language" (even though as I was growing up in a Spanish-speaking family and household, I was told that Sapnish is the language of the angels). All language is sacred and any language can be profaned.
If our pastors want to improve the communication and sacred dialogue of our liturgies, training our ordained clergy and lay ministers in the art of public speaking, honing their elocution, and encouraging the use of clear, contemporary vocabularies would be far more beneficial than the transliteral translation of a classical language which in its own time was vulgar but now can be more of a distraction from than an aid to prayer and proclamation.
At the Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples used a "sacred language". It was the vulgar, everyday speech of the children of God who happened to live in Galilee and its surrounds. This sacred language apparently was heavily accented and caused Jesus and his followers a bit of trouble.(Matthew 26:73-75)
In Mark 5:41, we hear Jesus restoring life by saying "Talitha kum". Maybe by using it to bring us the Good News, Jesus made Aramaic the "sacred language". Perhaps it would be better for our pastors to "talitha kum" from their thrones, leave their hats and hooks in the closet, and come out among us sheep, walk with us hand in hand, look us eye to eye and speak with us heart to heart, like Jesus showed us.(John 13:15) Paz y Bien, Rolando.
As a native Spanish speaker,
As a native Spanish speaker, as you presume to be, you may have attended Mass in Spanish. I don't quite understand what your argument is. Are you saying that the Spanish services you attended were unintelligible. Or perhaps, the Spanish mass hindered your prayer? You may not know that the Spanish translation of the Roman Missal is a near literal translation for the original Latin.
Dear San Diego Catholic, I
Dear San Diego Catholic,
I don't presume to be a native Spanish speaker. I really was born in San Antonio, Texas and Spanish was the only language I spoke until I was four years old. I was born in 1947, so the Mass I attended was in Latin. And yes, I was aware that the Spanish translation then was a near literal translation of the original Latin, as it is today. Neither the Spanish or the Latin language ever hindered my prayer. And once I learned to speak English, from my Protestant neighbors and their children, I had one more language with which to pray to and learn more about our Father, our Lord and Brother, and the Holy Spirit who gives us life and guides us.
As I mentioned, I think all language is sacred and all language can be profaned. The proposed translations are indeed faithful to the original Latin. The problem is that at least in this country, very few people, especially our younger sisters and brothers, have a sense or appreciation for that classical language in their everyday life; and it is in our everyday life that we are called to live and proclaim the Good News. If the goal is to make our liturgies sacred, mystical and awe inspiring, then Latin translations, elaborate vestements, Gregorian chant and formal male presence in the sanctuary will certainly accomplish that. We have only to remember the pre-Vatican II "Solemn High Mass" or watch a broadcast of a Pontifical High Mass from the Vatican. This is a presentation of beautiful and sacred theater that can lift the mind and spirit to the divine. But it does little to remind us of the Last Supper and First Eucharist that Jesus shared with his friends and then said "Do this to remember me".
The liturgies Jesus celebrated with his folowers were in the simple everyday settings of the poor and simple children of God. And in a language they understood and spoke. Before he returned to our Father in heaven, Jesus told us to carry this Good News to the ends of the earth. He said this confidently because he had "given you an example so that you may copy what I have done to you". (John 13:15) I think he said it in Aramaic not Latin or Spanish or English.
Deo gratias, the Truth he spoke and shared with us is not limited to any language and is proclaimed in spite of language difficulties. St. Francis of Assisi told his brothers and sisters to "Preach the Gospel. Use words is necessary."
from your San Antonio Catholic brother, Paz y Bien, Rolando.
Of course Jesus did not
Of course Jesus did not conduct the Last Supper in fine vestments. Yet over 1900 years of Tradition and organic development of the Mass produced the Mass of Pope John XXIII. This organic development is natural as over the years we come to understand more and more what actually takes place at Mass. Jesus Himself makes Himself present among us. I see no virtue in dumbing down the Mass to resemble some post ressurectional gathering in a catacomb. We as a Church have had 2000 years to contemplate our Faith and desire to Glorify God more and more, not less and less. No one is arguing that more always needs to be done to feed the poor and bring justice to the oppressed. But I see no reason why we cannot have a vibrant active effort for social justice AND a transcendent, beautiful, ceremonious Liturgy.
Sorry about the mistakes in
Sorry about the mistakes in my first reply. Here's a somewhat corrected vesion:
Dear San Diego Catholic,
I don't presume to be a native Spanish speaker. I really was born in San Antonio, Texas and Spanish was the only language I spoke until I was four years old. I was born in 1947, so the Mass I attended was in Latin. And yes, I was aware that the Spanish translation then was a near literal translation of the original Latin, as it is today. Neither the Spanish nor the Latin language ever hindered my prayer. And once I learned to speak English, from my Protestant neighbors and their children, I had one more language with which to pray to and learn more about our Father, our Lord and Brother, and the Holy Spirit who gives us life and guides us.
