“The Chair” speaks.

The Tablet is aiding and abetting. 

They have published a piece by His Excellency Donald W. Trautman, "the Chair".  He heads the USCCB’s Committee on Liturgy (BCL).  "The Chair" is the perennial foe of hard words and the Holy See’s norms for translation of liturgical texts.  He often speaks publically against the Holy See’s norms and against the work of the reincarnated ICEL.  I have often reported his speeches in these blogish pages and in the print edition of The Wanderer.  What The Tablet published must be the speech H.E. gave in at the liturgists meeting in Toronto a while back.

Before reading ahead, please know that I think His Excellency "The Chair" of the BCL has every right to express his desires for liturgical translations.  I wish he would put his considerable energy and clout into pushing better opinions.  In any event, H.E. is taking a public stand and so is WDTPRS. 

"The Chair"’s warmed-up Toronto speech in The Tablet with my emphasis and comments:

3 February 2007

A pastoral deficit

Donald Trautman
   
Whether the faith needs of the people are being met in the Eucharist; whether the liturgical rituals are understandable; and whether the liturgy touches the ordinary members of the congregation are all questions about the pastoral function of liturgy. The proposed new English translation of the Order of Mass, as presented by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, needs to be assessed in these terms. How truly pastoral is it? 
[This begs the question: How pastoral are the lame-duck translations?  NOTA BENE: Very often when you hear the BZZZ-word "pastoral", the user is setting up a contrast between "unchallenging" and "intelligent".]

In evaluating the translations we need to consider whether the texts are both understandable and proclaimable, and whether they use a word order, vocabulary and idiom of the mainstream of English - speaking people ["Have they been dumbed-down enough"]. If these texts are to be the prayers of the people, are they owned by them and expressed in their language?  [Wait a moment: They are NOT the "prayers of the people" of St. Ipsidipsy in Tall Tree Circle.  They are the prayers of the People of God the UNIVERSAL Church!  Nobody "owns" them in the sense that I can "own my car" and buy it without any options or even repaint it if I want.] The texts include new words of the Creed, such as "consubstantial to the Father" [After "pro multis" this is the point I have been hammering.  The fact that "the Chair" mentions it probably means he lost another round.] and "incarnate of the Virgin Mary", while words in the various new Collects include "sullied", "unfeigned", "ineffable", "gibbet", "wrought", thwart" [OMG! OMG! OMG!  Those words are sooo harrrd!!!]. Do these translated texts communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly? Will God’s people understand the fourth paragraph of the proposed Blessing of Baptismal Water, which has 56 words or 11 lines in one sentence?  Let me treat in particular the new demand for a sacred vocabulary in liturgical texts. The instruction Liturgiam Authenticam (norm 27) of 2001 advocates [Nooo.... "orders".... a simple word] "a sacred style that will come to be recognised [In other words, it doesn't have to produce immediate clarity] as proper to liturgical language". But scholars have pointed out that the celebration of the Eucharist always followed the language of the people. There was no such thing in East or West as a sacred language.  [Yes, but there were nevertheless still both intelligent language and lousy language of the lowest common demoninator.  And I think there probably is even now.  I think if you say "Vouchsafe, O Waiter, we beseech Thee..." he'll wonder why you are praying to him.]

Some would contend [Behold a perfect use of the Episcopal Subjunctive!  "I would say that perhaps it might maybe ..." ] that this new approach by the Vatican derives from a decided loss of a sense of awe, mystery and transcendence in the liturgy after the Second Vatican Council. Yet, while no one should be opposed to the transcendent dimension in liturgical translation, an exaggerated attention to the sacred distorts the balance between transcendence and immanence.  [Yah... I'd say that eliminating the transcendent entirely really helped achieve that balance.]

