Bishop Criticizes 'slavishly Literal' English Translation Of M

[Aloysius]

the mass is not a theology classroom to begin with. don't you have any sense of experiencing something and learning its deep meaning without necessarily understanding all the words? the complicated words are there to be looked into more deeply; but the average man who doesn't understand them still walks away edified for having joined in the prayer with those who did understand them.

the whole didactic mentality of liturgy has absolutely destroyed true worship of God to begin with.

have you ever read through a poem that just expressed something deep, that maybe flew into wild structures sometimes or used uncommon words that you didn't understand at first if at all, but you couldn't help but step back after the poem and say "that moved me"

can you listen to a piece of music without understanding its rhythm and time signature... and (especially with modern music) maybe miss a few words from the lyrics because they're not enunciated or they're hard to hear because of the louder instrumentation, but the music still moved you?

that poem loses its effectiveness when you understand it at face value immediately. that music loses its touch when the words are clear and enunciated, or when complicated time signatures aren't applied.

and the liturgy loses its entire value when it becomes a lesson in theology trying to make everyone understand each and every point... the didactic way bishops such as Trautman want to treat the liturgy is exactly the type of thing that made Francis refuse to let his friars learn theology. let them live it and then they will learn it... let them experience the fact that the things being said are truly ineffable by sometimes saying things that they can't "eff" as it were, lol.

that's always been the value of Latin in Catholic liturgy; of Old Church Slavonic in Eastern Liturgies; of Hebrew in Jewish synagogues (which Christ himself would've spoke in the Temple even though the everyday language was ARAMAIC).. and it is a good enough reason to AT LEAST use some non-regular use words.

oh, and see Apo's post for the deeper reasons of "and with thy spirit"... it was not a common Latin phrase, ever. it was always a phrase of deeper theological meaning.

[Nunsense]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1257049629' post='1994689']
the mass is not a theology classroom to begin with. don't you have any sense of experiencing something and learning its deep meaning without necessarily understanding all the words? the complicated words are there to be looked into more deeply; but the average man who doesn't understand them still walks away edified for having joined in the prayer with those who did understand them.

the whole didactic mentality of liturgy has absolutely destroyed true worship of God to begin with.

have you ever read through a poem that just expressed something deep, that maybe flew into wild structures sometimes or used uncommon words that you didn't understand at first if at all, but you couldn't help but step back after the poem and say "that moved me"

can you listen to a piece of music without understanding its rhythm and time signature... and (especially with modern music) maybe miss a few words from the lyrics because they're not enunciated or they're hard to hear because of the louder instrumentation, but the music still moved you?

that poem loses its effectiveness when you understand it at face value immediately. that music loses its touch when the words are clear and enunciated, or when complicated time signatures aren't applied.

and the liturgy loses its entire value when it becomes a lesson in theology trying to make everyone understand each and every point... the didactic way bishops such as Trautman want to treat the liturgy is exactly the type of thing that made Francis refuse to let his friars learn theology. let them live it and then they will learn it... let them experience the fact that the things being said are truly ineffable by sometimes saying things that they can't "eff" as it were, lol.

that's always been the value of Latin in Catholic liturgy; of Old Church Slavonic in Eastern Liturgies; of Hebrew in Jewish synagogues (which Christ himself would've spoke in the Temple even though the everyday language was ARAMAIC).. and it is a good enough reason to AT LEAST use some non-regular use words.

oh, and see Apo's post for the deeper reasons of "and with thy spirit"... it was not a common Latin phrase, ever. it was always a phrase of deeper theological meaning.
[/quote]


Very good points. I attended an EF Solemn Mass today and even though I know a bit of Latin, I got lost a lot in amny places (in terms of meaning), but it spoke to my heart anyway, and was absolutely beautiful. In the Little Prince, Antoine de St Exupery said, "It is only with the heart that one can see clearly. What is essential is invisible to the eye." And that kind of goes for the ear and the mind too! Sometimes the meaning is in the words, and goes straight to the heart, bypassing the intellect completely!

That being said, I do love big words too!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='nunsense' date='01 November 2009 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1257050794' post='1994702']
Very good points. I attended an EF Solemn Mass today and even though I know a bit of Latin, I got lost a lot in amny places (in terms of meaning), but it spoke to my heart anyway, and was absolutely beautiful. In the Little Prince, Antoine de St Exupery said, "It is only with the heart that one can see clearly. What is essential is invisible to the eye." And that kind of goes for the ear and the mind too! Sometimes the meaning is in the words, and goes straight to the heart, bypassing the intellect completely!

