Trautman – Again – And Your Response

If there’s anyone anywhere out there who hasn’t yet heard Bishop Trautman’s position on the new translation, here it is again, this time in US Catholic. Following his essay is a questionnaire you can fill out, results to be printed in the next issue.


  1. It is in my view a great pity that Bp Donald has been ingnored by the powers that be.

    Anyway, whatever your views, we will be getting this translation.

    However, ‘Bishops propose – congregations dispose’.

    It will remain to be seen over the next 50 years or so whether this translation will become well-loved and used as prayer.

  2. I have not felt that Bp Trautman has been one of the more constructive critics of the translation; in fact, I think too many have allowed his opinions to be at the forefront of the critiques, and it’s hobbled the usefulness of them as a result. (In other words, the less attention paid to his specific critiques, the better it would be for the opposition.) To some extent, I feel his fellow bishops deliberately used him – and he allowed himself to be thus used – when they put him back in charge of this before the advent of Bp Seratelli. Bp Trautman’s sense of what constitutes appropriate English for liturgy as a practical matter is relatively narrow and pedestrian – and distinctly unconcerned with musicality and beauty except as a vague talking point that is never fully engaged. Oh, and “dew” is not an abstruse word even in American English; it does help, however, to pronounce it properly in proclamation (dyoo)….

  3. One wonders how Bp. Trautman will be able to say mass credibly in the new translation in front of people after continued critiques like this one. Maybe he plans on resigning once the translation is approved and put on the schedule for implementation. That, it seems to me, would be the honorable thing to do.

    1. I hope not; that would be both silly and beside the point. Mere credibility on the issue of translation pales compared to other dimensions of the service he is called to give to his flock. In other words, it’s not about him, and he should not be encouraged to imagine that it is.

  4. Some of the phrases he thinks are unclear or obtuse don’t seem that way to me. Like the Lenten one in the article, “may the fruit of bodily penance be a cheerful purity of mind”. Is it just the juxtaposition of certain words or phrases he finds unclear there, or does he not know what some of those phrases mean?

    May our bodily penance produce, as its fruit, a cheerful (not begrudging) purity of mind.

    1. With regard to that quote, I believe it stands up better in a written form where one can re-read it, consider each word, and put the phrase back together with its full meaning. That’s assuming the reader has an above average grasp of syntax and the inclination to think through it. But in an aural form its meaning will be lost 90% of the time on 90% of the people. It is too tightly-wound to convey its intended meaning to a congregation. This quote is an example of setting the bar very high and daring people to leap over it rather than meeting them where they are and drawing them to greater understanding – liturgical praxis from on high.

      1. What’s wrong with setting the bar so high?

        It’s rather arrogant to presume that 90% will inevitably fail to understand the propers. A true understanding of the propers matures over the years. Repetition and reading reinforces not only the ability to understand discrete prayers but the patterns that are common to many propers. I disagree with the common opinion that anyone who walks in to hear Mass in English must immediately comprehend every last utterance of the priest. Rather, Mass (in any language) is a process of continual discovery.

        I taught myself Latin partly through the Mass. The Latin of the Mass is very compact — many collects require a fair amount of concentration before the meaning snaps into place.

        If I had given up because I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the propers, I would not have honed my Latin abilities. Why should anyone be denied a rigorous translation simply because they might not fully understand the prayer at first encounter?

      2. Jordan, I agree with you in part. Saying the word “consubstantial” week after week in the credo is a positive change that will prompt many people to learn what the word means. (If they don’t presently understand “consubstantial” then dollars-to-doughnuts they don’t understand “one in being” either.) Learning more about God’s self-revelation as a Trinity of Persons would do anyone good! But one sentence tucked inside one collect that they may hear one time every three years? I don’t think the “understanding comes through repetition” theory holds up there.

      3. “But one sentence tucked inside one collect that they may hear one time every three years?”

        The proper prayers, unlike the Lectionary readings, are on a one-year cycle. They’ll hear this prayer (which is actually a Super Oblata — prayer over the offerings) every year on the 5th Monday of Lent.

