His Excellency Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, aided and abetted by the ultra-liberal anti-Roman National Catholic Reporter, continues his perennial jihad. The aging imam of inclusive language is lobbying his brother bishops to reject the new translation of the Roman Missal to be sent to Rome for approval. He is fighting an ineffable war of delaying. Cunctando regitur mundus.
In the piece below we read that Bp. Trautman
"believes that the only way to address major flaws in the already approved texts is to reject one of the final texts as a statement of principle and get Rome to reconsider some of the underlying issues throughout the new translation."
Sound good to you?
From the same ultra-liberal NCR comes this with my emphases and comments.
Last-ditch effort to dump Mass translations
Nov. 06, 2009
By Jerry Filteau
WASHINGTON — Bishop Donald W. Trautman is calling for a last-minute measure by the U.S. bishops this month to save American Catholics from new Mass prayers full of grammatical errors and unproclaimable texts.
The bishops are set to approve the last four segments of a new U.S. English translation of the Roman Missal at their annual fall meeting Nov. 16-19.
Trautman, the bishop of Erie, Pa., is urging the bishops to reject at least one of these segments, he told NCR Oct. 30. [A rejection of one segment is a victory in his war of delaying.]
Trautman said he thinks the only procedural way the bishops can halt the process and gain a new review of texts they have already approved (including Vatican reversals of many of their amendments to earlier texts) is to vote down at least one of the final segments up for review and form a committee to go to Rome and consult with the Vatican on what he considers the questionable texts approved by the Holy See. [In the meantime, the whole world is waiting.]
[Okay... read the next part and, since it is not a direct quote from Bp. Trautman, ask yourself if this is news reporting or if it is a hit job by the NCR in support of Bp. Trautman's efforts...] There’s simply no doubt that the bad grammar he declaims is there in prayers already approved by the U.S. bishops, or subsequently modified by Rome, which the priest or people are expected to pray during Mass. Which start, like this sentence, with a relative pronoun, making the entire sentence a subordinate clause. Which, he says, is no way to try to make people pray. And entire sentences, like this one, with no subject or verb. [cute]
The three non-sentences in the preceding paragraph exemplify what Trautman, a former scripture professor, finds typical of one of the most disturbing issues in the new missal translation facing English-speaking Catholics around the world: a lack of plain, everyday English grammar in liturgical prayers with which Catholics are supposed to express their worship of God. [How was this passed by the English? Or the rest of the anglophone world?]
In many cases, he said, even when U.S. bishops introduced amendments to the proposed English texts to correct blatantly ungrammatical usages, Rome has turned around and reinstated the bad grammar in order to follow the Latin text more literally. [And soooo... he hasn't gotten the hint?]
Trautman has been an outspoken opponent of the more literal translation of the Latin texts decreed by 2001 Vatican norms. At the bishops’ meeting last June, after he strongly criticized language problems in one segment — containing the texts of Masses and prayers for various intentions — it barely received the two-thirds vote needed for approval.
Trautman’s latest challenge to the translations came Oct. 22 when he delivered the third annual Msgr. Frederick R. McManus lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington.
[... [Here the writer recycles what Bp. Trautman said at that lecture. He will do this below as well.] ]
“For example, in the Preface of Christ the King there are 13 lines and 88 words in one sentence. How will this promote intelligible and meaningful prayer?” he asked. [He is asking us simply to accept his claim that it won't with no evidence in support of his claim.]
Trautman cited a number of grammar problems in a telephone interview Oct. 30. “A clear example of that was when the American bishops voted in 2006 to put in the creed ‘I believe’ four times,” he said. “It was taken out in Rome. So the amendment failed. There’s a lot of examples like that.” ["There's a lot of examples..." ... ? And he is complaining about bad grammar? Okay... okay... speaking off the cuff is not the same as writing a text. Okay.]
The result is several “sentences” in the Vatican-approved English version of the Nicene Creed for U.S. (and other English-speaking) Catholic congregations that are not really sentences, omitting the subject and verb, “I believe”:
* “In our lord and savior Jesus Christ, who …”
* “And in the Holy Spirit, the lord and giver of life …”
* “And one, holy, catholic and apostolic church …”
[The word Credo is found only at the beginning of the Creed.]
Trautman noted that the Vatican-approved Mexican translation into Spanish of the Latin Roman Missal — approved for use in Spanish-language liturgies in the United States — uses “Creo” (“I believe”) all four times in the creed. [The Mexican Spanish translation is not at issue.]
So in U.S. parishes that have Masses in both Spanish and English, worshipers at Spanish Masses will be able to pray the creed in grammatically correct language, while those at English Masses will be forced to use a series of ungrammatical quasi sentences to express the most fundamental Christian beliefs, he said. [And if you had Holy Mass in Latin, they could all pray the correct text together while each person held a translation that suited them.]
