In a rare show of defiance, a Roman Catholic bishop is using increasingly fiery language to spark a grass-roots revolt against a new Vatican-ordered translation of the Mass.Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, has used several essays and speeches to denounce the proposed translations, which he calls "not acceptable."
Before the new Mass is rolled out in U.S. parishes – still several years away, officials say – Bishop Trautman is urging U.S. Catholics to lobby their local churches, bishops and even the Vatican to get the translations changed.
"Church of God, judge for yourselves. Speak Up! Speak Up!" he exhorted in the May 21 edition of America, a Jesuit weekly magazine.
"People's voices need to be raised to help influence the final outcome," Bishop Trautman said in an interview. "I'm hoping to influence the translators and make the text proclaimable and intelligible to the people in the pews."
At issue are the familiar words and phrases used in Catholic churches across the country.
In 2001, Pope John Paul II said the English-language Mass must be brought more in line with the original Latin. Ever since, an international, Vatican-appointed team of translators has been hammering out a new translation.
Last June, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the first phase of that team's work – a newly translated Order of Mass, which contains the main parts of the Mass used in day-to-day Catholic worship.
While the bishops approved the new translation, some grumbled about what they called its clunky and archaic language. According to a 2005 poll of bishops, 47 percent rated it "fair or poor." The bishops made more than 60 amendments before sending it off to the Vatican for approval.
Monsignor Anthony Sherman, associate director of the bishops' liturgy office, said the new Mass may not reach U.S. churches until 2009, when the entire Roman Missal is translated and approved. Five or six more sections of the Missal – the written text that guides the Mass – remain to be approved by the U.S. bishops, he said.
Meanwhile, as phases of the new translations reach U.S. shores, Bishop Trautman is wasting no time criticizing them.
"Will the words 'prefiguring sacrifices of the Fathers' and 'born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin,' for example, resonate with John and Mary Catholic?" Bishop Trautman wrote in America.
The Rev. Tom Reese, America's former editor, said Bishop Trautman has spent years warning Catholics of the coming changes and criticizing the Vatican for micromanaging the process. But while his earlier speeches and articles were aimed at the hierarchy, the bishop has recently been targeting people in the pews.
"That's an escalation," Father Reese said. "That's unusual."
Bishop Trautman said translating the prayers can't just be a matter of fidelity to a centuries-old Latin text.
Rather, the bishop argues, lay participation in the liturgy is essential to reclaiming "submarine Catholics" – those who only surface at Christmas and Easter.
In a January speech to the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, Bishop Trautman called the new translations confusing and predicted they will "contribute to a greater number of departures from the Catholic Church," according to the Rev. Keith F. Pecklers, the academy's executive director.
Monsignor Sherman, from the bishops' liturgy office, said Bishop Trautman's efforts may have some effect in Rome. "Maybe people engaged in the final approval will say, let's look at this again."
Others, like Father Reese, say the new Mass translations are a "slow-moving train wreck" that's bound to occur. Still, Father Reese said, Bishop Trautman's advocacy is admirable.
"He's really being a true churchman," Father Reese said. "He's putting the good of the church over his own advance or standing in the Vatican or with other bishops."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce