Father Chandler Holder Jones, SSC of Philorthodox recently commented on R.C. Bishop Donald Trautman’s commentary regarding the coming revisions to the R.C. Liturgy. Bishop Trautman (Erie, Pennsylvania) is a well know liberal in regard to the liturgy. He’s also quite the expert at condescension.

The direction coming from Rome regarding the updates needed in the English language version of the Liturgy is a welcome thing. These revisions to the post Vatican II horrors, committed within the texts for the Holy Mass, are the sorts of things that should have taken place under a much slower, more considered approach toward overall changes in the Liturgy. Instead the R.C. liberals and iconoclasts had to charge forward, out with the everlasting, in with their own ideas.

I do not think the changes the Vatican is pushing will pass the American bishops conference. The liberal wing is too firmly entrenched there. We’ll have to see how it plays out.

The PNCC did it so much better. The traditional liturgy (in R.C. parlance —“ Tridentine) is a living version of the Holy Mass. The clergy may opt for this version at their discretion and many parishes desire the traditional liturgy. Guess what —“ no problem. Other parishes and their clergy opt for the Contemporary Rite. The Contemporary Rite language, and the manner in which it is held, is solemn and beautiful. No rush and you’re out. No dumbing down the Holy Mass. A slower approach that was done well.

Perhaps it is because those who formed the PNCC, a vast majority of them Poles, were not going to stand for a Church that dumbed things down. That would just be giving in to the nativist, anti-immigrant bigots who liked to refer to Polish people —“ well you know.

So when I read the statements of the Bishop of Erie as reported by the Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission (liberalism’s very definition) I see that he follows the nativist tendencies of James Cardinal Gibbons, who was quoted in the New York Times of August 24, 1901 as saying: “The country, it seems to me, is overrun with immigrants, and a word of caution should be spoken to them.”

To wit:

On Friday, Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ liturgy committee, gave a talk, “Contemporary Liturgical Issues.” Bishop Trautman expressed apprehension about the U.S. bishops’ upcoming June vote on the new sacramentary (containing the order of Mass) translation, which reflects a more traditional style closer to the original Latin. He described the vote as a “decisive and defining” moment and admitted that the conference is “divided.”

“Liturgical language today must not just be faithful and accurate to the original, but also intelligible, proclaimable, dignified and reflective of a word order, vocabulary, expression from the contemporary mainstream of the English language as spoken in the United States,” said Trautman. “If a translation, no matter how exact, does not communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly, it fails as a translation. It fails to lead to full, conscious, and active participation.”

So the Church should use language that is common to the people. That’s interesting. You would think he’s opting to include slang and what ever else the ‘word on the street’ is. I guess he’d like to move from clown masses to hip-hop masses. It’s just silly. People are not stupid. The average ‘person on the street’ can actually grasp quite a lot, especially if you take the time to teach. It should be easy for a Bishop with a doctorate in Sacred Theology and a licentiate in Scripture. But no, use the common language – forget that lex ordandi, lex credendi stuff.

Trautman continued, “in the proposed translation of the sacramentary, we meet words and expressions that many would consider not in the speech of the mainstream assembly.” For example, he said, the proposed translation of the Nicene Creed uses the phrase, “consubstantial with the Father,” to replace the present wording, “one in being with the Father.” Also, “by the Holy Spirit, He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary” replaces “He was born of the Virgin Mary.”

“Both words, ‘consubstantial’ and ‘incarnate,'” said Trautman, “are not readily intelligible to the vast majority of those in the assembly.”

Ah, the nativist emerges. ‘Hey bishop, how about you’se guys teaching us blue collar hicks something.’ Lift our minds to God; don’t drag God down to our level. We know what its like down here —“ and we’d rather focus on getting up there.

To me these changes represent accuracy and opportunity. The words used in the Holy Mass describe and contain, as best as humanly possible, what the Church intends to convey, i.e., the truth of its teaching. The opportunity is the catechesis —“ saving those who received basically nothing but warm fuzzies between 1970 and 2000 and reclaiming the hearts you lost when you forced change on the unprepared.

Commenting on a proposed change to the first Eucharistic Prayer (the “Roman Canon”) — “grant them, O Lord, we pray, and all who sleep in Christ, a place of refreshment, light, and peace,” Trautman drew audience laughter when he quipped, “the phrase, ‘a place of refreshment,’ is a literal translation that conveys the image of a heavenly spa or tap room at the heavenly hotel.”

I know Bishops, priests, and deacons, as well as seminarians and everyday folk who spend an hour or two in reflection before the Blessed Sacrament. They pray the Office at home or at work —“ and walk away refreshed, reinvigorated, and renewed. It all depends on your point of reference. But always the nativist and always condescending —“ make sure you speak to us dumb blue collar guys —“ the only refreshment we know is getting drunk and abusing our women folk. What’s your point of reference Bishop? When you think —Bread of Life— are you focused on Jesus or on a nice Parisienne loaf.

Trautman addressed another proposed change to the first Eucharistic Prayer — from “cup” to “precious chalice.” Said Trautman: “‘precious chalice’ — when I hear those words, I think of a gold vessel with diamonds on it. Did Jesus, at the Last Supper, use a precious chalice or a cup? The gospels clearly say ‘cup,’ but even in the lectionary from Rome we have the word ‘chalice’ imposed on the inspired text to carry out this ‘sacred language.'”

Again Bishop —“ what’s your point of reference? I guess it’s what is on the outside. How about it being a ‘precious chalice’ because of what it contains? Oh, I forgot —“ it would be too hard for us guys from the steel mill to understand. Your words betray you. Sure you think of a ‘gold vessel with diamonds on it.’ Your words indicate a lack of faith in anything beyond gold and diamonds.

This is why the R.C. Church, at least in the United States, needs some serious direction from Rome. Get on board with your Church Bishop, you might be surprised that it actually does offer the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic truth.