Trautman slams 'slavishly literal' missal translation [CN-USA]

[manualman]

…
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.
…

Thanks for the excellent example of unintentional messages that get sent when translators try to ‘dumb down’ the text for the ignorant masses!

So here the precise “Incarnate of the Virgin Mary” becomes dumbed down to “Born of the Virgin Mary.” In dumbing down the language, the translators unintentionally place the emphasis of the very Incarnation on “birth”. What a disservice to catholics already under pressure by the secular culture to define “birth” as the moment someone becomes human! Thank you very little, ICEL.

As always, the solution to ignorance in the masses is NOT oversimplification, it is education.

Bishop Trautman, enjoy your retirement! May I suggest spending some time fishing in Voyaguers National Park? Nice and quiet, no motors, no media, no cell phone coverage…

 

[pnewton]

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.

Liturgy is and must be brought to our level. Where we to stand in the presence of God in Heaven aroung His throne this day we would all fall on knees or die. Even the most lofty liturgy is still God dumbing down to our level. Reaching down to us, God became incarnate and dumbed down enough to bring us home to Him.

This is the tension that must always remain in contrast to maintaining a holy liturgy. If we do not bring all the souls to heaven we can, then we are note doing our jobs.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

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.

Hogwash.

I’m sorry, but if the average Catholic does not understand the words “incarnate” and “consubstantial” then bishops and priests are failing in their duty to their parishioners.

Love is Patient

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

I didn’t mean that the translation was a gloss. I meant that, when most people in the pew hear the phrase, it goes in one ear and out the other with little reflection on what it means. Thus, they internally “gloss over” those words rather than taking them to heart. The new phrase will cause us to perk up and actually think about the truths of our faith.

I should have articulated my point better. I guess I was playing it fast and loose with my vocabulary. Amazing how misunderstandings occur when that happens. Good thing that won’t be the case with the new translation of the Missal. I hear the language is very precise.

 

[DOShea]

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?

Are you saying it’s far better to let yet another problematic translation show up first and THEN people be upset with it?

For all anyone knows much of his criticism likely was conducted in private. It could be that in his speech he was giving an accurate portrayal of the opinions he has already expressed to the translation committee. Maybe that’s why he was asked to speak.

Looking at the linked article, I see only two criticisms made but only examples of one of them. One criticism is the words chosen might not be readily understood by the average Joe in the pews. That’s not so big a problem, is it? Education is a good thing. Hopefully we can count on Bishops and Pastors and Priests to edify where it is necessary. I don’t see that as a problem that is insurmountable, and I disagree with his apparent assertion that we need to dumb it down.

His second criticism is that the sentences are too long and that it violates rules of English grammar. He provided no examples, so it isn’t possible to examine his claim until we can read it. We have no idea whether it more accurately reflects pre-VII language or is nothing more than a long, mish-mash of post-VII with better theological terms here and there.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but if the average Catholic does not understand the words “incarnate” and “consubstantial” then bishops and priests are failing in their duty to their parishioners.

I think this is the crux of my disagreement with the Bishop. People aren’t as stupid as he seems to think they are. His attitude toward the common people remind me a little to much of political liberal’s elitism.

 

[Brendan]

. To say “one in being” is not a gloss – it’s theologically accurate .

Actually, it is not. “Being” is a term of existance, not of essence. There is no existance apart from the Father, so my keyboard, my monitor, heck even the grass on my lawn, is “One in Being with the Father”.

But they are not Consubstantial with the Father. My keyboard does not have the same essence as the Father, it is not of the same substance.

 

[didymus]

“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic,” Trautman said.

I know, I know! Call on me, Your Grace!
Dunno if I’m “average” but I’m only a HS grad.
And for those who don’t know, maybe our pastors and teachers could, like, help us out?

 

[Joe_5859]

Are you saying it’s far better to let yet another problematic translation show up first and THEN people be upset with it?

Touché.

I guess I was just hoping for a united positive front presented by our bishops. If a bishop (and not just any bishop, but the one who was at one time actually the head of the Liturgical Committee for the U.S. Bishops) thinks the translation is awful, then it’s okay for any of us to think it’s awful. Some might then use this as justification for ignoring the new Missal altogether.

Maybe I’m just overly-paranoid, though.

Actually, it is not. “Being” is a term of existance, not of essence. There is no existance apart from the Father, so my keyboard, my monitor, heck even the grass on my lawn, is “One in Being with the Father”.

But they are not Consubstantial with the Father. My keyboard does not have the same essence as the Father, it is not of the same substance.

Good call!

This is exactly the type of catechesis that can now happen because of this new translation.

 

[adowcday]

Touché.

I guess I was just hoping for a united positive front presented by our bishops. If a bishop (and not just any bishop, but the one who was at one time actually the head of the Liturgical Committee for the U.S. Bishops) thinks the translation is awful, then it’s okay for any of us to think it’s awful. Some might then use this as justification for ignoring the new Missal altogether.

Maybe I’m just overly-paranoid, though.

I’d agree that the bishops should present a united front, but not only on liturgical language but also about denying communion to politicians or permitting political figures to give commencement addresses, for example. I think that the very vocal positions of a minority of the bishops on these issues has been damaging.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I think this is the crux of my disagreement with the Bishop. People aren’t as stupid as he seems to think they are. His attitude toward the common people remind me a little to much of political liberal’s elitism.

Pnewton:

I also disagree with the Bishop and have disagreed with him for several years, and expect to continue disagreeing with him for several more. I do agree with you

One our of five American adults cannot read this sentence.

The above statement is true. Fully 20% of adult Americans are functionally illiterate - and I am not talking about immigrants either.

So should we reduce the laws and the Constitution and the encyclopedia to picture books so that they can understand them? NO, of course not!!! We need to educate them.

There is a very ancient saying within the Church, “As we pray, so we believe.” The liturgy is our prayer. That means the ENTIRE Mass from beginning to end is our prayer and that prayer needs to be correct.

By the way Incarnate does not mean born.it means enfleshed.

 

[jenkiedad]

I, for one will look forward to the day when the phrase “consubstantial with the Father” becomes an everyday term of the general public.

In lifting this new translation of a phrase from the Nicene Creed, won’t the RCC Creed now be different from what is used in Protestant Churches? I often thought it interesting that Protestant Churches used virtually the same Nicene Creed translation that is used in the RCC Mass.

Is this divergence good?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Jenkie:

I would say, yes, this divergence is very good. If the Protestants do no understand there is a difference, they will not know that a change is needed. If we believe the same thing, what difference if we are together or separate? If we believe different things, and we are right and they are wrong, then a change needs to be made. It is own fair that everyone know exactly what they believe and why.