Bishop criticizes 'slavishly literal' English translation of missal

[Krentis]

If someone does not understand the words teach them. They are good words.

Catholic education has been subpar for decades, are you sure you want to add English lessons to the CCD curriculum?

I'm an engineering type dork, so maybe I'm missing something here. The purpose of words, spoken or written, is to communicate. Whichever words will communicate the point without compromising it to the most people should be selected. The beauty of the words is in how well they work, not how pretty they sound or how they give the educated a little extra something to be smug about.

 

[Davidnic]

Catholic education has been subpar for decades, are you sure you want to add English lessons to the CCD curriculum?

I'm an engineering type dork, so maybe I'm missing something here. The purpose of words, spoken or written, is to communicate. Whichever words will communicate the point without compromising it to the most people should be selected. The beauty of the words is in how well they work, not how pretty they sound or how they give the educated a little extra something to be smug about.

My fields are theology, English and psychology. So I know those words as par for course. Basic point, if we use them at mass people will know them. I don't see a reason to tone it down.

The mass is not an exercise in the everyday, it is a connection to something deeper...for me the language should be more than the average daily fare. It should educate and uplift.

 

[Fantine]

But what I see is that the words are trying to create distance between man and God.

As Maria Regina said, they are words for "humble submissives" (as opposed to erudite intellectuals.)

My question is whether Jesus, who is totally without ego on earth, who had no desire to dominate, control, or create "humble submissives," who, instead, washed their feet because he recognized that that was true servant leadership, would feel comfortable with words trying to inspire "humble submission."

I think not.

 

[Ave Maria]

I disagree with the bishop but I do respect his opinion. The Mass should be full of sacred language. Why? Because the Mass is sacred! That's just my own opinion.

 

[MariaRegina]

My fields are theology, English, psychology, and some theology. So I know those words as par for course. Basic point, if we use them at mass people will know them. I don't see a reason to tone it down.

The mass is not an exercise in the everyday, it is a connection to something deeper...for me the language should be more than the average daily fare. It should educate and uplift.

My fields are English, speech pathology, linguistics, and some theology. When we address the All-Holy Trinity in our prayers, we should use lofty language (not to impress ourselves) but to honor God properly. We should wear the best clothing and use the best language that we have. God deserves our best, n'est ce pas?

With liturgical language, one must use adequate theological words, which are often derived from the Greek or Latin. By explaining and using these words, children and adults will improve their English. Hence, the Church will be rightfully glorifying God and educating the People of God at the same time. That is a win-Win situation in my book.

 

[MariaRegina]

But what I see is that the words are trying to create distance between man and God.

As Maria Regina said, they are words for "humble submissives" (as opposed to erudite intellectuals.)

My question is whether Jesus, who is totally without ego on earth, who had no desire to dominate, control, or create "humble submissives," who, instead, washed their feet because he recognized that that was true servant leadership, would feel comfortable with words trying to inspire "humble submission."

I think not.

Yes, we are creatures and God is our Creator.

He is our awesome God. Come let us adore Him.

 

[isshinwhat]

Yes, we are creatures and God is our Creator.

He is our awesome God. Come let us adore Him.

AMEN!!!

 

[Krentis]

The mass is not an exercise in the everyday, it is a connection to something deeper...for me the language should be more than the average daily fare. It should educate and uplift.

I disagree, I think the Mass should be an everyday thing for those of us who can make it, and as such, I see no problem with everyday language. I want to concentrate on the meat and potatoes of what is said at Mass, not how it is said, not the obscure words used to say it. When I take non-Catholic guests to Mass, I have enough explaining to do without having to explain 17th century English.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

His honourable Bishop Trautperson, thinks that we Americans are so stupid that we cannot comprehend nor learn actual theological terms that Catholics OUGHT to know; whilst in prayer, "BIG WORDS" that are "accurate" or "precise" are too "difficult," for us! What do these bishops think the majority of us can't read words longer than two Syllables!

