Posted on 10/24/2009 5:30:59 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
WASHINGTON – Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., former chairman of the U.S. bishops’ liturgy committee, sharply criticized what he called the “slavishly literal” translation into English of the new Roman Missal from the original Latin.
He said the “sacred language” used by translators “tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable” and could lead to a “pastoral disaster.”
“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic,” Bishop Trautman said.
“The (Second Vatican Council’s) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language,” he added. “Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer’s understanding?”
Bishop Trautman made his remarks in an Oct. 22 lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington, as part of the Monsignor Frederick R. McManus Lecture Series. Monsignor McManus, a liturgist, served as a peritus, or expert, during Vatican II.
The Roman Missal has not yet been given final approval for use in the United States. The U.S. bishops were scheduled to vote on four items pertaining to the missal at their November general meeting in Baltimore. It is expected that the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments would give its “recognitio,” or approval, at some point following the U.S. bishops’ vote.
Bishop Trautman took note of sentences in the new missal that he said run 66, 70 and 83 words, declaring that they were “unproclaimable” by the speaker and “incomprehensible” to the hearer.
“American Catholics have every right to expect the translation of the new missal to follow the rules for English grammar. The prefaces of the new missal, however, violate English syntax in a most egregious way,” Bishop Trautman said, citing some examples in his remarks.
“The translators have slavishly transposed a Lain ‘qui’ clause into English without respecting English sentence word order,” he added. The bishop also pointed out subordinate clauses from the missal that are “represented as a sentence,” and sentences lacking a subject and predicate.
Bishop Trautman also questioned the use of “I believe” in the retranslated version of the Nicene Creed, “even though the original and official Nicene Creed promulgated by the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 said ‘we believe’ in both the Greek and Latin versions.
“Since this is a creedal prayer recited by the entire assembly in unison, the use of ‘we’ emphasized the unity of the assembly in praying this together as one body. Changing the plural form of ‘we’ to ‘I’ in the Nicene Creed goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts,” he said.
The bishop complained about the lack of “pastoral style” in the new translation. The current wording in Eucharistic Prayer 3 asks God to “welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters,” which he considered “inspiring, hope-filled, consoling, memorable.”
The new translation asks God to “give kind admittance to your kingdom,” which Bishop Trautman called “a dull lackluster expression which reminds one of a ticket-taker at the door. ... The first text reflects a pleading, passionate heart and the latter text a formality – cold and insipid.”
Bishop Trautman quoted the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said 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.”
“Why are these conciliar directives not implemented in the new missal?” he asked. They are “especially” relevant, Bishop Trautman added, to “the people of the third millennium: children, teenagers, adults, those with varying degrees of education, and those with English as a second language.”
He acknowledged that “there are those who disagree with the way the liturgical reform of Vatican II was interpreted and implemented” and who maintained that “a reform of the reform” was necessary to stem what they saw as “diminishing religiosity (and) declining Mass attendance” tied to the Mass texts.
But while “the Latin text is the official, authoritative text,” Bishop Trautman said, “the Latin text is not inspired. It is a human text, reflecting a certain mindset, theology and world view.”
As a consequence, “a major and radical change” and “a major pastoral, catechetical problem erupts” in the new missal during the words of consecration, which say that the blood of Christ “will be poured out for you and for many,” instead of “for all,” as is currently the practice.
“For whom did Jesus not die?” Bishop Trautman asked. “In 1974 the Holy See itself had approved our present words of institution (consecration) as an accurate, orthodox translation of the Latin phrase ‘pro multis,’“ he added. “It is a doctrine of our Catholic faith that Jesus died on the cross for all people.”
Bishop Trautman took issue with a 2006 letter to bishops by Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, then head of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, which said that “salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s own willing or participation.”
“I respond that Jesus died even for those who reject his grace. He died for all,” Bishop Trautman said.
“Why do we now have a reversal? The Aramaic and Latin texts have not changed. The scriptural arguments have not changed, but the insistence on literal translation has changed.”
Bishop Trautman hearkened back to Monsignor McManus, whom he called “an apostle of the liturgical renewal.”
“If Monsignor McManus were with us today, he would call us to fidelity to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and encourage us to produce a translation of the missal that is accurate, inspiring, referent, proclaimable, understandable, pastoral in every sense – a text that raises our minds and hearts to God.”
>>Bishop Trautperson’s reaction is entirely predictable.<<
He has been fighting this forever.
I went to a different parish today. The “Cantor” was a flaming queen (well known) and the entire mass sounded like a Game show.
The language of the new translation is the least of the Church’s worries.
If my ancestors could understand it, if my Grandpa who worked in the Quarries and my Grandma with an 8th grade graduation could get through it, I can too.