Scripture presents God under a twofold image: king and neighbour, [Puhleeez...] transcendence and immanence. At times God shows himself as an awesome and powerful presence, a mighty monarch controlling the universe who prompts awe in his people. We see an example of this in the Old Testament when God appears to Moses at the burning bush. Moses takes off his sandals because he is on holy ground and he bows his head. In the New Testament, Christ is transfigured before his apostles. He appears radiant; his divinity shines through his humanity. In the Pauline Epistles, Jesus is the transcendent Lord, the Risen One, exalted on high, who knocks Paul to the ground on the road to Damascus. But at other times Scripture reveals God like a neighbour: friendly, close to his people, [wearing a cardigan] personal, human in appearance, and inspiring love, intimacy and fervour. This is the immanent image of God. Both transcendence and immanence are necessary for [a beautiful day in the neighborhood] a proper understanding of the revealed God. Both are equal revelations of God. Balance is needed, and the delicate balance between transcendence and immanence must be maintained in our liturgy. I would suggest [when?] strongly that there is today an imbalance between transcendence and immanence in our liturgical language.

 While people need an understanding of the transcendence of God, the use of expressions not prevalent in the speech of the assembly and the use of archaic ["harrrrrd"] words defeat that purpose and make God remote. The new formalism [Don't forget!  Eschew "-isms"!] in liturgical translation will stifle authentic worship [which is certainly what we have had for the last 30 years]. For Christ’s message can only be heard in the culture of the hearer [which one should never attempt to elevate]. Liturgy does not take place in a cultural vacuum. If the liturgy of the Church is not celebrated in terms that resonate with the assembly, it will not be heard.  [Wait... I thought that to "hear" Mass was not active participation!  So, I guess I can go back to "reading Mass" now.]

Other changes have profound theological implications. The Pope announced recently that in the new Missal the words prayed over the cup [and the plate] will be changed. Now we pray: "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant; it will be shed for you and for all". These words will be changed to "for you and for many".  [Sweet is Truth's victory.]  It is the clear, certain teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ died for all. So what is behind the change? [Ummmm.... it's the right thing to do?]  The reason given is that "for many" represents a more accurate translation of the Latin phrase pro multis. [As the Marines sing "... and that's good enough for me!"]

In support of the translation "for all", on the other hand, scholars
[wrongly] point to the Aramaic texts that underlie the biblical and liturgical texts of the Eucharistic Institution narrative. It can be demonstrated [wrongly] that the Aramaic texts are clearly inclusive and there are also many other Scripture passages documenting Jesus’ universal salvific will. 

[Remember: this is all based on a conjecture (oopps... "guess") about what the Lord might have said in Aramaic - which we don't knowThis sets up a conflict between the "guess" and the Greek text of the New Testament.  In other words, people who make this claim are creating their own text by which they judge the veracity of the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper.  Neat, huh? NOTE: I demolished the passe argument that follows in a four part WDTPRS series.  In that series I show the sandy foundations the following arguments rest upon.  Also, kindly note that when you translate liturgical texts you are not translating Scripture.  The Pope agrees.]

In Matthew 26: 28 and following, we read: "For this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." The reference to the "many" is certainly drawn from Isaiah 53: 11, where we read: "Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many and their guilt he shall bear."

In this passage the term "many" is a Hebrew word that means "for everyone", since there was no Hebrew word "for all". The term was originally inclusive and signified "everybody". The Jesuit scholar Max Zerwick’s Philological Analysis of the Greek New Testament is still an unsurpassed authority [Except that in this case he was wrong.  And he got it from Joachim Jeremias, who was wrong.]. On Matthew 26: 28 Zerwick explains that polloi, the Greek for "the many", translates a Semitic expression that can signify a multitude and at the same time a totality. It means "all (who are many)".

This was strongly affirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1970 when the Congregation commissioned Zerwick to research and write an article on the meaning of pro multis. That article was published in the official organ of that Congregation (Notitiae) in May 1970 (pages 138-140). It states: "According to exegetes, the Aramaic word which in Latin is translated ‘pro multis’ means ‘pro omnibus’: the multitude for whom Christ died is unbounded, which is the same as saying: Christ died for all. St Augustine will help recall this: ‘You see what He hath given; find out then what He bought. The Blood of Christ was the price. What is equal to this? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?’ "  [And shall we quote St. Augustine on his opinion that very few people actually come to be saved?]