That being said, I do love big words too!
[/quote]
I have tons of Latin and it's still easy to get lost at an EF Mass.

[Nunsense]

[quote name='Raphael' date='01 November 2009 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1257050873' post='1994705']
I have tons of Latin and it's still easy to get lost at an EF Mass.
[/quote]

Especially a Mass like this one. Two incredible hours of heavenly beauty at a sung Solemn Mass.

From the leaflet...

"Works by Renaissance contemporaries Victoria and Guerrero with full Propers for All Saints by William Byrd, all sung for the very first time in Australia in the liturgy for which they were composed." Nuova Cappella Ciulia choir, Directed by Nicholas Dinopoulos

But once again, words fail.... sometimes I stopped listening to the Latin words they were singing, and just let it all wash over me and take my heart up to the altar... sweetness.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1257049629' post='1994689']
"the mass is not a theology classroom to begin with."
Alleluia! I agree completely. Mass is many things - layer after layer of thought, feeling, community, inspiration, edification, impression, expression, and I don't know what all; learning can and sometimes does occur, but it's not the objective.

"don't you have any sense of experiencing something and learning its deep meaning without necessarily understanding all the words?" Sometimes Bob Dylan songs, but they're not in the same league as Mass. I've had poetry profs who got all excited about trying to make us understand every reference & nuance in Gerard Manley Hopkins' poems & stuff, but I think it's stupid. I'm all about clarity - say what you mean, mean what you say.

"the complicated words are there to be looked into more deeply;"
At Mass, I don't the words to be the mystery; I want the mysteries of the faith to be the mystery. I want the words to give expression to the mysteries in a way that I can understand - as well as to my own thoughts, feelings, inspirations, impressions, and I don't know what all - that I'm experiencing there. Sometimes I really like a song (Bob Dylan or otherwise) because it pinpoints what I've been feeling/thinking but been unable to express. I want the language of Mass to do that for me, too - help me figure out and give expression to what I've been thinking/feeling but haven't been able to pinpoint. I want the words to clarify for me what's going on here; I want to walk away chewing on that, not on the words. The current wording of the Mass does that very well for me, at least when it is prayed honestly and reverently.

"but the average man who doesn't understand them still walks away edified for having joined in the prayer with those who did understand them." See, I don't buy that. I used to have really old relatives who prayed the rosary all through Mass (a habit they developed in pre-Vatican times); simple people without training in Latin or theology, they didn't understand what was going on at Mass. They attended dutifully (the Church told them they needed to, so they did), and they wanted to have a religious experience while they were there, so they did what they could understand. The idea that "the man who doesn't understand them still walks away edified for having joined in the prayer with those who did understand them" is completely foreign to me. It reminds me of children who can sing the national anthem perfectly even though they don't understand a word of it - it's a cute little performance, but there's no intellectual engagement going on. In fact, many people I know can't tell me the meaning of the Star Spangeld Banner's lyrics - they've had twenty-thrity-forty years of repetition without consciousness.


"the whole didactic mentality of liturgy has absolutely destroyed true worship of God to begin with."
Could well be - I don't know.

have you ever read through a poem that just expressed something deep, that maybe flew into wild structures sometimes or used uncommon words that you didn't understand at first if at all, but you couldn't help but step back after the poem and say "that moved me" - see comments re Gerard Manley Hopkins. I'm pretty sure I get time out of purgatory for having tried to make sense of him.

"can you listen to a piece of music without understanding its rhythm and time signature... and (especially with modern music) maybe miss a few words from the lyrics because they're not enunciated or they're hard to hear because of the louder instrumentation, but the music still moved you?"
Yes, music can move me. And words can move me. And words set to music can move me. But I don't go to Mass so that I can come away feeling good. Many of the Pentecostal churches emphasize that aspect of worship, but in my opinion, it reduces God to a recreational drug.

