Monday, October 22, 2007


~from the National Coalition of American Nuns

To Each U.S. Roman Catholic Bishop Regarding English Translations For The Liturgy

Dear Bishop, We are writing to you, each U.S. bishop, the U.S. Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in regard to the new Vatican-ordered translation of the Liturgy. The Vatican-appointed translators have not produced a translation that is understandable to Catholics in the pews. We understand that, according to a 2005 poll of bishops, 47% of the U.S. bishops rated it "fair or poor". The media has reported that even some bishops are complaining that some texts contain "clunky and archaic language". For example, why would the words "consubstantial to the Father" be used in the Creed? What meaning do these words have for 21st century English speaking Catholics? Why use a medieval expression like, "We pray you bid" in the new Missal? This is not the way people speak today in the English-speaking world. We need to follow the liturgical principles set forth in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council. Article 21 of that document states, "Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them (texts and rites) with ease". The proposed text, "he who was born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin," is not easily understandable to Christian people, much less to the youth who are leaving the Church because of its irrelevancy. Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, PA., chair of the U.S. Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, has said the proposed changes by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy are "not acceptable". We agree. We ask you to make the translations appropriate, meaningful, and significant for today's Catholic. Jeannine Gramick SL, Donna Quinn OP, Beth Rindler SFP For the Board of the National Coalition of American Nuns
Dear Sisters, first, please use paragraph breaks once in a while. They really do help.

Second, you seem to think that the Mass has to be relevant to our times. How quaint, how chronocentric.

Third, ever hear of the timelessness of the Mass? I think it has to do with the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Fourth, the kids are still leaving after all these years of wretched translations. Could it be the irrelevancy of the 'relevancy' movement?

Fifth, do you think we're stupid? What does 'consubtantial' mean for a 21st century Catholic??? The same thing as it did to the 4th century Catholic. That means, you're supposed to teach us, right? Teaching in and out of season, I think is how Scripture goes...(ooops, this phrase was written by that misogynistic Apostle Paul)



frival said...

chronocentric. I've never seen the word before, but it certainly speaks volumes doesn't it? One does wonder if the Church followed this chronocentric attitude just how many translations of the Mass we would have had to endure - would it be extended to also speak to those of one micro-region and time, would we be given a hip-hop variant for example? I wonder if these people aren't so busy looking down on everything that when they look back to the past all they see is their own derriers. It's too bad too - such great promise, put to such a bad waste.

Anonymous said...

Agree with you entirely, Arge. Down with dippy nuns out of habit--silly ol' hippies.

Catholic Mom said...

I am so glad you posted on this. I meant to and just didn't get to it. I think this focus on being "relevant to the 21st century" just proves this group has lost its focus on the eternal. They are so focused on themselves and on the here and now they lose sight of the fact they are only a blip on the continuum of time for which the Mass is always relevant.