Trautman slams 'slavishly literal' missal translation [CN-USA]
- Status
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I think it’s unfortunate that Bishop Trautman keeps expressing his opinion so publicly on this matter. The translation is changing with or without his permission.
I’m sure he has lots of valuable (name removed by moderator)ut to add to the discussion, but, IMO, it would be better done in private. Doing it so publicly only means that there will be a whole bunch of Catholics out there who already hate the new translation before they even hear it. How is that helpful?
I’m sure he has lots of valuable (name removed by moderator)ut to add to the discussion, but, IMO, it would be better done in private. Doing it so publicly only means that there will be a whole bunch of Catholics out there who already hate the new translation before they even hear it. How is that helpful?
R
rlg94086
Guest
I was thinking the same. A Bishop shouldn’t be sowing the seeds of dissension.I think it’s unfortunate that Bishop Trautman keeps expressing his opinion so publicly on this matter. The translation is changing with or without his permission.
I’m sure he has lots of valuable (name removed by moderator)ut to add to the discussion, but, IMO, it would be better done in private. Doing it so publicly only means that there will be a whole bunch of Catholics out there who already hate the new translation before they even hear it. How is that helpful?
For me, I will be doing everything thing I can to assist our priest in educating my fellow Catholics on the new translation. I will certainly be working with my own kids on it. I’ve held off spending a lot of time on the current English version of the Gloria and Credo, since the Mass we attend prays them in Latin. Once the new translation comes out, they will learn it.
R
rlg94086
Guest
btw…here is a link to the USCCB site regarding the new translations: usccb.org/romanmissal/
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
This sounds like good news to me… glad he’s former!
To all the people who did the liturgy in the 70’s: We don’t care what YOU wish Jesus had said, we’re interested in what He ACTUALLY said!
GOOD RIDDANCE!
A
adowcday
Guest
So, let me get this straight: you’re proposing that we adopt Aramaic as our liturgical language?
P
pnewton
Guest
He brings up a valid point and one that should be considered in private discussions only within ICEL. I am taken aback that a bishop would take this discussion to the press or the lecture circuit. It is scandalous. This action alone should invalidate his voice in future discussions of anything at any level. He can not hold his tongue.
Back to his point. There is a tension between literal translation and understanding. I think what the bishop misses, though, is the value of these words that he thinks most Americans do not understand. I think his elitism is misplaced and more understand theological terms than he will give them credit for. In any case, such terms and stilted language permits a new opportunity for catechesis for those clergy willing to use it. My priest has already explained some of the nuances in the changes. I think he draws a false dichotomy between the sacred and the vernacular. Indeed, having the benefit of growing up in an old-fashioned Baptist Church, there is a tremendous advantage of having some language that is in nature sacred.
The Bible doesn’t always have to read like a novel. Prayers do not always have to sound like back fence conversation. These things have their place, but so does the Sacred.
Back to his point. There is a tension between literal translation and understanding. I think what the bishop misses, though, is the value of these words that he thinks most Americans do not understand. I think his elitism is misplaced and more understand theological terms than he will give them credit for. In any case, such terms and stilted language permits a new opportunity for catechesis for those clergy willing to use it. My priest has already explained some of the nuances in the changes. I think he draws a false dichotomy between the sacred and the vernacular. Indeed, having the benefit of growing up in an old-fashioned Baptist Church, there is a tremendous advantage of having some language that is in nature sacred.
The Bible doesn’t always have to read like a novel. Prayers do not always have to sound like back fence conversation. These things have their place, but so does the Sacred.
B
baylee
Guest
LOL. Does anyone else ever wonder whether the original translation of the Aramaic was accurate? Could it be that Jesus really said “for all” in Aramaic and then the Latin translation was the translation that was wrong? LOL
P
pnewton
Guest
The New Testament was written in Greek and it is in this form that we accept it as the inspired Word of God. It is “for many”.
B
baylee
Guest
OK, so maybe the Greek was a mistranslation of the Aramaic. The apostles didn’t write the New Testament in Greek.
Again, I’m just putting that out there since there is such a focus on the language of the Church being Latin when Jesus spoke Aramaic.
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Why not? Latin worked for hundred’s of years. Aramaic might be a little harder, and Greek might make more sense. But whether we use English, Latin, Greek or Aramaic, please let it be an exact translation - precise and accurate, even slavish.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, they did, at least those apostle’s that wrote it wrote in Greek, not Aramaic.
