US Catholic Faith in Real Life

Primary tabs

Site Section: 
Topic (work in progress): 


Submitted by ssoldie (not verified) on

In March of 1965, in the periodical L'Osservatore Romano, Bugnini was quoted as saying: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." In 1974 preceding his second downfall, Bugnini proudly proclaimed Vatican II to be a "major conquest of the Catholic Church".

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its problems and Background.
( by Msgr. Klaus Gamber)--Excerpts

from the preface to the French edition: "J.A.Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgist of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy' which is the fruit of development"....
"What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries,and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process-- with a fabrication, a banal on- the- spot product."

Submitted by Russ (not verified) on

You're clearly trying to direct folks to vote for #3.

"natural, easy-to-understand English"

Why not have the following choices:

1. in Latin

2. In a faithful translation of the Latin

3. In dumbed-down English written at a 3rd grade level?

Submitted by Frank H (not verified) on

LOL! Russ, great third choice!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Hard to believe a serious editorial staff thinks that a poll with these options could be at all worthwhile.

Submitted by David Martin (not verified) on

Bishop Trautmann's article points out the difficulties of translation into a living, always changing language.

Which is perhaps why the fathers of the second Vatican Council wanted Latin preserved in the liturgy, while permitting some use of the vernacular (clearly they wanted the Latin to be normative and to take precedence). This, of course, is not what happened. Instead we got a translation that, when it was not just infelicitous, was downright misleading -- as well as being banal.

Please, please let's "re-enchant" the liturgy. It's past time.

Submitted by DE (not verified) on

Any small comparison of the Latin with the current ICEL texts betrays the extent to which the present English translation dilutes the sacred in the name of being "pastoral". It is true that liturgy should be accessible to everyone, but religious texts and liturgical ones in particular should cause the believer to rise up to meet the sacred rather than have it dragged down to the level of common, human things. Simple catechesis and access to a dictionary would solve the problem for almost everyone. Even though we have grown used to the dumbed down liturgy over the past few decades, it does not mean that we should abandon attempts at reform. Ultimately, what could be more pastoral and spiritually beneficial than authentic translations of sacred texts?

Submitted by JBosco (not verified) on

How dare +Trautman so openly dissent and object to Vatican II.

He is a poor example of submission to the teachings of Christ, and Peter.

I wonder how +Trautman will react WHEN his Priests refuse to follow his "guidelines" on his own "interpretation" of the new Missal.

This tantrum by +Trautman is an appalling illustration of a baby throwing the toys out of the pram. I hope the Bishop is moved somewhere where he can do no harm. Let's have a Catholic Bishop replace him.

Um...No, He didn't. Maybe I'm misreading this and you're being hilariously snarky - I hope so - but just in case, I just want to say how wrong this is.

Actually, there is more consensus among the Church Fathers that the original language spoken by Man in Eden was Hebrew, which would make THAT the language created by God and it would behoove us to defer to that tongue rather than Latin.

Of course, only part of even our Scriptures were written in Hebrew. Some were written in Greek - did you know that the Septuagint was considered inspired by some Jews, even though it was written in GREEK; and that this sentiment carried over to many early Christians, even though the book was not in Latin - and others were written in Aramaic. It is unlikely that any books of the Bible were written in Latin in their inspired forms. Seems like God has shorted this language He created "with His own finger."

Submitted by JP (not verified) on

In Luke 4:18, when Jesus is reading from the book of the prophet Isaiah(61:1) in the temple, he is reading from the Septuagint Old Testament. Check it out.

the Septuagint version reads (which matches Luke 4:18):

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives,


The septuagint version of Isaiah is the only one that mentions "recovery of sight to the blind."