"that poem loses its effectiveness when you understand it at face value immediately. that music loses its touch when the words are clear and enunciated, or when complicated time signatures aren't applied."
Right, but there's a difference between simplistic and simple. Few poems are simpler than the 23rd Psalm, but it's not simplistic - it's retained its powerful meaning over some couple dozen centuries. The same applies to the Song of Songs, the Our Father, and most of the other prayer texts in Judeo-Christian tradition. Most folk songs - whether several centuries old or today's country music hit - follow the same simple-yet-effective chord progressions.

and the liturgy loses its entire value when it becomes a lesson in theology trying to make everyone understand each and every point... No comment on this section.

"the didactic way bishops such as Trautman want to treat the liturgy is exactly the type of thing that made Francis refuse to let his friars learn theology. let them live it and then they will learn it..."
I didn't know this about Francis, but I agree with him. And it relates to what I'm talking about. Mass ought to be comprehensible to those who attend, precisely so that they can experience the fullness, richness, blessings, sacramental aspects, and I don't know what all else to as great an extent as possible. If the language of Mass is targeted over the heads of the people who go, they'll miss a good deal of that.

"let them experience the fact that the things being said are truly ineffable by sometimes saying things that they can't "eff" as it were, lol."
I've had a couple of what I guess you'd call ineffable experiences in church, but I guess I'm just not of an ineffable bent of mind. I go to Mass to talk to my father. If Dear Old Dad talked in such a way that I left feeling ineffable but confused, I don't know if I'd visit him every week. I go to church to have a meal with my brother(s and sisters); if my biological brothers & sisters made me feel ineffable but left out of the conversation, I think I'd start to order carry-out.

"that's always been the value of Latin in Catholic liturgy; of Old Church Slavonic in Eastern Liturgies; of Hebrew in Jewish synagogues (which Christ himself would've spoke in the Temple even though the everyday language was ARAMAIC).. and it is a good enough reason to AT LEAST use some non-regular use words."
Sacred langauges - more special because they're reserved for ritual use. And that's useful for exclusive religions. But the catholic church's mission is to spread the Word of God - and knowledge of God, understanding, and all the rest of it - to the whole world, not just people who were born into the religion, not just to those who live in a particular locale.

"oh, and see Apo's post for the deeper reasons of "and with thy spirit"... it was not a common Latin phrase, ever. it was always a phrase of deeper theological meaning."
I can't believe that we still use "thee, thy, thou" in the Catholic church. When I was in the Boy Scouts, one of the junior leaders (who was also a seminarian) used to make us say the Hail Mary without using thee-thy-thou; he did it as a punishment. It was very difficult at first because it's a frozen text, but once I figured it out, it made so much more sense with you-your-yours that I've never gone back to saying it the old way except for public recitations. None of which changes the ritual meaning of "and with your spirit" as explicated by Apo.

A very thought-provoking post - thank you.

[Aloysius]

those who said the rosary during mass truly understood what was going on much more than many people who understand every single word of what the priest says. because the mysteries being contemplated in the rosary are the mystery of the mass.

again, it's the difference between prose and poetry. if we view the liturgy as prose, those who misunderstood a single word are considered to have missed its meaning; if we view it as poetry, we see that those who get the whole thing and maybe miss out on a word or two, while uniting to the meaning of that word, have truly understood it and been edified. slowly they'll begin to more deeply understand each jot and tittle based upon the context of living through the liturgy so constantly.

sacred languages are NOT about being an exclusive religion, but about being a transcendent religion, which is what Catholicism is. the Latin Mass was equally foreign to the Spanish man and the Native American who both found themself faced with it... and somehow it included them all because of what you think of as its exclusivity.

it is precisely when you view the words themselves as non-mysterious that you lose sight of the real experience of the mystery. you can mentally chew over it all you want, but it is when the linguistic part of our brain goes into overdrive trying to connect with something higher than itself that we really experience the mystery. and it's not about "using emotion" as in protestantism; it's about grace building upon nature. the nature of sacred language (be it "a sacred language" or just more formal usage of the common language) is the mystery, and we experience it when we encounter it that way... we don't just understand that there's a mystery, we experience it in the most human way possible--the linguistic way.

as soon as the liturgy tries to explain these mysteries "in words you can understand" it starts to be didactic rather than truly organically worshipful. when you understand the mystery, you understand it'll never be 'in words you can understand' but always in words beyond your grasp; I personally know the meaning of the word ineffable, but ineffable is by nature beyond my grasp... there is no similar word that can be placed there that can truly be beyond my grasp.

don't scoff at the form of the words, for ours is a linguistic religion, a religion of the WORD made flesh. every encounter with our religion ought to be an encounter with a WORD which challenges us. when that becomes literally true and there are actual words that challenge us, it does nothing but enhance our religion by making a truly incarnate tangible experience of that spiritual reality.

and thanks whatever else I am, I at least try to be thought provoking

[Apotheoun]

The words of the liturgy are intended to both reveal and veil the mystery.