In 1970 the Congregation for Divine Worship made a definitive judgement and published it in its official organ. What reasons now compel the Holy See to reverse itself?
[It was wrong?] The English word "many" is normally taken to exclude some. The Pope’s decision to revert to this literal translation does not seem to express in English the true meaning of the phrase. "Many" does not mean everyone. [RIGHT! But there is a problem here.  The Holy See said that the translation had to reflect accurately what the Latin liturgical text actually says.  It did not specify that it had to say "for many".  It could be "for the many", which sounds far more inclusive.  The French say "for the multitude".]  On a pastoral level we must have from the Vatican a better rationale [And from all others better obedience] for this major change than what has been given. With full respect and love for the Holy See, we need a pastoral explanation for the people. [Then give one!] Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, concedes that "for many" does not convey at face value the Lord’s universal salvific intent, [I think that misreads Card. Arinze's letter] but that this belongs to catechesis.  [YES!  Finally!] Is not the liturgy the best form of catechesis? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "The liturgy is the privileged place for catechising the people of God" (Paragraph 1074).  [And.... it's a fumble on the 5 yards line!  This is a problem with the post-Conciliar view of many liturgists.  The Church's liturgy is NOT a "didactic moment".  Ooops... did it again... "teaching moment".  Yes, people can learn and priests have the sermon to teach.  But Mass is not primarily about teaching.  It is about worship and sanctification.]

We need to be able to explain and defend this major liturgical change. We need biblical scholars to study this matter and give us a rationale that we can give our people. We need a pastoral approach. How many people in the pews will hear a universal inclusive meaning in "for many"?  [MOST... If only some bishop would make the effort to explain it!]

We must hope that the work of liturgical pioneers and leaders of the liturgical movement will continue to develop and that their vision will not be in vain. [Imagine, all those lost decades!] Cardinal Suenens once remarked: "Happy are those who dream dreams of full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy and are ready to pay the price to make that come true." [Yes... for example, to set aside one's personal tastes for the sake of obedience  to the mandates of the Council, the rubrics, the norms from the Holy See...] These are brave and challenging words from a Father of the Second Vatican Council.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in My View, SESSIUNCULA, WDTPRS. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to “The Chair” speaks.

  1. RBrown says:

    Good stuff.

    As I pointed out before, Bp Trautman’s problem is not with the Vatican–it is with Scripture itself. He is someone who insists on an extraordinarily narrow-minded intrepretation of NT texts, reducing the theology of the NT to the concepts of the OT. The phrase pro multis (peri pollon) is much more rich than he would acknowledge.

    And his article (speech) is yet another example of the lardy language that poisons true discourse: Instead of the word “pastoral” referring the Church feeding her sheep, it has come to mean little else than coddlying wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    Under the leadership of Bp Trautman, the diocese of Erie has seen the number of priests decline from 241 in 1990 to 213 in 2004 while the number of Catholics has remained about the same. And so in what is probably the most important index of pastoral success, Bp Trautman has been a pastoral flop.

  2. Sean says:

    “But scholars have pointed out that the celebration of the Eucharist always followed the language of the people”

    It would seem that history has also been abridged and revised for ‘pastoral’ reasons.

  3. Jordan Potter says:

    The Chair said (aaugh! a talking chair!), “There was no such thing in East or West as a sacred language.”

    Yes and no. The “biblical Greek” of the Septuagint pretty quickly acquired a sacredness about it, and it was naturally that sort of Greek that came to be used in most of the early liturgies. Aramaic also, being one of the three biblical languages, also soon acquired sacred character. When liturgies began in Latin, it was also a matter of time before ecclesiastical Latin developed and acquired sacredness. Thus, I would say that from the very start the Church was familiar with the idea of particular languages having a sacred character — Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek — due to their use in scripture, and due to the liturgy drawing on biblical language in Greek translation. It is therefore a species of archaeologism, a spurious, romantic archaism, for the Chair to yearn for some mythical Golden Age when the liturgy was in the language of the average person or personette. Biblical and liturgical language by its very nature has always been something more than the language of the average person or personette, and the Church cannot avoid recognising and living by that truth. We’ve been trying not to for 40 years, and it’s been a catastrophe (oops, another hard word, sorry!).

  4. Hank_F_M says:

    Can a Councilar decree be amended? His Excellencies proposals would make much more sense if the VII decree on the liturgy recommended a “nominal and passive observation” on the part of the congregation.

    Or perhaps he could just take month off, put on lay clothes and attend two or three masses (away from Erie where he might be recognized) each Sunday. I think he would be shocked to find that the more his vision of mass is implemented the less involved is the congregation. Anyway, that is my own unscientific observation from having attended Mass at different parishes over the years.