As I mentioned, I think all language is sacred and all language can be profaned. The proposed translations are indeed faithful to the original Latin. The problem is that at least in this country, very few people, especially our younger sisters and brothers, have a sense or appreciation for that classical language in their everyday life; and it is in our everyday life that we are called to live and proclaim the Good News.
If the goal is to make our liturgies sacred, mystical and awe inspiring, then Latin translations, elaborate vestments, Gregorian chant and formal male presence in the sanctuary will certainly accomplish that. We have only to remember the pre-Vatican II "Solemn High Mass" or watch a broadcast of a Pontifical High Mass from the Vatican. This is a presentation of beautiful and sacred theater that can lift the mind and spirit to the divine. But it does little to remind us of the Last Supper and First Eucharist that Jesus shared with his friends and then said "Do this to remember me".
The liturgies Jesus celebrated with his followers were in the simple everyday settings of the poor and simple children of God. And in a language they understood and spoke. Before he returned to our Father in heaven, Jesus told us to carry this Good News to the ends of the earth. He said this confidently because he has "given [us] an example so that [we] may copy what I have done to you". (John 13:15) I think he said it in Aramaic not Latin or Spanish or English.
Deo gratias, the Truth he spoke and shared with us is not limited to any language and is proclaimed in spite of language difficulties. St. Francis of Assisi told his brothers and sisters to "Preach the Gospel. Use words is necessary."
from your San Antonio Catholic brother, Paz y Bien, Rolando.
Does the good Bishop think
Does the good Bishop think Catholics are so intellectually challenged that they cannot handle words like "ineffable" and "consubstantial"? Catholics 1,500 years ago were capable of understanding "big" words, but we're not? No doubt Bishop Trautman would advise Catholics to achieve a basic level of computer literacy in order to function in the world, so why not also urge Catholics to attain a certain basic theological/philosophical literacy? Such knowledge is historical; the Church has great historical depth. I think what he's suggesting amounts to a kind of lobotomy. I think this kind of dumbing-down, to make things easier and more convenient for Americans, who, poor Dears, just can't abide deep thinking, is both a pandering and a cheat.
"If the Roman Missal does not
"If the Roman Missal does not speak to our culture, the church in the United States will suffer".
If the MUSIC of the liturgy does not speak to our culture, the church in the United States will suffer.
If the LEADERS of the church do not speak to our culture, the church in the United States will suffer.
If the CHURCH does not speak to our culture, the gospel will fall silent. And when that happens we will have failed in our mission, and the marginalized lives we seek to help will suffer.
Why doesn't the leadership of the american catholic church realize the strength of the american culture and consequently the Catholic Church has always been in its diversity? Tap into the holiness of so many women who fervently maintain their faith in the face of being told by their own church they are not worthy of ordination. Fuel the energy of the youth and others who pray with a different music. Let us celebrate with the Jesus who walks barefoot down the dusty road, as well as with the risen Christ in all of his gilded splendor. If the church is big enough to embrace the Latin Rite and conservative Anglicans why is it no longer big enough to welcome so many of us raised in the church over the last four decades? I no longer see or hear God in the church of my own baptism. My children struggle to find a connection between their religion and the charity and justice they seek to provide in the world. Please help us feed our souls so we may go into the world and do God's work.
The focus of the liturgy has
The focus of the liturgy has historically been on worshipping God. Since V2, the focus has changed from God to the people. Everything should be for the people...the music should be for the people. The language should be for the people. I was under the unusual assumption that this was all for GOD. Once we get it out of our heads that the liturgy is here to make US feel better about ourselves as a community and starts putting GOD first, then you will start hearing and feeling God again. Interjecting the secular into the church (as was done consistantly through the 70s and 80s) will only create a secular organization. Keep the sacred sacred and the secular secular. BTW, I am 24...far from a old traditionalist. But I do know what is important...and that is creating a sacred liturgy for our God--one that appeases HIM and not US.
What makes you think God does
What makes you think God does not live in the secular? God is not separate from where people are. God does not need our appeasement. God does not need our sacred liturgy. God does not need anything from us. God is God - but only desires that we enter into a relationship,freely given and not forced otherwise it means nothing.
It's not that the music and language is FOR the people, it's for the people to express their love and relationship with a God who loves them as they are, and not as imitations of something else. The liturgy IS here to make us feel better because we always feel better when we're actively participating in a friendship - not passively reading Latin and wondering what we're saying, or not understanding words that are being said. That is not prayer, it's mouthing words that have obscure or no meaning for many people.
We have created a distortion of what Jesus was all about. He didn't speak in lofty terms, only terms of wisdom and love. He didn't create any sacred worship - only broke bread on wooden plates and cups with the lowest of his society. He was countercultural and an outcast himself, and meant to bring meaning to a form of living and worship that had taken on too many empty rules and words, losing the original intent. I'm sure God is not waiting for the next high mass to be said (and I did not say prayed) because praying is talking with God, not pontificating.
Seems to me every time the church tries to go back instead of forward it only winds up digging deeper holes that have ways of exploding down the road. We should be looking at ways to make the words more meaningful and beautiful in a modern way.
And if anyone thinks that the problems that the church is facing today will start to be rectified by returning to awkward Latin translations, they've just got to be kidding!
Anonymous on Oct. 28,
Anonymous on Oct. 28, 2009.
You stated:
"The focus of the liturgy has historically been on worshipping God. Since V2, the focus has changed from God to the people. Everything should be for the people...the music should be for the people. The language should be for the people. I was under the unusual assumption that this was all for GOD. Once we get it out of our heads that the liturgy is here to make US feel better about ourselves as a community and starts putting GOD first, then you will start hearing and feeling God again. Interjecting the secular into the church (as was done consistantly through the 70s and 80s) will only create a secular organization. Keep the sacred sacred and the secular secular. BTW, I am 24...far from a old traditionalist. But I do know what is important...and that is creating a sacred liturgy for our God--one that appeases HIM and not US."
----------------------------------------------------
Jesus told us that God created the Sabbath for humans, not humans for the Sabbath. And what are you saying about a sacred liturgy that "appeases Him". Do you worship the old thunder-bolt throwing Jehovah of Cotton Mather? The word liturgy means the "work of the people." The very reason that Jesus gave us the Eucharist---so that where "two or three are gathered, there I am, in the midst." What Jesus stated sounds like nothing that which is being proposed in this monstrosity, that is written by men who don't speak English as their native language. Some worship of God!
Thank you Bishop Donald
Thank you Bishop Donald Trautman for speaking on behalf of most Catholics regarding this misguided archaic literal latin-to-english mistranslation put out by Rome. I wish the pope would listen and stop his arrogant impositions on the church. we need more clergy and laity of courage, intelligence, scholarship and integity to stand up to the pope, to stop being gutless, ambitious, self-serving yes-men clergy, and theologians, and yes-women religious and theologians, who refuse to uphold Gospel values, who refuse to uphold biblical scholarship and what is right for the church, Thank you Bishop Trautman for your wisdom, knowledge and courage..
Here, here!
Here, here!
Do you mean "hear, hear"?
Do you mean "hear, hear"?
The one positive note about
The one positive note about the new translation is that it will be the word (lowercase "w') made flesh, i.e., this translation without "a pastoral style" will merely underscore, dare I say endorse, just how "ineffably" out of touch the Vatican is with the people of God (nor does it seem to care), the degree to which the structure tries to cling to what is truly important to itself, and the "sacred" value it places on retaining power in all of its forms under the guise of "inviolate" holiness. And the pews will continue to empty . . .
Moreover, all on this earth, all of Creation (capital "C"), was already Holy Mystery. Words such as "chalice" are unnecessary, by Jesus merely touching a cup, poterion, the word "cup" is again sanctified. That's what we should be trying to express in the liturgy . . . how we should be expressing the truly ineffable.
Isn't it too bad that I seemingly understand this better than all of the scripture scholars and theologians in Rome?
Doesn't using the offensive
Doesn't using the offensive words in your post undermine the argument that they are incomprehensible? or is it the typical leftist mindset that *you* understand but the "little people" won't?
Thank God for Bishop Trautman
Thank God for Bishop Trautman who can speak truth to power and understands what is needed for an understandable and meaningful liturgy. That he even has to raise these issues shows how totally out of touch the Vatican is with the lives of the Catholic laity and the lives of its overworked parish priests. While the Holy Father is a good and deeply spiritual man, he has unfortunately lived in an academic and bureaucratic bubble all of his adult life and is out of touch with the flock he is supposed to be leading. We can only hope and pray that he will be succeeded by another John XXIII.
Bishop Trautman is selective
Bishop Trautman is selective in how he wants the purity of his translation. The bishop does not think the term "consubstantial" should be used over "one in being" even though, consubstantial is a better term for the Greek, homoousios, a term created by the Council of Nicea in 325. Bythe way, homoousios is the only word in the creed not found in the bible, if my memory serves me correct. Homoousios is term that many readers of NCR would love to see in a central statement of belief I am sure. At the same time, His Excellency thinks "We believe", which is in the Greek original should be used over the "I believe". This reads to me like a stereotypical prelate: he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He need not worry: after the most recent church scandal, the bishops lost any moral authority they had left. Now they can squabble over presidents speaking at universities, health care, and translations of liturgical texts that nobody is paying attention to anyway.
As a former teacher of
As a former teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages, I fully concur with Bishop Trautman's comments on the mangling of English grammer in the proposed new translations...
In view of the $2+ BILLIONS of dollars already spent in trying to evade the responsibilities of the Hierarchy in effectively stopping the tsunami of clerical sexual abuse against children, women and men, I would propose that this "revision" be delayed for several years or better yet, never even implemented.
I think that spending money on feeding the starving, caring for the sick, sheltering the refugees from war and natural disasters, etc, is a far better use of scarce Church money than imposing this latest revision!!!
"Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord, will enter my Father's kingdom, but those who do His will!"
Don't forget our own heroes
Don't forget our own heroes Archbishop Weakland was part of this problem... not to mention Cardinal Mahony. Proper language for worship and cover ups by liberal bishops are not related.
And unlike Cardinal Law,
And unlike Cardinal Law, Archbishop Wealkand was himself a sexual abuser (an admitted abuser). This man not only covered up for others (like Law did), but covered up mostly for his own sodomy. He admitted taking money from the faithful to pay off his lovers. Yet he is an NCR hero!
To whom are you replying?
To whom are you replying? Did anyone here mention Cardinal Law or "conservative" bishops covering up sexual abuse? The comment above is a generic criticism of the Church's priorities and has no target other than the hierarchy itself.
You then raise Weakland and inject venom in highlighting the man's sins, for which he has been publicly penitent and probably prays each day for forgiveness. You should be ashamed of yourself; this is not Christ-like behavior at all. But I'm sure your conscience is clear, so please, continue to do the Lord's work.
Modern translation of the
Modern translation of the 23rd Psalm. "The Lord helps me twitter as I drive my jeep past the dairy farm!"
While the new translation of
While the new translation of the commons of the mass is a great improvement and recovers many scriptural allusions lost in the current version, it is true that there are still some clunkers. Take clunky Latin and translate it into clunkier English and there are going to be weird sounding things. Still, something that accentuates the sense of celebrating sacred mysteries (as does the Liturgy of John Chrysostom) is a move in the right direction.
Bishop Trautman's condescension to the laity is disturbing. "This vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic" is insulting. Other than "consubstantial," every specific he sites is used in secular contexts. Some of these words do not show up in much casual conversation, but that should not be the standard. Most of us can handle polysyllabic words.
"If the Roman Missal does not speak to our culture, the church in the United States will suffer," is quite an arrogant statement. The Roman Missal is not intended to be the servant of US culture. The Roman Missal is set forth as the standard for the universal church, not just American local churches.
I hope Bishop Trautman continues to fight the good fight and wins some battles for things like complete sentences, but the attitudes that underlie his statements demonstrate contempt for the laity.
Plus, while not in the
Plus, while not in the ordinary, all or most of the words that offend Bsp Trautman appear in collects throughout the year or at ritual masses or masses for needs and occasions. eg. at ordinations, "this, therefore in the oblation of our service" and "ineffable" is used elsewhere.
I wholeheartedly support
I wholeheartedly support Bishop Trautman's position on the new translation of the Roman Missal. He has been a voice of reason in this whole debate and is firmly grounded in the principles expressed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It's amazing how the document Liturgicam Authenticam, which called for this more rigid translation, could sweep aside and ignore the teachings and manadates of a Church Council! As I see it, this is a violation of Church tradition, which has always held the teaching of a Church Council as paramount. In the end, what we will receive in this new translation is simply an example of liturgical abuse at the highest level.
Fr. Vincent Gluc, OFM Conv.
Fr. Vincent Gluc, OFM Conv. on Oct. 27, 2009.
You stated:
"I wholeheartedly support Bishop Trautman's position on the new translation of the Roman Missal. He has been a voice of reason in this whole debate and is firmly grounded in the principles expressed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It's amazing how the document Liturgicam Authenticam, which called for this more rigid translation, could sweep aside and ignore the teachings and manadates of a Church Council! As I see it, this is a violation of Church tradition, which has always held the teaching of a Church Council as paramount. In the end, what we will receive in this new translation is simply an example of liturgical abuse at the highest level."
-------------------------------------
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the point of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which was approved on December 4, 1963 by a vote of 2,147 to 4.
And a document such as "Liturgicam Authenticam" which was produced by a small committee was permitted to brush aside a Church Constitution which has the highest authority in the Church. Yes, and with the exception of Bishop Trautman---most of our American Bishops are too frightened to stand up to this imposed liturgical abuse.
Thank God for your sound
Thank God for your sound sense too, Father.
Is this how B16 aims to make
Is this how B16 aims to make his smaller and more faithful church? Confuse us out the door?
Those of us involved in
Those of us involved in pastoral liturgy recognise the necessity for good, well structured English. In GB the translation about to emerge does not read well, nor as Bishop Trautman points out does it necesarily touch base with the lingistic and theological meaning of the original greek, aramaic hebrew-surely more 'authenticam' than lingua latina facilis acta, which after all was another imposition. I have no axe to grind about latin, only with the english about to arrive. Even here in what is a fairly conservative country our english langauage is very much alive, nuanced and changing, the OUD adds numerous words each year, latin cannot and doesn't. Surely an effective liturgical style is one in which poetry, theology and acuracy blend-and last point, there are numerous differencs between all the Anglo-speaking countries, one style will NOT fit all.
PS can anyone tell me in one short sentence, no more than six words, such as a ten year old could understand just what 'and with your spirit' now means?
Dr Robin Gibbons on Oct. 27,
Dr Robin Gibbons on Oct. 27, 2009.
You stated:
PS can anyone tell me in one short sentence, no more than six words, such as a ten year old could understand just what 'and with your spirit' now means?"
--------------------------------------------------
"You own a ghost." :)
WHERE ARE THE PROFESSIONAL
WHERE ARE THE PROFESSIONAL AMERICAN LITURGIOLOGISTS AND LITURGISTS when we need them? Clutching their mandata and cowering in their safe, tenured corners?
In his masterful America article (21 May 2007), Bishop Trautman also alerted us to the fact that the CATHOLIC BIBLICAL ASSOCIATION issued a letter from its executive board warning the USCCB that:
"While we recognize many positive aspects of Liturgiam authenticam, we believe it contains provisions detrimental to solid biblical scholarship and ultimately to the Church and its authority. Among other things, it appears to misinterpret the authority of the Nova Vulgata (NV) and advocates policies that make it difficult to produce good vernacular translations."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/liturgiam-authenticam2.html
The BIBLICISTS have spoken ON THE RECORD...One anxiously awaits the liturgical SPECIALISTS -especially those at the most prestigious program of liturgical studies in the USA, my own alma mater Notre Dame- to look up from their footnotes, get off the bench and get into the game.
The NUNS have spoken,
The NUNS have spoken, American liturgiologists. WHERE ARE YOU?
LETTER WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL COALITION OF AMERICAN NUNS
To Each U.S. Roman Catholic Bishop Regarding English Translations For The Liturgy
Dear Bishop, We are writing to you, each U.S. bishop, the U.S. Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in regard to the new Vatican-ordered translation of the Liturgy. The Vatican-appointed translators have not produced a translation that is understandable to Catholics in the pews. We understand that, according to a 2005 poll of bishops, 47% of the U.S. bishops rated it "fair or poor". The media has reported that even some bishops are complaining that some texts contain "clunky and archaic language". For example, why would the words "consubstantial to the Father" be used in the Creed? What meaning do these words have for 21st century English speaking Catholics? Why use a medieval expression like, "We pray you bid" in the new Missal? This is not the way people speak today in the English-speaking world. We need to follow the liturgical principles set forth in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council. Article 21 of that document states, "Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them (texts and rites) with ease". The proposed text, "he who was born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin," is not easily understandable to Christian people, much less to the youth who are leaving the Church because of its irrelevancy. Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, PA., chair of the U.S. Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, has said the proposed changes by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy are "not acceptable". We agree. We ask you to make the translations appropriate, meaningful, and significant for today's Catholic. Jeannine Gramick SL, Donna Quinn OP, Beth Rindler SFP For the Board of the National Coalition of American Nuns
October 21, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that, according to a 2005 poll of bishops, 47% of the U.S. bishops rated it "fair or poor"
Is this 2005 POLL still lying around in a dusty corner somewhere in Washington or Rome, along with the 1998 ICEL translations that were torpedoed by VOX CLARA in Rome?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_c...
The Council also said Latin
The Council also said Latin and Gregorian Chant should have a place of honor in the liturgy. Here are some key excerpts liberals love to ignore from the Council's SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
22. 3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass
which pertain to them.
116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
I stand corrected. An
I stand corrected. An American liturgiologist's liturgiologist speaks out:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4980
Bravo!
Post new comment