Mailing it in. That is what the US Bishops will need to do in order to approve the new translations of the liturgy. The Bishops in conference failed to achieve the 2/3 majority needed to pass the translations because of a detachment of dinosaurs who cannot let go of the poorly translated but oh-so-inclusive past.
Of course, perennial patronizer led the charge against what is essentially a fait accompli either after the mail in vote or when the Vatican finally takes it out of the Bishops conference’s hands.
Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., had several times raised questions about the timetable for submitting the liturgical texts and voiced frustration with their grammar, sentence structure and word choices that he said were not suited to contemporary worship.
“I say yes to more accurate Latin translation … yes to a more elevated tone,” Bishop Trautman said from the floor. “But a resounding no to incomplete sentences, to two and three clauses in sentences, no to 13 lines in one sentence, no to archaic phrases, no to texts that are not proclaimable, not intelligible and not pastorally sensitive to our people.”
I can think of a couple of unproclaimable phrases right about now.
You will remember that Bishop Trautman’s main beef with the translations are his assumption that you are too stupid to understand them. He maintains that same line today. Try to keep up.
In an interview with Catholic News Service Bishop Trautman singled out for example a phrase included in the translations for votive Masses and Masses for the dead: “May the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Lord, cleanse our hearts and make them fruitful within by the sprinkling of his dew.”
“What does that even mean?” he asked, citing frustration also with phrases such as “the sweetness of your grace.”
“I don’t think the word ‘sweetness’ relates to people today,” at least not in the way the translation intends, he told CNS.
What Bishop Trautman and the rest of the hold outs fail to realize is that they are the ones who fail to relate to the people of today. These dodos are merely delaying the inevitable. The translations will eventually be approved and the liturgy will be better for it.
When finally we hear this better translation of the liturgy at mass, my long parched soul will be soothed by the its dew and I will relish its sweetness even more.
June 22, 2009 at 6:07 am
Yet another bishop who doesn't want us to know what "pro multis" really means.
Thank God for our Pope.
June 22, 2009 at 6:09 am
My daughter had to go to the 6pm Mass at our parish tonight because of her busy, busy schedule.
"It was GUITARS" she wailed as she got into the car afterwards.
Snort.
June 22, 2009 at 6:16 am
Amy – at least it wasn't dueling banjos.
Hard to imagine sometimes, but it can always be worse. Miserere nobis.
June 22, 2009 at 9:38 am
Please, let the new translation and its full implementation – rubrics and all! – come as soon as possible.
Today, our feminazi pianist at Mass did her usual on-the-fly castration of every male term sung in the Mass, which is pretty amazing given that the Catholic Book of Worship III we use in Canada is nearly max-neutered for non-offensiveness. That she committed even more such liturgical improprieties on Father's Day seemed an obvious act intended to move us toward "inclusivity". In reality, it merely proves that she has issues.
My English Wesleyan Methodist mother, God rest her soul, used to roll her eyes and dismiss such people who insisted on changing words as foolish for thinking that we poor folk in the pew weren't smart enough to figure out when "man" referred to both men and women and when "man" referred, for good reason, exclusively to males. Argue all you want, but the term "man" can and does refer to men exclusively AND to both men and women. Have we lost an appreciation for context? Some elitists might think we need indoctrination into the "inclusive" mindset, or some bishops think we are not smart enough to figure out what an unfamiliar word might mean. Do they think their are no dictionaries to be had? However, I'm convinced the common man knows better (than some bishops).
I'm holding on to the prospect that Bishops and priests will use the opportunity afforded them to remind those dissenters and language manipulators among us to keep their cotton pickin' fingers (no offense to cotton pickers) off the Liturgy. Quite frankly, I think you in the States have more bishops with spines than we do up in here in Canada. Our proud Canadian heritage of "offend none and thereby offend all" is more likely to result in a glossing over of the text in parishes with little or no admonition to be faithful to the received text.
Give us the Latin properly translated into English and let's get on with praising the Lord and being faithful to His Word.
June 22, 2009 at 10:21 am
'Sweet' is actually a trendy word.
June 22, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Please do. p.s. wait for CNS to blast it when it does, their local "legal" abortion, Obama loving, Teddy bear Analogies loving, etc pushing paper did when we came closer to the Latin!
June 22, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I do not now and have never understood why the push for the new translation arouses such anger in people. Let me ask this: will the new translation bring you closer to God? Will it so profoundly change your experience of the sacrifice of the Mass that it is essential?
While the Church struggles with real issues like declining church attendance, an increase of "a la carte" Catholics, and an ever increasing number of people who are believers but not belongers, this issue seems like an extremely low priority.
I am as conservative a Catholic as anyone else, but making divisive statements like that does nothing to build up the Body of Christ, and in fact serves only to tear it down.
I actually agree with the bishop when he argues against the use of archaic language. There is a reason we don't walk around today telling people "God ye good den!" Archaic language is just that: archaic. If people don't know what they are saying, how does that elevate or enhance their experience? If a word is no longer in use, why would we use it?
