The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Last-ditch effort to dump Mass translations
Nov. 06, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Bishop Donald W. Trautman (CNS/Nancy Wiechec)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionWASHINGTON -- Bishop Donald W. Trautman is calling for a last-minute measure by the U.S. bishops this month to save American Catholics from new Mass prayers full of grammatical errors and unproclaimable texts.
The bishops are set to approve the last four segments of a new U.S. English translation of the Roman Missal at their annual fall meeting Nov. 16-19.
Trautman, the bishop of Erie, Pa., is urging the bishops to reject at least one of these segments, he told NCR Oct. 30.
Trautman said he thinks the only procedural way the bishops can halt the process and gain a new review of texts they have already approved (including Vatican reversals of many of their amendments to earlier texts) is to vote down at least one of the final segments up for review and form a committee to go to Rome and consult with the Vatican on what he considers the questionable texts approved by the Holy See.
There’s simply no doubt that the bad grammar he declaims is there in prayers already approved by the U.S. bishops, or subsequently modified by Rome, which the priest or people are expected to pray during Mass. Which start, like this sentence, with a relative pronoun, making the entire sentence a subordinate clause. Which, he says, is no way to try to make people pray. And entire sentences, like this one, with no subject or verb.
The three non-sentences in the preceding paragraph exemplify what Trautman, a former scripture professor, finds typical of one of the most disturbing issues in the new missal translation facing English-speaking Catholics around the world: a lack of plain, everyday English grammar in liturgical prayers with which Catholics are supposed to express their worship of God.
In many cases, he said, even when U.S. bishops introduced amendments to the proposed English texts to correct blatantly ungrammatical usages, Rome has turned around and reinstated the bad grammar in order to follow the Latin text more literally.
Trautman has been an outspoken opponent of the more literal translation of the Latin texts decreed by 2001 Vatican norms. At the bishops’ meeting last June, after he strongly criticized language problems in one segment -- containing the texts of Masses and prayers for various intentions -- it barely received the two-thirds vote needed for approval.
Trautman’s latest challenge to the translations came Oct. 22 when he delivered the third annual Msgr. Frederick R. McManus lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington.
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.
“The Latin text is not inspired,” Trautman told his Catholic University audience. “It is a human text, reflecting a certain mindset, theology and worldview. 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 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.
Trautman cited a number of grammar problems in a telephone interview Oct. 30. “A clear example of that was when the American bishops voted in 2006 to put in the creed ‘I believe’ four times,” he said. “It was taken out in Rome. So the amendment failed. There’s a lot of examples like that.”
The result is several “sentences” in the Vatican-approved English version of the Nicene Creed for U.S. (and other English-speaking) Catholic congregations that are not really sentences, omitting the subject and verb, “I believe”:
- “In our lord and savior Jesus Christ, who ...”
- “And in the Holy Spirit, the lord and giver of life ...”
- “And one, holy, catholic and apostolic church ...”
Trautman noted that the Vatican-approved Mexican translation into Spanish of the Latin Roman Missal -- approved for use in Spanish-language liturgies in the United States -- uses “Creo” (“I believe”) all four times in the creed.
So in U.S. parishes that have Masses in both Spanish and English, worshipers at Spanish Masses will be able to pray the creed in grammatically correct language, while those at English Masses will be forced to use a series of ungrammatical quasi sentences to express the most fundamental Christian beliefs, he said.
“Isn’t that inconsistent?” he asked. “It all happens in the same churches: Where you have a parish that is Anglo-Hispanic, the people at the Spanish Mass will say the creed in Spanish saying, ‘I believe’ four times -- ‘Creo’ four times -- [and] you go to the English Mass, you say it once. It’s a great inconsistency. It’s the same text -- it doesn’t make any sense to me.”
He said his struggle for a more coherent and proclaimable text is sometimes a “lonely” battle, but he is encouraged by the number of people, especially pastors, who ask him to keep at it. Within days after the first report on his talk appeared on NCRonline.org, he said, he received about 50 to 60 e-mails expressing support and only a handful objecting to the talk.
