I sometimes despair of any of the silent majority of our bishops ever speaking out. Not today.
Bishop Trautman is one bishop who is speaking out, and he's speaking out on an extremely critical issue--that of the new translation for the Mass in English. It's critical because this is not just a new translation, it also encompasses changing our understanding of the very mission of Jesus. This is an attack on the core message of Vatican II about the nature of salvation. I hope more bishops rally to Bishop Trautman because this fight is worth their careers. That is if the long standing truth of the Church actually means anything to them.
'Slavishly literal' translation of missal criticized
By Mark Pattison, Catholic News Service--10/26/09
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," Trautman said.
By Mark Pattison, Catholic News Service--10/26/09
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," 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?"
Trautman made his remarks in an Oct. 22 lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington, as part of the Msgr. Frederick R. McManus Lecture Series. Msgr. 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.
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," 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.
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 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." (In spite of the frequent use of polysyllabic hi fallutin' English words, the new translation really does come off more than a little 'insipid', even saccharine--or for the less verbally enlightened, syrupy and sugary.)
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, 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," Trautman said, "the Latin text is not inspired. It is a human text, reflecting a certain mindset, theology and world view."
(This is a most important point. The Latin text does not fall into the realm of revelation, no matter what Latin traditionalist might want us to believe.)
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?" 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." (This one simple little change completely redefines the saving mission of Jesus. It needs to be rejected, not just challenged.)
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," 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.
"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.
Trautman hearkened back to Msgr. McManus, whom he called "an apostle of the liturgical renewal."
"If Msgr. 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."
****************************************************
By the time the USCCB convenes in November (16-19) they may find they have a lot on their plates, but none more important than the approval or disapproval of the ICEL translation of the Mass. While the pastoral letter on marriage has already garnered a great deal of attention, and may hopefully have been rejected by voters in Maine, and Benedict's latest initiative will also generate interest, Bishop Trautman is focused on the key issue for American Catholicism going forward. Whose definition of Church matters in American Catholicism? If it's only the Vatican's definition, and the ICEL translation reflects only the Vatican, why bother with a Bishop's conference at all?
The ICEL translation, it's history, and how it was disseminated by the Vatican go right to the heart of the issue of collegiality. If this is rubber stamped, with these explicit changes in core understandings of the mission of Jesus, then the notion that conferences of bishops have any real authority is a freaking joke. They exist for one purpose only and that's to perpetrate the charade that the Vatican actually cares about what someone other than the Vatican--read only certain factions in the Vatican--actually think. Benedict has already proven time and again that he doesn't give a Ratzinger's ass about what anyone else actually thinks. He only cares to listen to those who agree with his vision of Catholicism.
If the USCCB cares about the reality of their own authority, if they really care about American Catholicism, if they really care about the truth of the mission of Jesus, they will reject this translation and join their voices to their brother bishops in South Africa. They won't put their stamp of approval on this Vatican hijacking of the English Mass and it's reinterpretation of Vatican II. If they do rubber stamp this thing through, they will have proven there is no need to waste any more money on USCCB meetings. Leadership via Vatican email will suffice and it's a lot cheaper.