June 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I suppose, then, that you say "Our Father, who IS in heaven, sacred is your name"? Preserving archaisms is one of the ways that tradition is handed on from one generation to the next. Preserving clarity is also important, so it's a balancing act. Bishop Trautman is clearly sitting on the ground at one end of the see saw.
June 22, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Anonymous, above, stole my thunder. The "Our Father" and "Hail Mary" have Thee and Thy in them. Is there anyone who does not know what it means?
Also, did anyone not understand the dialog in the "Pirates of the Carribean" movies? There was lots of "archaic" language in there. I'm pretty sure every one of Johnny Depp's words were understood. Clearly, Disney knows the hoi palloi are capable of understanding; why not the bishops?
June 22, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Actually Jonathan the Liturgy is of the greatest priorities. It is the liturgy and the Catholic formation that proceeds from it that is the reason why so many fall away from the Church.
A bad liturgy spawns many of the problems in the Church. Lack of reverence towards the Holy Eucharist, lack of understanding of what it is we do at Mass. They may be able to understand the words but what good is it if they don't understand what it is to worship God?
The Liturgy and the architecture that is built around it since the hijacking of the reform of VII has reduced the worship of God to the celebration of people. When the focus of God is lost, then everything is lost.
June 22, 2009 at 3:35 pm
What does it say about a Catholic who is so quick to describe successors to the apostles as "dinosaurs" because they disagree with his own opinion on the quality of the new English translations?
There are legitimate reasons to want a new English translation of the liturgical texts. And there are legitimate objections to the texts currently being put forward by the ICEL.
When one translates a text that is intended to be used for public reading there is an inherent tradeoff between accuracy and speakability. There is. That's not a figment of the "liberal" imagination. Its a fact of life. The ICEL has resolved that tradeoff heavily in favor of accuracy, to the detriment of speakability. The previous translations resolved that tradeoff heavily in favor of speakability to the detriment of accuracy. The pendulum may need to swing back toward accuracy, but that's not to say that the right answer is to swing just as far off balance in the other direction.
And even that leaves aside the question of how "accurate" the new translations really are. "Traditionalists" are correct that translating "pro multis" as "for all" is not accurate. But in the context of the text its not clear to me that translating "pro multis" as "for many" is particularly accurate either.
True, the most accurate rendering of "multis" in English is typically "many," but Jesus' words at the last supper are clearly, in context, meant to imply an abundant gift to the world.
Translating "pro multis" as "for multitudes" or "for the multitudes" would, for example, capture the overwhelming outpouring of divine love in the Eucharist while at the same time avoiding the inaccuracy of "for all."
In standard American English "for multitudes" simply sounds more generous and expansive than "for many." "Many" could mean 20 billion people or it could mean 20 people. Its a dry, technical word that means "more than 3 or 4" and "less than everyone."
So see, here's a very practical example of where its not possible to say that a single English rendering of a word is definitely the "most accurate" rendering of a Latin term (itself derived from Greek source material). One may have legitimate opinions on which of several tersm is most fitting (even after stipulating that "all" is inaccurate and not-appropriate here).
But hey, why let nuance stand in the way of insulting a bishop of the church?
June 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I can't wait for the new translation–not only is nit closer to the Latin, it's also more scriptural! So it will be easier to show my kids where prayers like 'Lord I am not worthy" COME from.
And liturgy SHOULD be formal and beautiful. We believe what we pray. If we pray the liturgy as some sort of casual-in-the-moment thing, we'll treat our religion like that too. We NEED timelessness and eternity!
And yes, SOME people are so holy and focused that they can concentrate and pray even at a guitar-clown-polka-dancing Mass…..
But some of us are more ADD– and we need the statues, the stained glass, the fancy music and the formal words to help keep us on task— They remind us that it is NOT time to draw up a list of chores or replay a phone conversation, but to focus of GOD.
Please take us weaklings into account—we NEED a liturgy that helps us in our work of praise… and that means creating the proper artistic, musical and literary environment.
The Medievals got this…. I'm not sure why Trautman doesn't. It's us "little people" who NEED the beauty most!!!!
June 22, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I am seeing a a lot of sweeping generalizations in these comments. Here are my two cents.
The liturgy is indeed enormously important and we need decisions that help the mass-goers draw closer to God. The real dilemma is that different people respond to different stimuli. In my own case I can point to a few amazing mass experiences where everything was clicking – some were guitar masses and some were organ masses with a much more traditional flair. But some folks will only respond to traditional and some only to more modern.
Not all guitar masses are "clown masses" and not all modern hymns are heretical.
Some traditional mass-devotees are there to appreciate fine music rather than get closer to God.
The issues of accurate translations is more complex and needs to be addressed with specificity rather than the broad brushed strokes appearing here.
June 22, 2009 at 4:55 pm
But hey, why let nuance stand in the way of insulting a bishop of the church?
