Catholic Clergy Ask Bishops to Keep Mass HOLY
MARYSVILLE, PA, OCTOBER 30, 2007 - The
Confraternity of Catholic Clergy respectfully asks the Bishops of the
United States (USCCB) to disregard the recent letter from the National
Coalition of American Nuns on Liturgical Translations. We totally
disagree with their request to reject a literal and accurate English
version of the Roman Missal based on the typical Latin text. It is our
contention as ordained ministers who daily celebrate the sacred liturgy
and who serve the spiritual needs of the faithful that they deserve
nothing less than total and complete conformity to the authentic and
official texts approved by the Holy See.
Since the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the ‘source and summit of
Christian life’, it is imperative that the Church’s
ministers celebrate 'digne, atténte ac devote' (worthily,
with attention and devotion). Reverence is achieved not only by
diligently following the rubrics but also by having accurate texts
which incorporate sacred language. Ritual (gestures) combines with Rite
(words) to make proper worship. 'Full, conscious and active
participation' by the faithful in the sacred liturgy is only possible
when pedestrian language and banal translations are abandoned once and
for all. The congregation is more educated and sophisticated than
purported by those who insist accurate and literal translations from
the Latin into English would be confusing at best and frustrating at
worst.
We live in a culture where the vulgar, crass and obscene are part of
everyday conversation. It proliferates the media at all levels: radio,
television, movies, theater, magazines, and the internet. Yet, good
taste and graceful language are not archaic. Sacred worship requires a
sacred vocabulary and nomenclature which expresses the value and need
for reverence for ‘the Holy’ and which transcends
the secular world and allows the worshipper to approach the threshold
of heaven. Accuracy demands that the word "consubstantial" be restored
to the Creed since the Council of Nicea (325) canonized the terms
'homoouios' (Greek) and 'consubstantialem' (Latin). Adjectives which
predicate the divinity of Christ, prominent in the Latin, need to be
reinserted into the English. 'Holy', 'sacred', 'venerable', and
'immaculate', etc., are not foreign terms to Catholic vocabulary.
Edified language "inspires the believer to aspire to those things which
are holy and sacred. Banal and pedestrian language lowers us into the
gutter. One can and ought to seek a poetic sacred language that uplifts
the human spirit to seek the divine rather than being content with the
mediocrity of mundane.
Contact: Confraternity of Catholic Clergy PA, US
Known as 
National Coalition of American Nuns--aren't they a branch of AARP? I heard that everyone one there gets 20% movie discounts, free subscriptions to "Polyester Womyn", and 10% off of their meals at participating vegan restaurants before five pm, Mondays thru Thursdays. Tax and gratuity not included.
Why is it that groups like this Coalition of nuns or even Bp. Trautman never consider the option of actually catechizing the faithful so that they do understand the language of the liturgy (whether, frankly, it is Latin or English, etc.). Instead of assuming that we are all too stupid, why not explain what "consubtantial to the Father" means. Well, they probably don't know themselves or, rather, don't believe.
Wow, there's an idea. Keep mass holy. Who could have thought of such an amazing proposition? Holy Mass! The thought never occured to me. You mean we shouldn't change the words of scripture to be gender inclusive or change the phrase in the creed from "He became man" to 'he bacame one of us'?
I can't wait till people learn that the Liturgy is not a platform for politicial ideologies.
Okay, I'll bite. What is wrong with saying "one in being with" rather than "consubstantial to"? Who is talking poetry now? The nuns (see their actual letter) said they thought the translation is clunky, and "one in being with" is certainly less clunky and more poetic. It's correct. And it's also better English.
Here's one of my own. "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" is more poetic than "I am not worthy for you to come under my roof," or whatever the literal translation is. It means the same thing, it's more poetic, and it sounds better. Personally, I see nothing that would lead one to the gutter in this. The (NAB) Bible translation we already use is DEFINITELY clunky. (Who would rather say he has "competed well" than "run the good race"?) I am not looking forward to the new liturgical translation, and from what I can tell the nuns are right in this. They are not advocating the "Good News" version of the Bible! They are asking for what these priests say they want. Something worthy of the Holy Eucharist.
Gail Finke
I'm meming this on my blog as a response to my rant about the nuns.
I agree with the Confraternity. There is a need to set apart the language of worship, such that it is obviously above everyday use. Otherwise, our minds can easily attach the wrong hooks from everyday concepts onto the words of liturgy. Rather than play favorites with this and that phrase, it is safer to stick to the orthodox and canonized terms which have been in use for centuries. Personally, phrase "one in being" sounds pretty good, but "consubstantial" packs a punch and is more precise.
"One in being" is not precise. Dogma is divinely revealed truth and it requires PRECISION of language. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. used a precise term, HOMOOUSIOS in Greek, and condemned the term HOMOIOUSIOS. The heresy of Arianism is based on the term HOMOIOUSIOS claiming that Jesus Christ, the Son, has a 'similar' nature to God the Father whereas the Magisterium infallibly defined that the Son (Jesus) has the 'same' nature as God the Father.
The Greek and Latin are very precise and orthodoxy or heterodoxy is at risk if we turn our back on precise vocabulary especially when those terms are part of revealed dogma.
