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.”
Following Bishop Trautman's approach to dumbed down liturgical language for the masses, perhaps he would approve of a missal written in txt msgng.
Ping!
Or in LOLspeak.
He iz liek, "Oh hai, I mades u," but teh wurld duznt sees him.(11) He iz comes to his stuffs, but his stuffs sez "Do not want!"(12) And sum guyz did want, and sez "Teh Ceiling Cat pwns," and deez guyz iz liek his kidz—(13) But not liek reel kidz, k? Iz liek teh Ceiling Cats kidz.
> “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.
He is absolutely right. Not only did the apostles and disciples have a difficult time understanding our Lord but 2000 years later, there are 30,000+ christian denominations who still can't agree on the words of our Lord. Kudos to NJJ!
Yes, NJJ is right. A major theme of Jesus’s public ministry was “... hearing, they do not understand.”
That is different, though, from His listeners’ not being familiar with the words Jesus used, though. There’s no suggestion in the Gospels that His vocabulary was too erudite for them.
Sit autem sermo vester, est, est : non, non : quod autem his abundantius est, a malo est.
Matthew 5:37
But that is the difference between an English-based translation and a Latinist translation. You see the same sort of thing all the time if you side-by-side the Douay-Rheims and the KJV.
And even when I was a little kid, I was able to understand the BCP quite well. If I met a word I didn't know, I was often able to puzzle it out from context. And if that failed, why that's what parents, teachers, and priests are for.
All those unlettered backwoodsmen who were my ancestors had no trouble with the highfalutin' language of the KJV . . .
By their fruits shall ye know them.
And to do away with Latin is to sever the continuity of the Catholic Church down through the ages. Since the Church is around for the long haul, it makes sense to employ a language that will be the same 500 years from now, when "modern English" will be as incomprehensible to us as Chaucer.
Coming from the Episcopal Church and the majestic, poetic language of Cranmer's prayer book, to say I was put off by the English Mass is an understatement. Not to mention that in places the translation is laughably inaccurate. (How anybody managed to get "and also with you" out of "et cum spiritu tuo" is one of the mysteries of the age).
However, the nuts in the Episcopal Church had done their part to prepare us for the English Mass, by abolishing Cranmer's language and instituting a flat, dead Modern Englishspeak translation that is almost word for word the same as the Catholic version. I think this was a liberal ecumenical plot, but the Lord brings good out of evil.
This renegade Episcopalian thinks that this bishop should go pound sand. If 7 year olds can read and understand the 17th century English of Archbishop Cranmer, they (and their parents) will manage "consubstantial" just fine.
HURRAH!!!!!
Well I’m flabbergasted! Me long lost great-great-nephew four times removed! Begorrah!
How are things, Mrs. Tax?
Sheed
WOW! Howdy, Frank! Long time no read!
“De todo lo visible y de lo invisble.” We already had it in Spanish!
Oh, excellent! The eponymous baby will be 5 months old on Tuesday. He’s terribly bright, just like his brothers. This morning, I discovered a pile of clothes that fit again, including some Anoreth left. Herself was last spotted in Vancouver, BC, but more often she’s in Seattle, baiting the Commies when she’s not working.
Bill finished the 9th grade!
In small doses, it’s really funny.
I had several observations:
1) My knowledge of French and Latin enabled considerable reading of Spanish.
2) The real Spanish speakers had their own hymnody, not the crypto-marxist pseudo-Mexican dreck foisted off on us English speakers by the gnomes at OCP.
3) The English speaking world was robbed, beaten, and left bleeding on the roadside by the gnomes at ICEL.
1. My knowledge of Spanish enables considerable *reading* of French and Latin (and Italian and Portuguese, fwiw).
2. and 3. Yup and Double Yup.
***I think there’s a place for both. Nobody is suggesting that the English Mass is going to be done away with . . . but the language sure could use some improvement.***
Totally agree!
And to do away with Latin is to sever the continuity of the Catholic Church down through the ages. Since the Church is around for the long haul, it makes sense to employ a language that will be the same 500 years from now, when “modern English” will be as incomprehensible to us as Chaucer.***
Again, I agree.
And that’s why the church keeps the Latin, and periodically reviews the English language to eliminate slang and replace the true meaning as in the Latin which, of course, is a dead language and therefor will never change.
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.