(*Gak!*) Y'know… before "progressivist obfuscators" started equivocating their ways into the hearts of the ill-catechized, "nuance" used to be a halfway-decent word. Now, it's the etymological equivalent of Elixir of Ipecac…
Oh, yes… here's the translation of the above for the poor lay folk who find big words "tooooo haaaard":
"Nuance" used'ta be a purty cool word, 'till them crazy libs got'a hold of it; now, ah caint rightly stop from tossin' mah cookies when ah hear the cotton-pickin' word!
June 22, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Anonymous wrote:
But some folks will only respond to traditional and some only to more modern.
Not all guitar masses are "clown masses" and not all modern hymns are heretical.
Well… by that argument, wouldn't you have to say that "some folks will only respond to clown Masses" and "some folks will only respond to heretical hymns"? I have to question your premise, at any rate; "responding" is more than just a feeling of the sentimental jollies, warm fuzzies, or what Arnold Lunn used to call a "FIF".
No one in his right mind is going out of his way to be sure that newcomers have a wretched experience; but is it too much to ask that the POINT of Sacred Liturgy be an elevation of the MIND to God, and let the heart follow the mind (as it should in the first place)? Check out Jeremiah 17:9, for emphasis on that… but suffice it to say that "the heart" (i.e. "feelings") shouldn't be used as guides for *anything* of objective substance, least of all liturgical norms and structures.
June 22, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I also await the new translation, derailed for so many years.
For SO long we have had to live with watered down 'translations' that do not convey the meaning of the Latin.
My favorite Novus Ordo is the Anglican Use!!! Beautiful prayers that we are ordinarily deprived of.
If you ever read Fr. Z and see what the pray SHOULD say as opposed to the banal translation we get, you will know what I mean.
June 22, 2009 at 5:17 pm
"But hey, why let nuance stand in the way of insulting a bishop of the church?"
Indeed. A lot of nuance is being missed, but the echo chamber of St Blog's is ever predictable, if it lacks subtlety. As for dinosaurs, you probably had better level blame on the CDWDS. A better translation was approved 17 years ago by all the English-speaking bishops of the world. Where is that effort, we might ask?
"Oh, yes… here's the translation of the above for the poor lay folk who find big words "tooooo haaaard":"
It's always amusing these days then this meme is criticized by the same people who adopt it when they're "shocked" (insulted really) by pro-choice Catholics deceiving the … poor dumb laity. Good to know rank-and-file Catholics can alter their intellectual prowess to suit the ideology of the Right.
The whole translation effort needs to go back to the drawing board. We have a timeless universal Church, and we should take the time to get it right.
June 22, 2009 at 5:52 pm
First of all, to various anonymous posters, I like to know who is arguing against me, so please use a name instead of hiding behind a veil of anonymity.
Second, my objection to archaic language may not have been as well-explained as I had hoped. No, I do not say "who is in heaven, sacred is your name." And for various reasons: I would differentiate an archaic word (that is, a word no longer in use and whose meaning may not be clear) differs from an archaic verb conjugation. I know what "art" means, and I suspect 99.99% of Catholics do as well. And hallowed is a word in wide use. But that is beside the point. My point is that there is no necessity to revert to archaic language. Where it exists now is fine, and I am not suggesting the whole and complete modernization of the language of the liturgy. What I am against is reverting back to archaic language when there is no need.
I mean, if you want to go that far, why aren't we looking at the original Aramaic in which Jesus spoke, and change the words of the Eucharistic prayer from "This is my body" and "This is my blood" to what the Aramaic reads: "This, my body" and This, my blood."
The meaning is still as clear as day.
But I can tell you that I would not feel more reverent or closer to God if I said, "I am not worthy that you should enter into my house" than if I say, "I am not worthy to receive you."
To blast those who disagree because of a seeming preoccupation with slicing, dicing, parsing, and splicing language is unseemly and divisive. Ultimately, I will abise by the decision of the Bishops and I won't complain about it, but at this point, it seems like the bickering is doing nothing to elevate the Church.
June 22, 2009 at 7:20 pm
The way I see it is if I don't understand something it's incumbent upon me to say so . . . so don't just assume I'm a dumdum, thank you very much, Bishop Trautman.
Geesh!
June 22, 2009 at 7:27 pm
SD So see, here's a very practical example of where its not possible to say that a single English rendering of a word is definitely the "most accurate"
No, here's a perfect example of some arm-chair dolt who doesn't know what he's talking about. Pro-multis means "for many". Pro-multitudine" means for the multitudes. Regardless if you personally don't like this fact, and wish it were a translation of your choice, the fact remains.
Just as you were able to make the jump from pro-multis to thinking about the loaves and fishes story, so too can (and do) many other of the faithful. You are not so particularly smart or gifted theologically that are the only one to understand this. You give yourself way too much credit. So, instead of making bad Latin translations just to suit your personal style, let people who actually understand the language take care of this one. God's will be done here.