POLL ALERT! US Catholic and Bp. Trautman team up on liturgical language

POLL ALERT!

H.E. Most. Rev. Donald W. Trautman, Bishop of Erie, inveterate champion of inclusive language and die-hard proponent of ever-shifting "dynamic equivalence" for liturgical translations, has a piece in US CATHOLIC.  There is also a US CATHOLIC POLL & SURVEY about what you prefer for liturgical language.

Before reading this, keep in mind that at the last USCCB meeting in November, even Roger Card. Mahony shot down Bp. Trautman’s ideas.

Remember… there is a POLL and then a SURVEY.

My emphases and comments.

Lost in translation
American Catholics shouldn’t have to suffer through a liturgy that isn’t even prayed in proper English.

By Bishop Donald W. Trautman, S.T.D., S.S.L., the bishop of Erie, Penn. and former chair of the USCCB Committe on the liturgy.

Please respond to the questionnaire that immediate follows this essay.

I was leading a group discussion on the merits of the renewed liturgy of Vatican II when John, a middle-aged businessman, commented, “I can’t imagine my life without the liturgy; it strengthens me each week—but I never understood the Mass until we had it in English.” Some in the group said the liturgy was why they became Catholic; others said the liturgy was why they stayed in the church. All of these individuals had experienced the power of the liturgy to transform lives. That liturgy is about to undergo a face-lift with a new translation of the texts for the Mass.

What prompts this new translation? In 2000 Pope John Paul II authorized a new edition of the Roman Missal, the book that contains the texts for the celebration of the Mass. The new translation of it will be ready for use as early as next year.

In 2001 the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued new principles and directives for translating from the original Latin into the vernacular in a document called Liturgiam authencam. [sic… it should be authenticam]  Following these new norms, the translation of the new Missal has intentionally employed a “sacred language,” which tends to be remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable. For example, the Preface, or opening of the Eucharistic prayer, of the Assumption says of Mary’s delivery of Jesus, “She brought forth ineffably your incarnate Son.”  [This is the big problem for Bp. Trautman.  He does not think that sacred liturgy should have a sacred language.  But we must reject the premises he worked – not very slyly – into that statement.   Sacred language does not have to be "remote" or "hard to understand".  On the other hand liturgical language shouldn’t be banal to the point of being intellectually offensive and it must accurately convey the content of the original.  And it should not be everyday speech.]

When the bishops at Vatican II made the historic decision that the liturgy of the church should be in the vernacular,  [Year in and year out Bp. Trautman purposely leaves out the other side of the story: the Council said that Latin was to be retained.  He purposely leaves that out.] there was no mention of sacred language or vocabulary. [Nor does the Bible have the word "Trinity" in it.  Had you suggested to the Council Fathers that liturgical language didn’t have to be "sacred" in style, they would have laughed at you.]The council’s intent was pastoral—to have the liturgy of the church prayed in living languages.  Translated liturgical texts should be reverent, noble, inspiring, and uplifting, but that does not mean archaic, remote, or incomprehensible. [He is back to the premises you should be rejecting.] While the translated texts of the new Missal must be accurate and faithful to the Latin original, they must also be intelligible, proclaimable, and grammatically correct. Regrettably the new translation fails in this regard.

Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer’s understanding? [ALL THE TIME!  He had to go back constantly and explain things!  But the Church also has a teaching office, right?  We can explain what is hard.]  Jesus did explain the parable of the sower privately to his disciples in Mark (4:10-12) and Luke (8:9-10). In John 6 many of Jesus’ disciples found his Bread of Life discourse hard to accept. In these instances it is the message—not its vocabulary—that requires further explanation[Which is why there have always been problems with translation down through history, right your Excellency?]

[Okay… I have a flight to catch.  you WDTPRSers can do this too.

UPDATE 1801 GMT… now working from my seat on the airplane… somewhere over… probably Pennsylvania… maybeeee…. Erie?]

Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy showed pastoral wisdom [This phrase should set off an alarm.   Liberals of a certain age will invariably set "pastoral" against anything they don’t like.  If they don’t like something, it isn’t "pastoral".  Very often anything that requires thought, effort, etc., isn’t pastoral.  The "intellectual" is always, in these cases, not "pastoral". ] when it specified that liturgical texts should “be within the peop le’s powers of comprehension and normally not require much explanation” (#34). [His Excellency has repeatedly suggested that people in the pews are not smart enough to understand the new translation.  I think he is wrong.   Just my opinion, of course.] But in the new Missal, there are whole prayers that are extremely difficult to understand. For example, in the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit, the prayer after communion reads, “Let the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, O Lord, cleanse our hearts and make them fruitful within by the sprinkling of his dew.” In the epiclesis, or the invocation of the Holy Spirit, in Eucharistic Prayer II the celebrant will pray at the epiclesis: “Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall.” [For several years, His Excellency has been going on about dew.  Perhaps it will be possible to preach about what this figure means?  Dunno… it’s biblical, after all.] What will people understand by “the sprinkling of the Holy Spirit’s dew” and “dewfall”? The words are pregnant with poetry and scriptural meaning, [Wait a minute!  You mean to say that the words are actually gravid?  They are going to have a baby? Or is this a figure of speech…. like … say "dew"?] but if they fail to be understood by the average worshipper, they fail pastorally. Or consider the opening prayer on the Monday of the fifth week of Lent: “May we bring before you as the fruit of bodily penance a cheerful purity of mind.” What do these words mean?

Some proponents [Who could he mean?  Hmmm….] of the new translation maintain that obscure words present a catechetical moment for the homilist to explain. But should the homily be used for unraveling technical, archaic, and unusual words? The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says that the homily should be rooted in the biblical readings of the Mass (#24) and should proclaim God’s magnificent works in the history of salvation (#35, 52). [I see.  Sooo… you should never mention anything that isn’t specifically about the magnalia Dei?  So…never tell a story from your own life or, gasp, a joke.  Never cite poetry or mention music, or sports.  Never… well… it’s best just not to preach, I guess, except maybe to reread the readings themselves.  For pity’s sake, that was a little embarrassing.] 

[Okay… I am on board this flight, but the browser is screwing up my formatting…  Sorry… I will eventually correct this.]

A major defect of the translated Missal is the number of lengthy, cumbersome sentences. Translated liturgical texts involve public proclamation and must be intelligible to the assembly on first hearing. The prayer after the third reading at the Easter Vigil (#26) has one sentence of 65 words in 10 lines. [Reminds me of the Emperor in Amadeus.] In the Preface of Christ the King there are 13 lines and 88 words in one sentence. Eucharistic Prayer III begins with 70 words in one sentence. How will this promote intelligible and meaningful prayer? How can the assembly remember what is being prayed for?

[Landing soon…  must sign off soon.]

In almost all instances the opening prayers, prayers over the gifts, and prayers after communion follow a single-sentence format with one or more clauses. Again and again proclaimability and comprehension are sacrificed for the sake of maintaining the Latin single-sentence structure.  [His problem is with Liturgiam authenticam in this matter.]

But Latin word order is not English word order. Rigidly following an artificial word order undermines the natural rhythm and cadence of the English language, thereby stifling comprehension and diminishing participation in the Eucharist. [I don’t think that is what was done, for the most part.]

American Catholics have every right to expect the translation of the new Missal to follow the rules of English grammar.  [American Catholics have every right to expect accurate translations which don’t betray a secularist tinge.]

The new translation of the Nicene Creed is a good illustration of flawed English. Presently the creed is divided into four parts, each headed by the phrase “we believe.” In the new translation there is only one introductory phrase (“I believe”). This results in incomplete sentences for the different articles of faith.

For example, the newly-translated creed reads: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” This sentence ends with a period, but the very next article of faith simply begins: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.” Another article of faith begins in the same fashion: “And one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.” Neither is a sentence since they lack a subject and predicate, and they are respectively 26 and 32 lines distant from “I believe.” Such formulations hurt clarity and intelligibility.

The American bishops in 2006 approved and sent to Rome the text of the creed that repeated “I believe” for each article of faith, since that repetition clarified the prayer and provided proper sentence structure. Rome eliminated this recommendation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops[I guess Rome must have a reason.]

Should we pray a text that is grammatically flawed? [Is he advocating that people refuse to use the new translation?] Should we teach our people to pray with incorrect English? Spanish-speaking Catholics pray the new translation of the Nicene Creed repeating “Creo,” “I believe,” four times, but English-speaking Catholics will pray the same new translation saying “I believe” only once. Where is the consistency?

