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.
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.
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 andGod is our Creator.
He is our awesome God. Come let us adore Him.
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.
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!
I'm an engineering type dork, so maybe I'm missing something here. The purpose of words, spoken or written, is to communicate.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?