Cliffhanger vote on new translation at Bishops meeting

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Uh, do you folks realize how dissident this source is ? The National Catholic Reporter is one of the worst sites on the net. It, or it’s columnists, have no redeeeming qualities at all.

In what way is reporting on the voting of the bishops open to being dissident? They voted as they voted and John Allen reported on it.

I seriously wonder about some of the things the bishops have cited. I consider myself fairly well educated and I never heard “gibbet” before. It makes me think of “flibbertigibbet” and it’s hard to see how that relates to the cross. |shrug| They’re going to do what they’re going to do but I think rather than make the Mass more reverent they’re going to make it unintelligible.

 

[didymus]

Uh, do you folks realize how dissident this source is ? The National Catholic Reporter is one of the worst sites on the net. It, or it’s columnists, have no redeeeming qualities at all.

Look at the Catholic Culture review…

catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=60

Of course if one thinks lesbian “priests” are ok, one may love the site

Come on, at least find a decent source of info.

I don’t read the Reporter, I e-subscribe to John Allen’s column which has never been anything but straightforward reporting. I discovered him when his articles were linked to Fr. Z’s blog and Curt Jester.

 

[Jsmith17]

Thats my bishop:thumbsup:

Despite not seeming it here, he is a very great Bishop, and quite orthodox.

edit to add:

I would have no idea what gibbet of the cross meant, and I am a fairly devout Catholic, and above average intelegence-wise.

You spelled intelligence wrong…

(Sry, don’t mean to be rude, I’m just one of those grammar people… But the situation does happen to lend itself to a wee bit of irony.)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, a longtime critic of the new translations, said the texts contain a number of “archaic and obscure” terms, pointing to words such as “wrought,” “ineffable,” and “gibbet.”

I don’t know the word “gibbet” but I like the words “wrought” and “ineffable” and I’m willing to look up gibbet in the dictionary if they start using this. I don’t see the problem with a few words I’m not used to? We’re laypeople, not morons.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know the word “gibbet” .

It is a post upon which the body of a condemned criminal is hung.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It is a post upon which the body of a condemned criminal is hung.

Now we’re all ready for the new translation! Thanks Brendan!

 

[SenorSalsa]

Strangely enough, there was a show on the History Channel discussing torture chamber devices, and they used the word gibbet, several times actually. Who’d a thunk it

 

[Joe_5859]

The new English translation is what I like to call a “catechetical moment.” Unfamiliar words (like “gibbet”) can be explained and fleshed out. It gives us the chance to look at what we’re actually doing at Mass. If a word sounds funny or different, the priest can explain the meaning of the word and why it was chosen. I think it could make for some really powerful homilies. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, though.

Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that the bishops are going through this lengthy process to change the translation of the Mass, when so many (priests and laity) already feel empowered to do their own impromptu translations on any given Sunday? I’ve heard lectors “adjust” the Scripture readings so they read more “inclusively”, or the congregation saying things like “It is right to give God thanks and praise”, instead of “It is right to give Him thanks and praise.” If the bishops need a 2/3 majority to pass these changes, and then need to send it to Rome for approval, what makes us think we can change the words to suit our own interests? That, in and of itself, is a catechetical moment.

 

[SenorSalsa]

You spelled intelligence wrong…

(Sry, don’t mean to be rude, I’m just one of those grammar people… But the situation does happen to lend itself to a wee bit of irony.)

ive always been better at math than grammer. Thats why I give thanks all the time for spell check

 

[benedictgal]

It is most regrettable that those bishops who didn’t attend the meeting managed to slow down the train considerably.

Francis Cardinal Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has already told the bishops in clearly expressed terms that they needed to act as soon as possible on the new translations.

As late as 2006, the Prefect wrote to the USCCB indicating that:

With reference to the conversation between yourself, the Vice President and General Secretary of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, together with me and other Superiors and Officials when you kindly visited our Congregation on April 27, 2006, I wish to recall the following:

The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is the latest document of the Holy See which guides translations from the original-language liturgical texts into the various modern languages in the Latin Church. Both this Congregation and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow its directives. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is therefore not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam. If, however, there are difficulties regarding the translation of a particular part of a text, then this Congregation is always open to dialogue in view of some mutually agreeable solution, still keeping in mind, however, that Liturgiam authenticam remains the guiding norm.

The attention of your Bishops’ Conference was also recalled to the fact that Liturgiam authenticam was issued at the directive of the Holy Father at the time, Pope John Paul II, to guide new translations as well as the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, to bring them into greater fidelity to the original-language official liturgical texts. For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.

This statement pretty much addresses the comment made by one of the bishops regarding the gibbet.