J
JaMc
Guest
There was a speech given by Ronald Reagan, which the “King James Version Only” people are fond of quoting, criticizing the Good News Bible which I think is particularly apt here:
"The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, “at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth”? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the “tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue” as pious drudges try to get it right. “It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”
Just substitute Bp. Trautman and proponents of the current translation for “sponsors of the Good News Bible,” and it all fits.
The full text of the speech is here: av1611.org/kjv/reagan.html (quick warning - although I didn’t find outright anti-Catholic material on the rest of the site, it is replete with evangelical Protestant theology and “King James Only-ism,” so if you explore beyond the Reagan speech, take what you read with a grain of salt. However, the attempt to shoehorn the Biblical references to Purgatory into scriptual proof of “Once Saved Always Saved” is somewhat amusing).
"The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, “at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth”? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the “tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue” as pious drudges try to get it right. “It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”
Just substitute Bp. Trautman and proponents of the current translation for “sponsors of the Good News Bible,” and it all fits.
The full text of the speech is here: av1611.org/kjv/reagan.html (quick warning - although I didn’t find outright anti-Catholic material on the rest of the site, it is replete with evangelical Protestant theology and “King James Only-ism,” so if you explore beyond the Reagan speech, take what you read with a grain of salt. However, the attempt to shoehorn the Biblical references to Purgatory into scriptual proof of “Once Saved Always Saved” is somewhat amusing).
M
mdgspencer
Guest
Though I disagree with his views, I don’t think the bishop should be blamed for venting his feelings during a talk at a school, since I doubt that he know it would be picked up by the press. So I don’t consider him guilty of anything.
Bishop Trautman has for many years opposed the philosophy of translation now being used to translate the liturgy into English anew. However, the Vatican has strongly decided that the translation should be done more literally than it had been by the group doing it before, the ICEL, with its creative translations that said something quite differently from the Latin original the translations have been made from. However, wait and see. I think that after the new translation of the mass is begun to be used in the parishes, the people, using it will find it sometimes beautiful and reverential.
Bishop Trautman has for many years opposed the philosophy of translation now being used to translate the liturgy into English anew. However, the Vatican has strongly decided that the translation should be done more literally than it had been by the group doing it before, the ICEL, with its creative translations that said something quite differently from the Latin original the translations have been made from. However, wait and see. I think that after the new translation of the mass is begun to be used in the parishes, the people, using it will find it sometimes beautiful and reverential.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I missed that part.
I still question the prudence of saying such things in that setting, but it is certainly much better than had he issued a press release or conducted an interview with NCR. It’s good to point out that he did not do that.Of course, it’s not as though it is difficult to find his opinions on the new translation. I already knew where he stood before I read this particular article. Trautman is pretty much the “go-to” guy when they’re looking for quotes criticizing the new translation. Just as Burke would be the “go-to” guy if I wanted a quote about refusing Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
A
adowcday
Guest
This has been an incredibly public and incredibly political debate, so I disagree with those who think that it is inappropriate for Bishop Trautman to make public comments disagreeing with the Vatican. I say that it has been political because many see these language wars as a refusal on the part of the Vatican to permit the U.S. bishops to decide what are the better translations of liturgical texts for use in U.S. dioceses. Subsidiarity? Not so much…
Bp. Trautman has some good points, as discussed in the NCR article. As he noted, Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says that liturgical 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.”
Some examples of language that Bp. Trautman objected to:
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.” “Incarnate” and “consubstantial” are probably more literal translations of the ancient liturgical texts but are not easy to understand and require explanation for the average person.
In the new Missal translation, the opening lines of the preface for the Second Sunday of Lent are: “Who, after he told the disciples of his coming death, manifested his glory to them on the holy mountain to show, as the law and the prophets also bear witness, that the path of suffering leads to the glory of the resurrection.” This is grammatically incomprehensible, a lengthy and complicated subordinate clause and not a complete sentence, and worse, it is impossible to understand if one is listening to it being recited. As Bp. Trautman notes, “The translators have slavishly transposed a Latin Qui clause into English without respecting English sentence word order.” He adds, “There are good Latin texts – balanced, carefully crafted – and there are bad Latin texts – convoluted, lengthy, complicated, abstract – that become a translator’s herculean task. Because of literal translation in the new Missal, complicated Latin wording has become complicated English wording.”
