Irritation and Obedience

Earlier in this holiday weekend I was reading an article by bishop Donald W Trautman regarding the new Mass translations. What I've read of the new Mass translations has really irritated me, and his article just raised the intensity of the irritation:

All liturgy is pastoral. If translated texts are to be the authentic prayer of the people, they must be owned by the people and expressed in the contemporary language of their culture. To what extent are the new prayers of the Missal truly pastoral? Do these new texts communicate in the living language of the worshiping assembly? How will John and Mary Catholic relate to the new words of the Creed: “consubstantial to the Father” and “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”? Will they understand these words from the various new Collects: “sullied,” “unfeigned,” “ineffable,” “gibbet,” “wrought,” “thwart”? Will the assembly understand the fourth paragraph of the Blessing of Baptismal Water, which has 56 words (in 11 lines) in one sentence? In the preface of the chrism Mass, one sentence runs on for 10 lines. How pastoral are the new collects, when they all consist of a single sentence, containing a jumble of subordinate clauses and commas?

Of all the issues facing the church today – and there are plenty of big, serious ones – why in the world is... who's in charge of this thing? - why are 'they' spending precious time and resources on such a project that will further alienate and distance people from the Mass? We don't need different translations, we need better homilies and more priests! I'm irritated enough to start writing my bishop about this, for all the good that will do. I get cynical and pessimistic as I get irritated.

Tonight, I was reading Encounters With Silence by Karl Rahner, SJ. It's a great little book of prayer, and tonight I read the chapter titled 'God of Law'. It was good timing; here's a small excerpt:

Lord, you have abrogated the Old Law,”which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). But you have established rulers in this world, both temporal and spiritual, and sometimes it seems to me that they have diligently set about patching up all the holes that Your Spirit of freedom had torn in the fence of rules and regulations by His liberating Pentecostal storm.

There's a lot more good stuff in that chapter that I won't quote because I don't want to type it (pssst – buy the book, it's good). It is a reflection on Rahner's frustration with what he views as overburdening rules and regulations in the church, and his attempt to reconcile that with the God of Freedom: “The Lord is Spirit, and where the Lord is there is freedom” (2 Cor 3:17). If the church is of God, then how is that reconciled with burdensome and sometimes irrelevant rules and regulations? Rahner wanted to follow the rules but he needed help making sense of it all. So do I. He continues on to his conclusion:

The only answer seems to be that, whenever I obey such a law, I must keep looking directly at You, In this way I can pay homage to You, directly and exclusively, and not to the thing that is required of me, not even to the thing as the reflected splendor of Your Being. Precisely because there is in the thing itself nothing to which I can give my heart without reserve, obedience can be the expression of my seeking You alone in it.
...
If I look upon the obedience to these laws as a demonstration of homage for Your beloved free Will, which rules over me according to its own good pleasure, then I can truly find you therein. Then my whole being flows toward You, into You, into the broad, free expanse of Your unbounded Being, instead of being cramped within the narrow confines of human orders. You are the God of human laws for me, only when You are the God of my love.

That's a tall order for me. Rahner had an oath of obedience, to his order and to the church, that he had to follow. While I don't have such an oath, I do have a desire to be close to God, and for me part of that is being close to the Catholic faith. There are a couple church rules I have a seriously hard time with, and when I see foolishness like the new Mass translation and the incredibly unjust way sexual abuse has been handled, it seems like 'they' are making it even harder.

Comments

[James]

This mass translation thing is discouraging in the extreme. But I think that quotation from Rahner is terrific - thank you very much for that.

It passes my comprehension how "they" can think that either Tridentine Latin or anachronistic latinised English will help parishioners or priests to pray with deeper understanding and so greater love.

There are some circumstances when it's legitimate to supercede a law when the law is against a higher duty/need. The example that comes to mind is the right to "steal" food to prevent starvation. What could we do to ward off the starvation that threatens us, confronted as we are with this exquisitely cobbled rendering of the prayers of God's people?

[Cura]

What will happen if this trend continues is exactly what had happened in the centuries leading up to Vatican II, the faithful will let the priests have their Mass and we will adopt more personal devotions that will speak the Living Word more clearly to our hearts and more relevantly to our lives.

It's sad, it's frustrating, it's the way the Church does things. Thankfully it is ultimately God's Church and it is God who will make sure we faithful are fed as God has done throughout our history often in spite of what 'The Boys on the Hill' have decided is 'best'.