Oh and btw, it may just uptick the study of Latin. If my 9 year old is on her second year, these adults can handle it.
Of course a good English translation of the liturgy is something we never received. And it is one baby step from returning to the original Latin.
Sweet!!
>>And in the case of some of these words, there may not be a convenient anglosaxon equivalent. In some ways this is specialty language.<<
There is no words for “yes” or “no” in Latin.
“Since this is a creedal prayer recited by the entire assembly in unison, the use of ‘we’ emphasized the unity of the assembly in praying this together as one body. Changing the plural form of ‘we’ to ‘I’ in the Nicene Creed goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts,” he said.
What??????????? Credo - is the singular. It has never been plural. Has this Bishop not read Chapter 1 of Pope Benedict's "Introduction to Christianity"? The chapter is titled "I believe." It is an entire chapter on the meaning and importance of the words "I believe."
Today in my house, we had a lesson in words that my girls have never heard but if they did must never repeat.
Putz was one of them. XD
No, the pastoral disaster has already happened. It's four decades old and counting. I guess the bishop hasn't noticed.
It was caused, at least in part, by the trashing of the traditional liturgical forms and the introduction of the type of "everyday speech" which Trautman is still pushing.
Some people never get it.
Heh. I have to put a quarter in the grandkids’ jar for all the words they’ve heard but must never repeat.
They go to a parochial school, and I’ve seen their vocabulary lists over the years. It’s amazing the words they can spell, use, and understand when they’re properly taught. Dumbing down kids doesn’t do anyone any favors. Dumbing down adults is insulting.
My mistress Miss Mischa misses the old missal.
This article frankly just makes me look that much more forward to experiencing a “slavishly accurate” new translation in mass! This sounds great! —Maybe the bishops are actually employing a savvy “reverse psychology” advertising technique here on us to create a huge wave of interest in and acceptance of the coming changes in the translations. Hah! That’s it. The bishops express some dismay through Bishop Troutman, and then, just as they might expect, we will jump up and say well, in that case, we all love the new translation! In any case, seriously now, it has been my experience as a convert that practicing Catholics know their faith. We are not going to be weeping in our pews over the big words. Bring on the new slavishly accurate translations!
“Please retire and shut up, Bishop Trautperson.”
Or,barring that, just shut up.
He is a perfect example of what is wrong with the typical modernist American bishop.
So a study of Yiddish won’t follow Latin.
>>Dumbing down kids doesn’t do anyone any favors. Dumbing down adults is insulting.<<
Amen!
The operative phrase is above. The assumption borne by the USCCB is that the US Conference can trump the assent of other conferences which accepted the original translation. That is how we lost "gibbet" to the translation crew.
Let's see... Archbishop Burke to the Congregation for Bishops (appointed this week). Archbishop Ranjith puts out a directive on Liturgical norms in Colombo (expected). So, suppose the translation turns out to be the right side of the St. Andrew's Missal in English for the Mass of 1962 according to the Pope John XXIII norms? It could happen. What a hoot that will be!
Saith Sheed unto thou!
LOL!!!!!
Not those type of Yiddish words.
It’s hard sometimes with homeschooling. They don’t get exposed. I’ve said words I haven’t heard in years, because they had to hear them.
And I sure didn’t want them said in the wrong company because they were clueless about how crass they are!
The tide of liturgical silliness has receded and the Trautman has been left flopping ineffectually on the sand.
“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like:
‘ineffable,’ - “oblivious to distractions” Billy, despite the taunts from the crowd, was ineffable in all his FG attempts.
‘consubstantial,’ - “one in being with the Father” Christ and the Holy Spirit, are consubstantial with God the Father.
‘incarnate,’ - “become flesh” Christ took on the suffering of man by becoming incarnate.
‘inviolate,’ - “sacred, protected” The chapel was declared utterly inviolate to the occupying forces.
‘oblation,’ - “offer devotion” The monk, bent to his knees, offered his oblation to Christ bodily present in the Eucharist.
‘ignominy,’ - “shameful deed” The dalliances of the local mayer was an ignominy to the entire town.
‘precursor,’ - “source” Judaism was the precursor of Christianity, in prophesying the coming messiah.
‘suffused’ - “to distribute, as in a liquid” The cleaning lady suffused the cleaner onto the counter, until it shone like a mirror.
‘unvanquished.’ - “defiant” After the blitz, Winston Churchill proclaimed that England was yet unvanquished.
Trautperson has spoken again.
**‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ **
Guess what words are going to be on the Catholic Word of the Day list.
Most come up in random, but I can fix that! LOL!
** “Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer’s understanding?”**
No, Jesus spoke in Aramaic!
As opposed to the cosmopolitan metropolis of Erie?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.