Vatican II specified a pastoral approach [There it is again.] in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: “Both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. The Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them easily” (#21). Paragraph 34 of the constitution offers an even stronger statement, that rites and texts “should radiate a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, free from useless repetition. They should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.”  [The Second Vatican Council also said that pastors of souls should be sure that their flocks can both sing and speak the parts pertaining to them in Latin.]

These statements of the council constitute a pastoral principle for judging the translation of the new Missal. [See my comment, above.] As texts of a conciliar constitution, they trump all instructions on translation and should be the guiding norm for the translation of the new Missal[His Excellency is obviously in error on this point, otherwise Rome would not be preparing the translations of the antiphons.]

But this pastoral style [All a bit vauge… right?  "Pastoral style"?] is missing in the new translation, which is especially evident in Eucharistic Prayer III. Presently we pray: “Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters and all who have left this world in your friendship.” This is a clear, straightforward, hope-filled, understandable prayer. However in the new Missal it now reads: “To our departed brothers and sisters and to all who are pleasing to you at their passing from this life, give kind admittance to your kingdom.”

Contrast the phrasing: “welcome into your kingdom” versus “give kind admittance.” The first is inspiring, hope-filled, consoling, memorable. It conveys the thought, “Lord, welcome, open your arms”; “give kind admittance” is dull and lackluster, reminding one of a ticket-taker at the door. At the funeral of your loved one, do you want to pray, “Lord, welcome into your kingdom my loved one,” or do you want to pray, “Lord, give kind admittance to my loved one”?  [Is His Excellency suggesting that the sentiments of people who have lost their grandmother should be the criteria for how we prepare a translation?]

When the Holy Father gives approval to the complete text of the new Missal, the real task begins. It will then be incumbent on bishops and pastors of the church, along with others in liturgical and educational ministries, to catechize and convince the people that the new Missal is an improvement on the current one. Is that completely true?  [It will be when bishops and priests explain is in a positive light.]

POLL… Pay attention to the US Catholic POLL on liturgical language.

I voted.

Will you vote?

Results at the time of this first posting….

 

UPDATE 23:57 GMT:

Look what happened!

UPDATE 8 April 1536:

UPDATE 9 April 1958:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU]

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

131 Responses to POLL ALERT! US Catholic and Bp. Trautman team up on liturgical language

  1. Maeana says:

    It says that the survey will be published in the July 2010 issue. Can you just imagine a US Catholic magazine with a survey saying that most Catholics prefer the liturgy in Latin? I’d buy it just to see that. :)

  2. DCtrad says:

    I think our Bishops instead of be concerned with so much “modern reliance” (it just send shevers sayin it) all the time we should concentrate on what we are handing on even more. Latin might be a dead language but that’s not a strike against it on the contrary, it preserves all of its essential definitions in liturgy as it is not one of 320+ evolving languages the mass is in now.

  3. Rob Cartusciello says:

    The pollsters are skewing the vote by asking the question the way they did.

    The question should be:

    a) Latin
    b) An English translation that respects the integrity of the text
    c) An English interpretation reflects the ‘spirit’ of the text

    ICEL does not translate, it interprets. If it translated, we would still hear about bees in the Exultet.

  4. DCtrad says:

    I am 22 years old since I first attended the Extraordinary form and reading the missal of 1962 I am scandalized of how much we have lost in the new mass via translation alone!!! : (Cup NOT Chalice, The Creed, For all instead of for many in The Consecration! Not to mention the manipulation of many prayers and the total hacking away of prayers! In the mass words are not just words, they reveal hidden realities and teach us the truth of our faith! I am speaking briefly here, but even in scripture mass has been also lowered! I mean I am a lay person and a younger one at that; don’t talk down (or should I say pray down) to us. Elevate our hearts to the Father!

  5. Henry Edwards says:

    My comment at U.S Catholic:

    What seems most important to me is that the English translation be faithful and accurate, conveying fully the content of the Latin original. Presumably the alleged requirement that the new translation be literal is merely a means to this end.

    The problem with the current (1973 ICEL translation) is not solely that it is not literal, but that it is inaccurate as well as banal and clunky.

    I wonder whether the poll is deliberately designed so as to favor response #3, since “easy-to-understanding” is akin to apple pie as a desideratum, where as “literal” by itself sounds somewhat mechanistic.

    Also, everyone who supports Bp. Trautman, will vote for #3, while those who oppose him will be split between #1 and #2.

    When I used to monitor college entrance board tests, the possible choices for each question usually included an “attractor” — a wrong answer intended to attract mere guessers away from the correct answer.

    To one with this experience in the design of multiple-choice tests, the Latin in #1 seems obviously an “attractor” (or “red herring”) intended to attract votes away from #2 (which is what they really oppose here).

  6. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:

    First thought, is he seriously implying that the average person doesn’t know anything about dew and dewfall? At half the Masses, people probably saw it on their grass on the way there.

    Second, I like how he compares the choice of having “I Believe” just once to the Spanish translation but not to the original Latin.

  7. Forgive me for saying this, but will this guy never let up?
    What a cry baby…the tables are turning, your Excellency. Roma locuta est. Or however it’s supposed to read. The faithful need faithful translations. This undermines the whole “revolution” in the Mass that has been going on for over forty years. It’s about time!

  8. ssoldie says:

    I voted Latin, What a word ‘conquest’ and major at that,,,In March of 1965, in the periodical L’Osservatore Romano, Bugnini was quoted as saying: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” In 1974 preceding his second downfall, Bugnini proudly proclaimed Vatican II to be a “major conquest of the Catholic Church”.

    Colossians 2:8

    Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.

    The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its problems and Background.
    ( by Msgr. Klaus Gamber)–Excerpts

    from the preface to the French edition: “J.A.Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgist of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a ‘liturgy’ which is the fruit of development”….
    “What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries,and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process– with a fabrication, a banal on- the- spot product.”

  9. And, as an after thought. I don’t care HOW many letters are after this Bishop’s name…so what?
    The grandmas in the pew know better; even if they’ve only had an 8th grade education. It’s the Mass that matters. And having it in proper translation will only serve to nourish and strengthen the faith of the People of God (yes, I know, I used that term!).

  10. EXCHIEF says:

    The Church is not a democracy. The only vote that counts is the Pope’s. End of story. No need for survey. What is needed is a good course in obedience.

  11. Christina says:

    Wow. This blog really shifts polls quickly.

  12. pelerin says:

    I have filled in the survey and am delighted to see that Latin leads on 59% so far! I was annoyed to see that the Bishop leads with the old chestnut that someone did not understand the Mass until it was in English. I bought myself a missal when I started attending Mass long before I even started instruction. I still have it and explanations are given at the beginning and of course there is an English translation all the way through of the Latin liturgy.

    There really was no excuse for anyone to say they did not understand the Mass before it was in English.

  13. Christina wrote:

    “Wow. This blog really shifts polls quickly.”

    Look, we’ve got this general election coming up in the UK. Do you think we can ship all the WDTPRS’ers over to…er…help us out a bit with this poll?

  14. brianwalden says:

    Who wrote that poll? It’s a disgrace to anyone who takes polling seriously. First of all, it creates a dichotomy between Mass all in Latin or all in the vernacular. There’s no option for a mix of Latin and the vernacular – I’d think many people would like some mixture. Next, the option for “In a translation of the Latin that is as literal as possible” is just ridiculous. If the Latin were translated word for word into English it would be incoherent. It seems that the poll specifically wants to keep people from expressing a positive opinion of the new translation. Lastly, “In a translation that is in natural, easy-to-understand English” is a value judgment. It implies that simpler language makes the Mass easy to understand, when one can just as easily argue that simpler English that doesn’t reflect the depth and nuance of the Latin can actually make it harder to understand the true meaning of the prayers.

    They should have separated this into two questions: 1) Do you prefer Mass all in Latin, all in the vernacular, or a mix of Latin and the vernacular (possibly splitting this into options for different ratios of Latin to vernacular)? And 2) If the vernacular is used do you prefer a translation with a more formal equivalence translation or a more dynamic equivalence translation (rather than the loaded terms used in the current poll)?

  15. Will D. says:

    Henry Edwards wrote:

    The problem with the current (1973 ICEL translation) is not solely that it is not literal, but that it is inaccurate as well as banal and clunky.

    I couldn’t agree more. There should be another option on that poll, which I think more clearly matches the new translation, for a translation that renders the Latin into clear and precise English. I’ve only read the whitebook sample of the new Missal, and I find that it nearly always uses more beautiful and better English than the current ICEL version.

  16. The Egyptian says:

    filled out questionnaire, don’t think +Trautman will like my answers. I suggested that the whining stop and just do it, Catholics are not nearly as stupid as he thinks.