HOMOOUSIOS or CONSUBSTANTIALEM is rendered in English as 'consubstantial.' The phrase 'one in being' is imperfect and quite frankly, Arius himself would have no problem since it neither affirms nor denies his heretical claim. It also conforms to John 1:1 where we are told that "the Word was God"
"Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof" may be shorter but again, what does the Latin text say AND why? Sacred Scripture is the source of this response. Luke 7:6 has the Roman Centurion say to Jesus "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof." Luke 7:7 "say but the word and my servant shall be healed." (Matthew 8:8 also uses the same phrase)
The Holy Mass appropriated those passages so the Latin says "Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea." Hence, the accurate terms are 'under my roof' Historically, the Centurion was saying the he was not worthy to have Jesus under the roof of his home. Sacramentally and spiritually, we are saying that we are not worthy to have Jesus (in the Holy Eucharist) under the roof of our mouth, i.e., in the house of our body and soul. Yet, though no one is truly worthy by their own merit, it is by the grace of God we are made worthy.
Accurate translations which are faithful to the Latin can be poetic and have literary elegance. Sanitizing the vernacular of all sacred and historical nomenclature is a rape of our language.
I don't understand the contest between 'consubstantial' and 'one in being'.
They are both exact translations of the Greek. Let's remember that English has two main linguistic roots: Latin/French and Germanic
We have many examples of two or even three words that mean the exact same thing:
For example: there's Latin incredible and Germanic unbelievable. Amity and Friendship; potable and drinkable; fortunate and lucky; plate and dish.
So let's give it a break fellas
"I don't understand the contest between 'consubstantial' and 'one in being'."
Read Father Trigilio's third paragraph above. He is quite specific.
I agree with Father Trigilio. We can't be vague when expressing belief in dogmas of the faith.This is precisely why I'm happy with the proposed new translations, they better articulate Things like the Sacrificial nature of the mass.If the text used is vague enough to support heresy, they should not be used,lest they lead the faithful into error.Consubstantial is not the same as one in being,no less than blue is the same as violet.We can't go for "Close enough" when dealing with dogma.
For the nuns to call the translation "clunky" out of a sense of poetry or mere convenience is one thing. To do it separate from an understanding of Christian theology is clearly something else.
Theology is clunky, messy, offensive, penetrative, rapacious - and deservedly so. You can't throw enough hearts-and-flowers sentiments over top of it. We're talking about a God of bloody sacrifice, death and redemption. The new translation will give us all of this, and to those who really listen to the words therein, enough to build a life of holiness.
And who said good theology can't be done entirely without "clunky" language? Witness:
P: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
A: It is proper (dignum) and just.
Hmm...no warm-and-fuzzy, Alan-Alda-'70's-male images there, just a statement of fact. And a gender-neutral one at that.
I will agree with Ms. Finke on one point only: the N.A.B. is terrible. I'd rather hear the readings from the RSV or even the New Jerusalem than from that Edsel of a rendering.
Fr. Trigilio has obviously given this a lot more thought, and has had many more years of study, than I have. And far be it from me to agree with Arius in anything. But I do not think that the two examples I gave are vague, and I do think they sound better. How could "one in being" be anything but the same? Who in the world ever uses the word "consubstantial"? And "receive you" is a poetic way to say "come under my roof." Actually, for the English speaker "receive you" is more immediately recognizable as refering to eating and drinking than "come under my roof," especially since we commonly refer to "receiving" Communion.
But it is always perilous to translate things, and people will always argue translations. Fr. Ronald Knox thought he had made the best translation of the Bible into English, and almost no one uses it. My opinion of what sounds best is not the same as some other people's here, but I certainly don't mean that I am in favor of anything wrong or vague.
Father Trugilio is correct, but I hope he was quoting the DR bible and not the sanitized 4x or so retranslated since 1970 , politically correct (Pope Benedict just approved the removal of anything and all that could possibly be considered antisemitic, if I recall a few months ago) NAB.
The vernacular has so much slang in it that it has been a horrible error and experiment to have allowed the mass ever in the vernacular
One does not need to know Latin to understand the simple words "Lex Orandi Lex Credendi"
Didn't think anyone actually took them seriously in the first place...
Oy Vey
It is impossible to keep the Novus Ordo Mass holy because it was never intended to be such, as it was not meant to be a "sacrifice" no matter how much the Bishops and those who like this mass say so, it was meant to be Protestant and a meal. The altar looks like a table, not an altar, and you cant turn an ugly duckling into a swan no matter how hard you try
"National Coalition of American Nuns"...sounds ike "National Coalition of American Families" or "National Coalition of American Fathers"...ok, this may be viewed as petty, but is this a union by another name? Why the desire for separation from the established heirarchy/Diocese? Hasn't the USCCB experience been at all instructive?
I think it would be important to stay on topic and not yield to sarcasm or derision. It is very unbecoming, immature, and uncharitable.
Fr. Trujillio is absolutely correct. Mass isn't supposed to be of this world. It's supposed to be mystical, Calvary Present. I don't think learning Et cum spiritu tuo is very difficult Latin.
Dear Gail,
One in being is inaccurate principly because God is beyond "being"...So to say that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, for example, escapes the bonds of earthly categories.
Eli