« Up and down...sort of | Main | It's Wednesday... »
January 10, 2007
Pro Multis
John Allen reports on an address given by Bishop Trautman of Erie, chair of the USCCB Committee on liturgy. The address was to the Catholic Academy of Liturgy.
According to a press release issued by a member of the academy’s Executive Committee, Jesuit Fr. Keith Pecklers of Rome’s Gregorian University, Trautman “contended that the new translations do not adequately meet the liturgical needs of the average Catholic,” and he “expressed fears that the significant changes in the texts no longer reflect understandable English usage.”
“Trautman argued that the proposed changes of the people’s parts during the Mass will confuse the faithful, and predicted that the new texts will contribute to a greater number of departures from the Catholic Church,” the release stated.
Trautman also challenged a recent ruling from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that the Latin phrase pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood should be rendered as “for many” rather than the current English phrase “for all.”
The translation of pro multis has long been a key concern of liturgical conservatives, who see it as emblematic of how post-Vatican II translations sometimes left the actual meaning of the original texts behind in their quest for relevance.
Trautman, however, said that altering the translation of pro multis now could give a misleading impression of what the church teaches about the significance of Christ shedding his blood on the Cross.
“That change easily could be misinterpreted as denying the faith of the Roman Catholic Church that Christ died for all people,” the press release quoted Trautman as saying.
Trautman encouraged members of the academy to speak out in opposition to such changes.
“Bishop Trautman challenged Catholic liturgical scholars of North America to assist the bishops in promoting a liturgy that is accessible and pastorally aware,” the release said. “He urged them, in a spirit of respect and love for the Church, to be courageous in questioning those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible and betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).”
Just one point. It is probably not a good idea for opponents of implementing liturgical directives from Rome to wring their hands about "confusing the faithful," since this concern hasn't been in play, evidently for decades, particularly where the more creative liturgists among us are concerned. It's not as if we've had the impression that they've cared one whit about confusing us up to this point.
And, as Tim points out in the comments, playing the "Second Vatican II" card is can come back to you as well.
Personally, I find the dogma of the Trinity confusing. Can we be more pastorally sensitive about that, too?
After we attended the Byzantine liturgy at Christmas down in Knoxville, Michael observed that one of the fruits of a liturgy like that (and remember, it was in English), with its chant, movement, constant back-and-forth between congregation and priest/deacon, incense, iconostasis, etc., was that it rouses curiosity. It prompts you to ask questions, it inspires you to think and to seek because it is not all laid out like a pancake on your plate. Face it. God is Mystery. Who is God? How can God be, what is the power of this Love and Mercy? Is it possible that in this mess of world, redemption awaits me, you, all of us, invites us, entices us? It is not about willful obtuseness. It is about, at some level, imaging the reality of God's Presence, even as we acknoweldge the reality of that Presence. That is what sign and symbol is all about. By flattening the symbols, by making all very ordinary, we communicate that God is ordinary, that there's nothing much to this religious business, nothing much at all.
Christian faith is this amazing, heady mix of paradoxes and contradictions. The gospel is grasped by the simple, by children. God is here, right here among us. But that God is ...well...God, One mysterious and immanent all at the same time. Pastorally concerned liturgy seems to end up in this odd place in which, because the symbols and rituals are stripped, made ordinary and endlessly explained, we understand far less than we did before.
A series of articles on "pro multis" in case you're just catching up.
Here is Cardinal Arinze's letter.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Taking up Bishop Trautman's call to be courageous in questioning developments that would betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council, in a spirit of love and respect, I would like to ask His Excellency a few questions: How, in his diocese, is pride of place accorded to Gregorian Chant? Are the seminarians of his diocese thoroughly trained to chant the Eucharist in Latin as well as the major vernaculars of the diocese? How is the use of the Latin language preserved in the liturgies of his diocese? Are the Hours, particularly Vespers, celebrated in the major churches of his diocese? Has the placing of sacred images for the veneration of the faithful been maintained in the diocese, or have renovations "disposed or dispersed" ornaments of the house of God?
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Jan 10, 2007 9:16:13 AM
Listening to Trautperson complaining about this is like listening to a plague bacillus complaining about antibiotics.