“Isn’t that inconsistent?” he asked. “It all happens in the same churches: Where you have a parish that is Anglo-Hispanic, the people at the Spanish Mass will say the creed in Spanish saying, ‘I believe’ four times — ‘Creo’ four times — [and] you go to the English Mass, you say it once. It’s a great inconsistency. It’s the same text — it doesn’t make any sense to me.” [Isn't it inconsistent that we are not using Latin, or that His Excellency is not pushing also for greater use of Latin? After all, the Second Vatican Council he cites in regard to the vernacular says that LATIN must be retained and that the vernacular is permitted in some situations.]
He said his struggle for a more coherent and proclaimable text is sometimes a “lonely” battle, [ahhhhh.... sniff....] but he is encouraged by the number of people, especially pastors, who ask him to keep at it. Within days after the first report on his talk appeared on NCRonline.org, he said, he received about 50 to 60 e-mails expressing support and only a handful objecting to the talk. [WOW! 50-60 e-mails? I suspect that after posting this I will get twice that in support of what I am writing. Folks, drop me a note with this in the subject line: "In support of APPROVAL". That is, the Bishops should vote to approve the translations during their meeting.]
He said the few who objected focused on his criticism of arcane or archaic words, which is a much smaller issue than his main concern — the liturgical use of bad grammar and convoluted, unproclaimable sentences.
The new English translation of the Roman Missal has many good aspects, but “there is much more that still needs improvement to make the text grammatical and accessible to the people,” Trautman said in his Oct. 22 lecture.
“The present text still contains improper syntax, incomplete sentences, archaic and obscure words and idioms, lengthy and incomprehensible sentences, and fails to respect the natural rhythm and cadences of the English language,” he said.
He also criticized Rome’s decision to try to create a “sacred language” for worship, [Sacred Liturgy should not have a sacred language, right?] so that in the new version of the Nicene Creed, “born of the Virgin Mary” becomes “incarnate of the Virgin Mary” and “one in being with the Father” becomes “consubstantial with the Father.”
[... [more recylcing] ]
After a bishops’ conference approves a translation, the Holy See must confirm that text before it can be published for use in that country. Over the last three years, the U.S. bishops have approved 12 segments of the prayers used in the course of the liturgical year, on the feasts of saints and for various other occasions.
While he has found no major flaws in the final four segments coming up for a vote, the bishop said, [READ THIS CLOSELY! ...] he believes that the only way to address major flaws in the already approved texts is to reject one of the final texts as a statement of principle and get Rome to reconsider some of the underlying issues throughout the new translation. [See what he is doing?]
On the imposition of a new “sacred vocabulary” in the new missal texts, he cited several examples, including the passage in Eucharistic Prayer I: “When supper was done, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands.” The text currently being used says, “… he took a cup …”
“Did Jesus at the Last Supper use a precious chalice or a cup?” Trautman asked. “The Gospels clearly say cup. The Greek uses the word poterion which is a drinking vessel or cup.”
[... [recycling] ]
He said scripture “presents God under a twofold image: king and neighbor, transcendence and immanence,” and “an exaggerated attention to the sacred distorts the balance.”
“Our liturgy needs not a ‘sacred language’ but a pastoral language that will fulfill the mandate of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for full, conscious and active participation,” Trautman said. “The noble simplicity recommended by the Council Fathers needs to be emphasized.” [The Constitution is not a cafeteria line. Nor are the norms for translation in Liturgiam authenticam.]
He said amendments made by the U.S. bishops to the new translations done by the Vatican-approved scholars of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy have resulted in a text that “is vastly improved but not mature at this point for the worship life of the church.” And, as he noted by phone later, in the texts so far approved by the Vatican, it has overturned many of the U.S. amendments, changing the text back to the commission’s original version.
At its present stage the new translation “does not have a pastoral style” that would lead American Catholics to “own the prayer text, its vocabulary, its style, its idiom, its cadence,” he said.
“If the Roman Missal does not speak to our culture, the church in the United States will suffer,” he said.
Jerry Filteau is NCR Washington correspondent.
REMEMBER: send me an e-mail with this in the subject line: "In support of APPROVAL" (PLEASE: that subject line and ONLY THAT subject line so I can count you easily.)
Bp. Trautman says he got 50-60 in favor of his message. How many will WDTPRS get?
Let’s have a little WDTPRS POLL:
The results so far seem fairly convincing.
I hope the supporters of Bp. Trautman’s initiative feel free to vote. You don’t have to be registered for this blog to vote, after all.
UPDATE 9 Nov 1539 GMT
Over 260 e-mails now.
How many did Bp. Trautman say he received?