He noted that the current English version of the Nicene Creed divides it into four parts, introducing each with the phrase “we believe.” The new version opens with “I believe” – which “goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts” – and does not repeat it even once through the rest of the prayer, he said. “This results in incomplete non-grammatical sentences for the different articles of faith,” he said, noting that one sentence 26 lines down into the Creed begins, “And in the Holy Spirit, the lord, the giver of life.” The so-called sentence “lacks a subject and a predicate,” he said.
Like I said, Bp. Trautman has good points. Moreover, the U.S. bishops conference is the right level for the decision to be made, not Rome.
Bp. Trautman has some good points, as discussed in the NCR article. As he noted, Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says that liturgical 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.”
Some examples of language that Bp. Trautman objected to:
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.” “Incarnate” and “consubstantial” are probably more literal translations of the ancient liturgical texts but are not easy to understand and require explanation for the average person.
In the new Missal translation, the opening lines of the preface for the Second Sunday of Lent are: “Who, after he told the disciples of his coming death, manifested his glory to them on the holy mountain to show, as the law and the prophets also bear witness, that the path of suffering leads to the glory of the resurrection.” This is grammatically incomprehensible, a lengthy and complicated subordinate clause and not a complete sentence, and worse, it is impossible to understand if one is listening to it being recited. As Bp. Trautman notes, “The translators have slavishly transposed a Latin Qui clause into English without respecting English sentence word order.” He adds, “There are good Latin texts – balanced, carefully crafted – and there are bad Latin texts – convoluted, lengthy, complicated, abstract – that become a translator’s herculean task. Because of literal translation in the new Missal, complicated Latin wording has become complicated English wording.”
He noted that the current English version of the Nicene Creed divides it into four parts, introducing each with the phrase “we believe.” The new version opens with “I believe” – which “goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts” – and does not repeat it even once through the rest of the prayer, he said. “This results in incomplete non-grammatical sentences for the different articles of faith,” he said, noting that one sentence 26 lines down into the Creed begins, “And in the Holy Spirit, the lord, the giver of life.” The so-called sentence “lacks a subject and a predicate,” he said.
Like I said, Bp. Trautman has good points. Moreover, the U.S. bishops conference is the right level for the decision to be made, not Rome.
P
pnewton
Guest
FYI - The problem as I see it is one can argue that the Rite should be more simple, but that would have to be done in the Latin. It is the translation that is in question here, not the text of the Rite. As far as how the rite is written, that is up to the Congregation on Sacred Liturgy to interpret the VII Constitution. Each bishop should not go off independent.
P
PaulJason
Guest
The Liturgy should not be brought down to our level; the Liturgy should lift us up to higher level. Language is one way to do this.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I see absolutely no problem with that. I think some are unfortunatley missing a golden catechetical opportunity here. If there are unfamiliar words, then there is now the chance to explain them. After years of people glossing over “one in being”, now people are confronted with “consubstantial.” Thus, people might actually be interested is finding out why there has been a change and what it signifies. It is an opportunity to clarify Church teaching to a generation (or two) that was severely under-catechized.
That’s not correct. Modifications to the liturgy are under the purview of the Pope (see SC 22). Canon Law describes many duties of national episcopal conferences. Certain aspects of the liturgy have been left to the discretion of the local bishops conferences, but altering the translation of the Roman Missal is not one of them.
A
adowcday
Guest
Having done a fair amount of adult ed on the parish level, I’m not sure I’d want to tackle an explanation of “consubstantial,” for example. I’ve done some coursework and reading in Aristotelian philosophy and the use of the term “substance” in the Christological debates that led to the Creed. It’s not easy to understand in a graduate philosophy or theological course and certainly incomprehensible to the average adult. Then jack the issue up a notch and discuss “substance” and “accident” in the context of the eucharist (“transubstantiation”). To say “one in being” is not a gloss – it’s theologically accurate and necessary from a pastoral perspective to make a difficult concept comprehensible. I don’t think that choosing the most literal translation from the latin liturgical texts is always the best way to go. It doesn’t make the liturgy more sacred or “elevated” but simply less meaningful. If we’re going to impose the Latin mass, go all the way (not my favored approach, but I don’t have a vote). If we’re going to use English as a liturgical language, then use English that people can understand. Using incomprehensible language doesn’t elevate or lend mystery in my view. It just frustrates and turns people off.
- Status