He said the few who objected focused on his criticism of arcane or archaic words, which is a much smaller issue than his main concern -- the liturgical use of bad grammar and convoluted, unproclaimable sentences.
The new English translation of the Roman Missal has many good aspects, but “there is much more that still needs improvement to make the text grammatical and accessible to the people,” Trautman said in his Oct. 22 lecture.
“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.”
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. For English-speaking countries, the texts are developed by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.
After a bishops’ conference approves a translation, the Holy See must confirm that text before it can be published for use in that country. Over the last three years, the U.S. bishops have approved 12 segments of the prayers used in the course of the liturgical year, on the feasts of saints and for various other occasions.
While he has found no major flaws in the final four segments coming up for a vote, the bishop said, he believes that the only way to address major flaws in the already approved texts is to reject one of the final texts as a statement of principle and get Rome to reconsider some of the underlying issues throughout the new translation.
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 text currently being used 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 calix, 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 calix, 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 twofold 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.” And, as he noted by phone later, in the texts so far approved by the Vatican, it has overturned many of the U.S. amendments, changing the text back to the commission’s original version.
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.
Thank you, Bishop. PASTORAL
Thank you, Bishop. PASTORAL is the vital, the only important word in the article. Jesus was pastoral. When His Church leaves "pastoral" behind for "ineffable" it has failed its mandate.
Thank you, Bishop. Whatever
Thank you, Bishop. Whatever "ineffable " may mean (and I've been hearing it for far too many years), it falls far short of the test of relevence demanded of Christ's Church's worship. Pastoral concerns are all that matter. IF WE ARE NOT PASTORAL, WE ARE FAILING to announce the good news of Jesus Christ.
"And the band played on!"
"And the band played on!"
Continue fighting for justice
Continue fighting for justice in the liturgy Bishop Trautman! Hopefully this newest initiative of his might somehow go through if we add our prayers and supplications to this effort. As His Excellency said near the end of the editorial, this type of language which is lofty to such a height over the heads of the faithful damages the average Catholic and does less to intvite prospective or potential Catholics to attend Mass.
Knowing polish, as a child I
Knowing polish, as a child I was always puzzled at how in the consecration of the wine, in the polish-text of the Mass, Jesus said "dla was i dla wielu" (for you and for many) while in the English text, Jesus said, "for you and for all."
It's interesting how Bishop Trautman worries about cup being a more faithful translation of the gospels than 'chalice' but is unconcerned about 'for many' being translated into English as 'for all'. Not very consistent of him if you ask me.
To the issue of 'cup' being rendered as 'chalice', I'll use Bishop Trautman's method of arguing against him: Your Excellency, in the original Aramaic, the word literally is 'chalice'. :P
The same here; also z duchem
The same here; also z duchem twoim (and with your spirit) or wierze (I believe)...It doesn't take a Polish speaker to know that the English translation is flawed. These examples don't hold from the Latin, and it's not hard to find out that Credo means I believe.
“Certainly translated
“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.”
Well, since they can't impose a totally retrograde return to liturgical LATIN in the English speaking world, they have chosen the next best thing: to make the acceptable ENGLISH as ARCHAIC, REMOTE and INCOMPREHENSIBLE as possible.
If one of my Chinese grade school students here in Hong Kong turned in a so-called SENTENCE like this, I would flunk them:
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
the giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets."
Directly copied and pasted from:
http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/
It kinda reminds me of Abbott and Costello's "WHO'S ON FIRST?" routine!!
I hardly think the Holy Spirit was sitting on anyone in ICEL's shoulders whispering this far from "inspired" language into their ears. Upon closer reading, while actually saying these words out loud, I even have to begin to wonder how good these bozos' LATIN skills are as well...Certainly this is NOT the kind of drivel envisioned even by the backward-looking LITURGIAM AUTHENTICAM (2001).
"We Are Church" is horrendous
"We Are Church" is horrendous grammar. Why doesn't NCR ever whine about that?
Memo to Bishop Arthut J.
Memo to Bishop Arthut J. Serratelli, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Divine Worship:
Just cuz it begins with a capital letter and ends with a period does NOT make it a sentence.
"I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God."
"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son,
our Lord,
who was conceived
by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again
from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand
of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge
the living and the dead."
