Cliffhanger vote on new translation at Bishops meeting

[benedictgal]

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.

No, the CDWDS is part of the Roman Curia. Obedience flows from the top down, not the other way around. You owe your obedience to the legislating authority.

It is also not “blind” fideilty to the Latin. It is complete fidelity to the original text. ICEL botched things up horribly. There is nothing wrong with the Latin text. It’s how the ICEL translated it that got us all into this mess.

Look at the Spanish Roman MIssal (whether for use in Mexico or in Spain). The words are much more faithful to the Latin text. The ICEL version we currently have is more of a paraphrase. Even the Anglican-use Roman Missal (for lack of a better word) is much more faithful to the Latin text than what we currently have.

As I indicated before, the Latin version of the Roman MIssal for the OF is not the problem. Therefore, your final statement would not make sense. Furthermore, because the current version of the English-translation that we use doesn’t follow the norms established by LIturgicam Authenticam, I seriously doubt that there would ever be papal document allowing its use once the new, more faithful version is approved.

 

[frommi]

As I indicated before, the Latin version of the Roman MIssal for the OF is not the problem. Therefore, your final statement would not make sense. Furthermore, because the current version of the English-translation that we use doesn’t follow the norms established by LIturgicam Authenticam, I seriously doubt that there would ever be papal document allowing its use once the new, more faithful version is approved.

Yeah, well…I seriously doubted we’d have cardinal’s running around demanding that every parish all over the world celebrate a tridentine mass once a week…so stranger things have happened.

And the bishop’s are not bound to be ‘obedient’ to the curia. You seem to have an incorrect theological notion of how the church is set up. But that occurs a lot in your writings. Those folks work for the bishops of the world…not the other way around.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I still want someone to explain to me what the word gibbet adds to the Mass that it is important to have it in there. As far as I know, it isnt a Scriptural phrase, as I said before, i dont think “gibbet of the Cross” and “Cross” convey two different meanings, but quite the opposite. To me gibbet is an unnecesary modifier, in which case, it is just change for change’s sake

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I still want someone to explain to me what the word gibbet adds to the Mass that it is important to have it in there. As far as I know, it isnt a Scriptural phrase, as I said before, i dont think “gibbet of the Cross” and “Cross” convey two different meanings, but quite the opposite. To me gibbet is an unnecesary modifier, in which case, it is just change for change’s sake

This is about a translation from Latin to English, not deciding how to re-write the mass. The phrase in Latin refers to the gibbet of the cross, so the phrase in English has to refer to it too.

Can you suggest a better word to refer to that part of the cross?

 

[Joe_5859]

I still want someone to explain to me what the word gibbet adds to the Mass that it is important to have it in there. As far as I know, it isnt a Scriptural phrase, as I said before, i dont think “gibbet of the Cross” and “Cross” convey two different meanings, but quite the opposite. To me gibbet is an unnecesary modifier, in which case, it is just change for change’s sake

You mean, it isn’t obvious?

I don’t know if it’s “change for change’s sake”. It seems like they’re trying to be closer to the Latin original with the whole process. If it’s in the Latin original, I would assume it’s there for some reason, although I don’t think I could tell you myself.

I’m not sure why we all got stuck on this example of “gibbet” (I guess it’s just fun to say ). Is it even going to be used in every Mass or is it taken from a prayer in the 15th Sunday of Ordinary time, Cycle B (for example) where we would only hear it once every three years?

 

[SenorSalsa]

This is about a translation from Latin to English, not deciding how to re-write the mass. The phrase in Latin refers to the gibbet of the cross, so the phrase in English has to refer to it too.

Can you suggest a better word to refer to that part of the cross?

How about just “the Cross.” Its not like he was only hung on part of this huge thing, He was nailed to the Cross, and according to most(if not all) depictions covers pretty much all of it arm to arm and head to toe. My point is the Latin may refer to the gibbet of the Cross, but I want to know why. What insight is this going to give me by the addition? Is it a scriptural quote? Something used often in doctrinal or dogmatic works? Or was it simply a diction choice when writing the Latin, that doesnt really add to the Mass, nor would the Mass be lessened by its deletion?

I’m not sure why we all got stuck on this example of “gibbet” (I guess it’s just fun to say ). Is it even going to be used in every Mass or is it taken from a prayer in the 15th Sunday of Ordinary time, Cycle B (for example) where we would only hear it once every three years?

Im stuck on gibbet becuase of the examples given its the only thing i see wrong. Ineffable, i know, and im guessing many do. wrought, everybody better know. 12 lines, 3 clauses? who says a person cant pause midsentence? I would have to see said sentence to take an official stance, but if length is the only concern, come on now.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

How about just “the Cross.” Its not like he was only hung on part of this huge thing, He was nailed to the Cross, and according to most(if not all) depictions covers pretty much all of it arm to arm and head to toe. My point is the Latin may refer to the gibbet of the Cross, but I want to know why. What insight is this going to give me by the addition? Is it a scriptural quote?