        And maybe, JUST MAYBE, some priests will write in their bulletins or speak in their homilies or do SOMETHING to get their congregations to understand these prayers better, even if it’s just printing them in the bulletin.

      4. I stand corrected on the one year cycle, but I maintain my point. It would be wonderful if such things were handled in the bulletin or homily, but that would be a rare exception.

    2. Perhaps as an experiment, you could choose several people randomly from an average parish congregation. Say that phrase to them one time, no repeats, and ask them to tell you its meaning in their own words. I predict that they will have no idea what to say. Perhaps we could both try this and report back on the results.

    3. Scott, I’d be happy to try your experiment. (I hope my audience – Catholics of course! – is familiar with terms like penance and purity…)

      I’d hope priests praying this Collect (or whatever oration it is) pray it in such a way that the people listening can hear the words well.

      But then again, why shouldn’t a person in the pew have a personal missalette at hand? There’s great value in reading the prayers (and readings) before or after Mass. People should have these resources readily available to them… and be encouraged to use them.

  5. The examples Trautman quotes are by no means the worst, as priests will discover when they start to tackle the Collect prayers. Scott Pluff is correct: these texts are difficult enough to construe when you have the printed version in front of you. For the person listening to the proclamation with no text in front of them, they will be extremely problematical because they have not been designed to be heard, only to be read.

    I do not believe that, at a time when we have finally succeeded in lifting the assembly’s heads out of the printed page so that they more effectively be part of the communal liturgical action, we should return to being people the book.

    It is scarcely believable that, with the whole Church reeling from the fallout from the clergy sex abuse scandals that are piling up ever higher day by day, the Vatican mandarins are even contemplating aggravating people further by imposing a substandard, ill-considered translation.

    1. “at a time when we have finally succeeded in lifting the assembly’s heads out of the printed page so that they more effectively be part of the communal liturgical action”

      I don’t agree that the people reading along with the prayers and readings from a personal missal somehow hinders their liturgical participation. The priest’s participation relies on him HAVING a book in front of him to pronounce prayers from… why shouldn’t the people be allowed a book to follow along as they hear those prayers? Wouldn’t that HELP their participation?

      “Those who use a small missal, suitable to their own understanding, and pray with priest in the very words of the Church, are worthy of special praise.” (De Musica Sacra 29; cf. Mediator Dei 105)

      Mediator Dei and De Musica Sacra also made rather liberal allowances for those who could not participate to the same degree as others. (cf. MD 108, DMS 29)

      1. I have come to think that the equating of reading with necessarily impaired participation is best thought of as a kind of schoolmarmish rule from 1970s/80s-era liturgics that students of that period (and their students in turn) feel a need to honor by repetition.

        Many people participate better visually than aurally, and nothing whatsoever should be done to imply they are participating less by doing so.

  6. Paul, trying to use the abuse crisis as a means to put off liturgical changes you do not like is beyond words.

    1. Indeed, it’s a somewhat hoary rhetorical device not unlike the broadbrush accusation of dissent as a cudgel to avoid discussions that are inconvenient or unwelcome in opposing quarters, as it were. Both “sides” engage in similar behavior in this regard, and pretend to not to be self-aware about it.

  7. Paul, I find your words incredibly insensitive, and I’m appealing to Fr. Ruff to remove them. He has done a masterful job so far of keeping this blog civil and professional.

  8. Although I think it is dangerous to appeal to the sex abuse crisis in liturgical discussions, in my judgment it is not necessarily out of line. In an earlier post I intentionally applied the tag “hierarchy oversight scandal” along with the tag “sex abuse scandal” because I think it is both. The argument that the translation issue and the scandal have in common the misuse of authority is a serious argument which deserves serious debate. Furthermore, I don’t think it is necessarily instrumentalizing the abuse scandal to argue that it’s now the wrong time to implement a controversial translation. I think it is an argument worthy of debate that it would be pastorally inappropriate to implement the missal now or in the coming year.
    These are my reasons for not removing Paul Inwood’s post.