"And one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church."
"Therefore, Lord, we pray:
graciously accept this oblation of our service, that of your whole family;order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen. [Through Christ our Lord. Amen.]"
Directly copied and pasted from your website:
http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/
Have you and the other bishops on your committee even tried to read these texts ALOUD before approving them?
Keep up the good fight! Good
Keep up the good fight! Good Latin should never be translated into bad English. And, as we say here in the South, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
But is there any realistic
But is there any realistic hop of stopping this? What are the Canadians, Australians, and English churches doing?
... In Australia - pretty
... In Australia - pretty much nothing. Apart from those who have made efforts to find draft copies, most of us - clergy and laity - haven't even seen the soon to be imposed texts. A majority of regular Mass-going Catholics aren't even aware that changes are in store! So WHO is the church? ... in reality I mean.
It was my understanding that
It was my understanding that the American Church was the only English speaking country to translate from the Latin so freely - Australia, UK and others did their own translations.
Tom Kelly on Nov. 07, 2009.
Tom Kelly on Nov. 07, 2009.
You stated:
"But is there any realistic hope of stopping this? What are the Canadians, Australians, and English churches doing?"
---------------------------------------------
The Australians are as upset as many of the Americans are. I understand that some are planning on standing outside their churches with picket signs when this comes into being. But, right now, they are rooting for Bishop Trautman, too, believe me.
I hope the bishops leave well
I hope the bishops leave well enough alone.
"The bishops are set to
"The bishops are set to approve the last four segments of a new U.S. English translation of the Roman Missal at their annual fall meeting Nov. 16-19."
Is it safe to assume that the bishops will be using these new texts for all of their liturgical prayer during this meeting? If not, WHY NOT? What are they afraid of? Or to translate that into ICEL English: OF WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID?
http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/
No, Craig, the won't use them
No, Craig, the won't use them because they are not the approved texts yet. When they are approved they will use them. Unlike the NCR world, in the real Catholic world you just can't make up liturgy as you want.
So the approvers can't use
So the approvers can't use these texts until they approve them, is that it? Check your liturgical flow chart, again. Besides, they were already prematurely released last December in South Africa....and all hell broke loose. This is the main monkey wrench in the works (fear of a similar "reception") that may lead the more sensible members of the USCCB to send these texts back to the drawing board and actually DIAGRAM a few of these sentences....
http://www.sacbc.org.za/Site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2...
JUST SAY NO TO EURO-CENTRIC LINGUISTIC COLONIALISM! Most of the page-turning, paper-pushing RUBRICISTS in the Vox Clara crowd haven't had any real PASTORAL experience in years...and their purported approximation of the VERNACULAR more than adequately demonstrates this fact. The name change from the vernacular ICEL to the Latin VOX CLARA tells it all. JP2's Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001 sold out the guiding principle of "dynamic equivalence" to a rigorous restoration of "formal equivalence" in translating liturgical texts...and it's been downhill ever since.
Mr.McKee: Too many of them
Mr.McKee:
Too many of them are just Office Managers in charge of Vatican Branches. Aa for theology: it,s not their department.
The Bishops should just say
The Bishops should just say "NO."
If these corrupted English translations are approved, Persons attending a Sunday litury, should enter the church just before Communion, recieve the Eucharist, and leave.
Do we want a cult or a
Do we want a cult or a religion?
Hopefully,Bishop Trautman
Hopefully,Bishop Trautman will be able to convince the rest of the American bishops that Vatican II should not be reversed under the guise of "transcendence". Liturgy should be understandable and pastoral. The language used in worship is important and by using brute force to undo the benefits of Vatican II is typical of a totalitarian approach.
It is hard to believe that bishops fear "losing favor" over something this clearly inappropriate.
Bishop Trautman is either a
Bishop Trautman is either a prophet, or an asshole.
For those who haven't noticed, English is the new Latin.
There is far more knowledge of English in the world, today, than Latin. If we want the translation of liturgical prayers to be close to the Latin texts, it is necessary that the official English translation be closer to the original Latin than might be otherwise pastorally recommended because other languages will use the English text to create their own liturgical texts.