It is important to remember that the "mystery of faith" can not, like a mathematical equation, ever be solved. It will always remain a mystery as we stretch infinitely into eternity at the eschaton.

[JimR-OCDS]

I think its important to remember, that not every Catholic in the pew on Sunday, has the aptitude to understand complex phrases which require theological study.

There are those who have simple minds, but also simple hearts and faith.

If you read the Bishops criticism, he stated that the Mass should remain simple. Perhaps its the poor and elderly
he has in mind?

Its not about being conservative or liberal. Its about compassion for all who attend Mass, and bringing them into the liturgy along
with the college professors and lawyers.

Jim

[Nunsense]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1257084874' post='1994782']
I think its important to remember, that not every Catholic in the pew on Sunday, has the aptitude to understand complex phrases which require theological study.

There are those who have simple minds, but also simple hearts and faith.

If you read the Bishops criticism, he stated that the Mass should remain simple. Perhaps its the poor and elderly
he has in mind?

Its not about being conservative or liberal. Its about compassion for all who attend Mass, and bringing them into the liturgy along
with the college professors and lawyers.

Jim
[/quote]

And yet these same poor and elderly will often choose to attend a Latin Mass (like the one I went to today) which they probably don't understand any more than I do, and it is totally voluntary because this church also offers the N.O. Mass. Beauty is beauty - not only to professors and lawyers!

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='nunsense' date='01 November 2009 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1257086363' post='1994786']
And yet these same poor and elderly will often choose to attend a Latin Mass (like the one I went to today) which they probably don't understand any more than I do, and it is totally voluntary because this church also offers the N.O. Mass. Beauty is beauty - not only to professors and lawyers! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[/quote]


Some attend a TLM, to bring back memories of the old days, when they could do less at Mass than in the NO form.

I grew up with the TLM. Parishioners for the most part, sat and watched while the priest and altar boys said the Mass A few followed along in the missal, others prayed the Rosary, some fell asleep.


There was a reason why Vatican II called for reforms in the Mass. Go read what the reasons were.

Jim

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='01 November 2009 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1257084874' post='1994782']
I think its important to remember, that not every Catholic in the pew on Sunday, has the aptitude to understand complex phrases which require theological study.

There are those who have simple minds, but also simple hearts and faith.

If you read the Bishops criticism, he stated that the Mass should remain simple. Perhaps its the poor and elderly
he has in mind?

Its not about being conservative or liberal. Its about compassion for all who attend Mass, and bringing them into the liturgy along
with the college professors and lawyers.

Jim
[/quote]
Nobody said they had to understand everything, last I checked it was not a requirement to go to Mass.
But God forbid we shouldn't make sure the Mass dumbed down so only simple minds can understand it... Did you ever hear of a dictionary or simply asking the priest what something means if you really want to know. The idea we have to use language simple enough for the average 5 grading reading level is nonsense and insulting.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='01 November 2009 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1257089438' post='1994796']
Nobody said they had to understand everything, last I checked it was not a requirement to go to Mass.
But God forbid we shouldn't make sure the Mass dumbed down so only simple minds can understand it... Did you ever hear of a dictionary or simply asking the priest what something means if you really want to know. The idea we have to use language simple enough for the average 5 grading reading level is nonsense and insulting.
[/quote]
For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in [i]Pretty Woman[/i] where he takes her to the opera, her first opera, and while she doesn't understand it all, she's moved to tears by the beauty of it. While obviously the Mass is on a different plane, I don't think the comparison is completely off. I personally tire of things being dumbed down, and don't mind encountering new words. Yes, the people should be informed as to what the word means, and why it's been changed, but don't change the words just because people might not immediately know a word. Besides, it seems the new translation is more precise from what I've seen (bearing in mind that I know no Latin other than what I hear at Mass on occasion).