  17. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:

    I completely agree brianwalden. Thats what I put in the survey. I chose other and said Latin Ordinary, literal Vernacular Propers.

    Personally, I prefer the Mass in all Latin, but I would support a mix being used for the OF. I think that it is a reasonable assumption to say that people could learn not only to say, but to understand the Ordinary in Latin, it would respect the original intent of Vatican II, and it would provide more unity between Masses of different countries (I could participate verbally in at least half of a Mass in France or Italy).

  18. MattW says:

    April 7 1:40 PM EST and Latin is ahead by 60%. Can’t imagine that the editors saw that coming.

  19. Dave N. says:

    I voted “Latin”; but of course the poll represents false choices as many have pointed out.

    Whatever you might think of the errors of Emile Durkheim, I think he was on to something about a basic human need to distinguish between the sacred and profane. There’s a very basic reason why we don’t (shouldn’t) hear music at Mass that sounds like something you’d hear on the radio or at a Broadway musical, why we don’t (shouldn’t) dress like we’re going to a beach or a soccer game, why the language sounds either “different” (elevated?) or “very different” (Latin) from the words we use in everyday life, and why the priest isn’t (shouldn’t be) dressed as if he’s going for drinks at the club. Because the Mass is sacred.

    That having been said, I think the upcoming ICEL translation is pretty horrible—the only thing worse being the ICEL translation currently in use.

    Just learn Latin, people. It’s not that hard. You too, bishops.

  20. mjballou says:

    I don’t understand why some bishops (and others) keep beating this dead horse. I thought the new translation was settled. And I can hardly wait to have liturgies that don’t sound as though they were written by a management team.

  21. Dave N. says:

    And, as an after thought. I don’t care HOW many letters are after this Bishop’s name…so what?

    Don’t worry–at most seminaries an S.T.D. is really not that difficult to acquire. At least if we are talking about pontifical degrees… :)

  22. Cath says:

    Last night at the OF Mass I attended Father sang many of the Mass parts in Latin (Gloria, Sanctus, Agnes Dei, we even sang the Regina Coeli before Mass started). It was a very simple Mass, but one of the most beautiful I have ever had the joy to witness. The encounter with Mystery that Fr. Z. is always writing about hit me like a ton of bricks (not brick by brick, all at once). I really feel sorry for those who are so hostile to these changes. And I also take offense that they think we are not smart enough to understand.

  23. TJerome says:

    I’m starting to think the Diocese of Erie needs a coadjutor bishop as well. This guy just can’t let go. I wonder if on his tombstone he will be identified as “Bishop Trautperson.” That would be appropriate, given his penchant for inclusive language.

  24. Bryan says:

    Egyptian:

    Were you looking over my shoulder? I said much the same thing, though worded it: “condescendingly looking down from their perch inferring that “Joe and Mary Catholic” are too stupid to appreciate language that lifts them UP to God rather than drags the Almighty down to the gutter language constructs in which humanity wallows”

    Ask me. I’ll tell you what I really think…:)

  25. youngcatholicstl says:

    I think a comparison to Shakespeare is appropriate here. Shakespeare is exceedingly difficult to read because of its old English terms and (at times) awkardly worded sentences. Yet, many treasure Shakespearean literature for that very reason. If we were to rewrite Shakespeare so that it was easy to read and follow in modern English, while the ultimate story would remain the same, we would lose much of the very essence that makes it so wonderful.

    The translation of the liturgy is the same. The “story” remains the same, even if the language is changed. Yet, a language that is sacred, whether it be Latin or accurate English translation, helps us to better express that meaning. When we lose the sacred language, we lose so much of what makes the liturgy more beautiful.

  26. Servant of the Liturgy says:

    Dave: I’ll be the first to point the finger at myself, but I think that comment was out of line. I’m just sayin…

    Anyway, I thought we had heard the end of H.E. Trautman. I’m guessing he’ll never let up.

    Can’t wait for sacred language in our sacred liturgy. Alleluia. Alleluia.

  27. brianwalden says:

    Oh man, the cover of the current issue of U.S. Catholic is “Our Lady of Waste Management” – that says it all.

  28. Dave N. says:

    OK, I apologize.

  29. Blissmeister86 says:

    I tried to post this at the US Catholic poll site, but they didn’t accept it.
    When I studied abroad in Rome, I could definitely see that when the Mass response in Latin was “Et Cum Spiritu Tuo” the correct English translation is, “And With Your Spirit”, not “And Also With You”.
    Deliberately mistranslating the texts of the Mass harms the unity of the Church. The Mass should be celebrated the same way everywhere, and the text of the Mass should be the same everywhere. The Church is universal, and the Mass should be too. It used to be, when Mass was celebrated in Latin, that a person from another country could come to Mass and feel at home because it was the same Mass celebrated in his home country. Now, when I go to a country that doesn’t speak English, I feel out of place at Mass because I don’t speak or understand the vernacular language. When Mass was celebrated in Latin, there was a universal language to the Mass that represented the unity of the Church as the mystical body of Christ. Now, that unity of worship is lost.
    This is coming from a 23-year-old recent college graduate who grew up with the Novus Ordo and some of the weird experimentations of it, who understands the abuses that happened after Vatican II, and who feels called to become a priest someday.

  30. Blissmeister86 says:

    I tried to post this at the US Catholic poll site, but they didn’t accept it.
    When I studied abroad in Rome, I could definitely see that when the Mass response in Latin was “Et Cum Spiritu Tuo” the correct English translation is, “And With Your Spirit”, not “And Also With You”.
    Deliberately mistranslating the texts of the Mass harms the unity of the Church. The Mass should be celebrated the same way everywhere, and the text of the Mass should be the same everywhere. The Church is universal, and the Mass should be too. It used to be, when Mass was celebrated in Latin, that a person from another country could come to Mass and feel at home because it was the same Mass celebrated in his home country. Now, when I go to a country that doesn’t speak English, I feel out of place at Mass because I don’t speak or understand the vernacular language. When Mass was celebrated in Latin, there was a universal language to the Mass that represented the unity of the Church as the mystical body of Christ. Now, that unity of worship is lost.
    This is coming from a 23-year-old male recent college graduate who grew up with the Novus Ordo and some of the weird experimentations of it, who understands the abuses that happened after Vatican II, and who feels called to become a priest someday.

  31. Blissmeister86 says:

    Oops, there was I typo in the last part of my comment. It should have read:

    “This is coming from a male 23-year-old male recent college graduate who grew up with the Novus Ordo and some of the weird experimentations of it, who understands the abuses that happened after Vatican II, and who feels called to become a priest someday, in part due to the great spiritual poverty he sees in the world, and a desire to bring Christ’s love to those people.”

  32. irishgirl says:

    Couldn’t vote in the poll, but if I did, my vote would be for Latin, since I go to the EF Mass exclusively.

    Can’t Trautman get a clue? ‘Roma est locuta, causa finita est!’ And you, Your Excellency, lost! Get it through your head!

    I think Erie needs a coadjutor PRONTO!

  33. Austin says:

    It was once pointed out to me that Jesus never took part in a liturgy offered in his quotidian language, and there is no record that he objected to praying in liturgical Hebrew rather than Aramaic.

  34. Henry Edwards says:

    irishgirl: It appears likely that Erie will have a new bishop not long after June 24, 2011. Actually, it would seem something of a shame if Bishop Trautman does not get to remain in office long enough to — perhaps in Advent 2011, according to some reports — preside over the introduction of a glorious new translation on his watch in the diocese.

  35. Genna says:

    Not that I’m flying a flag for Bishop Trautman but “She brought forth ineffably your incarnate Son” is pretty clunky. We all love ineffable, but it’s a superfluous adverb here. Is this really part of the new translation or is he just trying to frighten the horses? He’s of the age (elderly moderniser) and, as a former chair of the USCCB liturgy committee, he may be upset that all his hard work mangling the liturgy is about to go down the plughole.
    No such probs with Latin!