As for "non-sentences" and "incomprehensible" English, tell me the following, from the present translation, is either a sentence or comprehensible: "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, Not Made, One in Being with the Father." And we're supposed to moan over proposed "new" words like "ineffable" and "incarnate"?
Bishop Trautman is either a prophet, or an asshole.
It's your call, but as for me and my family, we will follow the Lord.
“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,” he said.
Perhaps NCR could run a contest to see who can compose the worst sentence imitating the new ICEL English style? For guidelines and stylistic pointers, go to:
http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/
And don't forget the semi-colons!!!
Anyone ordinary has the
Anyone ordinary has the heretical Benedictine Sisters of Erie in his diocese and lets them abuse the liturgy for so long and do whatever they want for so long, forfeits his credibility on anything liturgical and should be disregarded before he even opens his mouth. Get your own house in order first, Your Excellency, and then tackle the supposed problems of these translations and the effects that you think they will have on the rest of the country.
Father Jim, Thank you for
Father Jim, Thank you for your wise comments! I live in the Erie Diocese also and Bishop Trautman is my Bishop. I do not understand with all the serious problems in our Diocese we have a Bishop who will focus on words and not action. To me it is a waste of time to continually harp about the words in our liturgy and forget about serious issues like those affecting families, education, human rights, and setting the tone for expanding our religious zeal in the Catholic Church! Why not get back to Catholic Services every evening as existed in my youth? We need discipline every day of our life and this emphasis passed away years ago. Wake up Bishop!
Your comments, Fr. Jim, are
Your comments, Fr. Jim, are both unfounded and rash. In the Diocese of Erie, as in any other dioceses, no religious order dictates how the Office of Worship or any other department in the diocese operates. If you have problems/questions with the liturgy in the Diocese of Erie, please contact:
Msgr. Conrad L. Kraus at tmcsweeney@eriercd.org
As far as the "heretical Benedictine Sisters of Erie" as you call them, you need to define your vague term. But it is a wide-spread belief among many theologians that the Benedictine Sisters (Sister Joan?) can hold their/her own in any debate with any theologian in the world, including Pope Benedict XVI.
Be that it may, it is a struggle to define how authority is to be understood in the post-Vatican II Church. This is still very much in progress. Any one who is either a historian or a theologian, cannot safely predict how the sturggle will end. The Church has often stumbled with it insisted on enforcing its teachings through the exercise of raw ecclesiastical power.
The challenge for the church in the years ahead is to preserve the apostolic faith, and the authentic liturgy. Yet, it must do this in such a way that the Spirit who makes all things new is not stifled. This is not a new challenge, but an ancient one. It has been part of the rich background of the Church, for its entire history.
Any ordinary has the
Any ordinary has the heretical Benedictine Sisters of Erie in his diocese and lets them abuse the liturgy for so long and do whatever they want for so long, forfeits his credibility on anything liturgical and should be disregarded before he even opens his mouth. Get your own house in order first, Your Excellency, and then tackle the supposed problems of these translations and the effects that you think they will have on the rest of the country.
Once again - Rome and the
Once again - Rome and the traditionalist don't get it. They are trying to restore the good ole days and are forsaking commonsense. Making the Mass incomprehensible will only result in more Catholics not attending Church. The goal of worship should be to bring us closer to God, not stand in bewilderment about what is being said.
I consider myself an educated person, but I don't use or fully comprehend what ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished’ mean. In fact, as I write this posting the spell check has identified some these words as being in error.
I often think and ask myself: What is going on with my Church? Now it is speaking in arcane language. Why can't the Church simply use the words Christ used and are contained in the Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is easy to understand, but a tough standard to live by.
Going backwards and speaking in incomprehensible term and phrases is not progress. Understanding and living our faith is tough enough - we don't need to words that have no meaning.
If you don't understand what
If you don't understand what the words mean, look them up in the dictionary. It takes five minutes and you'll know them for life. The Church shouldn't dumb down prayers for people who are too lazy to enlarge their vocabularies.