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Jan 10, 2007 9:21:06 AM
Excellent points, Tim. I would also ask Bishop Trautman since when is his judgment a substitute for that of the Holy Father and a thoughtful, correct reading of the documents of Vatican II?
Posted by: Janice at Jan 10, 2007 9:21:48 AM
Just one point. It is probably not a good idea for opponents of implementing liturgical directives from Rome to wring their hands about "confusing the faithful," since this concern hasn't been in play, evidently for decades, particularly where the more creative liturgists among us are concerned. It's not as if we've had the impression that they've cared one whit about confusing us up to this point.
Amy, I had a number of points I wanted to make in response to Bishop Trautman.
But I think I'll let them be. You have hit the nail on the head here. And it is certainly difficult to describe the dizzying cavalcade of liturgical creativity and endless changes over the last forty years in the American Church as "accessible" and "pastorally aware."
Posted by: Richard at Jan 10, 2007 9:32:56 AM
So are the HF and all "thoughtful and correct readers of Vatican II" going to come down hard on the Italians, Spanish and Germans, too?
"versato per voi e per tutti
in remissione dei peccati"
"que sera derramada por vostros y por todos los hombres para el perdon de los pecados"
"das fuer euch und fuer alle vergossen wird zur vergebung der suenden"
Posted by: Tutti at Jan 10, 2007 9:48:10 AM
Yes. The letter was addressed to all Episcopal Conferences, and so the norm will be the same for all languages.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Jan 10, 2007 9:55:31 AM
Exactly which words does he think we cannot understand? Jesus used the words "for many" when he instituted the eucharist. The diciples didn't walk away in confusion. I am just having trouble picturing someone leaving the church because they cleaned up a few translation issues. There are a few big words in there but only a few. How dumb does he think we are?
Posted by: Randy at Jan 10, 2007 9:58:58 AM
Cardinal George made a good point a while back that (paraphrasing) when the revamped ICEL translation of the Sacramentary that the Holy See eventually rejected was under discussion, none of the usual suspects uttered a peep about the effect the changes contained therein (which were not only textual, but rubrical, e.g. eliminating the penitential rite outside of Advent and Lent) would have on the faithful. Suddenly, the progressives are conservatives, arguing that change qua change is to be feared.
Posted by: Robert at Jan 10, 2007 10:08:40 AM
I noticed that the Catholic Academy of Liturgy is run by a "troika-team." They don't hide their intentions very well, do they?
Posted by: PMcGrath at Jan 10, 2007 10:15:21 AM
Well, bishops like Trautman, knowing their time is limited, are not going down without one last fight. Trautman has always been a condescending person and has always treated believers like children. Unfortunately, he has found out that he is the child and has been advocating childish, tendentious translations to foster his own vision of the Church.
Posted by: Janice at Jan 10, 2007 10:16:05 AM
“That change easily could be misinterpreted as denying the faith of the Roman Catholic Church that Christ died for all people,” the press release quoted Trautman as saying.
Heaven forbid His Excellency from engaging in catechesis.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 10, 2007 10:17:06 AM
Well, I think Amy's off base in her comments. Her posse more so.
It's naive to suggest there has been a monolithic implementation of liturgy in the Roman Rite. Trautman wasn't even a bishop in the period of upheaval 1963-75, when conservatives whine about the most damage being done. Clearly the same people implementing ham-fistedly or well in the 70's are barely in the picture today.
I think Amy's "creative liturgists" are probably mostly catechists in disguise. The majority of US parishes have always lacked a liturgist. Many didn't and don't pay musicians. And those places in which the priest conceded liturgical leadership, you can bet it was the catechists who stepped in.
I'm not as concerned about "pro multis" as Trautman. But I do see a broader issue as more about the roles of the local bishop, the national conference, the curia, and the pope. How do they work together? How do they collaborate? Who is best placed to make tough calls on the broader implementation? Where, ideally, should the decisions be made? And who has the competence to make them?
Like some old hands in the pro-life movement, bitterness is evident among liturgical conservatives. You know, even Jerry Springer and Oprah encourage you to get in touch with your feelings and own them. Remember that's just the first step toward maturity. At some point, you have to let go of the pain and get on with your life. What's clear is that those who can't muster a statement of disagreement without resorting to petty name-calling might still have other issues to work with on the table.
