Bishop Criticizes 'slavishly Literal' English Translation Of M

[JimR-OCDS]

Friday, October 23, 2009By Megan SweasBy Mark Pattison, Catholic News Service 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.

[url="http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2009/10/bishop-criticizes-slavishly-literal-english-translation-missal"]http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2009/10/bishop-criticizes-slavishly-literal-english-translation-missal[/url]



Read the entire article before commenting.

I agree with Bishop Trautman.

God Bless
Jim

[kafka]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='30 October 2009 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1256936439' post='1994062']

"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.

[/quote]
As humans, we have an almost 'infinite' capacity to know and to learn. A capacity that only can be filled up completely by the immediate vision of God Himself. We are designed to know God.

Let the priests teach the people. Let God's people learn new things, new terms, etc. and thereby live fuller lives of Faith.

Edited October 30, 2009 by kafka

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kafka' date='30 October 2009 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1256937069' post='1994067']
As humans, we have an almost 'infinite' capacity to know and to learn. A capacity that only can be filled up completely by the immediate vision of God Himself. We are designed to know God.

Let the priests teach the people. Let God's people learn new things, new terms, etc. and thereby live fuller lives of Faith.
[/quote]Then they should be teaching Latin.

[cmotherofpirl]

If the good bishop doesn't like it, I'm sure I will.

[picchick]

[quote name='kafka' date='30 October 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1256937069' post='1994067']
As humans, we have an almost 'infinite' capacity to know and to learn. A capacity that only can be filled up completely by the immediate vision of God Himself. We are designed to know God.

Let the priests teach the people. Let God's people learn new things, new terms, etc. and thereby live fuller lives of Faith.
[/quote]
Agreed. We are not dumb. Teach us the meanings. How long would it take in a homily to define what it means?

I disagree with the Bishop. He mentions that Jesus didn't use terms that the faithful couldn't understand. But there were plenty of times that he certainly confused the crowds. What did he do? He explained.

Humans are not dumb. We thirst for information. Why not just give it to us instead of lowering the bar?

[dominicansoul]

so does he want us to "dumb" down the translation?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='30 October 2009 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1256936439' post='1994062']
"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.[/quote]
It is time for the vocabulary of God's people to expand.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='picchick' date='30 October 2009 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1256939125' post='1994077']
Agreed. We are not dumb. Teach us the meanings. How long would it take in a homily to define what it means?

I disagree with the Bishop. He mentions that Jesus didn't use terms that the faithful couldn't understand. But there were plenty of times that he certainly confused the crowds. What did he do? He explained.

Humans are not dumb. We thirst for information. Why not just give it to us instead of lowering the bar?
[/quote]

As a shepherd he should believe in our abilities to achieve greatness. People will often fulfill the expectations of their leaders. If leaders have low expectations the people will often live up to that, or under it. If Leaders on the other had believe in our abilities and encourage us to strive and achieve we can do most anything!

Think if JFK had instead told the American people it was impossible to go to the moon, we're just not that bright. We surely would have never succeed. But because he did believe in the abilities of the American people we achieved something wonderful. The same can be said for a great many leaders.

[Marie-Therese]

I agree...why pander to the masses? Why not take the opportunity to enrich the learning of the parishioners if they don't have previous experience with the vocabulary? Also, I think it's pretty presumptive for His Excellence to make the blanket statement that Catholics are, in so many words, not smart enough for the liturgical changes.

This is one of the roots of what I, IMHO, view as a problem with the overall catechesis of the faithful...that those in the teaching role frequently underestimate those in their charge. These are children of the Most High God! Can't we handle a couple of vocabulary words?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

*motions a "blah blah blah" hand*

Not to disrespect his episcopal dignity, but the bishop has made this complaint so often that I really can't believe he still considers it valid. Never in the history of the Church has any pope, council, or saint given up on teaching the faith because it required learning or made intellectual demands on the faithful. Christ spoke in parables unintelligible to the disciples and even to the Apostles...and then explained them. He did not simply leave out those difficult teachings.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='30 October 2009 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1256938400' post='1994073']
If the good bishop doesn't like it, I'm sure I will.
[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
ditto.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='30 October 2009 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1256938400' post='1994073']
If the good bishop doesn't like it, I'm sure I will.
[/quote]

This.