Liturgicam Authenticam, the official Vatican document regarding translations, was also supposed to have been used in A New Song to the Lord. However, the document merely pays “lip service” and did not completely follow the guidelines set forth by the Holy See. Nor, did it pass by the necessary 2/3 vote to send the document to the Holy See for the necessary recognitio. The mauling and editing that document went through, at the behest of the NPM and the FDLC pretty much rendered it a paper tiger.

About a week and a half ago, I ran into my local Ordinary at the airport. I asked him about the vote for the proposed changes to the Roman Missal. He gave me a pained look and would not answer my question outright. I asked him if he’s looked them over and he changed the subject. Mind you, it was a simple and friendly question. I am perplexed by his response.

Now, I am well aware that each bishop was provided with an electronic copy of the proposed translations for them to read prior to their June meeting. It is somewhat disheartening when my own local Ordinary didn’t really have an answer.

Now, our diocesan director for Divine Worship is working with the USCCB team on the Spanish translations (which, from what I understand, are being taken part and parcel from the Mexican Roman Missal, which is what we use in Texas). When I visited with the former Secretary for the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, I was told by Msgr. Moroney that we were to use the Mexican lectionary, Book of the Gospels and Roman Missal until such time as a U.S. approved translation was ready for us to use. This was five years ago. And, oddly enough,m we were given that time frame back in 2003. I guess it was a bit too ambitious because nothing has moved. If any steps have been made, snails have moved faster.

 

[Brendan]

Strangely enough, there was a show on the History Channel discussing torture chamber devices, and they used the word gibbet, several times actually. Who’d a thunk it

Obviously the show was not targeted towards Catholics. John and Mary Catholic are too stupid to know, or at least look up, such complex words

 

[SenorSalsa]

Obviously the show was not targeted towards Catholics. John and Mary Catholic are too stupid to know, or at least look up, such complex words

I think they probably defined it, but they were using it to describe what was basically a guillotine, and they were using gibbet as the name of the device, so even if they didnt define it, people would contextually guess it was that execution device, which would lead to confusion at the Mass

 

[benedictgal]

I think they probably defined it, but they were using it to describe what was basically a guillotine, and they were using gibbet as the name of the device, so even if they didnt define it, people would contextually guess it was that execution device, which would lead to confusion at the Mass

Of course, I think that Cardinal Arinze anticipated that something like this would happen when he wrote to the USCCB and told them that:

For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes.

I’m guessing that at the next USCCB meeting, the Latin Rite bishops might be treated to a special guest from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

This begs an additional question: how are the ohter English-language episcopal conferences handling the vote on the new translations? Is the USCCB the only one who is slowing down the bullet train or is everyone else hung up on stuff?

 

[SenorSalsa]

in regards to the Cardinal’s qoute, im not saying that no change should be made, just that terms like gibbet might want to be avoided. But words like Consubstantial, which are actually doctrinal words, should be added. Gibbet is simply a vocab choice, and in my opinion, a bad one. I think the Cross acurately conveys the suffering of Christ without adding teh “Gibbet of” to describe it

 

[frommi]

Of course, I think that Cardinal Arinze anticipated that something like this would happen when he wrote to the USCCB and told them that:

I’m guessing that at the next USCCB meeting, the Latin Rite bishops might be treated to a special guest from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

This begs an additional question: how are the ohter English-language episcopal conferences handling the vote on the new translations? Is the USCCB the only one who is slowing down the bullet train or is everyone else hung up on stuff?

Oh for heaven’s sake…it’s not the prefect’s job to come in and tell a conference of bishops how to do their job.

First of all, the item could end up passing, it may have needed one more vote to pass…then again it may have needed one more vote against to fail…who knows.

Secondly, the bishops aren’t suggesting (near as I can tell) that they won’t accept ANY new translation…they have strong issues with this one. These are issues shared by a number of bishops, and apparently by a number of priests…so it’s wrong to invalidate those concerns.

You are quoting something that does not apply. The bishops have already approved a radical alteration of the English translation for the words spoken by the people at the mass…that is happening 100 percent for sure.

They have issues with the proclaimability of some of the new texts in the order of seasons. It’s not wrong or sinful or disobedient to raise such concerns.

I feel like the bishops are in three camps right now…

(1) pro translation
(2) anti translation
(3) get on with it already I cant talk about this for another minute or my head is going to explode

While it’s true that the central curia of the church could force a translation on the states, I find it hard to believe that would be the response of Rome in this case. Benedict was on these shores 2 months ago imploring the bishops to shepherd…well, they’re shepherding…so let it be.

 

[Holly3278]

No, they were voting on the new translation of the mass propers (collects, prayers over the offerings, etc).

The translation of the ordinary of mass (eucharistic prayers, people’s responses, gloria) were voted on a couple of years ago and passed.

Oh ok. Thank you Frommi!