Why, anonymous, do we have a
Why, anonymous, do we have a liturgy designed exclusively for fallen away High Anglicans, and not for the greatest growing demographic of Roman Catholics in the USA, the OTE (Other Than Englishers). Do you suggest they stop being so "lazy" and drag a bilingual dictionary along with them to Mass in their oppressor's tongue, of which many have no clue?
Why must we know Masterpiece Theatre English to practice our Roman Catholic Faith?
As one who teaches second language acquisition, I have found, as Dr. Jim Cummins and Dr. Stephen Krashen prove, that comprehensible input with low affective filter (in other words, you know, a nice and comforting and even welcoming environment) lead to most learning. Nothing to do with your "laziness"
Use the Good News Bible and call it a day already!
Paul McGlaughline said "The
Paul McGlaughline said "The goal of worship should be to bring us closer to God"
When Moses and God wanted to get the Israelites closer to God, there are different approaches that could be used.
1. Have all the Israelites climb the mountain.
2. Have God come down from the mountain.
3. Use Moses as the intermediary to get the Israelites to be holy enough to be prepared to enter the promised land.
4. Destroy the mountain so that God, Moses, Aaron, and the rest could all be the same.
God's choice was #3, both for the Israelites and for the Church, using the Apostles and the priests, their successors.
Vatican II's choice is #4. Bishop Trautmann is just using a phony issue (grammar) to stonewall the Pope's attempt to get the Church back on the right track, #3!
If you
Thank you Bishop Trautman,
Thank you Bishop Trautman, for your vigilence toward saving the Catholic Community from more criticism. What is the matter with bishops that do not recognize poor grammar and confusing verbage? I applaud your patience with your brothers and I mind their inability to listen and learn. Heaven help our children. We are choosing to loose them.
All this reminds me of one of
All this reminds me of one of the old Star Trek shows where the people are reciting words they consider sacred but don't understand. At the end of the show when they slow down the speech, Kirk realizes they are saying the preamble to the Constitution of the U.S. Repeating words that don't have meaning to a group even if it is their own language, turns sacred into idiocy.
Bishop Trautman is my hero.
Bishop Trautman is my hero. I stand completely with him. Efforts to make the language of the Mass more mystical and incomprehensible will not improve anyone's understanding of and participation in the Mass. It makes me wonder if the next revision will be to simply skip the translation step and to use Latin.
Ron I think it's the other
Ron I think it's the other way around. This translation will be used to usher in an English version of the Tridentine Mass.
One can only hope and pray
One can only hope and pray that we will see, thanks to this translation, a greater respect and role for the beautiful Latin language in our liturgies.
God willing.
I'm grateful to Bishop
I'm grateful to Bishop Trautman for taking this important stand. Language has power, particularly in the context of worship, and the underlying language ideology of these new translations is troubling. Reverence and transcendence is one thing, but slavishly sticking to Latin as if it is inspired of God confuses the authentic priorities of liturgy. I applaud Bishop Trautman's sensitivities to English's particular dignities and to the genuine pastoral concerns raised by these translations.
ICEL made some big mistakes,
ICEL made some big mistakes, like translating Credo into I believe or Et cum spiritu tuo into and with your spirit. Any high school Latin student knows that is not correct. So it's not surprising to find that the rest of the translation is flawed and needs to be fixed.
I speak Portuguese and Polish as well as English. It's incomprehensible that the prayers are different from those rendered in English. Lex orandi, lex credendi; about time we got back to the roots in our Latin Rite.
Better, of course, to face the fact that the whole 'vernacular' experiment has been a total failure (empty pews, empty seminaries, empty convents, rising divorce/abortion rates, lack of belief in the Real Prescence, etc).
Hi, Michael! Here is the next
Hi, Michael!
Here is the next installment of the continuing saga of the American English missal Rome is proposing. Trautman battles on.
Lucy
Lex orandi, lex
Lex orandi, lex credendi....but in this case, it's "lex credendi, lex orandi" and it's an imposed manner of thinking and an imposed, grammatically awkward & often incorrect, language which somehow is being foisted upon English speakers by non-native English functionaries.
We will vote on this hijacking of our language with our voices at prayer at our Eucharistic celebrations...we don't need to even acknowledge "magical" incantations...Jesus used the language of the common person...so can we.
