Post from: WDTPRS

Quotes from your e-mail about Bp. Trautman’s war on the translation

Post from: WDTPRS

Sermon about prayer for dead priests

UPDATE

Singapore Mai Fun and Sichuan Wonton Soup… 15 minutes to eat and a few more to the theatre!

Post from: WDTPRS

Off to another point on the list

“Dear Fr. Z., This is huge, there is actually going to be a vote on the Stupak Amendment! We weren’t even sure that debate would be allowed. They are voting this very day! If you think it appropriate, would you get your wdtprs’ers rolling into action? Urge them to drop what they are doing and CALL their Congressman? Message-tell him or her to vote “YES” on the Stupak Amendment. Then later they can tell their reps to vote no on this gigantic mess of a health care bill.”

Post from: WDTPRS

Vote on Stupak Amendment

Post from: WDTPRS

Show tonight!

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 [2]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:

Post from: WDTPRS

Bp. Donald “Ineffable” Trautman’s jihad against the new translation [Fr. Z POLL]

Dutch seminary to offer a course on the TLM

The website of the St. Willibrord seminary in the Tiltenberg, the Netherlands has announced that it is establishing a course for priests and seminarians on how to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. St. Willibrord’s is the major seminary of the Diocese of Haarlem.

The following is a translation of the announcement on the seminary website. Emphases mine. (H/t to There was a boy):

On 7 July 2007, Pope Benedict XVI published the Apostolic letter "Summorum Pontificum". In it the pope decides that the Roman Missal of Pope Saint Pius V, which was rereleased in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII, would now be the extraordinary expression of the same "legis orandi" of the Church and would be kept in suitable regard because of its respectable and ancient use (art. 1). The Saint Willibrord seminary at the Tiltenberg will therefore organise a course for priests and seminarians to learn this rite, to be announced on the day of continued formation for young priests on Monday 2 November.

In his motu proprio, Pope Benedict XVI emphasises that liturgy is an expression of faith, so that liturgy and prayer define faith (lex orandi, lex credendi). This is why the Church asks that liturgical texts, such as prayers and also the acclamations, be authorised by Church authorities, and why the Second Vatican Council emphasised that no one can change, remove or add liturgical texts on their own authority (Sacrosanctum Concilium 22, par. 3). The importance of this decision becomes immediately clear when one considers the close bond between the faith of the Church and its expression in the liturgy.

In the education of priests and deacons special attention is paid to students becoming thoroughly acquainted with the liturgical books and the practice of the several priestly and diaconal liturgical duties, including in the first place Holy Mass, but also the other Sacraments, Adoration, Vespers, blessings, funerals and so on. The appointments which are received in the course of their education, chiefly that of acolyte, must also be practised. The seminarians will receive this practice from the priest who is responsible for this in the seminary: drs. F.J. Bunschoten. In this, he’ll be assisted by Deacon J. Versteeg, who will be mostly working with the candidates for the permanent diaconate. The seminary’s MC, Rudy Kinds, will assist him in this. The priest has been mastering the Tridentine rite and gained the required knowledge and abilities to practice this rite with other priests and the candidates for Holy Orders.

For more on the seminary of St. Willibrord, please read this.

Some videos of the cantores of this seminary singing Gregorian chant are available on Youtube.

Post from: WDTPRS

Seminary TLM training? A shout to seminarians!

An alert reader sent me a note about an article in the WSJ which included this statement:

"House Democrats said concern among antiabortion Democrats that the bill would allow taxpayer-funded abortions had been a major sticking point. Talks continued late into Friday evening between House leaders and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in an effort to craft language that would satisfy all sides. Antiabortion Democrats have made it clear that the conference’s support is essential for their vote. The impasse was apparently cleared after abortion opponents were promised an opportunity to insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor."

Do you think that the statements and initiatives of the USCCB were too little or too late?   They would be if you don’t also act on that, as the bishops requested.   House Dems and others are listening.

From the WSJ article:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) sat down with representatives from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to try to broker a solution. The bishops urged antiabortion Democrats to hold their ground and said they would oppose the House bill "until this fundamental flaw is remedied."

None of us actually believe that pro-abortion Catholic Speaker Pelosi (still inexplicably allowed by her bishop and the local bishop where she works to receive Holy Communion – anybody… please explain that…) cares in the least what the USCCB says or that any of the arguments from reps of the USCCB will cause her to change her mind.  

Despite the obstinate attitude of pro-abortion Catholics such as pro-abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi and many other pro-abortion Catholics in Congress, people are listening to the Catholic Bishops.

