Logo

Bishop criticizes 'slavishly literal' English translation of missal

Friday, October 23, 2009
By Mark Pattison, Catholic News Service
ShareThis

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., former chairman of the U.S. bishops' liturgy committee, sharply criticized what he called the "slavishly literal" translation into English of the new Roman Missal from the original Latin.

He said the "sacred language" used by translators "tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable" and could lead to a "pastoral disaster."

"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," Bishop Trautman said.

"The (Second Vatican Council's) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language," he added. "Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer's understanding?"

Bishop Trautman made his remarks in an Oct. 22 lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington, as part of the Msgr. Frederick R. McManus Lecture Series. Msgr. McManus, a liturgist, served as a peritus, or expert, during Vatican II.

The Roman Missal has not yet been given final approval for use in the United States. The U.S. bishops were scheduled to vote on four items pertaining to the missal at their November general meeting in Baltimore. It is expected that the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments would give its "recognitio," or approval, at some point following the U.S. bishops' vote.

Bishop Trautman took note of sentences in the new missal that he said run 66, 70 and 83 words, declaring that they were "unproclaimable" by the speaker and "incomprehensible" to the hearer.

"American Catholics have every right to expect the translation of the new missal to follow the rules for English grammar. The prefaces of the new missal, however, violate English syntax in a most egregious way," Bishop Trautman said, citing some examples in his remarks.

"The translators have slavishly transposed a Lain 'qui' clause into English without respecting English sentence word order," he added. The bishop also pointed out subordinate clauses from the missal that are "represented as a sentence," and sentences lacking a subject and predicate.

Bishop Trautman also questioned the use of "I believe" in the retranslated version of the Nicene Creed, "even though the original and official Nicene Creed promulgated by the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 said 'we believe' in both the Greek and Latin versions.

"Since this is a creedal prayer recited by the entire assembly in unison, the use of 'we' emphasized the unity of the assembly in praying this together as one body. Changing the plural form of 'we' to 'I' in the Nicene Creed goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts," he said.

The bishop complained about the lack of "pastoral style" in the new translation. The current wording in Eucharistic Prayer 3 asks God to "welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters," which he considered "inspiring, hope-filled, consoling, memorable."

The new translation asks God to "give kind admittance to your kingdom," which Bishop Trautman called "a dull lackluster expression which reminds one of a ticket-taker at the door. ... The first text reflects a pleading, passionate heart and the latter text a formality -- cold and insipid."

Bishop Trautman quoted the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said 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."

"Why are these conciliar directives not implemented in the new missal?" he asked. They are "especially" relevant, Bishop Trautman added, to "the people of the third millennium: children, teenagers, adults, those with varying degrees of education, and those with English as a second language."

He acknowledged that "there are those who disagree with the way the liturgical reform of Vatican II was interpreted and implemented" and who maintained that "a reform of the reform" was necessary to stem what they saw as "diminishing religiosity (and) declining Mass attendance" tied to the Mass texts.

But while "the Latin text is the official, authoritative text," Bishop Trautman said, "the Latin text is not inspired. It is a human text, reflecting a certain mindset, theology and world view."

As a consequence, "a major and radical change" and "a major pastoral, catechetical problem erupts" in the new missal during the words of consecration, which say that the blood of Christ "will be poured out for you and for many," instead of "for all," as is currently the practice.

"For whom did Jesus not die?" Bishop Trautman asked. "In 1974 the Holy See itself had approved our present words of institution (consecration) as an accurate, orthodox translation of the Latin phrase 'pro multis,'" he added. "It is a doctrine of our Catholic faith that Jesus died on the cross for all people."

Bishop Trautman took issue with a 2006 letter to bishops by Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, then head of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, which said that "salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one's own willing or participation."

"I respond that Jesus died even for those who reject his grace. He died for all," Bishop Trautman said.

"Why do we now have a reversal? The Aramaic and Latin texts have not changed. The scriptural arguments have not changed, but the insistence on literal translation has changed."

Bishop Trautman hearkened back to Msgr. McManus, whom he called "an apostle of the liturgical renewal."

"If Msgr. McManus were with us today, he would call us to fidelity to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and encourage us to produce a translation of the missal that is accurate, inspiring, referent, proclaimable, understandable, pastoral in every sense -- a text that raises our minds and hearts to God."

Copyright © 2009 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Comment viewing options

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

"I choose Trent"

Gentlemen, get your noses out of your behinds and actually try some scholarship, and you might discover that what the Church has held and taught is neither so simple nor so black and white as you believe. Take the time to actually *read* the CDW response given in Notitiae in January 1970 and more especially September 2004 and you will find that, like so much of genuine Catholic theology, the answer is nuanced, and requires an understanding of the concepts of connotation and denotation in the Aramaic & Latin languages, and if you are unable or unwilling to hold two concepts simultaneously in your mind, please STOP attempting to discuss theology with adults. Theology neither started nor ended with the Council of Trent.

Response to Doolittle

When there is nothing else to stand on, attack the person ("get your noses out of your behinds" and become an "adult").   

I notice my recent comments quoting John XXIII and Paul VI regarding Latin are ignored.  Similarly, my quote from the Catechism of Trent about for all vs. for many has never been directly addressed.   I have commented on numerous issues which not only quoted Trent, but also Scripture, Vatican II, and various popes.   I receive back name-calling and rebellious rejection of the Church's teachings.

I am not as simple-minded as you might suppose.  I am well aware that theology did not start and end with Trent.  However, I (PROUDLY) adhere to the Council of Trent's teachings, and I for one will never abandon them. 

