Interesting lecture from the Chairman of the BCL (re: liturgical translation)

[frommi]

This is an interesting read…

eriercd.org/liturgy.asp

Remember, Bishop Trautman was not the nominated choice to replace Cardinal George as chair of the committee, but the bishops nominated him from the floor and he defeated Bishop Vigernon who was the person that was nominated.

He has a lot to do with ‘steering’ the debate about liturgical translations in this country.

Personally, I think he makes a lot of sense.

 

[msproule]

I also find it interesting…but I disagree with many of his opinions and arguments.With all due respect, I could have predicted that you would think this makes a lot of sense. Conversely, I am sure you could have predicted of me just the opposite.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

I also find it interesting…but I disagree with many of his opinions and arguments.With all due respect, I could have predicted that you would think this makes a lot of sense. Conversely, I am sure you could have predicted of me just the opposite.

One can always hope…

I’ve always simply felt that its important that the words make sense…I don’t like some of the proposed translations that just seem verbally ‘clunky’ for lack of a better term.

 

[SnorterLuster]

I would be concerned that Bishop Trautman quotes Godfrey Diekmann so extensively. It sounds like he wants to follow in Fr. Diekmann’s footsteps. This is from Fr. Diekmann’s obit:

He was also an ardent supporter of inclusive language in the liturgy, women’ s ordination and a married clergy - the latter two positions denounced and resisted for centuries by the Catholic Church. Catholic University in Washington, D.C., banned him from its summer faculty in 1962. Later, however, he accepted an honorary degree from the school.
(“Prominent St. John’s monk dies at 93”, Minneapolis Star Tribune

, February 23, 2002)

That doesn’t fill me with confidence that the new translation will be any more orthodox that the current translation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

SnorterLuster:

I would be concerned that Bishop Trautman quotes Godfrey Diekmann so extensively. It sounds like he wants to follow in Fr. Diekmann’s footsteps. This is from Fr. Diekmann’s obit:

That doesn’t fill me with confidence that the new translation will be any more orthodox that the current translation.

Now, Snorter, there is that term “orthodox” being batted around again. What teaching of the Church does the current translation (approved by the Holy See for the use of the faithful for these past years) set aside? Did you mean “more accurate when compared to the original?”

I don’t agree with anything the Bishop said, except the “dew of your spirit” thing. That’s sounds effeminate and silly, which was my opinion the last time this came up. But this is the only part I agree with, other than maintaining the use of the vernacular. Catholics find incarnate to be obscure?!?!?!?! The good bishop must think we just fell off the turnip truck.

 

[Elzee]

I only skimmed the article. I don’t like inclusive language so I’ve never been in favor of a lot of what I’ve read from the Bishop, but I’m surprised that I do agree with him on a couple things.

But, in all honesty, this discussion has been going on for years from what I understand. I’m really just at the point of wishing Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict would just give us a new translation and say ‘use it’.

 

[palmas85]

He sounds like a staunch Vatican II supporter and modernist to me. His major thrust seems to be that since the translations have been used for the past thiry five years that there is no need to change them.

Well, the previous translations were used and understood for a lot longer than that so by his line of thinking there should have been no reason to change them at all. So what was the reason for changingthem in the first place?

I’ll tell you what, mindless, needless modernization, change of the sake of change, out with the old in with the new. Pure and simple.

I’ll give one of his examples. From one of the parables, the steward asks " How much do you owe?: answer 100 kors of wheat from the old translation, his argument, who knows what a kor is? Ok, New translation, one hundred measures of wheat. Well, who knows what a measure is? I don’t and at least with with the word Kor, if interested, I could look it up.

He defeated his own argument. This is the kind of insanity that led to the translations that we have suffered with since 1970 or so.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

He sounds like a staunch Vatican II supporter and modernist to me. His major thrust seems to be that since the translations have been used for the past thiry five years that there is no need to change them.

Well, the previous translations were used and understood for a lot longer than that so by his line of thinking there should have been no reason to change them at all. So what was the reason for changingthem in the first place?

I’ll tell you what, mindless, needless modernization, change of the sake of change, out with the old in with the new. Pure and simple.

I’ll give one of his examples. From one of the parables, the steward asks " How much do you owe?: answer 100 kors of wheat from the old translation, his argument, who knows what a kor is? Ok, New translation, one hundred measures of wheat. Well, who knows what a measure is? I don’t and at least with with the word Kor, if interested, I could look it up.

He defeated his own argument. This is the kind of insanity that led to the translations that we have suffered with since 1970 or so.

He doesn’t seem to give the laity much credit for even a modicum of intelligence. I daresay that anyone would have understood a kor, in this context, to have been a unit of measure, and, since it was a measurement of wheat, I bet they would know it was a unit of capacity as opposed to length.

We’re all supposed to be “staunch Vatican II” supporters. It was a council of the Church, called by the popes and implemented by the popes. Now, if you’re talking about the “spirit” of Vatican II, well…

 

[frommi]

JKirkLVNV:

He doesn’t seem to give the laity much credit for even a modicum of intelligence. I daresay that anyone would have understood a kor, in this context, to have been a unit of measure, and, since it was a measurement of wheat, I bet they would know it was a unit of capacity as opposed to length.

We’re all supposed to be “staunch Vatican II” supporters. It was a council of the Church, called by the popes and implemented by the popes. Now, if you’re talking about the “spirit” of Vatican II, well…

I think his point isn’t that the laity are stupid.

The point is that no one says “kor” when referring to measures of anything anymore.

He further makes the point that Jesus taught in the language of the day…probably why Kor was used in the first place.

And saying “measure” as opposed to “Kor” makes no change to the meaning of the statement whatsoever.