[susan rose, csjp]

great post.

[Steve Bogner]

James - What could we do? That's a question I've also been pondering. I wrote to my bishop, and maybe if more people did that then it would make a difference. Maybe one of those online petitions could raise some visibility...

Cura - Yes it is sad & frustrating, and I believe the laity can make a difference by making its voice heard. At least, I hope so.

Susan - Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate that.

[Talmida]

Good post Steve, and interesting article by Bishop Trautman. As you know, this is a subject dear to my heart.

The translators have forgotten that language is a way of communicating -- and that if the person receiving the communication does not understand it, then the translation has failed. The language has failed to serve its purpose.

They seem to see their duty as somehow putting the right magic Latin words out there -- whether they are understood or not!!

I even read one comment that said that since the prayers are addressed to God, it makes no difference whether we mere mortals understand them.

I have to wonder why we need to BE there then, if we're not required to understand. Is blind assent the only thing required of us?

[James]

Cura, I fear you'e right. Now, where did I put my Rosary?

[KiwiNomad06]

The Rahner book looks interesting Steve. Might try and find it.
As a person who rarely goes to Mass anyway, the way the changes are happening endears me even less.

[Steve Bogner]

Talmida - Yes, language serves a purpose; I think in this case it's purpose is to draw us into a closer relationship with God, into a deeper worship. Ultimately, worship can transcend words; and the words we do say are often the starting point of worship. As always, you have some great points - thanks for sharing them here!

Kiwi - I wonder if the church in New Zealand is getting the same English translation targeted for the US? And England, Australia, etc? It's all English, but it's all different, too....

[~m2~]

this is one of the better rants i have heard in a really long time...great post, steve.

[Solanus]

I don't see what all the complaining is about. How hard it is to understand what "consubstatiation' and "incarnate" mean? Those other prayers are said what, couple times a year? I think the translations are great, much closer to the latin. Why doesn't Trautman focus on the entire liturgical translation, not just a few words he considers Catholics too dumb to understand? From some of the preliminary translations I've read, it flows pretty good. Its also a great teaching opportunity to get Catholics to understand deeper the prayers of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, instead of just relying on rote learning. In the more good news department, the Pope is also considering making the Tridentine Latin Mass more widely accessible.

[gmterry]

I agree with Solanus. I think that the "controversy" over the new Mass translations smacks too much of elitism. Bishop Trautman asks how "Jonn and Mary Catholic" will understand some of the words in the new translation...come on! Maybe John and Mary Catholic aren't as dense as Bishop Trautman gives them credit for being.
And, further, the Liturgy of the Mass is a prayer to God. We should be united as a Church in praying the same prayer as those who use different translations (adhering more closely to the Latin).
Ultimately, the words here should be "better catechesis", not "dumb it down for poor John and Mary". As long as we continue as a Church to say "people just aren't capable", they won't be, because they won't be given the opportunity. I think THAT is un-pastoral.
Finally, I agree that there are many issues facing the Church, that require the Church's attention. However, the Church teaches that the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian life. As such, I believe that it is really wuite important that we be unified in the form of prayer we use, and that means honing the Mass translations.

[KiwiNomad06]

Steve, I am not sure but I think that is possibly the aim, to have all English the same everywhere. They are having a series of discussion groups here and I went to the first series. I didn't find it very enlightening though. Sounds like the second series, now on, may be more interesting, but I am in the midst of some study and don't have time to go.

[Cura]

From expereince; when speaking of the Church, I get blank stares when I tell my adult groups we'll be "talking about Ecclesiology" next week and understanding nods when I say simply "we'll discuss what we mean when we talk about 'Church' ". Confusion ensues when I forget myself and talk about sotiriology, or (as voiced by one parishioner) "Transum-whatsit?". Expereince has shown me that simpler is better.

Why did Kentucky Fried Chicken change it's name to KFC? Their marketing directors realized that simpler is better

From the Tradition of our Faith; What language did Jesus use to speak his Holy Word? What language were our stories of faith shared in for Centuries? What languages were our Divinely inspired and Holy and Sacred Scriptures written in to begin with?

Hebrew
Greek
Aramaic

Why?

Because God knew (oh how well God knows us! Through in Through, from our Mother's Womb, befreo we were even formed!) that the best way to convey His Holy Word, to ensure that His Divine Message of salvation is heard and understood by all...was whatever language His the People of God were using at the time.

Brilliant! Who can discredit the amazing wisdom of our Lord and God? An Awesome God Indeed! He knew first that simpler is better.

Ask St. Therese of Lisieux and she'll tell you too, 'the little way' the siple way, is often the most holy and sacred way there is. Should we be surprised? Simple is the way God chose to live in the world himself. Not sure you can get more orthodox than doing things the way God chose to do them first.

[Steve Bogner]

Penni - I just realized that what I wrote is a rant; I don't rant often (I think); but this was a nice rant. Thanks for dropping by and commenting!

Solanus & gmterry - I suppose we just disagree on this then. I don't have any affinity for Latin, so the fact that the new translation is closer to the Latin text doesn't really matter much to me. Better catechesis is a good thing; I still hold that there are dozens of other more important things to do in the church than mess with liturgical language.

Kiwi - Thanks for the update, and good luck with your studies.

Cura - Yes, simpler is most always better. That's a challenge, in my opinion, for Catholics and Catholicism. The church has had a lot of time to build up quite a collection of rules, regulations and traditions to adhere to. Sometimes I think that complexity gets in the way...

[Julie D]

This ties into an email conversation I have been having with a friend over one thing in particular ... words matter, the way we say things matter. Therefore, if it has been found that the way the words were translated before was not precise, not communicating properly what really should have been said, then where would it be more important to "get it right" than in our liturgy? If that means rewriting and using a couple of words like "thwart", well can we not define those words? Possibly bring up the level of understanding while we are at it?

That article is interesting in that it is not in agreement with others I have read. It struck me as being from "one camp" versus "another camp" ... now that is what incenses (sorry for that big word!) me. I suppose we can't avoid "camps" among bishops and liturgists but to see them publicly ranting (in either direction) and getting everyone annoyed and upset before we even get a chance to see what they are talking about is no better to me than having the media scaring us about bird flu, bees, and global warming ... with sound bytes and drama.

I don't have an opinion on any of the new liturgy specifically because I haven't seen more than hearsay and leaks ... and I prefer to wait for the real thing.

[Cura]

I'm all for accurate translations but there is a marekd difference between accurate and literal, a littleral or direct translation from one language (whether it be German to French or Latin to English) is rarely going to be helpful to anyone and in the neglish language that are a host of words that are easy enough for all people to read, hear and understandthat can be used without 'dumbing things down'.

I'm a big fan of proper and on-going Catechesis but the Liturgy itself is a different mode of Catechisis than a class in ancient languages and their proper English translations. The Liturgy is meant as prayer and worship by the Body of Christ, for the Body of Christ, to join the hearts and minds of the whole Body of Christ with the mind and heart of God.

If there is any possibility that the language used might impose a barrier to that end result rather than facilitate it most readily, then we are obligated to pay attention to that. and ensure with every effort, that those obstacles to worship are removed.

[Steve Bogner]

Julie - I guess different people take it differently; when I think of 'words matter' in relation to these translations, I have in mind the true, accurate intent of what the original texts said. That feels different from the 'precise' translation you mentioned.

p.s. thanks for dropping by and commenting.

[Julie D]

That actually was what I meant by "precise" ... not sure how they are different. At any rate, we then are in agreement on what we want.:-)

[Jason W., nSJ]

Hi Steve, long time no comment here.

From comments I left in another combox:

While I understand the reaction to some of the words in the new translation, I just can't entirely agree with Bp. Trautman's criticisms.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is a decline in education standards in America, in both secular and parochial schools, by which our language is continually simplified (I really want to say "dumbed down") such that no one can figure out what these words mean anymore.

I don't think these words are so bad in and of themselves, and in fact can add depth of meaning to the liturgy, an opinion which is at opposition to many.

I wish we'd quit accepting a minimum standard in education in America, and start giving our young people the power to use our language beautifully and intelligently.

[And then that poster commented, among other things, that it's good for us to have these conversations...and I went on:]

I agree that we need to have these conversations. We all need to see the other point of view; that some are troubled by the translations, while some quite welcome them. I don't think the translations are perfect, but I also think that's not the end of the world.

Also, I like the idea of a translation that's closer to the original Latin. Ours is not the only language being retranslated; there are similar processes taking place for Spanish and Portuguese. So I'm really drawn to the possibility that the Mass we use in English is even more similar to the Mass used in, say, Maputo.

Anyway, as for awkward language and clunky phrasing, have you really paid attention to the Lord's Prayer lately?