Can I handle "two concepts simultaneously"?  OK, there's 3 persons in the Trinity, but there's also 4.  Mary was assumed into Heaven, but not really.  Jesus rose from the dead bodily, but no, it was just a spiritual resurrection.  Our Lord meant for all not for many, but He also meant for many not for all.  Transubstantiation is the Church's teaching, but Christ's presence in the Eucharist is really only symbolic.   Homosexuality is a sin, but it's acceptable.  You can hopefully see the insanity that "two concepts simultaneously" can lead to.

Only One Thing to Say

I have only one thing to say.

Prior to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo we had the Latin Missal. In that Missal, to the best of my understanding, universally, Latin was on the left hand pages with the vernacular on the right hand pages. In the US, the right hand pages would have been English primarily; although there were other language translations used: French; Polish; German; Spanish; Italian; etc. (apologies for leaving any nationality off my short list).

So, why the need for the Novus Ordo? The Church could have declared, "In order for the people of God to fully understand and participate in celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (remember when it used to be called that), each Episcopate has been given the authority to celebrate the Latin Mass in the language(s) of their individual parish communities."

We wouldn't have these translational issues that have now resulted.

Thanks and God Bless,
Genesius - "I have a passion for helping others to learn and to grow."
www.linkedin.com/in/genesiusjaromsky
genesiusj.blogspot.com

"No one heals himself by wounding another." St. Ambrose 340-397 AD

I applaude Bishop Trautman

As someone who did her liturgical training in the late '08s and am now a DRE for a parish, these changes make not only my own training to be called into error, but my job harder: how do you tell the Sunday Catholic that what they have been faithfully saying and praying for the past 45 years was a 'mistake'?. (And I will not use the demeaning word "Ordinary" here: many catholics today are very well versed in the dialogues of the mass - them at least!).

Anyone who laudes these changes are in schism IMHO. To circumvent, reject or conveniently throw out parts of the reforms of Vat II that don't suit personal tastes is disengenous at best and schismatic at worst; and rejects theology inspired by the Holy Spirit.

B. Trautman is cogently offering what many of us are struggling to articulate about this 'express train' of the want to go back to Pre Vat II life and I am glad of it.

However, more worrying is what is happening underneath the surface of the Church while the Faithful are being dragged backwards on a Sunday: the investigation of our wonderful sisters, silencing of theologians who do not sign the Oath Of Loyalty, those who want a discusson on women's ordination. These are sinister. For example, to call Anthonly De Mello in to question...?? Karl Rhaner..? Bernard Haring? What on earth is happening??

These changes are the 'opium of the People' and we need to see the forest for the trees.

Bishop Trautman, the new translation

My father is an average Catholic, an ordinary man, a fisherman who doesn't own a dictionary in which to look up the meanings of inviolate, ignominy, percursor and ineffable. When he goes to church, he only wants to experience the presence of God and understand what he's praying in ordinary, simple language. The current leadership of the Church, both in Rome and in the U.S., is comprised of elitist, effeminate snobs who are totally out of touch with ordinary, everyday Catholics.
This new, fruity translation will drive many from the Church.

New Mass Translation

We have had to put up with the banal translation of the Mass which many have described as "boring" and "trite" language for over 35 years and millions have left the Church because of it. So I'm afraid there are many many more people in the Church to be considered than just your father. The Holy Father has called for "a return to a sense of the sacred" to uplift people so that they turn their gaze in awe to God, rather than the banal inward-looking liturgy that we have had to put up with for the years since the Second Vatican Council. The Church was thriving before the Second Vatican Council with the Latin Mass which your father would have gone to. And look at the Church now because people have tried to pull it down to the lowest common denominator and it didn't work.

Why not just write? Dear

Why not just write?

Dear Laity,

You're to stupid to understand

Thanks

Bishop Trautman

Bryan Cones's picture

Dictionaries away...

Quick: What's the defininition of "ignominy"? Don't look it up...

Now close your eyes and spell it.

OK, so no one has to spell at Mass, but whether they can actual understand the text of the liturgy matters. I don't just mean using too many big words: I mean that sentences have to make sense in spoken English. These don't.

Bishop Trautman's critiques--which he has been making now for years--are the critiques of a pastor who is concerned about the church. It is hard enough to get people to church; why make it that much more arcanse by casting liturgical texts in 19th c. English?

It is and will be a pastoral disaster. Everyone agrees that the 1970 translations were done too quickly and needed to be revisited; that's why ICEL had prepared a beautiful lyrical translation that was approved by all the English-speaking bishops of the world--as decreed by the Second Vatican Council--which was then hijacked by a few English speaking bishops in Rome.

This translation is an ignominious victory of ideology over pastoral need.

Bryan Cones

Dictionaries away ...

Rubbish, it is a victory over the ignominy of the inner looking banal liturgy that we have had to put up with for the last 35 years that has driven so many out of the. Deo gratias - thanks be to God - for the Holy Father who has called for "a return to the sense of the sacred", so that man will once more lift his mind and heart to God and perhaps soon we will no longer hear the tinkling of tea cups, loud voices and rap music in the churches so that people can pray and listen to what God has to say in them.

Bishop Trautman has written

Bishop Trautman has written a fuller critique of the new translation, called “The Relationship of the Active Participation of the Assembly to Liturgical Translations”. It's posted on the website of the Diocese of Erie.

http://www.eriercd.org/pdf/translations.pdf

What he writes makes a lot of sense to me. But what I know for myself is that the English used in the new translation is not my English; it is someone else's ecclesiastical "upspeak" which actually sounds quite phoney and pretentious to me.

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.