Logo

Mass in the balance: An interview with Bishop Trautman

Thursday, July 1, 2010
ShareThis
Bishop Donald Trautman explains in this 2005 interview some of the changes in the liturgy that we're seeing now, along with the reasons behind them.

As a young priest, Bishop Donald Trautman attended the second Vatican Council from beginning to end, passing out ballots and seeing to the needs of a group of bishops during all four sessions.

"I sat in the front row of St. Peter's and heard every Latin speech. I even voted," he jokes, referring to a retired Italian bishop who fell asleep during speeches and asked Trautman how he should vote.

Being at the council gave Trautman great confidence in its reforms. "Look at the vote on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. All the world's bishops voted in favor, with only four voting against. Is that not the will of the Holy Spirit?" Bishop Trautman has spent much of his career promoting that reform, as the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, a post he held in the 1990s and in 2005, when this interview was conducted.

Donald Trautman was ordained a priest in 1962 and earned a doctorate in m sacred theology in 1966. He has served as a scripture professor, diocesan official, and pastor, and has led the Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania since 1990.

It seems like there's a lot of controversy around the liturgy these days. Why do you think liturgical issues elicit such strong feelings among Catholics?

I think we all become very passionate when we celebrate the Eucharist. That's where we show our identity as Catholics, when we come together around the Lord's table to be formed and transformed. We all have a very important stake because we all offer the Eucharist to the Father.

The people who are fighting to go back to Latin, for example, had a wonderful experience when Mass was in that language. They're saying they met the Lord that way, and they're trying to keep that form, not understanding that the form and language of the liturgy is never an absolute. Only God is absolute, and there are different ways we express our love and our prayer.

Many arguments over the liturgy are about rules-who does what and how-but is there a deeper issue?

In Roman Catholic liturgy, we have rubrics-the liturgical laws that define how a priest is to celebrate Eucharist, how a congregation is to respond. But do we want to be rubricists, legalists? No, it's the spirit of the law that we want to live.

For example, many communities hold hands across the aisles at the time of the Our Father. Do we want to be rubricists and say that's not in the rule book, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal? If you have a worshiping community for whom holding hands is part of their culture, common sense would tell me not to touch it.

You want to have balance, and here we get into a deeper issue. There is transcendence and there is immanence. Transcendence means understanding God as almighty or understanding Jesus as a miracle worker. But there is also immanence: Jesus washing the disciples' feet, Jesus having dinner with tax collectors.

Both qualities are in scripture, applied to Jesus and to the Father and to the Spirit as well. We can't separate them. We need both.

Where is this balance for you?

Rules are important because we've all encountered examples of the Eucharist not being celebrated properly. We want to correct that, but again, with balance. You want to preserve the traditions of people.

I believe that in the United States we have a very healthy understanding of liturgy. When you look at the church universal, which countries have the most worshipers at Sunday Mass? Poland, Malta, the Philippines, and the United States. We know something about liturgy, and I think we're doing it rather well.

Is it hard to advocate for balance when it seems that those on the extremes are getting more attention?

It's difficult to be in the middle. To be in the mainstream today can be lonely. But I think that's where the gospel calls us to be, and we pay the price for that. But we have to be people of balance and prudence. Often that is interpreted as not following the Holy Father. That's not true. The best form of loyalty is to be candid, to be obedient at all times. Let me give you an example.

When I was studying scripture in Rome many years ago, one of my professors, Father Stanislaus Lyonnet, a famous Pauline scholar, was forbidden by what is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to teach biblical interpretation; he could only teach biblical languages.

I was in the classroom the day the prohibition was lifted. In Europe students knock on their desks when we in the U.S. would applaud; we knocked for five or six minutes.

I expected him to say something about the prohibition, but he didn't; he just began to teach St. Paul. It was a moving experience. Here was a man who had been hurt by the church-it seems we always hurt our best and brightest-but he did not retaliate. He just began, humbly, to teach.