I really think we'll be okay. If we survived the first reforms after Vatican II, we'll survive this.

Peace to you Steve.

[Steve M]

Steve, thanks for a most thoughtful post on an important subject. Good liturgy is liturgy that helps us connect better with God -- both God in His transcendental form and God in the way He manifests himself in our brothers and sisters in the pew next to us (as well as the stranger on the street). I have serious doubts whether the new language (as archaic and obscure as it is) will aid most of us in those efforts. But I do like the passage you quoted from Rahner, and I imagine Rahner's eyes-totally-on-God approach has helped many previous generations of Catholics survive all sorts of things that otherwise would have distanced them from God. (I know many will disagree, but I count altar rails and, even more significant, the all-male priesthood among those elements.) I will do my best to keep Rahner's words in mind as I deal with the new language...and wish all the harder that I really had the guts to make a break for the Episcopal church, where I think I would feel more at home.

[Diane]

Coming to this conversation late. Been "busy with many things" as the saying goes. Many good comments here in response to one of your typically thoughtful posts. The words of the liturgy are near and dear to my heart and the translation I've grown up with has truly spoken to me over the years. I also have fond recollections of some of the translations from the Italian sacramentary that Liturgy Training Publications was putting out for a while. And I have to admit that dipping into the Book of Common Prayer soothes my anglophile soul. A big issue here (and it ties in with your comment on better homilies and more priests, Steve), is that the words of the liturgy aren't meant to be read, they're meant to be publicly proclaimed. And so often that's not done well or prayerfully, whether the Mass is in English or Latin. The obvious analogy that comes to mind is a first-class performance of Shakespeare. Or I'm listening to an audio version of Ulysses right now that brings Joyce's words off the page in a way I never would have imagined and still can't recreate when I pick up the book. But liturgy that focuses primarily on the "right magic Latin words," as Talmida says, then people will be even less likely to be drawn into a prayerful celebration. I realize this is a simplification of a complex issue. Prayerful proclamation might be presumed by the idealists, but isn't always in evidence in the real world. I often say to a priest friend of mine, "Preaching and presiding are charisms. It's too bad they're not required for ordination." Oh, thinking about the whole brouhaha over the "reform of the reform" just depresses me. I'm going to creep back to my scripture corner....

[Steve Bogner]

Jason, thanks for commenting. I still don't understand the desire to have a translation that is literally closer to the Latin text. We moved away from Latin 40 years ago, towards texts that were more meaningful to people in their own languages. In my opinion, the goal ought to be to have a more meaningful liturgy - in language and all its other elements - than to have a facsimile of the Latin text.

Steve M - Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If it wasn't for the Jesuits and Ignatian spirituality, I probably would have jumped ship a while ago, for the reasons you mention and a few more. Hang in there!

[Steve Bogner]

Diane - Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier! Yes, it's meant to be proclaimed, and I think that demands everyday, every-person language. Improved preaching and presiding would do *a lot* to bring people into a deeper appreciation for the liturgy, and into the church (in my opinion, anyway).

[Jen]

My mantra as of late has been "sufficient for today is its own evil." That having been said, I think the liturgy is a work in progress, as we are. I imagine those in the early days of when Latin became the language of the Church were dismayed at the loss of Greek. A part of me thinks that when the Tridentine Mass was adopted as the official Mass for all that there were those who hated it and longed for earlier days. And one day people will be wondering where this translation went, since they grew up with it, and it's all they know.

Or so I keep telling myself. The bits I"ve seen are either really nice or really awful.

[Cura]

I think you have it spot on Jen. People in genral really lack a sense of historocity...that al these things have a history to them. It was one way once, is something different now, and will be different again later. Unfortunately we crave stability so much that we tend to only see the experience we had and turn that into the norm.

Also, at the heart of it all is an unhealthy fear of the vastness and greatness that is God to such an extent that we work very hard to put as many 'boxes' around our experience of the Divine as we can.

We have this dysfunctional desire to contain God and say effectively, "Only in THIS way, can God be met, felt, loved, worshiped." We want God to play by our rules becasue in fact, the rules of God as they truly are, bring with them an almost paralysing fear...he's liable to do anything, will anything, and call us to love in ridiculous ways.

Or to quote Mr. Beaver; "Safe? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

We want a safe Messiah to show us God. We've got Jesus Christ, the God who can't be contained.

And it scares our pants off sometimes. ;o)