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 7:30 pm
I just assumed that the prayer in English is "Our Father, who is in heaven…" since that's the way I hear it at every Novus Ordo mass. I don't think "art" to "is" is such a big deal. If the verb went from "art" to "was", then THAT would be a big deal. Don't be so petty here.
June 22, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I made a statement above about 'responding' to a mass and everything 'clicking.'
A subsequent commenter suggested I was relying on feelings and that the heart should follow the mind.
Fair enough, but that is not what I meant. I meant to indicate a strong (for little old me) focus of mind and heart on the Lord and his word and the Blessed Sacrament. Were those occasions just 'feelings?" Again, that is a fair question and one that everyone should continually ask themselves. A good question to ask is what fruit does it produce. In those cases for me, I noticed that in the following weeks my tangible efforts to study scripture and do the will of the Father were noticeably improved. For what it is worth, most people who know me suggest I rely to much on mind and not enough on heart.
In that post, I mentioned that situation has occurred both for guitar and more traditional masses. In both cases, I believe the lyrics and music were aids for me to avail myself of His grace. I believe it is small-minded to say that it was in spite of the guitars. For heavens sake, God makes use of all sorts of tools for different people.
That commenter also suggested that by my reasoning, we should employ heretical hymns if it helped a person respond. I can only reply that I would never agree to that and that the commenter is putting words in my mouth. We must insist on Orthodoxy, but be open minded to how that Orthodoxy is expressed.
I would gently charge that the commenter was relying on his 'feelings' about guitar music and letting that skew his perspective.
June 22, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Anonymous (or rather, one of the folks posting here under that title) wrote:
"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."
With the exception of concrete nouns (e.g. "chair," "pineapple") words in one language rarely have one single exact and perfect equivalent in other languages. The Latin word "multis" does translate fairly cleanly into English as "many". But its in the Eucharistic prayer in the first place because its a translation of a Greek word that appears from the lips of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (the "for you" comes from Luke; the "for all/many/etc" comes from Matthew). And that Greek word can mean what the English word "many" means, or in some uses it can sometimes mean what the English word "all" means.
Now, translating "pro multis" as "for all" in English clearly runs the risk of distorting the text, given that its a short leap from that to universalism, which is a heresy.
But its simply not the case that there is a single correct English rendering of a word from another language. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. His words were then handed down from the Apostles and then later written down in Greek by Paul, Luke & Matthew (differently, one must note), and those texts were later translated into Latin as part of the Eucharsitic prayer. Now we need to translate the phrase into English so that its meaning can be grasped by modern English speakers.
Those who object to using "for many" point out that the sense of this word in this phrase in modern English implies a narrowness of the atonement which is not indicated by The Church's teaching.
If I say "A flood hit New Orleans and many survived" a listener might infer that 20 people survived or 2 million people. Its completely ambiguous, and thus some will conclude that surviving was the exception, and some that perishing was the exception.
If I say "A flood hit New Orleans and all survived" then a listener would almost certainly conclude that none perished in the flood. If I say "A flood hit New Orleans and the multitude survived" then a listener would probably infer that some perished, but that most people lived.
The point is – The Church has always tried very hard to not take a firm position on how common ultimate salvation is. We're to know that salvation is possible, damnation is possible, and that beyond that its best to hope and pray and strive.
In current usage "for many" can easily be read as implying an answer to the question of how common salavation is that is not taught by The Church (and that indeed would be more welcome in Calvinist theology than Catholic theology).
I agree with the traditionalists and the ICEL that "for all" is a bad translation of "pro multis" and thus a new rendering is called for. But its simple minded in the extreme to say you can pick up a Latin dictionary, look up "multis," read the English definition, and have your translation work done for you. Language doesn't work that way. This is a hard problem. I don't envy the ICEL the challenge they face. But those who like the new translation would do well to remind themselves that in addition to those evil progessives on the other side of the argument there are bishops as well. Successors to the apostles.
June 22, 2009 at 8:06 pm
An English translation which is faithful to the Latin is theologically necessary, and can be aesthetically pleasing. To that end, most folks agree the warm-and-fuzzy 1969 ICEL translation is a dud, and something has to replace it.
I simply think Bishop Trautmann is flat-out wrong – 90% of the time. There is something to be said about his comments on the technical, practical need for a text that can be spoken by a native English speaker and can be distinctly heard by same, while remaining as faithful as possible to the Latin.
This does not have so much to do with grammar or vocabulary – if "John and Mary Catholic" hear "consubstantial," they will either look it up or get catechized about it in the parish or diocese (and the USCCB is working on that, thank God). This is about a "sacred" use of English syntax that will have some utility, even in spite of the expected learning curve. ICEL '69 swung way too much toward "noble" simplicity, and ICEL 2010 will hopefully balance out toward "sacred use," something which at least three generations of Catholics have now had little contact with.
June 22, 2009 at 8:49 pm
SD you are blathering and contradicting yourself. First, we are not translating from Aramaic or Greek, we are translating from LATIN. FULL STOP. The Latin has ALREADY been translated carefully from the aforementioned languages. It was not translated as "pro omnibus" or "pro multitudine", but PRO MULTIS for a reason, and it is very exact and clear. We are not going to retroactively "update" the Latin to suit your doubts. Therefore, we are only talking about the latin phrase 'pro multis' into English, which is absolutely, unoquivically correctly translated as "for many". Pro = for, Multis = many. It couldn't be simpler.
Next, you say in one sentence how "many" is ambiguous (i.e. new orleans survivors) then in another say it implies narrowness. No! Pro Multis is CORRECT in its abiguity! "Many" can mean the majority, 99.9% or .00001% numerically speaking for all we know. And we DON'T know. Neither does the church. Only God knows, and this is the point.
Stop playing devil's advocate and get on the right team here.
June 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Paul, here here.
June 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Anonymous
Why, exactly, does "Multis" = "many?" Because a dictionary says so? Are dictionaries part of the deposit of faith? Infallible dogma?
"Multis" is a word in Latin. "Many" is a word in English. They may well mean similar things. In some contexts "many" may be the right translation for "mutlis." In others it may not.
Some Latin uses of "multis" imply something like what would best be translated in English as "the comman man," "the herd" or "the rabble." Do you think that the mass text implies that the Blood of Jesus will be shed "for you (the Apostles) and for the common man" (i.e. not for aristocrats)? Of course not. That's ludicrous.
You cannot get away from having to interpret the text theologically by asserting that "Latin word X" = "English word Y." They are different languages, spoken by people 2000 years apart. Words aren't numbers in an equation. Their meaning depends on context, the speaker/author's intent, etc.
Its one thing to say that "for all" is clearly wrong. I agree. But its another thing to assert that the most literal rendering "for many" is also the rendering which most faithfully and accurately converys the meaning of the original text.
June 22, 2009 at 9:48 pm
SD without going into my linguistic credentials, it is a given that inheritor languages from Latin (i.e. the Romance languages) which are living vulgates are close enough to Latin to translate directly. "Pro Multis" = per molti, por muchos, por muitos, pour beaucoup in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French respectively. This is not due to any dictionary translation, but the living mothertongue speakers of languages derived from Latin. In all cases, these languages have "pro multis" translated badly into "for all" in their liturgies as well. It is the SAME situation and they all raised the same complaints and arguments. Why? Because if you take Italian which is the closest, it is incomprehensible how anyone could justify translating "pro multis" (per molti) to "per tutti". Completely different word and meaning. I can't make this any clearer here.
June 22, 2009 at 10:14 pm
<<"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.">>
It was very kind of Bishop Trautman to demonstrate from the floor exactly what kind of a sentence won't pass muster in his preferred liturgy.
June 22, 2009 at 10:39 pm
"These dodos are merely delaying the inevitable."
Although I thoroughly agree with your disagreement with Bishop Trautman, your referring to him and his brother bishops as "dodos" is extremely disrespectful towards a man in ecclesial authority.
Let's try to avoid ad hominem attacks, especially towards our bishops.
June 22, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Pio well said. It's often hard to believe this is marketed as a Catholic blog.
By their fruits shall they be known.
June 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Anonymous at 2:30 said, "I just assumed that the prayer in English is 'Our Father who is in heaven'…" Grammatically, it would be "Our Father who are in heaven". We say "you are", not "you is".
Jacqueline Y.
June 23, 2009 at 7:01 pm
First of all, I think we should focus on which language most truly and beautifully praises God. We should use the full riches of the English language to do so, without at all worrying whether the vocabulary is difficult for the average person. It ought to be difficult and beyond the ordinary; the subject is God, Who is beyond us, beyond the ordinary, to the understanding of Whom we can only begin to stretch. Has anyone here read the reaction of the blogger at "Real Live Preacher" when he attended an Orthodox liturgy for the first time" http://reallivepreacher.com/node/1422
"Long, complex readings and chants that went on and on and on. And every one of them packed full of complex theological ideas. It was like they were ripping raw chunks of theology out of ancient creeds and thowing them by the handfuls into the congregation. And just to make sure it wasnt't too easy for us, everything was read in a monotone voice and at the speed of an auctioneer. I heard words and phrases I had not heard since seminary. Theotokos, begotten not made, Cherubim and Seraphim born on their pinions, supplications and oblations. It was an ADD kids nightmare,. Robes, scary art, candle sticks, chants and singing from a small choir that rolled across the curved ceiling and emerged from the other sie of the room where no one was singing. …
We were following along it the 40 page liturgy book that was only an abbreviation of the service we were experiencing. ….. " So what did I think about my experience at ST. Anthony the Great Orthodox Church? I LOVED IT. Loved it,loved it,loved it loved it loved it. In a day when user-friendly is the byword of everything from churches to software, here was worship that asked something of me. No, DEMANDED something of me. You don't know what Theotokos means, get a book and read about it. You have a hard time standing for two hours? Do some situps and get yourself into worship shape. It is the Lord our God we worship here, motal, What made you think you could worship the Eternal One without pain. ….There is so much for you to learn. There is more here than a person could master ina lifetime. THIS IS BIGGER THAN YOU ARE. Your understanding is not central here. These are the ancient rites of the church. "
This is what Bishop Trautman and those who agree with him are missing. The mass is bigger than we are because God is bigger than we are, and it shouldn't be brought down to our level, in language, in music, in ritual, or in architecture.
I do think the genius of the Roman rite is something different from that of the rite of St. John Chrysostom, something more spare and simple, but it should be high and noble and divine in its spareness. Not easy and understandable. Not "user friendly."
The rite of St. John Chrysostom manages to be awesome even in some fairly poor translations but the spareness of the Roman rite and especially the Novus ordo rite, makes the language much more important. Unfortunately, a great writer of liturgical language cannot be ordered up on demand. The best thing would be an accurate translation which was also mellifluous. But where today is there a Latinist who is also a great writer? Lacking that, we must make do with accuracy which transmits the full meaning of the text. That is difficult enough, without the translators also having to worry if the text they produce exceeds a 5th grade reading level!
Susan Peterson
June 23, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I agree with Pio Magnus that we should avoid ad hominem attacks. Anonymous at 6:52 is judging this blog too harshly, IMO. I also wish that he or she would choose a screen name, in order to avoid being perceived as a "drive-by" poster. And I find Deirdre Mundy's and Paul Stokell's comments very helpful.
Jacqueline Y.
June 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm
If we all went to the mass of St. Pius V then we wouldn't need to have this argument.
June 23, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I want to listen to Bishop Trautman if for no other reason than to understand the opposing viewpoint.
But then he chooses to plant his flag and die on some very bizarre landscapes. He has a problem with "sweetness"? He's running out of toes to shoot off.
And I never hear alternatives, just a consisting, carping gainsaying of what's on the table. Until I can evaluate his alternative, I'm going to keep tuning him out.
June 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Likewise: what's your alternative translation of pro multis, sd?
In this era where the culture tends toward instant canonization after death, I don't think the real worry of the Church should be "Calvinism." Disabusing a lazy sense of universalism should be more on the menu, which our Lord's words do and the "many" translation used to do.
June 24, 2009 at 1:34 am
I'm rather insulted that some of these bishops seem to be assuming that we do not have sufficient intelligence to understand compound-complex sentences.
June 24, 2009 at 5:20 am
Perhaps we should just learn Latin 😉
Seriously,
the lesson to be learned is obedience.
There is a lot there,
Observe your own reactions to these words. It is a beginning.
God bless His Bishops and protect and guide them.
Jenne
June 24, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Jenne yes, all Catholics should learn at least SOME Latin. I don't know if you were being silly or serious, but since Latin is still the official language of the Catholic church, anyone who belongs to it should at the very least take an interest in it.