[Maggyie]

I don't understand why the bishop thinks words like incarnate or precursor are hard for the average person to understand. These are not hard words. How hard it is to figure out what unvanquished means? Probably the opposite of vanquished? And I would hope that in 21st century America 95% of the public knows what "vanquished" means. These aren't even specialized theological terms, most of them.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Maggie

[Luigi]

My final thoughts, and then a joke.

1. Those who study rhetoric (and liturgical language would qualify as a kind of rhetoric) always consider the rhetorical situation - who is speaking, to whom, and for what purpose? In the Western world, it is always the resposibility of the speaker to address the audience on the audience's own level; one can't talk to a child as if she held a Ph.D nor would one address a Ph.D. as if she were a child. The question currently under debate is where the language should be aimed. Is God the Father speaking to the faithful? Is Jesus speaking to the faithful? Are Vatican theologians speaking to the faithful? Who is being addresssed? People with minimal education? People with average American educations? People with college educations? People with advanced degrees? Is the purpose of litugical language to impress the faithful, or is it to allow them to express their faith? Of course there are many other possible answers here, too. Many people have complained of "dumbing down" - I don't think it's a question of dumb versus intelligent. My stance is that it's more a question of making the faith and its mysteries, as expressed in divine worship, as accessible and comprehensible to as many of God's people as possible; in that case, simple but noble (as opposed to merely simplistic) language is what the bishops & translators should be aiming for.

2. Those who study education know Vygotsky's theory of proximal development. People learn when they can connect new information to information they already know, and the new information needs to be just above their current level of knowledge. In terms of liturgical language, the questions are: Does teaching have a place in Mass, or should the emphasis be on celebrating/re-enacting/participating in the liturgy? What do the faithful already know? If teaching is important in Mass, then what level of language will be just above the current knowledge level of the people in the pews?

3. A possibility we haven't even mentioned yet is that, at least for the Eucharistic prayers, the bishops could write them at various levels of rhetorical complexity. We currently have a number of approved Eucharistic prayers - some are specific to certain celebrations, but the priest also has some choice for ordinary Masses. The translators and bishops could choose to write some of the new Euchristic prayers at a more accessible level and others at a more complex level.

4. I take comfort in the fact that what we say in this Phorum will probably not have any impact on the bishops' & translators' final decisions. The bishop of Erie, of whom I know exactly nothing but whose comments began this thread, was called by the Holy Spirit to his position; I assume that the remarks he made about the new translations were also inspired by the Holy Spirit at least to some degree. By the same token, any bishops who disagree with him were also called and anointed by the Holy Spirit. Peter and Paul argued vigorously about important issues in the early Church; we see once again that the more things change, the more they stay the same. But I trust that they are all arguing under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I will be praying, in union with all the saints and angels in heaven, that the Holy Spirit will guide our current Peters and Pauls to the conclusion most beneficial to the people of God.

5. Does everyone know that, back in the old days, telephone numbers began with words? EVergreen 5-5555, or FOrest 2-2222? Everyone knows that, when Mass was always celebrated in Latin, the priest intoned "Dominus vobiscum" and the people (or the choir, or the altar boys) replied with "Et cum spiritu tuo" - but friends of mine who grew up in the pre-Vatican II church tell me that the people didn't sing the words as written, quite. It usually came out more like "Et cum spiri tu-tu-o." So the very first truly Catholic joke I ever heard, as told to me by those folks who grew up in the pre-Vatican II era was:

What's God's telephone number?
Et Cum Spiri - 220.

Ciao.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='01 November 2009 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1257089112' post='1994794']
Some attend a TLM, to bring back memories of the old days, when they could do less at Mass than in the NO form.

I grew up with the TLM. Parishioners for the most part, sat and watched while the priest and altar boys said the Mass A few followed along in the missal, others prayed the Rosary, some fell asleep.


There was a reason why Vatican II called for reforms in the Mass. Go read what the reasons were.

Jim
[/quote]

There was also a reason why the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict, Pope of Rome stated that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated and that it is a form of the Roman Rite just as much as the 2002 Missal is.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Luigi' date='01 November 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1257098434' post='1994833']
My final thoughts, and then a joke.