  36. frjim4321 says:

    Seems like the previous ICEL rendition (currently shelved) met the requirements of sacral language without triggering all the neuralgic problems inherent in the current RM proposal. Just my two cents, but I think the shelved ICEL rendition would have been a big improvement over the current version but much less offensive to English speakers, at least in America. If we go ahead with the current iteration of the RM/English there will probably be quite a backlash from the people. Fr. Jim

  37. Thanks for info, Dave N. (re: the S.T.D….you mean, I don’t have to feel “inadequate”:<)!)
    And I don’t know what you said that needed an apology…okay, you think the new ICEL translations are “pretty horrible”…that’s you opinion. But I’m with you on this point: let’s have Latin. Then things might fall into “line”…if ya know what I mean:<)!
    I have a real prejudice here; we celebrate both forms in Latin here, with a few English Masses now and then (and I help out at two parishes with the OF in English). But all this kerfuffle over translations just boggles my mind; if people have the translations in English in their hands while the priest offers Mass in Latin, what is the big deal?
    I know what the big deal is (I’m not THAT stupid!)…but for heaven’s sake, let’s get on with it, already…the Mass is not “the people celebrating themselves” (Pope Benedict)…it’s the Sacrifice of Calvary represented on the altar. Is it that hard to understand? Yep, it is; when you’ve had over forty years of “the assembly”, “the ‘breaking of the bread’ amidst friends'”, et. al.
    Sorry, I’m starting to ramble.

  38. tygirwulf says:

    “Some in the group said the liturgy was why they became Catholic.”

    Bingo! Though in my case, it was watching a recording of a TLM that did it for me. Somehow when I searched for Catholic Mass on youtube, that is what came up, and it cemented my decision to become Catholic.

    My thinking then was that in the way they celebrated Mass, Catholics honestly believed what they talked about, and gave honor and glory to God, which is what I was looking for. I wanted every part of that.

    Words cannot describe the shock and confusion I felt when I watched a video of a typical Mass as celebrated these days. I had to keep double-checking to make sure it was really a Catholic Mass I was watching. I had heard that the Church didn’t use Latin much anymore, so I was prepared to see something in English, but the very form of the Mass was so utterly different I thought for sure it was some Protestant’s idea of a bad joke…

  39. markomalley says:

    60% (489) for Latin

    35% (285) for an accurate translation

    5% (38) for a dumbed down version

    (As of 1445)

  40. tygirwulf: Sorry, on all counts.
    I became a Catholic because of the “unchanging Tradition”…albeit, in the times after VII.
    But was I in for a shock attending a “Catholic” college! Being formed in the more traditional sense of being a Catholic, even after VII (we still knelt at the communion rail, receiving on the tongue, traditional Catholic music/chant, the Mass in the proper celebration), I was not prepared in any way, shape, or form for this.
    Pray God we’re returning, “brick by brick”, to the proper and solemn form of celebrating the Holy Mass; slowly but surely.
    Don’t let the weirdos get ya’ down…their time is limited…Pope Benedict, pray God, will make some inroads in the “devastated vineyard” (D. von Hildebrand). Keep the faith!

  41. JonM says:

    I have to give credit to his Excellency for writing a well-tempered piece defending, clearly, a most personally held conviction.

    As with many points of disagreement, the Bishop’s logic is pretty sound, but with his assertions we will find fault.

    When I argue in favor of the TLM, I don’t try to suggest that most people will understand it, that is in the sense that those who speak English understand these blog comments (they will understand in other ways). I assert that the Mass is not so much the central time for teaching the faith (i.e. in a study format); that should be integrated into the lives of all Catholic families apart from Sunday.

    The Mass is the celebration of Christ’s one sacrifice that is ever present and His outpouring of love that veils himself in simple bread so that we might have true life in us.

    Furthermore, the Holy Spirit guided the development of the liturgy over millennia such that liturgy was greater than its parts; its mystery serves as a foretaste of the true home.

    This is way to great a simplification, but one could almost say it comes down to the idea of mass as a mysterious and supernatural transcendence or a communal Scripture event. Indeed, many conservative post-Vatican II Catholics relish the new rite of Mass because it resembles well the old residence of Protestantism.

    Bottom line: The Tridentine Mass converted Europe, the Americas, and was enjoying success even in distant China and Japan. Clearly, the Latin language was not a barrier to winning souls. The destruction of the Church and Catholic identity since the era of the Council is undeniable.

    Younger mass goers are nearly non-existent at Ordinary Form celebrations (yet are a large proportion of TLM devotees.)

    I say let’s go with the time tested approach.

  42. Blissmeister86 says:

    “tygirwulf: Sorry, on all counts.
    I became a Catholic because of the “unchanging Tradition”…albeit, in the times after VII.
    But was I in for a shock attending a “Catholic” college! Being formed in the more traditional sense of being a Catholic, even after VII (we still knelt at the communion rail, receiving on the tongue, traditional Catholic music/chant, the Mass in the proper celebration), I was not prepared in any way, shape, or form for this.
    Pray God we’re returning, “brick by brick”, to the proper and solemn form of celebrating the Holy Mass; slowly but surely.
    Don’t let the weirdos get ya’ down…their time is limited…Pope Benedict, pray God, will make some inroads in the “devastated vineyard” (D. von Hildebrand). Keep the faith!”

    Father, I agree completely with what you said. Although the Catholic university I attended, the University of St. Thomas in Saint Paul, MN, is nominally Catholic, it has a staunchly orthodox Catholic Studies program and a staunchly Thomistic philosophy program that formed me well in the Catholic faith. I’m a much better man and a more fervent Catholic due to the formation I received at UST through these two programs. I had no exposure at all to Latin or Gregorian chant before attending UST. I love the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, but a reverently celebrated Novus Ordo, in Latin, is very close to the EF. Properly celebrated, there is very little difference between the two.

  43. Brian2 says:

    “Spanish-speaking Catholics pray the new translation of the Nicene Creed repeating “Creo,” “I believe,” four times, but English-speaking Catholics will pray the same new translation saying “I believe” only once. Where is the consistency?”

    It takes some cojones to say that. The current Spanish translation, while not perfect, is vastly superior to the English one he endorses.

  44. Blissmeister86: I know there are “pockets” at UST in St. Paul (we’re not far from there) that are very faithful to the Catholic Faith; in fact, Dr. R. Kennedy was a prof of mine in the IRPS Program (1999) as well as a former Scripture prof at St. Paul Seminary who is now a pastor at St. Augustine, S.St.Paul, through the U of Dallas at St. Charles Borromeo, Minneapolis.
    My saving grace at the Catholic college I attended was the philosophy department; they still taught Thomistic philosophy back in the late ’70s, early ’80s, for which I am very grateful.
    The theology? Not so good.

  45. Emilio III says:

    Much as I look forward to the new translations, we should bear in mind that the Scripture readings will still be from the castrated New American Bible. Instead of “I have fought the good fight” we will still hear “I have competed well”.

    Approved Bible translations should not be limited to those whose copyright is owned by the USCCB.

  46. my kidz mom says:

    LOL! Father Z’s reference to “the Emperor in Amadeus” explained:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU

  47. MWP says:

    I think mistranslations are the main problem, and banal, trite, oversimplified language. Here in Poland the liturgy is generally in Polish, but judging by the reactions on this forum and my own observations, it is so much more conservative than some of the things found in the US or Western Europe. The translations appear to be much more literal and faithful to the spirit and to the letter of the original. I think in some ways we were, paradoxically, shielded from the experimenting “Spirit of Vatican II” by the Iron Curtain. I myself would prefer vernacular liturgy to continue but with unwavering attention paid to clarity and sense. The translated text should never, I repeat never, ‘cut the corners’ on its source, and if it does, it should be immediately rectified.

    Personally, I think I’m in favor of the vernacular mainly when thinking about my forebears, most of whom hadn’t been taught Latin (too poor) although they obviously did have access to prayer books in the vernacular. But were Latin re-introduced, I’d have no problem with it personally. However, I’m still somewhat wary of a knowledge gap being created in Catholic worship as a result of Latin – it’s easier for many folks to listen, pray and respond in their own language than in one they don’t speak. On second thoughts, at my church in Warsaw some songs are in Latin and they’re wonderful… However, every vernacular language, be it English or any other, must be accurate and faithful to the original – there’s no other way.

    Incidentally, the same thing seems to plague new Bible translations. The “academic” ones hardly ever match the language of the old ones. They seem to share the same apparent striving for simplicity at any cost. The effect, however, is that old and wonderful language is replaced with something maybe more adequate (?) but cold and aloof.

    The translators of the new Dutch Catholic Bible translation (2004) for example, replaced “manger” by something that in English can only be rendered as “fodder-box”. Now that really made me sad! So many associations with that single word thrown out just like that! I think the theologians tinkering with the new liturgy are of the same school – and they’re just as blind to the effect it has on us all.

    Marcin

  48. Gladiatrix says:

    With respect to the Bishop and his office, his criticism of the new translation of the Credo is incorrect. I worked for a legal publisher for a while and the style used in the new translation, i.e. I believe: followed by sub-clauses each beginning with a capital letter and ending in a full stop, is entirely correct.

