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.”
That's right, we're just a bunch of dumb "Catlicks". I bet Trautman thinks we're like Obama's view of Republicans, we just "take orders" and don't think for ourselves. Why does everything have to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, particularly the liturgy?
Amazing that fifty years ago Catholics were a biblically literate and latin literate group. They regularly used toughie words. There was room in the church for every one from old granmas with fifth grade edcations and Post doc professors
If Bishop Trautman believes that, he needs to go back and read the V-2 documents again. (If he ever read them in the first place.)
> “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?”
Is this guy for real?? He needs to read the Gospels! Almost EVERYTHING Jesus said was beyond the comprehension of most of his listeners -- including, frequently, the Apostles. Those who usually understood (Pharisees, etc.) were also incensed about what He said -- as it pertained to all the things they were doing wrong.
Ah, the illiterate Catholic. I did have to look up “consubstantial.” It took about 5 seconds.
Its a choice you always have to make when translating from a latin language into english.
Do you choose the latin-based cognate which sounds weird or high-falutin’ in ordinary English or do you choose the anglo-saxon equivalent? I would usually lean to the pithier anglo-saxon word for normal secular translating, but in theology you want to be careful that you haven’t actually changed the meaning in some subtle fashion.
In the case of theological translating, its probably not as big a deal, people’s ears are already used to or soon become used to the latinate language.
Also, since we now have so many Spanish speakers in our midst, some of these words would make more sense to them since their language is Latin-based.
And in the case of some of these words, there may not be a convenient anglosaxon equivalent. In some ways this is specialty language.
Please retire and shut up, Bishop Trautperson.
How dare you be offensive to Trautperdaughter.
Bishop Trautperson’s reaction is entirely predictable.
At one time, Catholics DID use words like “consubstantial,” “inviolate,” etc. I.e., when Catholics knew the Catholic Faith.
Trautperson should be ashamed that Catholics’ vocabulary has degenerated precisely during the years he has been a priest and bishop.
Given that part of the clergy’s job, Catholic or not, is to teach, “the people don’t understand the words” really doesn’t fly as an excuse.
For heaven sakes, how did the pre-Vatican II parishioners ever get by having to deal with words they might not understand, like when the whole Mass was in Latin. Get a life, Bishop, or instruct your flock as to the meaning of the words they are all too stupid to understand. Geez....
Bishop Trautman, do us all a favor and RETIRE quietly to the middle of nowhere.
“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?”
Well, yes, when you consider He used parables that people DID NOT understand!
You wrote:
“Amazing that fifty years ago Catholics were a biblically literate and latin literate group. They regularly used toughie words.”
and then came the New Mass, and families disappeared from church and withdrew their kids from Catholic schools and put them in public schools. Now we’re illiterate. No surprise there.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
“Not understandable by the average Catholic.”
Oh, just include the nice pop up pictures and us will catch on right quick.
Trautman is still using his position in the bishops’ conference to block reform of the English translation of the liturgy, which was approved by the Vatican quite a long time ago.
Sure, Trautman. The creed just happens to say “Credo.” That means “I believe.” And it’s absolutely basic. One can say what “we believe” as a declaration of fact, but one can only say “I believe” as a confession of faith. You can’t make a confession of faith for someone else. And he knows it.
Was it also a coincidence that “Et cum spirito tuo” was translated “And also with you,” instead of “And with thy spirit”? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Trautman and his language thugs completely eliminated the word “spirit” or “soul” from the English liturgy. Because he doesn’t believe in souls? That wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
It will be a great day for the Church in America when this trouble making thug retires.
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.