Catholics are too stupid to get it

Bishop Donald Trautman thinks Catholics are too stupid to understand most of the new English translation of the Roman Missal:

"The vast majority of God's people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like 'ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' 'incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' 'precursor,' 'suffused' and 'unvanquished.' The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic," Bishop Trautman said.

Here's a radical idea:  let's do what the Church has been doing for 2,000 years--let's teach the faith and not assume that our people are inherently unable to learn!  A bulletin insert should do the trick.   In arguing against what he thinks of as liturgical elitism, the good bishop exposes himself as a cultural elitist.  This is the sort of condescension we've come to expect from the progressive wing of the Church. 

"'The (Second Vatican Council's) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language,' he added. 'Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer's understanding?'"

If I'm not mistaken the gospels are jam packed with examples of Jesus doing just that--teaching and preaching ideas that baffled people, especially those who followed him closely.  The disciples are constantly misunderstanding his teaching.  Large numbers walked away from his Bread of Life discourse in John because they didn't get what he was saying.  He himself admits that his parables are meant to be understood only by those who "see and hear."   "Vernacular" certainly means "everyday language," but are we to believe that the Council Fathers intend for us to constantly re-translate the Mass to keep up with the ever-shifting trends in the language?  English is an incredibly dynamic language!  Of course, what the bishop fears is that the sacred language of the new translation will become the vernacular of the Church's liturgy.  Can't have all that transcendent mumbo-jumbo pointing us toward God, ya know?

"'Since [the Nicene Creed] is a creedal prayer recited by the entire assembly in unison, the use of "we" emphasized the unity of the assembly in praying this together as one body. Changing the plural form of "we"to "I" in the Nicene Creed goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts,' he said."

So, if I'm understanding the argument here, we only get the communal sense of the Creed if we start the prayer with "we."  Does reciting the prayer together fail to demonstrate the communal nature of the prayer?  Does starting the Pledge of Allegiance with "I" undermine its communal nature?  I have no objection to "we," but the bishop's argument here seems specious.  And I'll start worrying about conforming Roman Catholic liturgical practice to ecumenical  agreements when our non-Catholic brothers and sisters start worrying about conforming their doctrine and practice to ours.  Women bishops, anyone?  Communion for pets?

"The new translation asks God to 'give kind admittance to your kingdom,' which Bishop Trautman called "a dull lackluster expression which reminds one of a ticket-taker at the door. ... The first text reflects a pleading, passionate heart and the latter text a formality -- cold and insipid."

And the concluding prayer from yesterday's Mass ended with "May this Eucharist have an effect in our lives."  An "effect"?  Like giving us the measles?  Or causing excessive gas?  Or increasing male pattern baldness?  All of these are effects of causes.  Talk about insipid.  I'll confess right now:  I didn't conclude yesterday's Mass with the appointed prayer.  I flipped the page and used the prayer from the 31st Sunday.  

What the good bishop fails to understand, or willfully refuses to acknowledge, is that the Mass is a time and place apart from the market, the family room, the corner pub.  Instead of urging Catholics to take the sacred out into the world, he's pushing the Church to bring the world into the Church.  This is reverse evangelization.  Of course, the new translation will be clunky at times and it will use words that normal people don't hear everyday.  A little education will go a long way toward fixing these problems.  

The other element here that everyday Catholics aren't aware of is the theological differences between the 1970 translation and the new one.*  The 1970 translation renders most of the Latin in such a way that emphasizes human effort in achieving salvation and holiness.  God's work in us is minimized, if not outright eliminated.  The 1970 English missal has been credibly accused of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, ancient heresies that teach we achieve redemption/holiness by our efforts alone, or with little help from God.  The ideological effort, of course, is aimed at "building community down here" rather than leading us to become a Church that prays up there. 

The 1970 missal is deeply flawed.  The new translation will be deeply flawed.  Language is simply incapable of adequately expressing the fullness of God's glory.  That's a given.  But what do we need our prayers to do?  Remind us that we live in a fallen world?  Or lift us to the One who created us and redeemed us?

Thankfully, Bishop Trautman lost this fight. 

*I read a draft of the new translation while studying at Blackfriars, Oxford in 2003-4.  It is not as ridiculously ponderous as the good bishop would have us believe.