1. Those who study rhetoric (and liturgical language would qualify as a kind of rhetoric) always consider the rhetorical situation - who is speaking, to whom, and for what purpose? In the Western world, it is always the resposibility of the speaker to address the audience on the audience's own level; one can't talk to a child as if she held a Ph.D nor would one address a Ph.D. as if she were a child. The question currently under debate is where the language should be aimed. Is God the Father speaking to the faithful? Is Jesus speaking to the faithful? Are Vatican theologians speaking to the faithful? Who is being addresssed? People with minimal education? People with average American educations? People with college educations? People with advanced degrees? Is the purpose of litugical language to impress the faithful, or is it to allow them to express their faith? Of course there are many other possible answers here, too. Many people have complained of "dumbing down" - I don't think it's a question of dumb versus intelligent. My stance is that it's more a question of making the faith and its mysteries, as expressed in divine worship, as accessible and comprehensible to as many of God's people as possible; in that case, simple but noble (as opposed to merely simplistic) language is what the bishops & translators should be aiming for.
[/quote]

The priest is not speaking to the faithful during most of Mass.

He is speaking to God.

[picchick]

[quote name='Luigi' date='01 November 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1257098434' post='1994833']
5. Does everyone know that, back in the old days, telephone numbers began with words? EVergreen 5-5555, or FOrest 2-2222? Everyone knows that, when Mass was always celebrated in Latin, the priest intoned "Dominus vobiscum" and the people (or the choir, or the altar boys) replied with "Et cum spiritu tuo" - but friends of mine who grew up in the pre-Vatican II church tell me that the people didn't sing the words as written, quite. It usually came out more like "Et cum spiri tu-tu-o." So the very first truly Catholic joke I ever heard, as told to me by those folks who grew up in the pre-Vatican II era was:

What's God's telephone number?
Et Cum Spiri - 220.

Ciao.
[/quote]

Pennsylvania 6-5000

[Aloysius]

1. God is being addressed, not the people. His vocabulary is infinite.

2. The liturgy is not about teaching. any learning that comes from the liturgy is secondary. it is edifying to be sure, but the reason it is edifying is that one engages in actual participation and is not some passive student. the better analogy to education is an analogy to linguistic education: the liturgy ought to be "full immersion", which is the absolute best way to learn language... with a full immersion liturgy, you learn by actually participating in the mysteries. not with the goal of learning, but with the goal of participating in the mysteries.

3. I am of the opinion that only the Roman Canon ought to be used. too many Eucharistic Prayers breed disunity and, of course, it seems that the priests will most often choose the shortest one. The fact is that the Church is inclusive precisely because it only offers one thing to all... it offers gold chalices to the rich and poor alike; sacred language to the learned and uneducated alike; the best of the best to all so that everyone who goes to Church on Sunday feels that they have encountered the true Best of the best, Our Lord. And yet, with some priests who have a didactic understanding of the mass, I feel as though I have encountered the best kindergarten teacher telling me all the things he thinks will make me warm and fuzzy. Please God let us not have a kindergarten Eucharistic prayer.

and under the current Pope, you will indeed be finding an increase in liturgical diversity in the Roman Rite, but only under a certain understanding: organic development. he's more than willing to increase the diversity of the liturgy, but not by approving something some committee has newly written up (like some new number of Eucharistic prayers), only organic liturgies like the TLM or the Anglican liturgies and such would be approved. This is not 1969, there will be no more experimentation with the liturgy.

4. Yes, and indeed Bishop Trautman doesn't really have much of a say either. All he could hope to do is try to delay it until there is a new Pope and hope that the new Pope reverses the course started by John Paul II and Benedict XVI towards better liturgical translation. So long as Liturgiam Authenticam (from 2001, under John Paul II) stands as the translation standards, it is only a matter of time until the English liturgy is indeed "slavishly literal"

5.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Luigi' date='01 November 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1257098434' post='1994833']
The bishop of Erie, of whom I know exactly nothing but whose comments began this thread, was called by the Holy Spirit to his position; I assume that the remarks he made about the new translations were also inspired by the Holy Spirit at least to some degree.
[/quote]

As a theologian, I must point out that it would be erroneous to say that all bishops are guided in all things by the Holy Spirit.

[little_miss_late]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1257055270' post='1994731']

don't scoff at the form of the words, for ours is a linguistic religion, a religion of the WORD made flesh. every encounter with our religion ought to be an encounter with a WORD which challenges us. when that becomes literally true and there are actual words that challenge us, it does nothing but enhance our religion by making a truly incarnate tangible experience of that spiritual reality.

[/quote]

+1