    1. Even if one were wholly in favor of the new translation, he might still argue that now is an inopportune time for its implementation. There is a valid question: can/will the implementation proceed in its best light in the midst of the abuse scandal? Will the media pounce on the changes in the liturgy as somehow rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? The bishops may well consider how the general public and media will react in this climate.

      1. “Will the media pounce on the changes in the liturgy as somehow rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?”

        Of course they will. I would be shocked if they did not. I could write the templates for the pieces in my sleep.

    2. “I think it is an argument worthy of debate that it would be pastorally inappropriate to implement the missal now or in the coming year.”

      When will it be pastorally appropriate? How much longer should we use a bad translation of the FIRST edition of the Missal?

      Can the Church really afford to only address one issue at a time (as many people seem to think she does, as I often hear things like, “with all this other stuff going on, is it really important for the Vatican to give us instructions about saying ‘Yahweh’ at Mass?”)?

      1. Of course there are times when we can handle more than one issue at a time. But that doesn’t mean that we can handle these particular two issues at this particular time. I think the reasons for that have to do almost entirely with empathy for people’s feelings.

    3. I’m not clairvoyant so I can’t predict how this scandal will effect other aspects of our Church’s ongoing programs, investigations, etc, but I do recall that Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley continued diocesan business as usual in the very epicenter of the scandal here in the U.S. by closing parishes which was probably a far more of an explosive issue for Catholics there, and a pastoral challenge especially to those affected by the closures to endure in the middle of the mess that had been revealed. So who knows?

  9. With as much trouble as the new English translation has provided, I wonder what kinds of difficulties have been (or will be) experienced in the translation of the Missal into languages totally unrelated to Latin. At least English bears some similarity to Latin in terms of vocabulary and syntax, but what about languages that don’t, Chinese for example?

    1. A lot of translation are waiting until the English one is approved because translators will often consult the English text when attempting to translate the Latin.

  10. I won’t be posting on this forum until that comment by Paul is removed.

    For myself at least, trying to fight against a more accurate translation “because of the sex scandals” is totally offensive and sick.

    1. Ralph,

      I thought the comment was descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it antcipates in the descriptive sense how reaction in the pews to the prospect of translations might be affected by the ongoing abuse crisis. To that extent, it’s OK.

      My objection is when someone moves beyond that to (1) assume such connections will necessarily doom the translation effort (which I think assumes too much and more humility is called for in that regard), or (2) that they should (directly or impliedly), which is prescriptive. I think you are objecting to (2) but I don’t see that at play here.

    2. Ralph… this has become something of a prominent tactic among “the opposition”. Such suggestion has become a near daily ocurrence at Jerry Galipeau’s blog where everything gets tied to sex-abuse it seems. To me, the new translation along with the necessary liturgical reforms and severe tightening of liturgical regulation are the solution to the problem, not an aggravation of it.

  11. I was intrigued by the challenge to read an example of the text and see who understands after just one hearing. I read the sentance, “May we bring before you as the fruit of bodily penance a cheerful purity of mind.” I was generous and read it a couple times. Of the 12 people surveyed, 9 said they understand…after time to ponder and another hearing. 3 were totally alienated by the word choice (“bodily penance?”). I think if I had limited everyone to one hearing only, none of the people would have been willing to say, “yeah, I understand.”

    This is not the result I was expecting. I asked some of my church office coworkers and members of my choir. Everyone needed some time to reflect on the text after hearing it. If this is to be a collect at Mass, I’m afraid we’ll have to build in extra time for people to think, “now what does this mean…bodily penance…that’s my lenten fasting…okay so the fruit of my penance is a pure mind…okay cool, now we can continue.”

    1. Gee, this makes me think we should do more trial runs of this sort, and test the proposed translation before implementing it. In fact, What If We Just Said… oh, never mind, someone already thought of that. 🙂

    2. Judy, I think you’re right that we will have to more attentive to the silence so people can “digest” the words. I am hoping that with these new texts we can encourage our presiders to observe the requested silence. I can still hear a liturgy professor who said, “The liturgy is wall to wall words.”


    3. Yes, we should think about things that we pray. A fully adult, mature spirituality requires being challenged and meditating on that challenge. Sounds like the new translations are just what we need! It may be the case that churches that use worship aids that don’t contain collects, postcommunions, etc. may find it helpful to do so. I’ve often wished that missalettes contained the prefaces as well.

      Trautman misquotes SC by saying that the texts must be easily accessible. In actuality, it’s the rites that need to be easily understood. It is not at all clear that there was a call for changing the content of the texts of the prayers. Rather, the idea was to make the content of the texts accessible for their didactic importance. Dumbing down the content is actually at odds with the document’s intent. I’ve always (even before the issue of the translation) understood that directive to have to do with some of the more arcane rubrics of the E.F.

    4. Yes, these texts are understandable if taken for thoughtful reflection. But in the experience of the Mass, there is an endless current of words-words-words. Ideally every presidential text is spoken with intentionality and clarity with suitable periods of silence for reflection on their meaning. But aside from the two or three best presiders in town, all the rest are prone to rambling through the texts with little or no pause for reflection. If you have to clear your parking lot 70 minutes after Mass begins to keep on a 90 minute schedule, forget it.

  12. I agree that the new translation will help people re-engage with the prayer texts [leaving aside for a moment those who aren’t engaged now and don’t really care to be any time in the future].
    But celebrants, lectors, and other ministers in many parishes will have to revise their notion of appropriate silent times during the course of the liturgy (at least in my parish where the unspoken rule is “55 minutes or less!” for mass. Many parishes are going to struggle with building in time for people to reflect on the prayer texts.

    I also agree that it was much more beneficial to read the prayer text as well as hear it. But on the other hand, I love to see people watching the liturgical actions, which they would not do if they were reading along in a missalette or worship aid.

    Personally, I am excited about the new texts, if for no other reason than they will prevent my pastor from continuing to liberally edit and shorten the collects, prefaces, Eucharistic Prayers…

    1. Judy,

      I am curious why you think this will prevent celebrants from editing the text. I fear that now it might be more common.

      Timothy Johnston

      1. The language is so different from everyday speech, and the word order takes concentration to comprehend. Any edits on the fly would require long pauses to compose something even remotely similar in style and grammar, plus the priest would have to determine where to put it. I think a spontaneous edit would sound so foolish the first time, the priest would not continue to attempt it. Unless he plans to simply say, “Eternal Father, we ask this through Chirst our Lord. Amen.” …. it would be far more simple to just read the prayers in the book.

      2. Judy, I agree that ad libbing the newly translated prayers will be more difficult than ad libbing the current collects. My concern is that more priests–or, more likely, liturgists–will resort to writing their own prayers in advance (or lifting & editing them from liturgical resource books). The priest’s liturgical binder facilitates this kind of substitution, though in parishes without binders, sometimes papers or books are simply placed on top of the open Sacramentary. Collects, prayers after Communion, even prefaces…you name it.

  13. I’m starting to think the Episcopalians have the right idea: a Rite I Mass with more formal language and a Rite II Mass with more accessible language. Even a small parish might offer Rite I at 8:00am and Rite II at 10:00am. If we can have OF and EF, why not this?

  14. I’m with Karl: the good bishop is far from the best critic. But he is the highest ranking prelate to oppose at the moment. And obviously that counts for something in some circles, if not mine or yours.

    Conservatives will continue to criticize the man no matter what translation is stuck on his altar, so the point about his credibility is moot. His detractors will see him as a clown, and his supporters will cheer, and neither camp will budge.

    It might be that a missal unharmonized with the Word is the real culprit. Maybe we don’t have such a good source product with which to work. Anybody for MR4?