  5. Hank: Can a Councilar decree be amended? His Excellencies proposals would make much more sense if the VII decree on the liturgy recommended a “nominal and passive observation” on the part of the congregation.

    No, the Council is right about this. And this was taught by the Church before the Council. The problem is, it must be understood properly.

  6. Hank,

    I think he would be shocked to find that the more his vision of mass is implemented the less involved is the congregation.

    From an article entitled “Fulfilling the Council” in the current issue of The Latin Mass:

    “… it is equally important for bishops, pastors, and liturgists ….. consider a startling irony. Not only is the [traditional] Latin Mass not a repudiation of the liturgical principles of the Second Vatican Council, it may be one of the few places in their dioceses where they are actually being implemented.”

  7. CPT Tom says:

    The main problem with the way the NO mass is celebrated (executed?) is that folks (read liturgists and priests) are trying to have the mass do things that are unnatural acts. The Mass, which is should be about celebrating the sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord, and glorifying the Lord as an extension of the choir of Angels. Instead we have folks trying to turn it into a “community building” event or, a “teaching moment” or worse, a dinner party. “Active participation” has turned into continuous sound and fury signifying nothing at all. There is no reverence, even Holy Communion has become just a conga line that’s gotta be over as fast as possible, so we don’t even have time to bend a knee or be penitent before the Lord.

    The last element in particular is what makes me the most aggravated about current practices. The Old Mass was particularly penitent in orientation and it certainly was focused on our Lord and Savior. The current Mass has this element, but, since the prayers and text that are the most penitent are just one of many options, at least in my Diocese, they don’t get used much. Instead we end up with a “God is my buddy” and “me,me,me” mass. Never pointing out any inconvenient truths.

  8. But actually, Hank, I believe the really question is How can a decree of the Council be enforced? In its famous “actuosa participatio” (actual participation) the Council endorsed Pius X’s vision of liturgy in which Gregorian chant enjoys pride of place in the participation of the people, they with their missals consciously uniting themselves with the prayer of the priest, praying Holy Mass with him.

    This visibly happens at the few TLM’s I can attend now. It did not, admittedly, happen at every Mass I attended before Vatican II. It most certainly does not happen at the normative Mass you or I typically attend now. The question is how to make it happen. That is, after the detour of the past 40 years, how finally to implement the Council’s recommendation of active prayerful participation in the liturgy of the Church. (I myself believe most of these endless debates about individual words and gestures are irrelevant and time-wasting, simply a continuation of the detour.)

  9. Mary says:

    I have to say I love your juxtaposition of pics, Father (particularly Almighty God and Mr. Rogers).

  10. RBrown says:

    When liturgies began in Latin, it was also a matter of time before ecclesiastical Latin developed and acquired sacredness.

    As I’ve pointed out before, when the Western Church changed from Greek to Latin c 200, it was not a change to the vernacular–it was a change to the language of Empire.

    If the same MO would have been followed in the 60′s, the Church would have made English the liturgical language–in France, Germany,
    Spain, South American, etc.

  11. Is it just on my browser, but when pictures are indented in the text on this blog they quite often conceal chunks of the text? I only say because I enjoy reading it so much…

  12. Bare: The pictures and text always look ok with the Firefox browser that I use.

  13. How long is Bishop Trautman the “chair”?I thought another bishop,Bishop Salterelli,was recently elected. When Bishop Trautman was elected from the floor as chairman to fill out the remaining days of Cardinal George,a friend of mine who is close to B.Trautman,congratulated him.His response was that he would get nowhere in Rome because Cardinal Baum had promised to block every initiative he started.This was confirmed by someone who dined with C.Baum and he stated this aloud.Now Baum has left Rome but C.Arinze remains.Have pity on the good Bishop Trautman.He is the last hurrah of the post-conciliar leftist liturgical power clique.

  14. Ben says:

    Don’t you think it’s odd that Cardinal Arinze’s English is so much more pithy,
    rich and idiomatic than Trautmann’s committee-speak? ‘If you can find that in the
    Missal, I’ll give you a turkey’ is so much more expressive than ‘Do these
    translated texts communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly?’
    Yet Trautperson has the chutzpah to take Arinze to task.