 

[Krentis]

His honourable Bishop Trautperson, thinks that we Americans are dang stupid that we cannot comprehend nor learn actual theological terms that Catholics OUGHT to know; whilst in prayer, "BIG WORDS" that are "accurate" or "precise" are too "difficult," for us! What do these bishops think the majority of us can't read words longer than two Syllables!

Hmmmm. I'm with the Bishop in the OP more strongly than I was before.

 

[isshinwhat]

I'm an engineering type dork, so maybe I'm missing something here. The purpose of words, spoken or written, is to communicate.

Exactly! So what is it we are trying to convey...? For instance, the changing of the phrase, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Only say the word and I shall be healed," to the more accurate and just as easily understood, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

The first phrase, while a nice gesture of faith, leaves out the direct tie to Scripture that the text of the Mass has had for millenia! Jesus praised the faith of the Centurion whom we are quoting as the greatest that He has seen, yet we are now told that the language he used is too lofty and difficult to understand? Besides, are we not a temple of God, and is the healing of our souls not the primary succor we are after?

I ask again, what are we trying to convey? Is it the lowest common denominator of Christianity, or is it the Faith in its fullness, with the Liturgy that we live tied into Scripture in a way that makes the Word of God alive an immediate? Do we not want to be drawn deeper into the Mystery of God anymore? Do we not want a Faith that challenges us, yet promises us the means to achieve what it calls us to?

In a world where people are confused about what it is we are trying to convey, I say the more full the meaning, the more accessible it becomes. More precision and more depth, less confusion. Perhaps that lack of confusion is what really is bothering some people...

 

[Davidnic]

I disagree, I think the Mass should be an everyday thing for those of us who can make it, and as such, I see no problem with everyday language. I want to concentrate on the meat and potatoes of what is said at Mass, not how it is said, not the obscure words used to say it. When I take non-Catholic guests to Mass, I have enough explaining to do without having to explain 17th century English.

I don't mean everyday attendance. I agree with that if possible. But it is an event that is not part of the everyday world. It is transcendent. And the language should uplift.

 

[Krentis]

Exactly! So what is it we are trying to convey...? For instance, the changing of the phrase, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Only say the word and I shall be healed," to the more accurate and just as easily understood, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

No worries there. I was speaking in agrement with the Bishop who said (from the OP) "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.'".

Excepting "precursor" and "unvanquished", I doubt that 20% of English speakers know the definitions to the words that the Bishpo take issue with. Western Catholics don't know beans about the Church as it is, why task them with an additional roadblock of vocabulary?

 

[Davidnic]

Western Catholics don't know beans about the Church as it is, why task them with an additional roadblock of vocabulary?

My thought is we don't want to indulge that ignorance. If it is in the mass they will learn more about the faith through the proper words because those words reflect the theology. That's what I think.

 

[MariaRegina]

My thought is we don't want to indulge that ignorance. If it is in the mass they will learn more about the faith through the proper words because those words reflect the theology. That's what I think.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

His honourable Bishop Trautperson, thinks that we Americans are dang stupid that we cannot comprehend nor learn actual theological terms that Catholics OUGHT to know; whilst in prayer, "BIG WORDS" that are "accurate" or "precise" are too "difficult," for us! What do these bishops think the majority of us can't read words longer than two Syllables!

You would think that His Honourableness Bishop Trautman would have done a legal name change to Trautperson a long time ago so as not to offend feminists which he claims to support. What hypocrisy on his part!

Just kidding. (yes, I am straddling the fence here.)

That name has to go.






p.s. But since the good bishop thinks that long syllables can be unintelligible to the simple folk, then maybe he should reduce his name to Traut.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

The Old Traditional Tridentine Mass incorporates the sense of mystery, mysticism, and other-wordliness, and it utilises mulitiple sense of perception and interaction. It is perfectly acceptable and has worked fine for circa 1,500 years.

 

[NewMan99]

But what I see is that the words are trying to create distance between man and God.