    It seems that the Bishop is out of touch with standard modern publishing practise whilst the Vatican is up to date.

  49. Jon says:

    irishgirl said:

    “I think Erie needs a coadjutor PRONTO!”

    Yes, and he should have “FSSP” after his name.

  50. mpm says:

    I noticed that someone provided us with a very customized dynamically unequivalent translation of the French preface to Fr. Gamber’s book. I have highlighted in bold the portions that correspond (roughly) to what was provided. Original French and English translation here..

    In the midst of the quarrel of the liturgists, it is hard to express in a few words what is truly essential, and what is not. Perhaps the following pointer may prove helpful. J. A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, had defined the liturgy of his time, just as it was understood in the West especially, by representing it by means of historical research, as a «liturgy fruit of a development»; probably also by contrast with the eastern notion which in the liturgy does not see the historical growth and development, but only the glint of the eternal liturgy, the light of which, in the sacred action, enlightens our changing time with its immutable beauty and grandeur. These two ways of seeing the liturgy are legitimate and definitely not irreconcilable. What has happened after the Council signifies a whole other thing: in place of a liturgy which is the fruit of a continual development, they have given us fabricated liturgy. They have gone outside the living process of growth and development so as to delve into fabrication. They have no longer wanted to continue the organic development and maturation of the living thing down through the centuries, and they have replaced them — as if it were a technical production — with a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.

    Who are “they”? Earlier, Cardinal Ratzinger identified them as, not the Council fathers, but the “liturgical guild”.

    JonM, I agree that we “have to give credit to his Excellency for writing a well-tempered piece defending, clearly, a most personally held conviction.” But, on the other hand, it’s his only piece, and he has had abundant time in which to hone his prose over the last 4 or 5 years! ;>

  51. My parish performs latin mass once in a while on fridays. It is the most beautiful church i have ever been to. At these latin masses they have booklets titled “The Mass of Vatican II” and all of it is in latin with a very literal english translation next to it. This, i believe, is how it should be always. The mass should be in Latin to show the beauty, and more and more young people are falling in love with it, with the english on the side not only for the congregation to follow along and understand what they are saying, but also to enable them to truly decipher and veiw the magnificnece within the latin words and why the Church selects them.

  52. jamie r says:

    Perhaps paradoxically, Trautman’s taking a bizarrely prescriptivist view of English grammar.

    For instance, in actual, spoken English, people begin sentences with “and” all the time. Grammar handbooks (e.g., Strunk and White) recommend against it in writing, but everyone knows exactly what is meant when you start a sentence with a conjunction. If Trautman were less authoritarian, he’d accept that sentences often start with “and,” and that spoken sentences can be quite long. His grammatical complaints are really, really pedantic.

  53. Traductora says:

    Bp Trautman’s companion in this idiocy is our good bishop, Bp Victor Galeone of St Augustine. He’s actually very nice (although he did have to take a break to go off with some nuns to pour blood on something at the School of the Americas) and I think he’s very sincere but completely misguided.

    But it’s not just Latin or even the new Mass translation he hates. He actually “translated” a poem by Hopkins for us in one of his sermons because he said the language was “proper English” and he thought that laypeople couldn’t understand it.

    I would be really insulted except that I don’t want to waste my time, since he’s retiring in September and this will all be over soon. These men are things of the past.

  54. robtbrown says:

    What has happened after the Council signifies a whole other thing: in place of a liturgy which is the fruit of a continual development, they have given us fabricated liturgy.

    Rev 6:7-8.

    When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Liturgist, and Sentimentalism was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill with the vernacular, active participation, versus populum celebration, and with the guitars of the earth.

  55. Jon says:

    June 24, 2011

    The day Bishop Trautman returns to Buffalo.

  56. EXCHIEF says:

    Jon
    What do you have against the people of Buffalo? You just rubbed salt in their wounds. :)

  57. tygirwulf says:

    I became Catholic for many reasons, and the Church’s unchanging Tradition is one of them. To my point of view, how someone worships will reflect and match their own feelings and views of the tenets of their faith. I saw that traditional Latin Mass video as a very good reflection of the truths of the Faith, and clearly demonstrated to me that the priest, the servers, and the parishioners wholly believed them.

    I accept the Novus Ordo as valid, but I pretty much put up with it and ignore the music and just pray and meditate my way through a lot of Mass, to the best of my ability. The traditional Mass I see every month or so at St. Francis de Sales Oratory of the ICKSP (HUGE kudos to Canon Wiener) is much more of an external reflection of my own inner meditations and prayers than what I get at my home parish.

    And that is what I really want, Mass everywhere to be an external reflection of the Faith and what we believe, not just a community gathering where we sing I-my-we-us feel-good songs, and listen to Fr make jokes and tell stories recycled from the internet, then tromp up to the front to take Communion, before we stand around and chat with our best friends.

  58. TJerome says:

    frjim4312, there will only be a backlash if individual priests cause it. Most Catholics will not have any problem with it at all. For the few that do, there’s always the Episcopal Church. On second thought, forget that, even the looney liberal Episcopals appreciate sacral language.

  59. Genna says:

    Emilio III, I grind my teeth every time I hear in the Gospel reading that when Christ was transfigured His clothes became whiter than any earthly bleach, as if He used the right washing powder.
    The other teeth grinder is the substitute for “Jesus Wept” by “Jesus burst into tears” which makes Him sound like a playground cry-baby.
    Oh dear, oh dear.

  60. Henry Edwards says:

    Genna: “She brought forth ineffably your incarnate Son” is pretty clunky. We all love ineffable, but it’s a superfluous adverb here.

    Filium tuum … ineffabiliter de se genuit incarnatum.
    … brought forth ineffably your incarnate Son.

    Superflous? How would you translate the word “ineffabiliter”? Retaining reference to a birth that preserved her perpetual virginity. Of course, certain bishops obviously do think that certain traditional Catholic beliefs like the perpetual virginity are superfluous.

    Maybe one person’s accuracy is another person’s clunky? In any event, the English translation flows more smoothly than the Latin original, which inserts vitae omnia auctorem (“author of all life”) after Filium tuum.

    At any rate, I’m confident Fr. Jim @ 1:37 pm’s hopes for a popular backlash will be dashed. I know these types (and his) well, and they just don’t care all that much about the grammatical issues that are so riveting here at WDTPRS.

  61. Timbot2000 says:

    Marcin,

    The Polish translation is vastly superior to any other in any language anywhere in the world because it was ultimately not the creation of a committee, it was overseen and directed by one man, Servant of God Stefan Kardinal Wyschinski, who would brook no shenanigans, and who being in charge took pains to make sure that the end product would not darken his name. By the same token, the current committee/synodal method of translation in the Latin church is the biggest joke ever. If this had been the historical method of translation we would still be waiting fro the bishops to approve the Vulgate.

  62. Timbot2000 says:

    Genna,

    I grind my teeth every time the Gospel is read instead of chanted.

  63. Blissmeister86 says:

    I’m an ’80s baby, and I have a question for those of you who are older and wiser than me. When did heresy make its way into Catholic liturgical music. Was it the ’80s, or sooner than that, and why and how did it make its way in. I was looking through a GIA press hymnal the other day, and couldn’t believe how much heresy there was in many of the hymns in the hymnal. Also, the traditional hymns have been revised to include “inclusive” language. The worst of the heretical hymns were “Gather Us In” “Ashes” and “As A Fire is Meant For Burning”. I don’t think all the new liturgical music is bad, as some of Richard Proulx’s hymns and his Deutsche Messe is pretty good, but a lot of contemporary Catholic liturgical music has heretical lyrics and reeks of pop and folk music, which is inappropriate for use at Mass.

  64. Amy MEV says:

    I voted, but eww…my computer had to log onto US Catholic’s website to do it! I think I need to run a disk scan and defrag now.

  65. ghp95134 says:

    As of 1:30pm PST:

    In Latin. 60% (717 votes)
    In a translation of the Latin that is as literal as possible. 36% (436 votes)
    In a translation that is in natural, easy-to-understand English. 4% (49 votes)
    =======
    I agree with the earlier commenter who stated this survey was poorly constructed!