 

[benedictgal]

Oh for heaven’s sake…it’s not the prefect’s job to come in and tell a conference of bishops how to do their job.

First of all, the item could end up passing, it may have needed one more vote to pass…then again it may have needed one more vote against to fail…who knows.

Secondly, the bishops aren’t suggesting (near as I can tell) that they won’t accept ANY new translation…they have strong issues with this one. These are issues shared by a number of bishops, and apparently by a number of priests…so it’s wrong to invalidate those concerns.

You are quoting something that does not apply. The bishops have already approved a radical alteration of the English translation for the words spoken by the people at the mass…that is happening 100 percent for sure.

They have issues with the proclaimability of some of the new texts in the order of seasons. It’s not wrong or sinful or disobedient to raise such concerns.

I feel like the bishops are in three camps right now…

(1) pro translation
(2) anti translation
(3) get on with it already I cant talk about this for another minute or my head is going to explode

While it’s true that the central curia of the church could force a translation on the states, I find it hard to believe that would be the response of Rome in this case. Benedict was on these shores 2 months ago imploring the bishops to shepherd…well, they’re shepherding…so let it be.

What many perhaps do not quite understand is that there is a document called Liturgicam Authenticam that is the legislatiing authority on translations used for the liturgy. This document is designed to ensure that all translations are authentic and faithful to the Latin original.

As far back as 2006, Cardinal Arinze has been telling the USCCB to get its collective act together and vote on the matter, as indicated in the letter I quoted. Furthemore, he set some pretty clear guidelines and reminded them that they had to adhere to LIturgicam Authenticam.

It certainly would not be out-of-line for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to have a visible presence at the next USCCB meeting. I did not suggest that Cardinal Arinze come, but, certainly he could send a ranking official to ensure that the train gets moving and moving quickly. Incidentally, the Prefect had expressed confidence that the votes would have been over and done with by this year.

As I said before, I am wondering if the other ICEL countries are having the same struggle or if this is an American thing.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Ugh…If only Henry Higgins were a Bishop, he would teach the Bishops a thing or two on what certain words mean.

I liked what Bishop Vlazny of Portland had to say:

Echoing a point made by others, Vlazny also argued that today’s texts may seem more “proclaimable” simply because they’re familiar. With time, he said, the new texts will also become familiar, and the issues of syntax and word choice cited by critics “will be a non-problem.”

I would imagine that by the 10th time of using the word “gibbet” in mass, you would know what it meant and it would become second nature.

 

[benedictgal]

Ugh…If only Henry Higgins were a Bishop, he would teach the Bishops a thing or two on what certain words mean.

I liked what Bishop Vlazny of Portland had to say:
I would imagine that by the 10th time of using the word “gibbet” in mass, you would know what it meant and it would become second nature.

He pretty much made the same statement that Cardinal Arinze made regarding the fact that just because words have been used for the last 40 years doesn’t mean that they’re acceptable.

 

[frommi]

What many perhaps do not quite understand is that there is a document called Liturgicam Authenticam that is the legislatiing authority on translations used for the liturgy. This document is designed to ensure that all translations are authentic and faithful to the Latin original.

As far back as 2006, Cardinal Arinze has been telling the USCCB to get its collective act together and vote on the matter, as indicated in the letter I quoted. Furthemore, he set some pretty clear guidelines and reminded them that they had to adhere to LIturgicam Authenticam.

It certainly would not be out-of-line for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to have a visible presence at the next USCCB meeting. I did not suggest that Cardinal Arinze come, but, certainly he could send a ranking official to ensure that the train gets moving and moving quickly. Incidentally, the Prefect had expressed confidence that the votes would have been over and done with by this year.

As I said before, I am wondering if the other ICEL countries are having the same struggle or if this is an American thing.

The other countries have approved it…and again, once this vote is actually counted the US might have approved it as well.

There is no indication that the bishops do not want to adhere to Liturgiam Authenticam. What the bishops have seemingly requested to some extent is a way to tack out a middle ground between blind fidelity to Latin and proclaimability of the text.

Personally, I’m less concerned about using a word like ‘gibbet’ and more concerned about sentences that are 12 lines long using a kajillion dependent clauses. That’s just me. Of course, I also don’t know how the heart can taste…but Latin seems to know that.

You have to remember that the CDW works for the bishops…they don’t work for the CDW.

It’s still up to the bishops to be bishops. These processes have to be worked out…it’s a symbiotic relationship…the bishops and Rome have to be in some agreement on these things.

This seems like a logical and reasoned debate…no one is talking about disobeying.

Of course, I’m curious now that the Pope has allowed for wider use of the extraordinary rite if someday I could request a mass with the old sacramentary because I might consider it a ‘treasure of our past’…but you know…these things don’t apply equally.