Consider as well how many hospital beds are controlled by Catholics institutions.

It occurs to me that if the Catholic institutions which provided hospitals were to shut them down in the face of morally unacceptable scenarios, the health care debate in the USA would take on a whole new urgency.

Post from: WDTPRS

Congressional Dems paying attention to Catholic Bishops

A Healthcare Problem Washington May Have Missed
Nov 6, 2009
Bishop James D. Conley

With more than 620 Catholic hospitals serving the public around the United States, hundreds of Catholic medical clinics and shelters, and even a few Catholic-affiliated medical schools, Catholics have a keen interest in healthcare reform. That interest isn’t new. It’s rooted in experience, including the experience of trying to help people with little or no health insurance at all. For decades, the U.S. bishops have pushed for an overhaul of our nation’s healthcare industry and the way it delivers its services. Why? Because the Church sees access to basic health care as a right and a social responsibility, not a privilege.

But Catholic support for the general principle of reform does not bind anyone to endorse a specific piece of legislation.  [Right.  There are some principles we cannot abandon, but people of good will can disagree about how to tackle certain other social justice issues.] God gave us brains for a reason, to think; and we need to use them, because the practical and moral problems we face on the way to good healthcare reform are as formidable as the goal is admirable. This is why the U.S. bishops’ conference has tried so diligently for the past three months to work with Congress and the White House in seeking sound compromise legislation. As of November 5, all those efforts have failed.

The bishops have a few simple but important priorities.

First, everyone should have access to basic health care, including immigrants. The Church would hope to see that access broadened as widely as possible. But at a minimum, it should include those immigrants who live and work in the United States legally. [We can disagree about how to do these things.] Second, reform should respect the dignity of every person, from conception to natural death. [We can’t disagree about this.] This means that the elderly and persons with disabilities must be treated with special care and sensitivity. It also means that abortion and abortion funding should be excluded from any reform plan, no matter how adroitly the abortion funding is masked. [Absolutely.] Whatever one thinks about its legality, abortion has nothing to do with advancing human “health,” and a large number of Americans regard it as a gravely wrong act of violence, not only against unborn children but also against women.

Third, real healthcare reform needs to include explicit, ironclad conscience protections for medical professionals and institutions so that they cannot be forced to violate their moral convictions. [Right!] Fourth—and this is so obvious it sometimes goes unstated—any reform must be economically realistic and financially sustainable. [And we can disagree about how that can be done.] We can’t help anyone, including ourselves, if we’re insolvent. If we commit ourselves to health services, then we need to have the will and the ability to really pay for them. That’s a moral issue, not simply a practical one.

Note that these priorities do not attack the constitutional status of abortion. That’s a different battle. Nor do they take anything away from people who regard themselves as pro-choice. But they do protect the rights of the many, many citizens who see abortion as tragic and evil, and refuse to be implicated in supporting it.

Given the broad Catholic support for some kind of comprehensive healthcare reform, the historic links of the Democratic Party to the Catholic community, and the party’s total control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the reform legislation actually moving through Congress as I write these comments on November 5 is not only inadequate and baffling, but insulting and dangerous.

With the exception of a few leaders, like Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, Congress has ignored or rejected every attempt at resolving the serious concerns voiced by the bishops—or alternately, has pushed solutions like the Capps Amendment that do not solve the problems, and even create new ones. The White House has done nothing to intervene. “Common ground” thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy. And as a result, all of the main healthcare reform proposals in Congress, including the huge, 2,000-page merged House bill, are fatally flawed. Unless they are immediately and adequately amended, they need to be opposed and defeated.  [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

For all of Congress’ public talk about “consensus building” and “consensus health care,” Washington has proved once again that hearing loss can be job-related. Most American Catholics, from people in the pews to pastors and bishops, want healthcare reform to work. But too many people in Washington don’t know how to listen, or don’t want to listen, or just don’t care.

James D. Conley, S.T.L., is the auxiliary bishop of Denver.

Post from: WDTPRS

Bp. James D. Conley on Health Care Reform

Dear Father Z:

My thirteen year old daughter asked me how to use a word in a sentence.  She was seeking to complete an assignment she had been given in her 8th grade English class at a Massachusetts public school.  The following are the words for the week:

cauterized
surreptitious
ineffable
congregate
mediocre
pith

As luck would have it, she asked me to use "ineffable" in a sentence.

Post from: WDTPRS

“INEFFABLE” ALERT!