    –GHP

  66. Blissmeister86: I was born in 1959…so maybe I can help.
    From what I know, the “trash” of liturgical music was the result of the “chasm” created in the mid-1960’s when the Mass was changed more and more into the vernacular. There was an almost instantaneous glut of “music”, based upon the current “folksy” music of the times that replaced what was used, the more traditional hymnody (in the 1950’s the use of hymns during “low Mass” (the recited traditional (EF) Mass) was allowed); this continued into the time of the changes in the Mass during the late ’60s and early ’70’s. (We have in our possession here a “hymnbook” with Ray Repp, et. al.–remember them, any of you?–with all these ‘ditties’ that are long dated). The St. Louis Jesuits then took “center stage” with all of the ‘Glory and Praise’ stuff (C. Landry, etc.). By the 1980’s we had Marty Haugen, David Hass, and Fr. Michael Joncas filling the bill; Oregon Catholic Press then came on the scene with all of their “liturgical music”; which finds us in the beginning of the Third Millenium; GIA had a decent hymnal, WORSHIP, which was replaced by WORSHIP II and III, as well as GATHER…the later editions are just worthless in many respects, in regards to Catholic liturgical music. That’s a brief history; I’m sure others could do better. As time went on, the lyrics were changed to be “pc”…and some of it was just heretical to begin with. Not only the music, but the lyrics, in many respects were suspect; the Vatican insisted on not using “YAHWEH” several years ago which changed some of the St. Louis Jesuit music (and I won’t go into the history of that bunch!)
    You are spot-on…you missed a lot; praise and thank God for it!

  67. mpm says:

    Blissmeister86,

    Older I am; wiser, ???? The late ’60s, early ’70s, depending on your geography, was when the heresies wafted in, as everyone was expected to believe that “we don’t believe in heresies anymore”.

    As if we ever did!

  68. Blissmeister86 says:

    mpm, I put “wiser” in there because you all know better what happened to the Mass after Vatican II than I know. I’m just a recent college grad in his early twenties. I grew up with a lot of the liturgical abuses, and I didn’t know they were abuses until I got to college.

  69. Jono says:

    What I just posted in comments for US Catholic:

    I was born in 1983. When I went to college and took beginning Latin class, I thought it would be fun to see if my translations were in any similar to what we had in the Missal. I was shocked to find that the prayers had been robbed not only of their poetry but also of any substance.

    It made me angry that my heritage was being deliberately witheld from me. Indeed, I was prevented from actively participating in the liturgy of the Roman Rite because it was being whitewashed, in order that I would not understand the true sense of the Church.

    I have no problem with Mass celebrated in the vernacular (or Latin, or a vernacular/Latin hybrid) but it is of the utmost importance that true, accurate translations be made of the texts so that the people may actively and actually participate in the Mass.

  70. Blissmeister86 says:

    “It made me angry that my heritage was being deliberately witheld from me. Indeed, I was prevented from actively participating in the liturgy of the Roman Rite because it was being whitewashed, in order that I would not understand the true sense of the Church.

    I have no problem with Mass celebrated in the vernacular (or Latin, or a vernacular/Latin hybrid) but it is of the utmost importance that true, accurate translations be made of the texts so that the people may actively and actually participate in the Mass.”

    That’s precisely how I feel, Jono. Thanks for sharing that.

  71. Blissmeister86 says:

    And Jono, I was born in 1986, and I think a lot of people born in the 1980s feel the same way you and I do. Go JPII/Benedict generation!

  72. MWP says:

    @ Timbot2000 — 7 April 2010 @ 3:24 pm

    Yes indeed!

    Marcin

  73. ghp95134 says:

    …If we were to rewrite Shakespeare so that it was easy to read and follow in modern English, while the ultimate story would remain the same, we would lose much of the very essence that makes it so wonderful.

    Excellent point! I would continue with a comparison between “Romeo and Juliet” and “West Side Story.” Or, carry the analogue closer: “Carmen” in the original French, or with English voice-over. Yah, I could understand the English and not French …. but I’d much rather follow the program and hear any opera in its original language!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Ult8x-doE&feature=related

    Regards,
    GHP

  74. Survey Question 5: More elevated language will help restore a much-needed sense of mystery to the Mass.

    Response: Agree

    Other (please explain): Such language would leave me with an ineffable sense of joy.

  75. Archicantor says:

    Normally I don’t agree with Bishop Trautman’s views. But on the subject of the Creed, those of us in the Anglican Patrimony have become accustomed to a certain amount of grammatical accommodation. Below I’ve copied the Nicene Creed from the 1962 Canadian Book of Common Prayer (the version used by the Traditional Anglican Communion in Canada, which has recently petitioned for the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus here). I love how the possibilities of punctuation are stretched to their limits to make the theological meaning as clear as possible (e.g. “God, of God”). What at first seems to be random capitalization is really designed to show how to divide long sentences into natural phrases. And I think that the two interpolations of “I believe” are softened by being preceded, like so much of the text, by the word “and”, showing that each clause of the Creed connects back to the first. It’s a lovely version to sing.

    I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all worlds; God, of God; Light, of Light; Very God, of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; Through whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.

    And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, The Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

  76. Traductora says:

    Archicantor, the objection of most ordinary Catholics to the current Creed is the use of “we” instead of “I.” The Latin has it as “I.” “We” was in the Nicene Creed because that was the profession of faith of the 318 Church fathers at that Council. But it was not in the Latin for either the old or the new mass and should not be used. It was an attempt to “collectivize” the Faith, and that’s the real objection.

  77. Or consider the opening prayer on the Monday of the fifth week of Lent: “May we bring before you as the fruit of bodily penance a cheerful purity of mind.” What do these words mean?

    I really hope Bishop Trautman knows what “bodily penance” and “purity of mind” mean. Honestly, does anyone here have difficulty understand that sentence?

  78. Henry Edwards says:

    “May we bring before you as the fruit of bodily penance a cheerful purity of mind.” What do these words mean?

    Jeffrey: Could the problem be instead some hangup with the word “fruit”?

  79. greg the beachcomber says:

    Hmmm. The entire US Catholic site seems to be down. Wonder if they got more traffic than they expected…

  80. Archicantor says:

    Hi, Traductora. You’re quite right, of course. The modern Anglican liturgies fell into the same trap, and I am equally annoyed every time I have to say “We” (though we should all read Prof. Peter Jeffery’s Translating Tradition: A Chant Scholar Responds to Liturgiam Authenticam; he fully supports more literal translations of the Missal, but he warns that a certain amount of diversity, such as the use of “We” found in some early medieval liturgical books, might not be too devastating).

    The liturgical scholars who supported the modern liturgical reforms were, I suspect, genuinely trying to get back to what they saw as a more “authentic” and “Patristic” way of praying the liturgy (hence the exhumation of the Hippolytan Eucharistic Prayer). I used to think that way too, until I read then-Card. Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy and began to understand that you can have organic development without corrupting the principles of the original. And look what happens to “authenticity” when you discard the tradition!

    The modern liturgical reforms were also very attractive to Anglicans as a way of addressing some of the felt deficiencies of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer without too overtly “Romanizing” the liturgy. In other words, an agreed ecumenical ground for liturgical convergence. That’s worked out really well… :) I can’t help but think that Anglicanism wouldn’t be in the state it’s in today if we had a Fr. Z. of our own to champion Anglican liturgical identity!

  81. DetJohn says:

    It appears to me that Bishop Donald W. Trautman believes that the faithful are too stupid to know the meaning of thee and thou. He must have a cat fit when he says the Lords Prayer.

    The Bishop would have a heart attack if he had to attend an Anglcan Usage Mass. They use Elizabethian style English.

  82. Bressani56 says:

    On Fr. Ruff’s Blog, Paul Inwood, a famous OCP composer, said:

    “It is scarcely believable that, with the whole Church reeling from the fallout from the clergy sex abuse scandals that are piling up ever higher day by day, the Vatican mandarins are even contemplating aggravating people further by imposing a substandard, ill-considered translation.”

    That’s quite a sentence! It truly makes him worthy of an Ecclesiastical censure, doesn’t it Fr. Zuhlsdorf? Or is it just poor logic? Or good ole hatred of the Pope? [If I am not mistaken, this is the same guy who gave us the Cha Cha Alleluia. Case closed.]

  83. Dr. Eric says:

    The link is down. Could it be that they are embarrassed that their plan blew up in their faces?

  84. AnAmericanMother says:

    Bressani, never ever use “OCP” and “composer” in the same sentence. It’s like matter and anti-matter. “Decomposer” would be right on target.

    Archicantor, the old 1662 (through 1928) BCP should have been a model for translation (with appropriate allowances made for correction of the language to track the Consecration, for example). The Episcopalians, however, jettisoned Cranmer’s majestic prose for Newspeak Nonsense in the early 70s.

    And – as I noted in my survey (it’s down for me too) – we’ve all seen how well that’s worked out for them . . . (although there are certainly other factors at work, I’m sure it didn’t help their situation).