Are you quite sure that the Bishops and translators are INTENDING to "create distance between man and God"? That's a pretty serious charge to make. Now, you can say that the words they chose in the translation may have the unintended consequence of creating distance between God and man (you have the right to that opinion - but even then I would still disagree with you), but you impute motive here where I don't believe you have any basis on which to make this charge. Maybe you just misspoke (?).

As Maria Regina said, they are words for "humble submissives" (as opposed to erudite intellectuals.)

My question is whether Jesus, who is totally without ego on earth, who had no desire to dominate, control, or create "humble submissives," who, instead, washed their feet because he recognized that that was true servant leadership, would feel comfortable with words trying to inspire "humble submission."

I think not.

I will respectfully disagree.

The lesson given by Christ in the washing of the feet was that humbleness and servitude (of others) is a virtue we should all imitate. Certainly, it was primary directed to the Apostles, and hence their successors...but it is also directed toward ALL Christians. So being humble is a good thing that Jesus directed us toward.

As for "submission"...does not the author of Hebrews speak to this most directly when he wrote:

"Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you." Hebrews 13:17

So the bottom line is that Jesus is perfectly happy when Christians are "humble submissives." That being said, this is also why it is especially important for the shepherds to only act as servants with the best interest of the flock in mind at all time. To whom much is given much is expected, right? When the leaders act in good faith, in humble servitude to the flock, it is easier for the flock to humbly submit.

It seems to me you have an adverse reaction against the concept of the laity being "humble submissives" - as if you presume a priori that the leaders of the Church intend malice rather than benevolence. Now, perhaps I misperceive you here, and I do not intend to put words in your mouth...I am just saying is that this is how I perceive your posts in this thread. Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

 

[MariaRegina]

Remember the 70s Catholic song:

Come to Me all who labor and are heavy burdened
And I will give you rest
Take up your yoke and learn from Me
For I am meek and humble of heart
And you'll find rest for your soul
For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.

I am quoting this from memory, so I may have made a few errors.
But the thought remains.

Yes, we do submit to the Lord, and He heals us and lifts our burdens.

 

[NewMan99]

I read the article posted in the OP. I also read many of the comments left by various readers.

The best comment I read said this (the article is quoted in blue, the reader's comments are in red):

"Bishop Donald W. Trautman... sharply criticized what he called the "slavishly literal" translation"

And his criticisms are a few years too late, thank the Lord.

"Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer's understanding?"

He did use parables, which were beyond the comprehension of many.

"declaring that they were "unproclaimable" by the speaker and "incomprehensible" to the hearer."

One need look no further than the Eastern rites, which do maintain the word "consubstantial". They seem to understand their liturgy fine, and so will we. It's called catechesis. Some priests, and prelates need to get off their lazy bums and try for once in the past 40 years.

"Since this is a creedal prayer recited by the entire assembly in unison, the use of 'we' emphasized the unity of the assembly"

But each person is praying it themselves. I do not know that the person next to be actually believes, just as he or she knows not whether I do. Hence, we use "I believe"

"should radiate a noble simplicity. "

The same noble simplicity which has been used as an excuse to diminish our beautiful sanctuaries into empty nothingness?

""a major pastoral, catechetical problem erupts"... for you and for many"

No, it's always been "for many" before the Council. For all is clearly wrong.


Another comment mentioned that while it is true that the Creed uses the words "We believe..." when it is recited LITURGICALLY the proper words should be "I believe"...for the precise reason mentioned above - we are saying the prayer for our own self.

As for certain big words most Catholics wouldn't understand...well...one of the words mentioned by the Bishop as being uncomprehensible for the average person was "incarnate." REALLY??? If the average Catholic does not know or understand the meaning of the word "incarnate"...THEN PREACH IT FROM THE PULPIT, for crying out loud. What is incomprehensible to me is the idea that a Bishop would object to the word "incarnate" within the liturgy.