"Trautperson?"
As my daughter would say, "Real mature!"
Posted by: Todd at Jan 10, 2007 10:23:01 AM
I do find the concern about confusing the faithful amusing. And the worry about people leaving? After the last forty years of "mixing it up," I count it as a miracle that anyone is still there and a greater miracle still that people are drawn by God into the Church. At the same time, I see a contrast between Benedict XVI's ability to draw audiences with his clear and intelligent teaching and the bishop's handwringing.
Posted by: Mary Jane at Jan 10, 2007 10:25:47 AM
Hello Todd,
Trautman wasn't even a bishop in the period of upheaval 1963-75, when conservatives whine about the most damage being done.
No, but his episcopal mentors were.
Posted by: Richard at Jan 10, 2007 10:32:49 AM
"Trautman “contended that the new translations do not adequately meet the liturgical needs of the average Catholic,” and he “expressed fears that the significant changes in the texts no longer reflect understandable English usage.”
This smacks of provincial Americanism. The English translation should be valid for every English-speaking country.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 10, 2007 10:34:16 AM
I had a friend who was at that meeting and not everyone was enthusiastic about the good Bishop's comments. And furthermore, my experience in the twenty or so years as a liturgical musician is that whoever said the catechists were doing liturgy hit the nail on the head. Like allowing young children to play with matches and gasoline.
Posted by: Kevin in Atlanta at Jan 10, 2007 10:38:04 AM
yup Todd, nearly as mature as referring to people who post on this blog as Amy's posse. Funny, the name-calling thing works one way, but not the other.
The liturgists that Amy refers to are liturgists...and/or those who have referred to themselves as liturgists. As there is not a recognizable "order of liturgists" into which one can be inducted and attain the status, many who would more properly be considered musicians, catechists, organists, church decorators or whatever have called themselves liturgists.
As to the salient point for how the Pope and the Bishops work together, that's pretty well spelled out in the Conciliar documents and the Codes of Canon Law. With regards to liturgy, as it is the Roman Rite we use to worship, it's only fitting that the chief shepherd of the Roman Rite has the final say in how things go.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Jan 10, 2007 10:39:08 AM
Todd:
So it is catechists who have been heading Diocesan Offices of Worship for the past 30 years, blocking every directive that comes from Rome, obfuscating, misinterpreting the call of the Second Vatican Council to keep chant in pride of place and so on?
It's catechists who have welcomed the dominance of the money-machines of Oregon Catholic Press and GIA as the arbiters of liturgical music in the US, rather than the Roman Catholic sacred music tradition?
It's catechists who are up in Toronto cheering the bishop on as he calls for them to resist Rome's directives?
Really?
Think for a moment, if all liturgists (NOT music ministers) disappeared. What would happen?
Priests would have to take full responsibility for how they celebrate Mass.
Some volunteer would have to step in and schedule liturgical ministers.
No one would be paid to figure out other things to do during Mass, to make people feel more welcome or included or whatever.
And why would this be bad?
Liturgists function, for the most part, as an obstacle between the people of God and the Mass as the Church would have us celebrate it. They are a completely unnecessary role in a parish.
Posted by: Ellen at Jan 10, 2007 10:43:20 AM
A case study of why liturgy matters:
I had the joy of spending part of the Christmas season in Ireland. When I went to Mass, I witnessed a number of awful liturgical deviations, chiefly: (i) at communion, the celebrant placed the chalice at the front of the altar, inviting the congregation to "help yourself"; (ii) The Creed was replaced by the celebrant singing a song that google has identified as coming from Tom Jones. I'm priting the lyrics below:
"I believe for every drop of rain that falls
A flower grows,
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night
A candle glows,
I believe for everyone who goes astray,
Someone will come to show the way,
I believe, I believe.
I believe above the storm a smallest prayer
Will still be heard,
I believe that someone in the great somewhere
Hears every word,
Every time I hear a newborn baby cry,
Or touch a leaf, r see the sky,
Then I know why,
I believe."
All I could think of was: from the Nicean-Constantinopolian Creed to this? The horror! What was he thinking? And of course, the congregation smiled and applauded this piece of showmanship. After Mass, I thought I now had a better feel for why the Irish Church is dying, and why liturgy matters so much. I know a priest in the Archdiocese of New York who was once assigned to a predominantly Irish parish in the Bronx; he was berated for daring to say Mass for longer than 40 minutes!