    As far as the site being down — we have two alternatives: (1) the server was swamped; (2) they didn’t like the results of the poll!

  85. AnAmericanMother says:

    Dr. Eric, you took the words right out of my mouth.

    I bet the whole thing will go down the memory hole.

  86. TJerome says:

    Paul Inwood’s comment is a hoot. My parish “leadership team” tried to use the clergy scandals as an excuse not to implement kneeling after the Sanctus. These lefties are soooooooooo transparent. They’ll seize on any excuse. It just shows how desperate they are.

  87. beez says:

    I hope I didn’t upset Bp. Trautman by quoting #22 paragraph 3 and #54 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in my answers.

  88. pcstokell says:

    I read the opening of the post and thought it said, “H.E. Most. Rev. Donald W. Trautman, Bishop of Erie, invertebrate champion of inclusive language…”

  89. Magpie says:

    This piece lost its entertainment value when the red writing ended. =p

  90. btdn says:

    ‘American Catholics shouldn’t have to suffer through a liturgy’ indeed.

  91. TJerome says:

    The way this poll is going for US Catholic and Trautman, I’m starting to wonder if they will suppress it “for the good of the People of God.”

  92. The Cobbler says:

    Natural, easy-to-understand English? Welcome to Hell, old fogeys: if we made the English translation truly natural and conducive to genuine understanding, liberalism would be shredded.

    In fact, I think if we interpret the options correctly like that, the difference between them really doesn’t matter. The real problem is not that there’s disagreement between people in terms of preference among those options. The problem is people don’t know how to truly make an English translation natural and conducive to understanding.

  93. The Cobbler says:

    (My apologies if my opening comments come off harsh; I’m never sure whether I’m being colloquial correctly or not.)

  94. Maltese says:

    Can you imagine this music being written for a Trautman-inspired novus ordo?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKW9o_5jw6U

  95. Maltese says:

    Actually, Trautman and Gumbleton did commission a piece of music for the new mass, together; it’s very touching, especially when they bring out the banners:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdHOMtDZcJI

  96. openmind says:

    My comment is about the next post (but comments were turned off for that one). Who here, including Father, uses the Luminous Mysteries when praying the Rosary? I don’t use them because I simply prefer tradition over innovation, and the 150 Hail Marys (from the 15 Mysteries without the Luminous) is supposed to correspond to the 150 Pslams of David’s Psalter.

    I realize the Rosary is a devotion, albeit Our Lady’s favorite, and that it is not a doctrine. As such, it can be changed. But still…I feel a tad bad that I’m not following a recommendation of the Holy Father, even if its optional.

  97. B.C.M. says:

    Heh. Update it now, Father. And be sure to get a picture of the page of the magazine where this appears, when it appears.

  98. bressani56: I think Fr. A. Ruff, OSB, better watch himself here…; St. John Abbey, Collegeville, Mn, has got enough to deal with. ‘Nuff said.
    Check it out yourselves. He just better watch it. That blog is a joke; they are all for undermining the Holy See and the English translations; plus a whole a lot more. Believe me.
    http://www.behindthepinecurtain.com/wordpress/?cat=5.

  99. lux_perpetua says:

    genna: my goodness what Bible translations are you hearing? is that stuff from the New American because I’ve certainly never been unfortunate to hear something that obnoxious at Mass.

    blissmeister: your comments made me very happy, as i just made an appointment to check out St. Thomas’s psychology program. Your comments about Catholic teaching give me some hope.

    also, to those who say that folk music does not belong at Mass [i agree], can you explain how chant in its original form, and even polyphonic motets and things, differed from their “secular” contemporary counterparts?

  100. lux_perpetua says:

    jono and blissmeister,

    i, too, am a child from that time. the wool was pulled from over my eyes when i went to an EO Liturgy. I was shocked at how similar yet, dare i say, ineffably different the corresponding parts of the Liturgy such as the creed [filioque etc notwithstanding] were. afterwards i talked to the priest, a former Catholic priest who split after vII about it. he solomnly looked at me and said “My daughter, find a traditional Mass.”

    also, who needs St. Bosco’s visions of Hell when we have bishops telling us that we should make funeral services about what we want God to give us?

  101. lux_perpetua: A very simple music history lesson here: chant, from reliable scholarship, seems to originate in the Jewish synagogue chants…it developed over time but there are definite links to this form of singing; as to polyphony…that’s a bit more complicated (I don’t have a semester here!)…suffice it to say that although there may have been some “borrowing” from cultural/secular melodies, the polyphony approved by the Church was based upon Gregorian modes/chants…the “purification” that took place, probably over time, made these particular musical pieces “adapted” to the worship of the Church.
    There are, in fact, secular melodies and songs that were used in “popular devotions” and feasts, outside of the official liturgy. But whatever was approved for the “official worship” of the Church, in the Middle Ages and probably up to the Reformation, were “set apart” from the common usage. That’s it in a nutshell, from what I can say; anyone here is free to criticize and correct this poor monk’s synopsis of music history (from thirty years in college…Sr. Bertha, forgive me if I embarrass you:<)!)

  102. Jono says:

    openmind,

    I do say the Luminous Mysteries. I have no problem doing so. Yes, the Rosary began with roots in the Psalter. Now we may understand it more as a tool to contemplation of Jesus through Mary (as Ven. John Paul II said). You could view it as being much the same as praying another chaplet, with the exception that praying Rosary (with the Joyful, Luminous, Sorrowful or Glorious Mysteries) will allow you to gain a plenary indulgence when prayed at a church, in the family, or in some other gathering of the faithful (roommates?), and a partial indulgence otherwise.

    Many chaplets have developed over the centuries. As you said, you don’t need to meditate on the Luminous Mysteries at all, even if you pray the Rosary daily. If you have a problem with it, then you don’t have to do it. You won’t sin by doing so. Indeed, you will be acting as many Catholics long before you have acted. If, however, you ever wish to contemplate the particular events in the life of the Savior of the Luminous Mysteries with our Blessed Mother, you can always avail yourself (preferably on Thursdays).

  103. Archicantor says:

    Hi, lux_perpetua. The short answer to your question is that secular music wasn’t written down as early as sacred music. The earliest manuscripts of Gregorian chant with notation date from the late ninth century, and we have little if any way of knowing what secular music sounded like then. Once the chants were concretized as part of the liturgy, they came to define what sacred music “sounded like”, though this didn’t stop new genres of sacred music from appearing (sequences, tropes, etc.). But I find it significant that these new genres began life as elaborations of the old chants, not as replacements.

    I will respectfully differ from nazareth priest’s esteemed teacher, Sr. Bertha, in saying that current musicology doesn’t give much credit to the theory of chant’s origins in the music of the synagogue. The work of the late Dom Jean Clair (choirmaster of Solesmes) on the development of the Gregorian modes made a plausible case for the ultimate origin of all Gregorian chant in three basic recitation tones used to intone the psalms in public worship (on C with inflections on D and B; on D with inflections on E and C; and on E with inflections on F and D). All the scalar possibilities necessary to generate the modal varieties of Gregorian chant can be explained as extensions of the diatonic scale above and below these reciting tones. If you ever look at the 1981 Psalterium Monasticum (p. x), you’ll notice that it restores these tones for use with certain antiphons that seem to call for them. The likely context for this development is the so-called “fourth-century psalmodic movement” (on which see James McKinnon, “Desert Monasticism and the Later Fourth-Century Psalmodic Movement”, Music & Letters 75 (1994), 505-21), through which the psalms became the dominant musical material of Christian worship.

    That’s a long way of saying that the origins of Gregorian chant lie in the psalmodic practice of the Church in Late Antiquity. Of course, the final versions of the melodies as they have come down to us were crafted by Roman and Frankish cantors working across several centuries. I cannot help but think, however, that the sacred quality of Gregorian chant has something to do with its origins in an ancient and simple way of declaiming Christian prayer and praise.

  104. talonh says:

    No offense to the laudable folks on this blog…I’m one, and of your tribe, but there is no way this poll will be taken seriously as there is no way it represents folks on the whole. I think answer #2 could be arguably the winner…but everything in Latin simply shows that we’re the same type of trolls against whom we’d normally complain. I don’t mean to be harsh, just realistic. The poll ends up “proving” nothing.

  105. pjsandstrom says:

    As to the ‘classical Latin polyphony’ there are a whole series of Masses based on two popular songs: “Ah your face is so pale’ and “The Armed Man”. I am sure there are other songs used in the same way, but these two are the most common (and the most famous).This type of music for the ordinary of the Liturgy is called ‘parody Masses’.

  106. Ed the Roman says:

    OCP prints much tripe. But.

