Mark Brumley discusses the debate among US bishops over translations of the liturgy. Some bishops are in fact saying that even if a new translation is more faithful to the original, the faithful are so used to the current translation now that a change wouldn’t go over well, especially in the current climate of distrust.
That’s one way to look at it. However, another way to see it is that this is an opportunity to help Catholics re-examine what has become merely rote and lacking in any real meaning (especially if they don’t understand what they’re saying) and make it new and fresh. If we actually explain why it’s better to say, “And with your spirit,” rather than “And also with you,” some people may gain a higher appreciation of the Liturgy.
It reminds me of the argument for keeping present abortion law in tact. People are used to it. It would cause too much disruption.
Of course Trautman doesn’t like the new translation. It somewhat, ever so slightly, pushes the Mass towards the more vertical dimension.
I read a comment by him, regarding the new translation, where as he though it would “upset” people because they weren’t used to it.
This heterodox jackass can just stuff it. Let someone relate to him the absolute liturgical trauma of the sixties, the seventies, the eighties and beyond of doing something different every week that one went to Mass. From changes in the language, to turning around the altars, to standing for Communion, to banal music, to Communion in the hand, to some one “grabbing one’s hand at the most solemn part of the Mass,… and of course, let us not forget the many heterodox sermons that we received as a bonus in this liturgical renewal.
Of Bishop Trautman, Brian wrote:
“This heterodox jackass can just stuff it.”
Anyone, of course, has a right to disagree with Bishop Trautman but calling him a “heterodox jackass” is rude and disrespectful as most gratutitous insults are. If you want to disagree with the Bishop, do it in terms of the point in discussion: name calling often says more about the the name caller than than the one named. I don’t know what credentials Brian brings to the discussion here, but Bishop Trautman is the former chairman of the Bishopswp:comment_id>
francisdesales@catholic.org
130.111.222.222
2005-11-16 10:17:33
2005-11-16 14:17:33
Why is it that so many liberal revolutionaries cling to their failed ideas long after it’s become abundantly clear that they are failed ideas?
Look at how many communists there are at Universities still.
And look at how many people still clamor for all sorts of heterodoxy and call it the solution to the Church’s problems.
Their influence is waning though, the sun is setting on their idealogies, and in panic they are screaming even louder than before. But their day has come and gone.
Well, the more I think about this, the less enamored I am of changes. Why? While the changes may be good and much needed, in any organization, one must look at the ability to actually effect and execute change. If the CEO of a company decides that the employees are now going to use a new software package, a new dress code, a new schedule, the change is broadcast and underlings effect its implementation, in many cases almost immediately.
But as we have seen with the way Bishop and their minions act, they are very lousy on actually agreeing with what the change is, and since they are not in a conventional CEO hierarchy, they have no required responsibility to be responsible for the change. They can re-define it or otherwise waffle.
Now dealing with actual texts makes them more responsive, but the areas they are talking about here are areas where I would say most catholics do need to look in the missal (judging by looking around on Sundays).
So as we have seen with divergent policies on kneeling, sitting, standing, etc..we will end up seeing the same sort of divergence here. And nothing will be done about it.
As I have said before, I attend a church that gets a lot of tourists, many there to see the star Pastor. The range of stand/sit/kneel behavior is really bizarre.
So I am saying I am sympathetic to no changes, due to the fact that those who would execute the changes as a whole are organizationally incompetent.
Before they dismiss the proposed revisions on the basis of that to which their subjects are accustomed, they might be reminded, not only that this did not stop them the first time forty years ago, but that it would not have stopped them from their original plans in the 80s and 90s to purge the texts of male pronouns in reference to God as Father, as well as introduce a host of “adaptations” that would have borne no resemblance to the current text of the Roman Missal.
They wonder out loud why there is an atmosphere of distrust. It is because, quite simply, their actions demonstrate that the faithful do not know whether they can be believed—as evidenced in their continued denial of past behavior, and not only in matter liturgical.
The proposed translation isn’t any old change, your Excellency; it’s ressourcement: it’s getting the faithful back in touch with the sources. It’s what the Council wanted.
Charge: Bp. Trautman is heterodox
Corroborating Evidence: He was a student of Karl Rahner.
Corroborating Evidence:He is former chairman of the BishopsCDATA[
How does being a student of Karl Rahner automatically make one heterodox?
Does anyone know when the bishops will vote on these changes?
Tom:
Not everything Karl Rahner wrote was heterodox. Same goes for Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and Tertullian. All have writings in the Divine Office. All are studied in traditional patristics.
You wanna string them up too?
And while you’re at it, let’s stoke the fires around Thomas Aquinas, who believed that the Virgin was not immaculately conceived. No, wait, we have to add Catherine of Siena; she had a vision telling her the same thing.
Can we talk about liturgical translations now?
Here’s a version that’s been floated:
Priest: The Lord be with you.
People: Same to you.
RC:
I’ve heard one for when the priest decides to wing it.
Priest: The Lord is with you.
People: And maybe with you.
I do find it intriguing that those who “lived through” the massive liturgical changes of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and were party to if not directly responsible for foisting on us a completely new liturgy that ran counter to everything we had been taught previously now claim it would be too difficult to introduce change because the “people” are used to the present way. They were used to the latin mass too, did that prevent change. I could go on and list numerous other changes that were rammed down our throats. They continue to this day. When priests backed by bishops threaten parishioners for kneeling to receive the host do we hear concern for the people that they may be used to that way of dong it .. of course not. I agree with the poster above – the wind has shifted and the dark night of the coercive sixties generation is passing yet as long as some of that night remains they will continue to cling on to what they have won by claiming the very rights they trampled on when their influence was at its zenith. They will even try to slip a few last minute changes in using the very instrument of episcopal authority that they rejected when they embarked on their mad escapade to rule the world. Many remind me of the German opposition to the Nazis. Yes, we have to get rid of Hitler and his goons but I’m sure you will lets us keep the territories we happened to conquer along the way. I say its time to declare a policy of unconditional surrender – the war may go on a little longer but the outcome will be more souls saved rather than led astray.