I don’t know, I bet it’s not important to the meaning. But I think it’s important to keep it because if they allow deviation from the Latin in one case for gibbet, then they’ll get carried away and re-write the whole thing rather than translate it. Which is why we have this problem now which is requiring a new translation.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m not sure why we all got stuck on this example of “gibbet” (I guess it’s just fun to say ). Is it even going to be used in every Mass or is it taken from a prayer in the 15th Sunday of Ordinary time, Cycle B (for example) where we would only hear it once every three years?

It is one of the Good Friday Reproaches, heard annually:
*Ego te exaltávi magna virtúte: et tu me suspendísti in

patíbulo

Crucis.*

(Current translation:
I raised you to the height of majesty, but you have raised me high on a cross.
I do not know what is proposed, but more accurate would be:
…, but you have hung me on the gibbet of a cross.
)

tee

 

[benedictgal]

The Most Rev. Arthur Serratelli, the bishop of Patterson New Jersey, offered some very telling statements regarding the importance of getting the right translation. In case y’all might not know, he is the Chairman of the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship.

Here’s a bit of what he wrote (courtesy of Adoremus):

The new translations aim at a “language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves … dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). The new translations now being prepared are a marked improvement over the translations with which we have become familiar. They are densely theological. They respect the rich vocabulary of the Roman Rite. They carefully avoid the overuse of certain phrases and words.

The new translations also have a great respect for the style of the Roman Rite. Certainly, some sentences could be more easily translated to mimic our common speech. But they are not. And with reason. Latin orations, especially Post-Communions, tend to conclude strongly with a teleological or eschatological point. The new translations in English follow the sequence of these Latin prayers in order to end on a strong note. Many of our current translations of these prayers end weakly. Why should we strip the English translation of the distinctive theological emphases of the Latin text? A slightly non-colloquial word order can lead the listener to a greater attention to the point of the prayer.

This is very, very true. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something out of the ordinary. The language we use to celebrate this sacred rite should reflect that.

Furthermore, the bishop notes:

“If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 27).

Liturgical language should border on the poetic. Prose bumps along the ground. Poetry soars to the heavens. And our Liturgy is already a sharing of the Liturgy in heaven.

The liturgical texts that we are now using are not perfect, but they are familiar. This familiarity makes celebrants at ease with the present texts. The new texts are better. When the new texts are implemented, they will require more attention on the part of the celebrant. But any initial uneasiness will yield to familiarity and to a language that is well suited to the Liturgy.

A language suited for the Liturgy: this is the one of great advantages of the work being done on the new translations. There is more to the Liturgy than the human language of any age or any one country. In the new translations of the Roman Missal, a conscious effort is being made to suit the human word to the divine action that the Liturgy truly is. As Pope Benedict XVI has said, the “central actio of the Mass is fundamentally neither that of the priest as such nor of the laity as such, but of Christ the High Priest: This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real “action” for which all creation is in expectation… This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential” (The Spirit of the Liturgy p. 173).

The liturgy is the work of the people. Yes, it does take work on our part to offer God the fitting worship he deserves.

As far as the comment regarding the role of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, this curial department is the chief authority. While it provides bishops with the necessary resources regarding the liturgy, the bishops are bound to obey the congregation’s directives.

Contrary to what some may think, Cardinal Arinze is not just “some cardinal.” He is the prefect of the Congregation in charge of overseeing the Divine Worship and the sacraments of the Church. The Congregation, through intervention of the Holy Father, makes policy and enforces it. The bishops are bound by obedience to the Holy See to follow the directives.

 

[frommi]

Contrary to what some may think, Cardinal Arinze is not just “some cardinal.” He is the prefect of the Congregation in charge of overseeing the Divine Worship and the sacraments of the Church. The Congregation, through intervention of the Holy Father, makes policy and enforces it. The bishops are bound by obedience to the Holy See to follow the directives.

Well, first of all, no…they aren’t…unless that directive has the holy father’s signature on it…considering the number of times a random cardinal has appeared to be speaking ‘for Rome’…we know that’s true.

Secondly…there is no evidence that the bishops are being ‘disobedient’…they have to produce a translation, no one said they had to approve the first one that came down the pipe.

Lastly, lovely comments from Bishop Seratelli…they carry no more weight than anything Bishop Trautman said.

Cherry pick favorable comments if need be, but the reality is you are still misunderstanding the theology of the bishop/pope relationship in a way that makes our bishops nothing more than a high school student council as opposed to a body elected to succeed the apostles.