I've always remembered that lesson. He was in the middle, and he paid the price. I think that's where grace is, and that's where the Lord wants us to be, too. I apply that lesson to liturgy and to the struggle to be in the mainstream.

How do you take that sense of balance to your work as chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy?

First let me tell you about the committee. I think it's perhaps the most important committee in the bishops' conference because liturgy touches everyone.

Eighty-five percent of the Catholic English-speaking world is in the U.S. Because of our numbers and our wealth, the translations we do also affect poorer English-speaking countries that don't have the staff, the research scholars, or the dollars to publish their own liturgical books. So I really feel an obligation to do our work well.

This article appeared in the October 2005 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 70, No. 10, pages 34-38).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Translations

Translations of the Bible only led to over 20,000 Protestant denominations. Given enough time, there will be that many translations of the liturgy and that many Catholic denominations as well.

Latin rites and Latin masses

"Fr J" please let us know what parish you "serve" so we know what masses to avoid.
What a pompous, arrogant man you are.

It's exactly your philosophy of liturgy which has caused many of us "small people" to consider other religious choices. You ultraorthodox, preVat II men just don't get it. John XXIII would be rolling in his grave.

Vatican II - both the dialogues and the Catechism which evolved from it - was crystal clear when it specified that liturgies should be in the vernacular. The people should understand what they're praying.

Would you take us back to the time when priests are burned at the stake for teaching the little ones the Our Father in English?

Your understanding of English seems to be as hazy as your people-instincts. You may a priest, but you sure are no pastor. Sorry, padre.

Vatican II - both the

Vatican II - both the dialogues and the Catechism which evolved from it - was crystal clear when it specified that liturgies should be in the vernacular.

Oh yes... crystal clear:

SC 36.1: the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

SC 54: steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

The mainstream is lonely?

The statement "To be in the mainstream today can be lonely" is reminiscent of the Yogi Berra quip: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." Thanks for the laugh.

Archbishop Burke has

Archbishop Burke has discovered the solution to many of the Church's problems.

more of the solution

Bishop Trautman must

Bishop Trautman must think the average pew dweller is an idiot, and we dont know what a dictionary is.

With all dewfall respect

You must think the average pew dweller is as much of a Latin purist as you, waiting in squirming anticipation for this verbose gibberish.

I read on another site a poster who put it clearly. He said that when his father, a hardworking devout blue collar man, goes to mass he wants to hear it in words he understands, not archaic ones he needs a dictionary for imposed by effeminate snobs.

I know daily communicants who won't have an f'able clue what they're hearing or reading next fall who probably haven't picked up a dictionary since grade school. Will they be expected to now? Don't hold your spiritus.

Such contempt

So common people don't know what "dew" is? That shows such contempt. The real elitists are the liturgical establishment who feel the need to act out their psychological dysfunctions in the liturgy.

Dew Dew

Of course they know what "dew" is but as a college educated middle-aged adult I never heard the word "dewfall" before this. I had to look it up to be sure what it meant.

There are illiterate Catholics, barely illiterate ones and ones whose reading level stops at gossip magazines. They are just as Catholic as any. The real contempt is expecting them to do homework with dictionaries just to understand the mass.

Sometimes I think this might be the beginning of a return to Latin. I've read as much from those here and elsewhere who hate the changes of Vatican II. Maybe after people just give up on reading along, trying to say sentences that run on for paragraphs with words that are foreign to them they will say, "Whatever. I don't understand it anyway."

Are they dumb or not?

Vatican II actually said that Latin was to be maintained. What do the documents really say? SC 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. SC 116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.We need not dumb down the liturgy so it can be understood by those who are illiterate. The key is accuracy. Does the translation say what the text actually says? Currently the answer is "no." We do not expect everyone to completely understand everything in the liturgy at a graduate educated level. Most people are not as dumb as you think. I do find it interesting that we are told how educated our laity are and how they should be listened too. Yet suddenly were are told they are too stupid to know what "dew" is. Make up your mind. My parish seems to understand the new translations well enough and given my encouragement they look forward to them.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.