 

[arieh0310]

frommi:

I think his point isn’t that the laity are stupid.

The point is that no one says “kor” when referring to measures of anything anymore.

He further makes the point that Jesus taught in the language of the day…probably why Kor was used in the first place.

And saying “measure” as opposed to “Kor” makes no change to the meaning of the statement whatsoever.

If the laity cannot figure out from the context that “kor” is a unit of measurement of capacity then they are stupid. I usually have to go to an appendix in my bible to remember that a cubit is roughly 18 inches but I always know that it is a measurement of length.

 

[frommi]

Its great to see the thread degnerating into a discussion about our knowledge of “kors”.

I think we might be missing the point.

Its one example that Bishop Trautman offers…one of many.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

I think his point isn’t that the laity are stupid.

The point is that no one says “kor” when referring to measures of anything anymore.

He further makes the point that Jesus taught in the language of the day…probably why Kor was used in the first place.

And saying “measure” as opposed to “Kor” makes no change to the meaning of the statement whatsoever.

I happen to disagree. I think he’s pretty clear that he doesn’t think the laity is capable of understanding these things. Whether due to stupidity or ignorance, that I don’t know.

Certainly there are always issues with any translation. Whatever Rome approves i will certainly accept. But, I really think the examples he throws out are not outside the ability of the laity to understand. Frankly, I like the “dew” reference. Well chosen poetical language is never out of place.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

frommi:

I think his point isn’t that the laity are stupid. I didn’t say that that was his POINT, I said he doesn’t seem to credit the laity with a lot of intelligence. That’s two different things.

The point is that no one says “kor” when referring to measures of anything anymore. **I doubt very many people ever said it! Substitute any measurement of capacity that you wish: peck, bushel, etc. I think anyone who knows what wheat is would understand,“Hmmm, that’s a unit used to measure capacity…in this case, wheat.” **

He further makes the point that Jesus taught in the language of the day…probably why Kor was used in the first place. **Jesus taught in the language of the LOCALE. **

And saying “measure” as opposed to “Kor” makes no change to the meaning of the statement whatsoever**. Fine, but that seems to be MY argument. ****/**QUOTE]

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

I happen to disagree. I think he’s pretty clear that he doesn’t think the laity is capable of understanding these things. Whether due to stupidity or ignorance, that I don’t know.

Certainly there are always issues with any translation. Whatever Rome approves i will certainly accept. But, I really think the examples he throws out are not outside the ability of the laity to understand. Frankly, I like the “dew” reference. Well chosen poetical language is never out of place.

Personally, I don’t have an issue with the “dew” reference. But I would like to hear it with good English.

The newest Eucharistic prayers were originally approved in Switzerland…and they have great poetic language…

“We ask you to send down your spirit to HALLOW these gifts of Bread and Wine”

“On the eve of his passion and death while at table with those he loved”

I think you can use sacred language in the vernacular…but to do a word for word translation of Latin…well…its clunky.

 

[SnorterLuster]

JKirkLVNV:

Now, Snorter, there is that term “orthodox” being batted around again. What teaching of the Church does the current translation (approved by the Holy See for the use of the faithful for these past years) set aside? Did you mean “more accurate when compared to the original?”

More accurate is a better word for what I thinking.

As far as the teaching of the Church part goes, I guess I could throw out that old standby translation of all or many.

I certainly have to agree with you about the Bishop sounding as if we poor Americans just can’t understand anything but maybe the simplest of terms and slang.

When people come to celebrate Eucharist they come with the everyday language of contemporary American culture in their ears and on their lips. That language reflects the influence of television, videos, movies, newspapers, magazines, and best sellers. The liturgical and biblical texts of the Eucharist can only be heard and prayed in the culture of the assembly. Liturgical texts never exist in a vacuum. No one in the assembly can escape from being conditioned by the social environment and intellectual climate of our present day culture. If liturgical translations do not reflect the cultural context of the assembly, they lose intelligibility and diminish the full, conscious and active participation of the Eucharistic assembly.

(Empasis added)

I guess he doesn’t want to credit there being a “Catholic culture”, only a secular culture. Been a Catholic for 50 some years and I certainly think I am more than just the caricature Bishop Tautman seems to think I am.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Personally, I don’t have an issue with the “dew” reference. But I would like to hear it with good English.

The newest Eucharistic prayers were originally approved in Switzerland…and they have great poetic language…

“We ask you to send down your spirit to HALLOW these gifts of Bread and Wine”

“On the eve of his passion and death while at table with those he loved”

I think you can use sacred language in the vernacular…but to do a word for word translation of Latin…well…its clunky.

I must be getting soft headed in my old age, but I generally agree with you. However, the drive toward word for word translation has been fueled by the liberties taken by the ICEL, the drive to “inclusive language” and a general distrust that has been fueled over the last 40 years by the abuses to the liturgy. I will accept whatever Rome approves. That remains my touchstone for reliabiltiy - even if I have certain issues.

 

[Walking_Home]

It seems Bishop Trautman is running with the “spirit”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

SnorterLuster:

As far as the teaching of the Church part goes, I guess I could throw out that old standby translation of all or many.

.

To which the Holy See has given an answer.

At any rate, the good bishop doesn’t SEEM (note, Frommi, I qualify using the word “seem”) to think we’re the sharpest tools in the shed.

I do like his attitude of defending the use of the vernacular. But then, everyone knew I felt that way.

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

I do like his attitude of defending the use of the vernacular. But then, everyone knew I felt that way.

You prefer the vernacular???

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arieh0310:

You prefer the vernacular???

Yup…and if we go wholesale back to Latin, the Church is in for problems that will make the SSPX schism look like a squabble at an altar guild meeting (which I’ve heard lovingly refered to as the “stitch and bitch” guild).