  15. Paul – not that many people are bothered by the new translation: a vocal but tiny minority. The old one most certainly did not come out of a burning bush. I find it funny to see defenders of every last word in the current translation act so like their mirror image among that vocal but tiny minority of EF supporters who reject the reforms in the 1962 missal and insist on an earlier one. Peas in a pod. Peas in a pod. Oh I forgot, the difference is “but we’re right”. But both groups say that. FWIW, I think some opposed changes are needed, some are not ,but ultimately, I’ll obey lawful authority with, I hope, good grace. What I object to is the “Rovian” politics of using the sex abuse scandal as an excuse to say “now is not pastorally a good time” if those saying so actually think never will be a good time pastorally. Regardless of sides in the debate, intellectual honesty is essential.

  16. I posted the following over at US Catholic, and thought to share the same here:

    I was born in 1983. When I went to college and took beginning Latin class, I thought it would be fun to see if my translations were in any similar to what we had in the Missal. I was shocked to find that the prayers had been robbed not only of their poetry but also of any substance.

    It made me angry that my heritage was being deliberately witheld from me. Indeed, I was prevented from actively participating in the liturgy of the Roman Rite because it was being whitewashed, in order that I would not understand the true sense of the Church.

    I have no problem with Mass celebrated in the vernacular (or Latin, or a vernacular/Latin hybrid) but it is of the utmost importance that true, accurate translations be made of the texts so that the people may actively and actually participate in the Mass.

    1. Perhaps some context would be helpful. The current translation of the Missal followed the translation principle of dynamic equivalence outlined in the 1969 document Comme le prevoit under the guidance of Paul VI. CLP was the Church’s official statement on liturgical translation for over 30 years until Liturgicam Authenticam was published in 2001. Would you charge that Paul VI set out to deliberately withhold your heritage from you? To rob the texts of their substance? To whitewash the liturgy in order to hide the true sense of the Church? Your words are strong – perhaps your enthusiasm for the new texts has gotten you carried away in damning what came before.

      1. The ICEL butchering of the Te igitur in the Roman Canon demonstrates the frustration that many harbor towards the committee’s ideological tampering with ancient texts.

        Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus

        somehow became

        “We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son.”

        God the Father is no longer most merciful. For some inexplicable reason Jesus Christ is the Son but no longer our Lord. But most baffling is the trashing of supplices rogamus ac petimus. No longer are we to approach the altar humbly. We do not beg (rogamus), we now “praise”. “Thanksgiving” is an impossible stretch for petimus. Even the farthest reaches of Lewis & Short can’t justify this creativity.

        Why, then, do so many insist on maintaining an ideologically-driven text that papers over supplication and sacrifice?

      2. Jordan,
        I don’t think that this is a good translation of EP 1 either. But I try to temper my critique with an acknowledgement that it was carried out in accord with the Roman instruction in force at the time (an instruction Rome itself cited as late as 1989), and the translation was approved by the Holy See. ICEL was being obedient to the magisterium in this case. Let’s not judge 1969 or 1974 by the standards of the 2001 Roman instruction, much less ones slanted interpretation of 2001.

  17. Jonathan – I have the eight language translation of the Roman Missal and it is an eye opener. The English varies from the Latin original in the areas we all know about (“I believe…”, “and with your spirit…”), the German language seems very faithful to the original but the Portuguese one is markedly divergent both from the Latin and the other translations. This would make for a very good statistical analysis. How can we be sure that with dynamic interpretations, the theology remains the same without even subtle shift? Not that an interpreter would ever, ever, knowingly try to do that.

  18. Here’s Paul VI on November 26, 1969 (talking about the change from Latin to the vernacular, but the same principles apply here):

    11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

    Actually, the whole of his general audience address would be worth further study by some of those posting here.

    And here’s the forthcoming Prayer over the Offerings for the 1st Sunday of Advent:

    Accept, we pray, O Lord, the gifts we offer,
    gathered from among your blessings,
    and as the fruit of our temporal offering
    grant us the reward of your eternal redemption.
    Through Christ our Lord.

    See if you can work out what line 3 actually refers to: us or the gifts we offer or nothing. This is typical of the problems that await us.