I suspect that the
I suspect that the obstructionists like Bishop Trautman promoted so much that was inaccurate or banal, and protested so much that was good or edifying, that even when they have a valid point, no one is listening to them anymore.
All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well...
Good Bishop Trautman: the
Good Bishop Trautman: the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: "make straight the English of the world", or, "De profundis clamavi ad te Domine".
consubstantial I looked up
consubstantial I looked up this word in the dictionary that came with my computer. The definition in the dictionary is as follows: of the same substance or essence (used esp. of the three persons of the holy Trinity in Christian theology): Christ is consubstantial with the father.
Derivatives:consubstantiality noun
Origin: Late Middle English: from ecclesiastical Latin, consubstantialis (translating Greek homoousios 'of one substance'), from con 'with'+ substantialis
See substantial
I Believe, I Believe, I
I Believe, I Believe, I Believe, I Believe...
“one in being with the
“one in being with the Father” becomes “consubstantial with the Father.”?
Wait a second..... I thought Catholics believe in transubstantiation. I think it was Luther who promoted consubstantiation; i.e., the joining of the Son with the Host. Now we're going to say “consubstantial with the Father'?
I realize we're talking about two different elements, but using that term may cause some confusion.
Consubstantial means "one in
Consubstantial means "one in being". It doesn't have anything to do with transubstantiation.
Somehow I doubt that those
Somehow I doubt that those who don't know the meaning of 'consubstantial' and who can't be troubled to look it up in a dictionary are going to connect the word to the doctrine of consubstantiation.
It is always fun to re-read
It is always fun to re-read Mr. James Joyce (the Jesuit)'s great novel Ulysses on this point of the Consubstantial Father, etc.
Any excuse to re-read that central text of the Irish Catholic Faith . . .
You know, now that Rome has
You know, now that Rome has shown such interest in the Anglican Communion, maybe the US RC church should just take a look at the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. Written by Americans for Americans. Gracious language, good theology, not translated anything.
Book of Divine Worship is the
Book of Divine Worship is the text used by the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church. The language is much closer to the revised translation than the horrible 80s ICEL job.
My only comment would be that
My only comment would be that hopefully Bishop Trautman (Whom I greatly respect) and other bishops would begin to understand how the people of God feel at times. When bishops assume that their role is to teach and therefore not listen, then they become deaf to the Holy Spirit. What Bishop Trautman is running into is the walls that those in power attempt to create and in doing so are not accountable to anyone except those in higher places.
Trautman is absolutely right,
Trautman is absolutely right, and most of the bishops probably agree with him. They will accept what Rome has insisted on, however: some because "you can't fight City Hall", others to save their careers.
If we were given the choice
If we were given the choice of our Bishops - maybe they would somehow become accountable to us, the church. Where is our say in any of this? WE are the church! Where is the backbone of these bishops - the heierarchy is the cause for the mass exodus of Catholics. I, for one, refuse to become a puppet of Rome.
God bless Bishop Trautman for his efforts - and thank you for defense of a pastoral church.
My dear Linda, you are a de
My dear Linda, you are a de facto Protestant. You just haven't converted yet. I would only share with you that, without the Eucharist, but longing, needing still to know the full presence of God, the Protestant worship service must resort to exorbitant sentiments, relentlessly "squeezing" the moment in hope that a few drops of eternity will appear on the surface. But of course what appears is more emotion, perhaps mingled with the inner consolations of a merciful God Who does not fault the invincible ignorance of those who are doing their best. But you know better.
God Bless Bishop Trautman.
God Bless Bishop Trautman. Someone has to stand up to the idiocy coming out of the Vatican. The "literal" translations are an assault on the English ear.
Steve
Those of you who have had a
Those of you who have had a hand in stripping the Roman Liturgy from its transcendent elements have also fostered a "communal meal" emphasis in your theology of the Eucharist, and, in Protestant fashion, neglected its sacrificial aspects. The latter aspects are much harder to understand, which may explain why priests seldom mention the subject. As the author explains, the new translation is trying to reintroduce the sacred into our common prayers. Part of this, especially in the Eucharistic Prayers, are words and phrases that underscore the sacrificial nature of the action. The new translations may have faults, but they will help us understand better the mysteries that underlie the action. Of course, there is no mystery behind a communal meal of remembrance: the concept is simple enough.
And if the preachers have to explain "consubstantial" and other words, that is probably good. It will be good practice for most homilists, as most seem to have forgotten everything but vacuous ideas they repeat Sunday after Sunday. Besides, we don't want to go on assuming that we know everything. Learning is lifelong, even in liturgy.
You may also keep in mind that the language the Anglican communion uses is much more reverent, elaborate, and elegant than the language in our current missal. Anglicans understand it. Are you assuming that Catholics are less intelligent?
The comprehension of one's
The comprehension of one's home language is no valid indicator of intelligence, nor sanctity.
The imposition of the imperial tongue upon us, the oppressed, for a false veneer of reverence, elaboration and elegance in our most sacred liturgy, is invalid and an extension of our oppression.
Come on, your excellency!
Come on, your excellency! Enough! No more delays! We have suffered with the current, inferior translation for too many decades! Give us the more sacred, inspiring, and, yes, even challenging language to better assist us in giving God the worship He is due!
Amen! I hope the damage done
Amen! I hope the damage done to the Sacramentary can be completely undone. What is so wrong about using language that people actually use? Maybe the scholars with their relative clauses (with out subjects or predicates) should have their own rite and leave the rest of us alone.
Nuts! Again. Or should I say,
Nuts! Again. Or should I say, still?
Good luck, Bishop. We need
Good luck, Bishop. We need you.
You are right. It is a last
You are right. It is a last ditch effort. This is the horn sounding the death of the false interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. Perhaps now that the "spirit of Vatican II" is almost dead the Church can finally begin to implement what the Council actually said.
Bishop Trautman is making
Bishop Trautman is making good sense. Any bets whether or not it will change the behavior in Rome?
Better watch out, Bishop
Better watch out, Bishop Trautman, you may wind up in sudden retirement for speaking Truth to the Church. Such common sense is useless up against the imperial Vatican Curia these last few decades...
Haven't you figured out yet that the Best Bishops are strictly "Yes-Men" who are not supposed to think, let alone ask the advice of lay experts in linguistics???
The world moves forward while
The world moves forward while the narrow minded "old boys" at the Vatican move radically backward and into dead centuries that no longer have meaning. The last days of the imperial Roman model of Church are finally coming to an end. None of this will be pretty as they old guard will fight to the death to make sure the language used in the new mass translations does not remotely mirror the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. The Church in decay.
I salute Bishop Trautman as
I salute Bishop Trautman as he grapples with the translation issue on behalf of the American Catholic Church. We are a Church whose membership is disillusioned by many things, including the sexual abuse scandal and Rome's seeming ignorance of legitimate diversity among American Catholics. Rather than bless the varying points of view among us, we who "confess the Lordship of Jesus and who strive to live our lives in accordance with his example and teachings" ("The Church", R. McBrien) are judged by one issue. Are we unquestioningly obedient to Rome?
It is becoming difficult to recognize Jesus in the life of our Church which claims to be the sacrament of his presence. Because of this all generations, including those who are younger, are dismissing us as irrelevant.
I would hope that the new translations would “radiate a noble simplicity. ... be short, clear, free from useless repetition [and]... be within the people’s powers of comprehension" as "The Constitution on the Liturgy" directs.
Sacrosanctum Concilium (or
Sacrosanctum Concilium (or Constitution on the Liturgy) also says Latin is to be used predominately with the vernacular allowed here and there. It also calls for Gregorian Chant, not the banal show tune hits we hear every week. Do you agree with that take on the Vatican II document???
I applaud you Bishop Trautman
I applaud you Bishop Trautman for speaking up for us educated and concerned Catholics.
NCR.... it MIGHT be helpful
NCR.... it MIGHT be helpful if you published the e-mail addresses of the Congregation of Worship in Rome and the emails of bishops in the US whom we could express our objections to on the new translations. As priest, I would be VERY tempted to just continue using the present sacramentary translation regardless. Fr.Bob Wenz
Post new comment