Most people are not that stoooopid. Many times they will grasp the intended meaning by the context of the words surrounding it. So if it turns out that there are a handful of "difficult words" - then that means there are only a handful of words to teach the people.

But the idea here is proper communication - and sometimes common, ordinary, easily understable words are INSUFFICIENT to communicate properly the theological concept that the liturgy is supposed to explicate.

And if we use "easy" words that don't REALLY convey the fullness of the theological concept they are supposed to communicate...well then what has REALLY happened is the lay people will fall victim to sloppy words that they may MISUNDERSTAND just as much as the "difficult" words they don't quite understand. In either case, there is either a misunderstanding (at the worst) or a shallow understanding that does not convey the fullness of our faith (at best).

The best solution is to use the theological terms that most fully convey our faith, even when a little extra effort must be put forth on the catechetical end. But too often, imo, too many clergymen (not all) are so busy talking about rainbows and feel-goodism during their homilies to spend a few minutes talking about theological concepts like "consubstantial." All milk and no meat appeals only to the lowest common denominator.

We're better than that - and we deserve better than that.

Rant over.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[MariaRegina]

I read the article posted in the OP. I also read many of the comments left by various readers.

The best comment I read said this (the article is quoted in blue, the reader's comments are in red):

"Bishop Donald W. Trautman... sharply criticized what he called the "slavishly literal" translation"

And his criticisms are a few years too late, thank the Lord.

"Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer's understanding?"

He did use parables, which were beyond the comprehension of many.

"declaring that they were "unproclaimable" by the speaker and "incomprehensible" to the hearer."

One need look no further than the Eastern rites, which do maintain the word "consubstantial". They seem to understand their liturgy fine, and so will we. It's called catechesis. Some priests, and prelates need to get off their lazy bums and try for once in the past 40 years.

"Since this is a creedal prayer recited by the entire assembly in unison, the use of 'we' emphasized the unity of the assembly"

But each person is praying it themselves. I do not know that the person next to be actually believes, just as he or she knows not whether I do. Hence, we use "I believe"

"should radiate a noble simplicity. "

The same noble simplicity which has been used as an excuse to diminish our beautiful sanctuaries into empty nothingness?

""a major pastoral, catechetical problem erupts"... for you and for many"

No, it's always been "for many" before the Council. For all is clearly wrong.


Another comment mentioned that while it is true that the Creed uses the words "We believe..." when it is recited LITURGICALLY the proper words should be "I believe"...for the precise reason mentioned above - we are saying the prayer for our own self.

As for certain big words most Catholics wouldn't understand...well...one of the words mentioned by the Bishop as being uncomprehensible for the average person was "incarnate." REALLY??? If the average Catholic does not know or understand the meaning of the word "incarnate"...THEN PREACH IT FROM THE PULPIT, for crying out loud. What is incomprehensible to me is the idea that a Bishop would object to the word "incarnate" within the liturgy.

Most people are not that stoooopid. Many times they will grasp the intended meaning by the context of the words surrounding it. So if it turns out that there are a handful of "difficult words" - then that means there are only a handful of words to teach the people.

But the idea here is proper communication - and sometimes common, ordinary, easily understable words are INSUFFICIENT to communicate properly the theological concept that the liturgy is supposed to explicate.

And if we use "easy" words that don't REALLY convey the fullness of the theological concept they are supposed to communicate...well then what has REALLY happened is the lay people will fall victim to sloppy words that they may MISUNDERSTAND just as much as the "difficult" words they don't quite understand. In either case, there is either a misunderstanding (at the worst) or a shallow understanding that does not convey the fullness of our faith (at best).

The best solution is to use the theological terms that most fully convey our faith, even when a little extra effort must be put forth on the catechetical end. But too often, imo, too many clergymen (not all) are so busy talking about rainbows and feel-goodism during their homilies to spend a few minutes talking about theological concepts like "consubstantial." All milk and no meat appeals only to the lowest common denominator.

We're better than that - and we deserve better than that.

Rant over.

God's Peace,

NewMan

Wonderful synopsis!