    1. My point in posting this is twofold:

      (a) the text is incomprehensible. That 3rd line, as well as presumably missing a comma after “and”, is so ambiguous (it actually sounds as if it’s the Lord that is the fruit of our temporal offering, which is patent nonsense) that it will be completely counterproductive;

      (b) this occurs on the 1st Sunday of Advent. Imagine — we’ve only just begun the new liturgical year, and in 2011 this may be the first Sunday of the new Missal texts. If it’s like this in week 1, what’s the cumulative effect going to be?

      As someone said above, words, words, words — that’s all it’s going to be.

      1. “That 3rd line, as well as presumably missing a comma after “and”…”

        I don’t think the comma is necessary there, unless you would also expect one after “temporal offering”.

        “it actually sounds as if it’s the Lord that is the fruit of our temporal offering”

        Please – and I request this is total sincerity – please show me how you parse the prayer to get that result. Are you saying “and as the fruit of our temporal offering” is tacked onto “the gifts we offer”? Like so:

        “Accept … the gifts we offer, gathered from among your blessings and as the fruit of our temporal offering.”

        If so, then you’re neglecting the line-sense and the punctuation that exists. “gathered … blessings” is describing “the gifts we offer”, and “and” is connecting the first half of the prayer with the second half: “as the fruit … grant us.”

        I’m not baffled by it, nor do I find it incomprehensible.

      2. Paul,
        Gasp! I completely agree with you (pace Jeffrey Pinyan). This is poor English structure, as the appositive comes before the idea to which it is in apposition. I once read an article on compsosition written by a technical writer who drafts assembly manuals for nuclear power plants. He made the point that we must not only write in order to be understood but also in order not to be misunderstood. What we have here is problematic for that very reason.

      3. My brother used to write for a magazine on computer network security. Understandability was so important that the editors sometimes sent his articles back for more contractions.

        Liturgical language is not an owner’s manual or a recipe book. Concerns about clarity should not always trump concerns about richness.

      4. Ioannes: “the appositive comes before the idea to which it is in apposition”

        Are you referring to the “and as the fruit…” as the appositive and the “grant us…” as the thing in apposition? If so, this is not simply a matter of the English translation aping the Latin structure (et, quod nostrae devotióni concédis éffici temporáli, tuae nobis fiat praemium redemptiónis aetérnae) but because the prayer moves from the temporal to the eternal. That is, it ends on the eternal, rather than on the temporal.

        I suppose the latter half of the prayer could have been translated as:

        and grant that the fruit of our temporal offering
        [may] be the reward of your eternal redemption.

      5. Jeff,
        Your translation is really quite fine. All the information has been conveyed and you have maintained the rhetorical ordering. It has both clarity and richness.

      6. Actually, I think my translation is a bit confusing. I would reword it like so:

        and grant us, as the fruit of our temporal offering,
        the reward of your eternal redemption.

        The reason I find my first one confusing is because it could be interpreted to be requesting that God assign as the reward of redemption the fruit of our temporal offering, rather than vice-versa. (Maybe I can’t even explain my confusion adequately…) Read it again, and I think you’ll see what I mean:

        and grant that the fruit of our temporal offering
        [may] be the reward of your eternal redemption.

        I really respect the translators. They have a tough job.

    2. I don’t see what the fuss is, honestly. Standard Eucharist-ology applies here. The bread and wine that we offer to God to become the Eucharist are God’s gifts to us, which we then offer as gifts back to God. God changes them into the Eucharist, and then we give the Eucharist right back to God (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) and He accepts It and gives It back to us to eat as a spiritual banquet. EP I says (in the current translation) “and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you … this holy and perfect sacrifice.” That’s the idea of this Super Oblata.

      What is “our temporal offering”? I would expect it is the bread and wine and the personal offering of ourselves (the Eucharist Itself being the “eternal offering”).

    3. And this, for reference, is the 1998 ICEL translation:

      Accept, O Lord, our offerings,
      chosen from among your many gifts,
      and let this present pledge of our reverence
      become for us the pledge of eternal redemption.
      We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  19. Ralph Harris: my comment was to do with sensitivity, an attribute which it seems Vox Clara and the Congregation for Divine Worship may not be well endowed with at the present time. I’m sorry if you found it offensive. You should talk to some of the people in Ireland, to give just one example. They can see the point only too easily.