    They print much that is not tripe, as well. If you have Gather and their stuff together, a higher fraction of traditional stuff you want for Christmas is in the OCP material. As well, music directors of my acquaintance (and of Catholic taste) assure me that they are responsive: if you ask for something they will be grateful for the feedback and act on it much of the time.

    That they still include Ashes and Anthem speaks to the disgusting fact (I’m sorry) that too many people want them in there.

    OCP will also most likely be first past the post with works based on the new translation. Did you know that the their version of “Sing a New Song” had the verse containing “Yahweh’s people dance for joy” corrected in time for this liturgical year?

  107. Blissmeister86 says:

    Lux Perpetua, when you visit the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota’s Psychology program, be sure you stop by and speak with Dr. John Buri. He’s a great psychology prof and a staunch Catholic that also teaches a class for the Catholic Studies program. And, if you attend St. Thomas, be sure you consult with the seminarians from St. John Vianney College Seminary regarding who to take for theology classes, because only 33% of the Theology faculty there will teach you orthodox Catholic theology. And, if you get a chance, be sure to take a class from Dr. John Boyle, who is a professor in both the Catholic Studies and Theology departments and, in my opinion, the best of the theology professors.
    nazarethpriest, Dr. Robert Kennedy was actually, until after I graduated in May of 2009, the chair of the Catholic Studies Department at St. Thomas.

  108. wmeyer says:

    When the bishops at Vatican II made the historic decision that the liturgy of the church should be in the vernacular…

    Having read Sacrosanctum concilium very carefully several times, it never ceases to amaze me that so many bishops appear to have skipped directly to paragraphs 37-40. These are where provision is made in the context of mission lands, as I read SC, for greater use of the vernacular.

    Forgive me for not having checked the date, but I’m pretty sure that by 1965, the United States was no longer considered a mission land.

    I remember very clearly that I began following the Latin at Mass when I was about 7 years old. If a child could do that, surely a bishop could?

  109. Nathan says:

    U.S Catholic’s hompage has the logo “In conversation with American Catholics.” Looking at the poll and comments, I wonder if they didn’t expect to be in conversation with us.

    In Christ,

  110. irishgirl says:

    Jon @ 2:31 pm: ‘Yes, and he should have ‘FSSP’ after his name.’

    Brilliant! Love it! Wouldn’t it be cool if that happened?

    Then Joan Chittister would be gnashing her teeth-too bad, lady! Your kind is ‘outta here’!

  111. AnAmericanMother says:

    Re: folk music

    The problem isn’t the melody, it’s the accompaniment!

    A lot of “folk” and secular melodies have found their way into the Mass over the years (e.g. L’homme arme’). But the melody is simply the starting point – the rest of the treatment, whether chant, polyphony or four-part harmony, is appropriate for Mass.

    The sort of “folk music” that doesn’t belong in Mass is the stuff with (bad) guitar or electric keyboard accompaniment, bongos, solo riffs, bizarre diminished chords all over the place, etc. It just ain’t fittin’.

  112. irishgirl says:

    As per my above comment-I don’t mean to be harsh, Fr. Z; I know that we should have charity and civility here on the blog….but sometimes I can’t help but gloat over the progressives’ ‘weeping and wailing’ !

    Their time is over!

  113. wmeyer says:

    Irishgirl, we dare to hope!

  114. juxta crucem says:

    I wonder if most people who aren’t priests or liturgical geeks will even notice the changes? We’re used to creative ad-libbing at Mass all the time. What’s a few more changes? Besides, we’re grown-ups who deal with change all the time – new policies at work, new technology… Bishop Trautman and Co. seem desperate to stir up rebellion in the Church.

  115. Will D. says:

    Someone mentioned “As A Fire is Meant For Burning,” which is a poster child for the boneheaded worship-free human-centered hymn. It was the closing hymn for my diocesan Chrism Mass. My Methodist-preacher brother-in-law rolled his eyes at this verse:

    Not to preach our creeds or customs,
    but to build a bridge of care,
    we join hands across the nations,
    finding neighbors everywhere.

    As he rightly pointed out, isn’t preaching our creed the whole point of being a Christian? Spreading the Good News to the world? And it’s a particularly goofy sentiment at a Mass during which priests renew their vows!

  116. irishgirl says:

    wmeyer-amen to that!

  117. Dan G. says:

    The poll seems to have been moved, so that it appears on the homepage (http://www.uscatholic.org/) and also at http://www.uscatholic.org/2010/04/i-would-prefer-mass-be-prayed . The article and questionnaire are still at the earlier link. Votes already made still show up in the poll, but I was able to vote again today (maybe because of the page move?).

  118. Archicantor: Ah, the fights within the whole “gregorian chant” club!:<)
    I defer to you; it’s been over thirty years (and Sr. Bertha is either in the rest home or gone to God, so she won’t care!).
    Thanks!

  119. catholicmidwest says:

    How close is Trautman to retiring anyway?

    I hate clowns. They’re inconsequential but at the same time, scary and annoying as hell. Grrrr.

  120. catholicmidwest says:

    The Cha Cha Alleluia. Wow, I may have heard that. No, strike that. Ours was definitely the “happy hour at the bowling alley” alleluia.

  121. catholicmidwest says:

    As opposed to the “volunteer piano player at the bar” alleluia.

  122. Greg Smisek says:

    the very next article of faith simply begins: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.” Another article of faith begins in the same fashion: “And one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.” Neither is a sentence since they lack a subject and predicate, and they are respectively 26 and 32 lines distant from “I believe.” Such formulations hurt clarity and intelligibility.

    How terribly insensitive of the Council Fathers of Nicea and Chalcedon to fashion a text so utterly unintelligible to 21st-century bishops.

  123. UPDATE 9 April 1958:


  124. PostCatholic says:

    Some would prefer it be prayed not at all.

  125. catholicmidwest says:

    Recurrent problem, PostCatholic. You, once again, have an unattributed pronoun. Bad grammar can make communication impossible.

  126. Bressani56 says:

    Below is more from Paul Inwood, taken from the same liberal, anti-Catholi blog.

    I just realized: Paul Inwood is right!!! The Church is SO lucky to have a guy like him. He’s amazing! He’s awesome! He’s too good and too holy to be in the Catholic Church, but he’s staying anyway! The Catholic Church ought to kiss his feet every day, because we’re so lucky to have such an amazing guy like him!!

    I’m currently in the process, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, of writing Paul Inwood a letter, congratulating him on his decision to stay in the Church. Will you sign it?

    Here’s what he said (when they were all Pope-bashing on that blog, and congratulating themselves on how lucky the Church is to have them stay in it):

    “May I mention a 1975 book by the late Peter Hebblethwaite: The Runaway Church. My copy was long ago ‘borrowed’ by a friend and never returned, but in it, in those far-off non-inclusive-language days, the author categorized four “men of the Church”:

    The first man says “I can’t stand any more of this — I’m off!” and leaves.

    The second man can’t see that there is anything wrong with the Church at all. (Unlikely that there is anyone now left in that category.)

    The third man senses dimly that all is not well with the Church but cannot see how to do anything about it (and many of the clergy I was working with seemed to fit into that category).

    The “Fourth Man of the Church” cannot envisage life outside the Church, and so stays within it, trying to work for change from the inside rather than sniping from the exterior. I always felt that this was the category I belonged to, and I feel that it relates to the entire life of the Church, including its liturgy.”

  127. Bressani56: Paul Inwood and that whole bunch at “Pray Tell” are a bunch of liturgical fascists.
    Believe me; in my days (many years ago, before I knew better) I actually studied theology at that snake pit. God is good. I learned “from the inside” what this whole thing is about. And it is about “revolution” and disobedience.
    They can talk all they want about wanting to do what the liturgical reforms are all about. It’s all crap. All of it.
    Sorry to sound like such a complete crab, but believe you me; these folks need exorcism like you wouldn’t believe. That whole place does.

  128. Dave N. says:

    Paul Inwood. LOL.

  129. Bressani56 says:

    It is troubling, but I suppose I should have known in advance that these folks adhere to the “any stick will do to beat the Church with” philosophy.

    I need to go now, because I’m scheduled to go kiss Paul Inwood’s feet, to show him how LUCKY we are to have someone as amazing as he is in the Church.

    Oh, whoops! Today is my day to go over to Paul’s house and talk about how lucky the Church is that he hasn’t left yet…he’s doing us all a huge favor, isn’t he? Wow. He’s so great.

  130. Bressani56: Go with my blessing, my son!
    You have 123890 yrs off in purgatory (I just made that up, but why not?..anything goes, yeah?).