[Apotheoun]

Below is a link to the Melkite Catholic liturgy, but the good bishop may not want to click on the link because the text contains a lot of big words:

[center][url="http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf"]The
Divine and Holy Liturgy
of our
Father among the Saints
John Chrysostom
Archbishop of Constantinople[/url][/center]

[MithLuin]

Hmmm...

...a matter of education can be seen as elitist. There's a reason why people who use words their listeners do not understand are accused of showing off. Your 'average' Catholic has never taken a philosophy or theology class, never studied the faith in an academic setting (ie, college). So, bible studies, Sunday school and homilies are how the faithful learn the vocabulary of the faith and liturgy.

If you use technical jargon, it is offputting to those who are not 'in' that group. Try sitting down and reading Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body Wednesday audiences. A person walking through St. Peter's square likely wouldn't have had a clue what he was talking about (assuming they understood Italian, that is ). That doesn't mean he shouldn't have taught it, but it *does* mean that the faithful won't 'get' it until it has been explained to them in more normal (less technical) language. There can be a delay between use and comprehension -- a lag time while everyone adjusts to this new version of the liturgy.

So, yes, the bishop has a point that a translation using 'big words' (which are just normal words to the people doing the translating) will quite possibly throw some churchgoers for a loop. Pastorally, this means some education will be required to accompany the introduction of the new translation. He picks out the use of these words as examples: "'ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' 'incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' 'precursor,' 'suffused' and 'unvanquished.'"

Personally, I [i]love[/i] 'ineffable' and am happy I will be hearing it at mass. It's such a fun word to say. 'Ineffable.' I mean, really, try it..."ineffable." Also, it is not a specifically theological vocab word. It appears in TS Eliot's poem [url=http://www.heatercats.com/poems/naming.html]"The Naming of Cats".[/url] If [i]he[/i] can use it.... Of the other words on the list, a few are technical jargon (such as consubstantial or oblation) while others are just more unusual/archaic, such as ignominy. I think that 'unvanquished' is something people will figure out on their own, even if it's not a word they'd use very often. I mean, it just means "not conquered" - that's not a difficult concept to get across or figure out from context. "Incarnate" is jargon that every Catholic [i]should[/i] know - the Incarnation is one of the [u]main[/u] truths of our faith, and even if we know it as 'God became Man' we should also have the opportunity to learn it as 'incarnate' - so reinforcing use of that word at mass is probably a good thing. So, in the end, I am very much PRO ineffable [i]('ineffable')[/i] and incarnate, supportive of unvanquished, suffused and oblation, fairly neutral towards inviolate, precursor and consubstantial, and in agreement with him over ignominy.

Of course, [i]I've[/i] never taken a theology or philosophy class, either, and I know what all those words mean (and could probably even use them in a sentence, though the 'consubstantial' sentence would likely be off). But I am decently educated in general and tend to have an interest in words (and theology). My vocabulary includes many words that are not familiar to many high school students. I will admit to occasionally confusing oblation and libation, though.

I am more concerned about the point Bishop Trautman raises about the "unproclaimability" of this translation (before he is labeled a hypocrite - he was addressing an academic audience when he used that term, so it is more appropriate in that context). Preserving Latin sentence structures in English translations works...sometimes. Other times, it really doesn't. If the translation is unwieldy and causes those proclaiming it to stumble through, many faithful will be drawn out of the prayerful context of the mass to wince in sympathy with the difficult sentence structure. So, just because this translation is more accurate (something I look forward to!) doesn't mean it is well done. Run-on sentences that do not allow the speaker natural pauses to breathe do not make for good reading aloud. Even if the grammar were appropriate to English, it might just sound...bad. Try reading [i]The Last of the Mohicans[/i] aloud; it just doesn't work very well. The prose is too dense, and to many readers, it isn't worth it.