I know this is a little off-topic, but i thought it was relevant. On the whole, Americans do liturgy well. I really have no strong views on pro multis. What matters is getting the big things right.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 10, 2007 10:44:32 AM
Todd,
You said:
"It's naive to suggest there has been a monolithic implementation of liturgy in the Roman Rite."
The implementation of the liturgy has *not* been monolithic? We must be living on different planets, Todd. I don't have any scientific evidence, but the places that I know where the liturgy is not celebrated in English with the priest facing the people (both of which were never mandated), and very often with all manner of abuses, big and small, sub-standard music, etc. etc., are few and far between. How many parishes do you know where Gregorian chant is a significant and sonsitent part of the music repertoire? There are some variations, of course, but the liturgy is pretty much the same everywhere, which is to say, pretty bad. (This is assuming you're referring primarily to Western Europe / North America / Australia.)
"Trautman wasn't even a bishop in the period of upheaval 1963-75, when conservatives whine about the most damage being done. Clearly the same people implementing ham-fistedly or well in the 70's are barely in the picture today."
True, the bishops in place in the late 60's are mostly gone now, but this is beside the point. Trautman very much represents the same ideas and attittudes that those bishops had then.
"Like some old hands in the pro-life movement, bitterness is evident among liturgical conservatives."
Todd, may I suggest that avoiding such a condescending tone? (I'm trying not to be condescending myself!) To me it shows that you have little or no idea of the pain and frustration that so many people have gone through and continue to go through with regard to the liturgy. It would be more constructive to ask, "Why are these people so bitter? Could it possible be that the liturgical reforms and how they were implemented were not all positive?" As long aso as 1980 Pope John Paul II urged the Church to consider such questions. Not that I think you you consider all the liturgical changes to be positive, or that you have never asked these questions yourself, but it doesn't always come out that way.
Posted by: Sam Schmitt at Jan 10, 2007 10:49:23 AM
MM:
I'm.....speechless.
But you know, in American time, that is SO 1975.
I'm sorry....
Posted by: Amy at Jan 10, 2007 10:49:50 AM
Why oh why is it so hard for the post-Vatican II to take a critical look at the English translation of the Novus Ordo and ask whether (a) it is a faithful translation of the Latin and (b) it is a graceful, felicitious translation of the Latin? Since I do not know Latin, I cannot answer the first. But it is obvious, especially to those of us who have come into the Catholic Church from the Episcopal Church, that the answer to the second question is an emphatic no.
I do not understand the contemporary Catholic passion for colloquial, banal liturgical language. I do not know if the new texts will be aesthetically superior to the present texts (though I'm confident they will be more accurate to the the Latin); but surely they can't be any worse.
Bishop Trautman's defense of the status quo is pathetic and reactionary. There can be no defense of ugliness.
Posted by: Fr Alvin Kimel at Jan 10, 2007 10:50:01 AM
I do not understand the contemporary Catholic passion for colloquial, banal liturgical language.
It's a form of antiquarianism. They say, "but the NT was written in demotic Greek!" and that trumps everything.
According to that logic, we should have the NT rewritten every decade so as to "make it relevant" through such reliable, powerful means as current slang, grammatical desuetude, and faddish idioms.
You object? You're the problem.
Posted by: Jaques at Jan 10, 2007 11:02:46 AM
Trautman wasn't even a bishop in the period of upheaval 1963-75, when conservatives whine about the most damage being done.
Yes but he was a priest.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/btrautman.html
Posted by: Boots at Jan 10, 2007 11:12:54 AM
This is not the first time Bishop Trautman has spoken up about his fear of accurate translations of the Liturgy. In previous comments he has also expressed fear we won't be able to understand English.
My advice to him would be to instruct his own flock if he thinks they can't understand our mother tongue and to refrain from speaking for the rest of us. edited by blogmistress
Why is this Todd person getting so much attention around here? His comments are far too silly to merit response and all you responders are doing is feeding him. Leave him alone and maybe he'll go away.
Posted by: Ferde Rombola at Jan 10, 2007 11:16:04 AM