  15. michigancatholic says:

    Somebody should tell Cardinal Arinze that we’ve already got quite enough turkeys. He should demote some of them out of view. For instance, he could start with Trautman.

  16. Joseph says:

    RBrown

    No-one doubts that the vernacular is the language proper to private prayer (‘and when you
    pray..’), perhaps even prayer in common (‘when two or more are gathered together in My name..’), but surely
    the three sacred languages of liturgical prayer, and especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself are those in which Pilate nailed to the Cross the words ‘Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews’: Greek, Hebrew and Latin. (The languages in which were perfected the natural law, the mosaic law and the law of Grace. )

    It wasn’t by coincidence you know.

  17. Joseph says:

    RBrown. An amendment. I used the word ‘perfected’, when I meant ‘exposed’ or ‘set down’.

  18. RBrown says:

    No-one doubts that the vernacular is the language proper to private prayer (‘and when you pray..’), perhaps even prayer in common (‘when two or more are gathered together in My name..’), but surely the three sacred languages of liturgical prayer, and especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself are those in which Pilate nailed to the Cross the words ‘Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews’: Greek, Hebrew and Latin. (The languages in which were perfected the natural law, the mosaic law and the law of Grace. )

    It wasn’t by coincidence you know.
    Comment by Joseph

    I totally agree. My point was to contradict Bp Trautman and others of shallow opinion, who insist that there was a time when Latin liturgy was the vernacular.

  19. Ave Maria! says:

    I had to laugh at the Mr. Rogers part!

    What I wish very much for is a restoration of the MYSTERIUM FIDEI.
    Yes, the knowledge of the Mystery of Faith –those words once used at the time of consecration.

    We have the ‘lets proclaim ‘THE’ mystery of faith and then have 4 choices? How can that be? Would not it be proper to say: ‘lets proclaim “A” mystery of faith when there are choices like this???

    We need to renew our Mystery of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the most Holy Eucharist. What we have given into is the other theologies of how important the gathering of the community is and what we do is holy and have lost the knowledge of the Sacrifice of the altar. That is most sad. When you lose that faith, you can be free to go to any church to gather.

    Sigh,

  20. Terence Coyne says:

    Thank you for adding your frank and insightful commentary. I hope you are not putting yourself in a position where you may be altierified by making those comments

  21. Geri says:

    You’re all such buzz kills. You probably don’t like the new Confiteor that goes, “My bad, my bad, my bad…”

    The picture of the Sacred Vessels juxtaposed with that of the Dirty Dishes made me chuckle after hearing my pastors sermon this evening.
    He gave church tours to school children this week and it seems they were most awe-struck by seeing the monstrances, the chalices, etc at close range.
    As a result, he said, when next he prepared for Mass, he too found himself awe-struck in the presence of the sacred vessels.

    It amazes me that there are those who have access to such magnificence, yet insist on using wicker, crude pottery, scratched glass…
    Are we not created to be drawn to beauty and splendor? Isn’t this an uplifting thing? Isn’t beautiful, elevated language ultimately attractive rather than off-putting; and banal language the opposite?

  22. philip sandstrom says:

    The comment on the three Sacred Languages does not hold water at all. It is at best a late Medieval Western ‘pious legend’. For example the Slavonic speaking Catholics and Orthodox use Old Slave and also their local Slavic languages. The Ethiopians use Geez, the Armenians use Armenian, the Copts use Coptic and Arabic, the Melkites use Arabic and local languages, the South Indians use their local languages as well as Syrian (a form of Aramaic), etc. etc.

  23. Hank_F_M says:

    Bare Ruin’d Choirs

    Is it just on my browser, but when pictures are indented in the text on this blog they quite often conceal chunks of the text? I only say because I enjoy reading it so much…

    It is a combination of the “blogger skin” FR Z is using and your screen settings. Father gets his interesting presentation by using a settings that are not friendly to screen settings that allow large ICONS and large print. I get the same problem because overall that is my preference and it works for most places, and I do like Fathers well designed layout.. If a post you want to read is to difficult and you want to read it, you can either highlight the post and copy an and paste to WORD of other word processor, or you can change settings

    Minimize the program so you can see the desktop.
    Right Click in a blank area of your desktop
    Click on PROPERTIES
    Click on SETTINGS

    Toward the bottom right there is a slide bar that lets you pick your screen display
    Remember your original setting before you experiment.