There's certainly some sour grapes in this, though. The 'Hey, didn't we already 'fix' that Latin document when we translated it before?' attitude really comes out. It should be pretty clear whether the Latin uses "I" or "We" -- so just translate it accurately, already. If you disagree with the choice, petition Rome to 'get it right' in the original. This is a translation, not a liturgical reform. The 'all' is a thornier issue. I always liked the phrase "for us men and for our salvation" because (even though it's not how anyone I know talks) it really emphasized that "us" and "our" didn't just mean the people I was standing in the church with. It meant...everyone. Jesus came [i]for[/i] the salvation of all...even if we don't all take him up on that offer. I am willing to accept that Cardinal Arinze has a better understanding of liturgy than I do, though, and a perfectly acceptable grasp of the English language. So, if he says 'pro multis' is more accurately reflected in this version of the words of consecration, I'm [u]not[/u] going to argue.

So, we'll see how it goes. I was so tickled to find out that the Latin is "Peace be with you" [i]-- And with your spirit also[/i] (or some variation thereof) It's sooooo much cooler than just saying "And also with you." I'm really hoping that 'espiritu' somehow shows up in this new translation.

And again,

[i]Ineffable.[/i]

[Apotheoun]

There is nothing inherently "unproclaimable" about the words used in the new Roman Missal translation, and in fact the same types of words have been used, and are still being used, in English translations of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

God is truly ineffable!

[Resurrexi]

I am so glad that "one in Being" is being replaced with "consubstantial".

I am also incredibly happy that "for all" is being changed to the much more correct "for many".

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 October 2009 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1256944973' post='1994130']
There is nothing inherently "unproclaimable" about the words used in the new Roman Missal translation, and in fact the same types of words have been used, and are still being used, in English translations of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

God is truly ineffable!
[/quote]



It wasn't the vocabulary he called unproclaimable. He was complaining about 80 word sentences and sentence structure that was grammatically incorrect in English but was incorporated as a hold over from the Latin. I don't have a specific example, because he didn't give one, but IF this were the case, I would see it as a valid concern. If he's just griping...well, we'll all catch on eventually.

I mean, there will be a transition period where everyone will have to use the missals because the responses we have memorized won't work anymore. That's a good thing , but I can see a *lot* of people complaining - "Why'd they have to go and change it?" No one is arguing the switch in translations will be automatic and unnoticed. The question is just how smoothly it will go, and how effective it will be. Time will tell.....

But paragraphs that are all one sentence [i]are[/i] difficult to read aloud, and they are easy to get lost in. I hope that they at least tested out their translation to work out some of those types of glitches at some point.

But more importantly,

[i]Ineffable![/i]

[OraProMe]

What a massive insult to his congregation. Why doesn't he just say "you guys are too dumb to understand this stuff"? I'm an 18 year old kid and I know what all those words mean with the exception of "ignominy". Honestly, who doesn't know what unvanquished or inviolate mean?

I'm sure the adults in his congregation will get used to it. How hard is it to pick up a dictionary?

Edited October 31, 2009 by OraProMe

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='30 October 2009 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1256945218' post='1994132']
I am so glad that "one in Being" is being replaced with "consubstantial".

I am also incredibly happy that "for all" is being changed to the much more correct "for many".
[/quote]

And "with thy spirit".

[Marie-Therese]

I agree, I understood his position on unwieldy sentence structure...this should be an accommodation that was made during the translation process. However, I still think that his base argument, that the vocabulary was too high minded, was an erroneous position. While, yes, we aren't all theologians, I don't see why there can't be a concerted effort to try and educate the faithful on these topics. They are important.