 

[Joe_5859]

It is one of the Good Friday Reproaches, heard annually:
*Ego te exaltávi magna virtúte: et tu me suspendísti in

patíbulo

Crucis.*

(Current translation:
I raised you to the height of majesty, but you have raised me high on a cross.
I do not know what is proposed, but more accurate would be:
…, but you have hung me on the gibbet of a cross.
)

tee

Thanks for the background info, tee! So this word will only be heard once a year, and only on Good Friday, which is not a Holy Day of Obligation. So most “average” Catholics will never even hear it! Interesting.

I don’t know, I bet it’s not important to the meaning. But I think it’s important to keep it because if they allow deviation from the Latin in one case for gibbet, then they’ll get carried away and re-write the whole thing rather than translate it. Which is why we have this problem now which is requiring a new translation.

I think you hit the nail right on the head, Neil.

 

[benedictgal]

Well, first of all, no…they aren’t…unless that directive has the holy father’s signature on it…considering the number of times a random cardinal has appeared to be speaking ‘for Rome’…we know that’s true.

Secondly…there is no evidence that the bishops are being ‘disobedient’…they have to produce a translation, no one said they had to approve the first one that came down the pipe.

Lastly, lovely comments from Bishop Seratelli…they carry no more weight than anything Bishop Trautman said.

Cherry pick favorable comments if need be, but the reality is you are still misunderstanding the theology of the bishop/pope relationship in a way that makes our bishops nothing more than a high school student council as opposed to a body elected to succeed the apostles.

No, frommi, you are wrong.

First of all, the bishop in question is the Chairman of the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship. He is their pointman on liturgy.

Second, the curia, under the authority of the Holy Father, issues rulings and these rulings carry the same weight as far as obedience is concerned. In Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is the competent authority regulating the liturgy of the Church and the administration of her sacraments. If a bishop does anything contrary to what the Congregation has ruled, then, he is being disobedient.

No one is “cherry picking” anything. You, as yet, have not come up with any authoritative documentation to support your opinion.

Please refrain from condescending, insulting and flippant tones.

 

[frommi]

No, frommi, you are wrong.

First of all, the bishop in question is the Chairman of the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship. He is their pointman on liturgy.

Second, the curia, under the authority of the Holy Father, issues rulings and these rulings carry the same weight as far as obedience is concerned. In Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is the competent authority regulating the liturgy of the Church and the administration of her sacraments. If a bishop does anything contrary to what the Congregation has ruled, then, he is being disobedient.

No one is “cherry picking” anything. You, as yet, have not come up with any authoritative documentation to support your opinion.

Please refrain from condescending, insulting and flippant tones.

The document your provide is not in dispute…I’m not disputing that document.

I wonder if you had the same respect for Bishop Trautman when he was the chair of the same committee a year ago…that’s doubtful.

 

[Phemie]

It is one of the Good Friday Reproaches, heard annually:
*Ego te exaltávi magna virtúte: et tu me suspendísti in

patíbulo

Crucis.*

(Current translation:
I raised you to the height of majesty, but you have raised me high on a cross.
I do not know what is proposed, but more accurate would be:
…, but you have hung me on the gibbet of a cross.
)

tee

While gibbet usually refers specifically to hanging, in this prayer doesn’t gibbet simply refer to execution, in this case on a cross? IOW, you executed me on a cross. Some seem to interpret it as a specific part of the cross.

Gibbet could refer as well to the electric chair, the guerney of the lethal injection or the gas chamber, couldn’t it?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Thanks for the background info, tee! So this word will only be heard once a year, and only on Good Friday, which is not a Holy Day of Obligation. So most “average” Catholics will never even hear it! Interesting.

One might think so. On the other hand, a prayer of the Gregorian Rite, which would only be heard once a year, and only on Good Friday, which is not a Holy Day of Obligation, and which would be heard in Latin(!), no less, was recently altered too… :ehh:

tee

 

[benedictgal]

The document your provide is not in dispute…I’m not disputing that document.

I wonder if you had the same respect for Bishop Trautman when he was the chair of the same committee a year ago…that’s doubtful.

The bishops are bound to follow the guidelines set forth by the Holy See’s document, Liturgicam Authenticam. Thsi document affects all texts used for the liturgy. Therefore, the translation before them, which has already met with an initial, positive response from the Holy See (and, from what I other stand, the other English-speaking episcopal conferences), is the one that they are to approve.

The Pope is not operating as a “first among equals”, as your previous post may have indicated, where you wrote:

they have to produce a translation, no one said they had to approve the first one that came down the pipe.