    The unpalatable fact is that, on top of everything else that is going on, all this may prove to be the last straw. Cardinal Mahony several years ago publicly asked (I’m sure someone can dig up the reference) whether it was right to pull people’s spiritual rug out from beneath them when they were already suffering with what was going on in the Church, and the situation is infinitely worse than that now.

    Myself, I’d prefer to try and steady the Church than go to the wall over a translation in pursuit of an ideology.

  20. Paul,

    If there’s ambivalence, it seems to me to be the right place for it, at the super oblata prayer. A sacrifice of gifts represents a sacrifice of our selves, “our sacrifice.” (Or shall we say, “my sacrifice and yours”…)

    Am I right in thinking that the current translation has a similar salutary ambiguity: “As we serve you now, accept our offering…”

  21. @25 Kevin Montgomery:

    I have done some research on the web and can report that the Columbian (Spanish), Argentinian (Spanish) and Indonesian translations of the Missale Romanum, 3rd Typical Edition, have already received the CDWDS recognitio and have been or are in the process of being implemented. Hong Kong (Chinese) also has implemented a new translation, but I haven’t found any confirmation on the net that it has received the recognitio, although it may well have received it. To my knowledge, the Korean, Swedish and Icelandic revised missal translations have been submitted to the CDWDS and are awaiting the recognitio. The revised German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Mexican (Spanish), Portuguese, Brazilian (Portuguese) and Italian missal translations are in various stages under the supervision of the various bishops’ conferences.

  22. Here in the Ecclesiastical Province of Caceres in the Philippines the new translation of the missal in Bicol Language is now in used. We do not have problems. It took only a few months for the faithful to adjust. Now all are familiar with the new translation. So instead of saying “and also with you” we now say “and with your spirit”. We also now say the Nicene Creed instead of the Apostles Creed.

  23. I’m new to this forum, but I find this debate interesting, because I think the sexual abuse crisis and the mass translations are linked, which is exactly why the new translations should be implemented sooner rather than later. One of the most detrimental results of the current translations is loss of belief among the faithful. There has been a tremendous amount written on how architecture, sacred art, sacred music, and especially the prayers of the Mass form the primary catechesis of the faithful. The current translations have done a poor job, and are at least indirectly linked with a loss of faith, resulting in loss of adherence to the moral teachings of the Church, which sets up a culture in which abuse is more likely to occur. The solution to sexual abuse in the Church is restoration of the faith, which is exactly what the new translations are intended to do. I think we’ve waited long enough.

  24. Susan – I’m glad you like the blog – welcome! Thanks for your post.
    Although I’m sure loss of faith played a role in some cases of sex abuse, I don’t think it works as a comprehensive explanation. I think of Marcial Maciel – few were more obedient to the Pope or more traditional in their Catholicism than he. I think of Fr. Ryan Erickson, the very traditional priest who wore his cassock everywhere and preached against the evils of liberalism and the modern world…and abused young males before he murdered his two accusers and then hanged himself 5 years ago. I observe that abusers have been liberal, conservative, dissident, traditionalist, and many other things. The common thing seems to be that they’re psychologically troubled but made it just fine through the Church’s formation system. Faith, prayer, and obedience – all good things – won’t solve this one unless if we also look at all the human realities.

  25. Appreciate the analysis and comments but allow me to insert some reality into this discussion. My diocese has 2/3s of its priests from overseas or another culture/1st generation. Yes, they have a language class set up but many of these guys, even after years, have heavy accents and it’s difficult to understand them. They can’t pace the english now – so what happens with these new translations? There are also priests who take no time to use expression in the liturgy; read too fast; do not read so that phrasing a thought/idea of the writer comes across. This is the real challenge – not a new translation. Who will train these guys? The challenge is not just preparing the people in the pews – the challenge is preparing the presiders!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *