Bishop Criticizes 'slavishly Literal' English Translation Of M

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='01 November 2009 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1257084874' post='1994782']
I think its important to remember, that not every Catholic in the pew on Sunday, has the aptitude to understand complex phrases which require theological study.

There are those who have simple minds, but also simple hearts and faith.

If you read the Bishops criticism, he stated that the Mass should remain simple. Perhaps its the poor and elderly
he has in mind?

Its not about being conservative or liberal. Its about compassion for all who attend Mass, and bringing them into the liturgy along
with the college professors and lawyers.

Jim
[/quote]
Nobody said they had to understand everything, last I checked it was not a requirement to go to Mass.
But God forbid we shouldn't make sure the Mass dumbed down so only simple minds can understand it... Did you ever hear of a dictionary or simply asking the priest what something means if you really want to know. The idea we have to use language simple enough for the average 5 grading reading level is nonsense and insulting.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='01 November 2009 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1257089438' post='1994796']
Nobody said they had to understand everything, last I checked it was not a requirement to go to Mass.
But God forbid we shouldn't make sure the Mass dumbed down so only simple minds can understand it... Did you ever hear of a dictionary or simply asking the priest what something means if you really want to know. The idea we have to use language simple enough for the average 5 grading reading level is nonsense and insulting.
[/quote]
For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in [i]Pretty Woman[/i] where he takes her to the opera, her first opera, and while she doesn't understand it all, she's moved to tears by the beauty of it. While obviously the Mass is on a different plane, I don't think the comparison is completely off. I personally tire of things being dumbed down, and don't mind encountering new words. Yes, the people should be informed as to what the word means, and why it's been changed, but don't change the words just because people might not immediately know a word. Besides, it seems the new translation is more precise from what I've seen (bearing in mind that I know no Latin other than what I hear at Mass on occasion).

[Maggyie]

I don't understand why the bishop thinks words like incarnate or precursor are hard for the average person to understand. These are not hard words. How hard it is to figure out what unvanquished means? Probably the opposite of vanquished? And I would hope that in 21st century America 95% of the public knows what "vanquished" means. These aren't even specialized theological terms, most of them.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Maggie

[Luigi]

My final thoughts, and then a joke.

1. Those who study rhetoric (and liturgical language would qualify as a kind of rhetoric) always consider the rhetorical situation - who is speaking, to whom, and for what purpose? In the Western world, it is always the resposibility of the speaker to address the audience on the audience's own level; one can't talk to a child as if she held a Ph.D nor would one address a Ph.D. as if she were a child. The question currently under debate is where the language should be aimed. Is God the Father speaking to the faithful? Is Jesus speaking to the faithful? Are Vatican theologians speaking to the faithful? Who is being addresssed? People with minimal education? People with average American educations? People with college educations? People with advanced degrees? Is the purpose of litugical language to impress the faithful, or is it to allow them to express their faith? Of course there are many other possible answers here, too. Many people have complained of "dumbing down" - I don't think it's a question of dumb versus intelligent. My stance is that it's more a question of making the faith and its mysteries, as expressed in divine worship, as accessible and comprehensible to as many of God's people as possible; in that case, simple but noble (as opposed to merely simplistic) language is what the bishops & translators should be aiming for.

2. Those who study education know Vygotsky's theory of proximal development. People learn when they can connect new information to information they already know, and the new information needs to be just above their current level of knowledge. In terms of liturgical language, the questions are: Does teaching have a place in Mass, or should the emphasis be on celebrating/re-enacting/participating in the liturgy? What do the faithful already know? If teaching is important in Mass, then what level of language will be just above the current knowledge level of the people in the pews?

3. A possibility we haven't even mentioned yet is that, at least for the Eucharistic prayers, the bishops could write them at various levels of rhetorical complexity. We currently have a number of approved Eucharistic prayers - some are specific to certain celebrations, but the priest also has some choice for ordinary Masses. The translators and bishops could choose to write some of the new Euchristic prayers at a more accessible level and others at a more complex level.

4. I take comfort in the fact that what we say in this Phorum will probably not have any impact on the bishops' & translators' final decisions. The bishop of Erie, of whom I know exactly nothing but whose comments began this thread, was called by the Holy Spirit to his position; I assume that the remarks he made about the new translations were also inspired by the Holy Spirit at least to some degree. By the same token, any bishops who disagree with him were also called and anointed by the Holy Spirit. Peter and Paul argued vigorously about important issues in the early Church; we see once again that the more things change, the more they stay the same. But I trust that they are all arguing under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I will be praying, in union with all the saints and angels in heaven, that the Holy Spirit will guide our current Peters and Pauls to the conclusion most beneficial to the people of God.

5. Does everyone know that, back in the old days, telephone numbers began with words? EVergreen 5-5555, or FOrest 2-2222? Everyone knows that, when Mass was always celebrated in Latin, the priest intoned "Dominus vobiscum" and the people (or the choir, or the altar boys) replied with "Et cum spiritu tuo" - but friends of mine who grew up in the pre-Vatican II church tell me that the people didn't sing the words as written, quite. It usually came out more like "Et cum spiri tu-tu-o." So the very first truly Catholic joke I ever heard, as told to me by those folks who grew up in the pre-Vatican II era was:

What's God's telephone number?
Et Cum Spiri - 220.

Ciao.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='01 November 2009 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1257089112' post='1994794']
Some attend a TLM, to bring back memories of the old days, when they could do less at Mass than in the NO form.

I grew up with the TLM. Parishioners for the most part, sat and watched while the priest and altar boys said the Mass A few followed along in the missal, others prayed the Rosary, some fell asleep.


There was a reason why Vatican II called for reforms in the Mass. Go read what the reasons were.

Jim
[/quote]

There was also a reason why the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict, Pope of Rome stated that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated and that it is a form of the Roman Rite just as much as the 2002 Missal is.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Luigi' date='01 November 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1257098434' post='1994833']
My final thoughts, and then a joke.

1. Those who study rhetoric (and liturgical language would qualify as a kind of rhetoric) always consider the rhetorical situation - who is speaking, to whom, and for what purpose? In the Western world, it is always the resposibility of the speaker to address the audience on the audience's own level; one can't talk to a child as if she held a Ph.D nor would one address a Ph.D. as if she were a child. The question currently under debate is where the language should be aimed. Is God the Father speaking to the faithful? Is Jesus speaking to the faithful? Are Vatican theologians speaking to the faithful? Who is being addresssed? People with minimal education? People with average American educations? People with college educations? People with advanced degrees? Is the purpose of litugical language to impress the faithful, or is it to allow them to express their faith? Of course there are many other possible answers here, too. Many people have complained of "dumbing down" - I don't think it's a question of dumb versus intelligent. My stance is that it's more a question of making the faith and its mysteries, as expressed in divine worship, as accessible and comprehensible to as many of God's people as possible; in that case, simple but noble (as opposed to merely simplistic) language is what the bishops & translators should be aiming for.
[/quote]

The priest is not speaking to the faithful during most of Mass.

He is speaking to God.

[picchick]

[quote name='Luigi' date='01 November 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1257098434' post='1994833']
5. Does everyone know that, back in the old days, telephone numbers began with words? EVergreen 5-5555, or FOrest 2-2222? Everyone knows that, when Mass was always celebrated in Latin, the priest intoned "Dominus vobiscum" and the people (or the choir, or the altar boys) replied with "Et cum spiritu tuo" - but friends of mine who grew up in the pre-Vatican II church tell me that the people didn't sing the words as written, quite. It usually came out more like "Et cum spiri tu-tu-o." So the very first truly Catholic joke I ever heard, as told to me by those folks who grew up in the pre-Vatican II era was:

What's God's telephone number?
Et Cum Spiri - 220.

Ciao.
[/quote]

Pennsylvania 6-5000

[Aloysius]

1. God is being addressed, not the people. His vocabulary is infinite.

2. The liturgy is not about teaching. any learning that comes from the liturgy is secondary. it is edifying to be sure, but the reason it is edifying is that one engages in actual participation and is not some passive student. the better analogy to education is an analogy to linguistic education: the liturgy ought to be "full immersion", which is the absolute best way to learn language... with a full immersion liturgy, you learn by actually participating in the mysteries. not with the goal of learning, but with the goal of participating in the mysteries.

3. I am of the opinion that only the Roman Canon ought to be used. too many Eucharistic Prayers breed disunity and, of course, it seems that the priests will most often choose the shortest one. The fact is that the Church is inclusive precisely because it only offers one thing to all... it offers gold chalices to the rich and poor alike; sacred language to the learned and uneducated alike; the best of the best to all so that everyone who goes to Church on Sunday feels that they have encountered the true Best of the best, Our Lord. And yet, with some priests who have a didactic understanding of the mass, I feel as though I have encountered the best kindergarten teacher telling me all the things he thinks will make me warm and fuzzy. Please God let us not have a kindergarten Eucharistic prayer.

and under the current Pope, you will indeed be finding an increase in liturgical diversity in the Roman Rite, but only under a certain understanding: organic development. he's more than willing to increase the diversity of the liturgy, but not by approving something some committee has newly written up (like some new number of Eucharistic prayers), only organic liturgies like the TLM or the Anglican liturgies and such would be approved. This is not 1969, there will be no more experimentation with the liturgy.

4. Yes, and indeed Bishop Trautman doesn't really have much of a say either. All he could hope to do is try to delay it until there is a new Pope and hope that the new Pope reverses the course started by John Paul II and Benedict XVI towards better liturgical translation. So long as Liturgiam Authenticam (from 2001, under John Paul II) stands as the translation standards, it is only a matter of time until the English liturgy is indeed "slavishly literal"

5.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Luigi' date='01 November 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1257098434' post='1994833']
The bishop of Erie, of whom I know exactly nothing but whose comments began this thread, was called by the Holy Spirit to his position; I assume that the remarks he made about the new translations were also inspired by the Holy Spirit at least to some degree.
[/quote]

As a theologian, I must point out that it would be erroneous to say that all bishops are guided in all things by the Holy Spirit.

[little_miss_late]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1257055270' post='1994731']

don't scoff at the form of the words, for ours is a linguistic religion, a religion of the WORD made flesh. every encounter with our religion ought to be an encounter with a WORD which challenges us. when that becomes literally true and there are actual words that challenge us, it does nothing but enhance our religion by making a truly incarnate tangible experience of that spiritual reality.

[/quote]

+1

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 02:25 AM' timestamp='1257089112' post='1994794']
Some attend a TLM, to bring back memories of the old days, when they could do less at Mass than in the NO form.

I grew up with the TLM. Parishioners for the most part, sat and watched while the priest and altar boys said the Mass A few followed along in the missal, others prayed the Rosary, some fell asleep.


There was a reason why Vatican II called for reforms in the Mass. Go read what the reasons were.

Jim
[/quote]


This seems a pretty harsh generalization of the reasons why some people attend a Latin Mass! What impressed me was attending a weekday Latin Mass and seeing an elderly man in front of me who didn't use a missal, but seemed to be there drinking in the beauty of it all. There weren't many of us in attendance during the week, so if he were only going for the "memories", so that he could "do less" in the Mass (according to your reasoning), then why was he there at all? He could have done a lot less by not attending at all! Some people do attend a Latin Mass to pray to God, and to participate in the sacrifice offered by the priest to God.

And you presume also that I have never read anything about the Council or why the reforms were put in place. This, too seems a little harsh. I may not be a theologian, so you might be surprised to learn that I have actually read the Council documents already! I am not saying that the NO is wrong - I love a really well done NO (and hate one that lacks reverence or understanding), but I also love the beauty of the Latin Mass as well.

All I can say is "ouch".

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='01 November 2009 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1257089112' post='1994794']
Some attend a TLM, to bring back memories of the old days, when they could do less at Mass than in the NO form.

I grew up with the TLM. Parishioners for the most part, sat and watched while the priest and altar boys said the Mass A few followed along in the missal, others prayed the Rosary, some fell asleep.


There was a reason why Vatican II called for reforms in the Mass. Go read what the reasons were.

Jim
[/quote]
I love the EF Mass and I'm only 25. I also love the OF when it's done properly.

I don't think we need an "us vs. them" attitude toward the Mass, seeing as it's an expression of the communion of the saints in Christ.

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='30 October 2009 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1256948009' post='1994140']
What a massive insult to his congregation. Why doesn't he just say "you guys are too dumb to understand this stuff"? I'm an 18 year old kid and I know what all those words mean with the exception of "ignominy". [/quote]
It's a variety of corn.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1257103681' post='1994855']
4. Yes, and indeed Bishop Trautman doesn't really have much of a say either. All he could hope to do is try to delay it until there is a new Pope and hope that the new Pope reverses the course started by John Paul II and Benedict XVI towards better liturgical translation. So long as Liturgiam Authenticam (from 2001, under John Paul II) stands as the translation standards, it is only a matter of time until the English liturgy is indeed "slavishly literal"
[/quote]
Bishop Trautman is 73 years old and will be retiring in about two years, so he cannot delay things for very long.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='nunsense' date='31 October 2009 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1257051504' post='1994709']
Especially a Mass like this one. Two incredible hours of heavenly beauty at a sung Solemn Mass.

From the leaflet...

"Works by Renaissance contemporaries Victoria and Guerrero with full Propers for All Saints by William Byrd, all sung for the very first time in Australia in the liturgy for which they were composed." Nuova Cappella Ciulia choir, Directed by Nicholas Dinopoulos

But once again, words fail.... sometimes I stopped listening to the Latin words they were singing, and just let it all wash over me and take my heart up to the altar... sweetness.
[/quote]

WHAT THE!
Where was this? St. Aloysius'? Or St. Pat's?