    [Different versions of WINDOWS may be slightly different in how to get there.]

  24. Hank_F_M says:

    FR Z/ Henry Edwards.

    I agree with your points. Sometimes my tendency to sarcasm gets ahead of me. mea culpa

    What amazes me is that so much of the problem would go away if the “liturgical planners’ would every so often sit in the back pew and look around them. Among other things the Church’s liturgy is 2000 years of distilled wisdom of what is truly effective in worshiping. Just expanding what is working would move most parishes toward the “actuosa participatio” the Council called for.

  25. Terence Coyne: “I hope you are not putting yourself in a position where you may be altierified by making those comments”

    The reference is to Fr. Robert Altier in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis and a tussle he had with the local ordinary.

    Yes, I think about this once in a while. However, I try in my writing about these issues always to be respectful of the people is disagree with even if I have scorn for their peculiar notions. In the case of His Excellency Bishop Trautman, he has my due respect as a successor of the apostles. That distingushed position, however, nor any of the good he may have done in his service to the Church, can improve the quality of his arguments. He has put his ideas out there in public precisely to raise both knowledge of the issues and to spark debate. I am obliging him.

  26. Guy Power says:

    Geri …..

    I thought the new Confiteor was “My bad, my bad, my *totally* bad…”

    Yes, I live just over the hill from Santa Cruz!
    –Guy Power

  27. TJM says:

    Bishop Trautman reminds me of the old saying “it is my opinion, thus it is a fact.” His statement that the new “formalism will stifle worship” and suggesting that there should be no difference in the form of English used in the liturgy compared to the “street” is balderdash. Just think of the many ways English is spoken on a daily basis: the English we use when chit-chatting with friends, the language of the “street, the language of the workplace, and the language of the courts. Would anyone reasonably suggest there are no differences in the two? And that there are not consequences flowing from the differences? Although not a scholar of the history of the English language, I assume (unless you scholars amongst us tell me I’m dead wrong) that the English of the King James version of the Bible and the English of the Anglican Liturgy was NOT the language used in the streets of London. Bishop Trautman must not have the soul of a poet or an artist because he seems to not be able to grasp the difference. Think of how Sir Winston Churchill rallied the English people during World War II with his poetic and rather archaic form of English. It was thrilling, inspiring. I guess he could have told the English people that “we will resist the enemy at all costs,” but instead said, “we shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in the streets,We Shall Never Surrender.” Take your pick, Bishop Trautman. Tom

  28. dcs says:

    I wonder what His Excellency would think of Shakespeare being taught in a modern idiom. How do the Catholic high schools in Erie teach the Bard?

    Just thinking out loud.

  29. RBrown says:

    The comment on the three Sacred Languages does not hold water at all. It is at best a late Medieval Western ‘pious legend’. For example the Slavonic speaking Catholics and Orthodox use Old Slave and also their local Slavic languages. The Ethiopians use Geez, the Armenians use Armenian, the Copts use Coptic and Arabic, the Melkites use Arabic and local languages, the South Indians use their local languages as well as Syrian (a form of Aramaic), etc. etc.

    The concept of Three Sacred Languages is anything but pious legend.

    From John 19:19-20

    19And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek.

  30. shana sfo says:

    Actually, Mr Rogers was someone who never talked down to children (I have 8 children and have seen most of Mr Roger’s programs) He never feared to use ‘big words’ with little people. In fact, he would often say the ‘big word’ and ask the children in TVland to say it with him, and then he’d explain it, and use it many times during the course of the week so they would understand the new word.

    Unlike our unfortunate bishop, Mr Rogers did not treat his audience as if they were drooling idiots incapable of being educated, but rather as curious and intelligent children needing to be given the opportunity to understand difficult things.

  31. Guy Power says:

    TJM,

    [i]Bishop Trautman must not have the soul of a poet or an artist …[/i]

    Apparently the Bishop has the heart of an [i]editor[/i]; the type who cannot let any report cross his desk without his “bleeding” red ink all over it.