The Pope is the supreme regulating authority. He has also granted the authority of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to act in his name. Therefore, whatever translation the CDWDS has agreed to, per se, should be the one that the bishops should approve.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Im gonna swallow my pride and admit
it sounds better with gibbet

yes, yes i know i debated otherwise for 4 pages, but after seeing the current translation and the probable new translation, i think gibbet does indeed add to the sentence.

The previous translation attempted to use parellel structure, a good literary device, but a bad choice in this one. The effect is to make the crucifixion almost glorified, tying it through the word raised to the heights of glory. This however, is not the point of the sentence, it is rather to show how we repaid Jesus for what he did for us, mainly, by killing him.

Even by substitution hung for raised, while the two events are no longer related positivily through raise, i do not think it conveys the second clause negatively, simply nuetral.

But by adding gibbet, you get the sense of execution, and thus the second cluase becomes negative, contrasts the first positive cluase, and becomes the best wording I can think of.

So on this 18th day of June in the year of Our Lord 2008, let it be known that I, SenorSalsa, have changed my opinion, and while i still do not like the word gibbet, find it as the best possible translation for this particular section of the liturgy.

 

[frommi]

The bishops are bound to follow the guidelines set forth by the Holy See’s document, Liturgicam Authenticam. Thsi document affects all texts used for the liturgy. Therefore, the translation before them, which has already met with an initial, positive response from the Holy See (and, from what I other stand, the other English-speaking episcopal conferences), is the one that they are to approve.

The Pope is not operating as a “first among equals”, as your previous post may have indicated, where you wrote:

The Pope is the supreme regulating authority. He has also granted the authority of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to act in his name. Therefore, whatever translation the CDWDS has agreed to, per se, should be the one that the bishops should approve.

You’re reversing the process…

Translation presented —> translation voted on by bishops —> translation approved —> translation confirmed by Rome

Rome cannot confirm a document that isn’t voted on by the episcopal conference. Even if that document has met with a ‘positive’ response in some quarters of the curia.

I am yet to see a bishop say that we’re going to simply maintain the 1973 missal regardless of what LA says. They are trying to apply the principles of the document in a way that is pastorally prudent for the dioceses of THIS country. That’s the very role of an episcopal conference.

The bishops approved the mass ordinaries a couple of years back with several amendments…(removing the now infamous ‘by the dew of your spirit’ line for example). Those changes were assented to as far as I am aware.

The church cannot be Roman without the bishops, it can’t be Catholic without the Pope. But it could exist without the curia.

The curial officers are not delegated any particular authority. The Bishops do not have to be obedient to Cardinal Arinze. He is a brother bishop and a colleague…not their boss.

Where does the authority in a Bishop come from? The Pope or the Holy Spirit?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

So on this 18th day of June in the year of Our Lord 2008, let it be known that I, SenorSalsa, have changed my opinion, and while i still do not like the word gibbet, find it as the best possible translation for this particular section of the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

You’re reversing the process…

Translation presented —> translation voted on by bishops —> translation approved —> translation confirmed by Rome

Rome cannot confirm a document that isn’t voted on by the episcopal conference. Even if that document has met with a ‘positive’ response in some quarters of the curia.

I am yet to see a bishop say that we’re going to simply maintain the 1973 missal regardless of what LA says. They are trying to apply the principles of the document in a way that is pastorally prudent for the dioceses of THIS country. That’s the very role of an episcopal conference.

The bishops approved the mass ordinaries a couple of years back with several amendments…(removing the now infamous ‘by the dew of your spirit’ line for example). Those changes were assented to as far as I am aware.

The church cannot be Roman without the bishops, it can’t be Catholic without the Pope. But it could exist without the curia.

The curial officers are not delegated any particular authority. The Bishops do not have to be obedient to Cardinal Arinze. He is a brother bishop and a colleague…not their boss.

Where does the authority in a Bishop come from? The Pope or the Holy Spirit?

The Curia exists to implement the doctrine and discipline of the Church. Any organization needs a mechanism by which to funcion and these different congregations are needed to oversee the bishops throughout the world and to clarify matters.

Furthermore, when Cardnial Arinze is speaking and issuing documents in his capacity as Prefect, he is the final word on the particular discipline he oversees. Furthermore, his official actions have the Holy Father’s approval.

Documents like RS, LA and the GIRM didn’t occur in a vaccum. They came from a Congregation empowered by the Holy Father.

No indvidual bishops’ conference has the authority to override what the Congregations have ruled. That is why the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issues letters and statements, like the one that Cardinal Arinze wrote in 2006, it is not just the opinion of some bishop, but, a directive made by a Congregation that is the overseeing body of that particular curial department.

Thus, bishops are bound to obey those directives issued by the Congregation, which acts in the name (and by the authority granted by) the Holy Father.