Here’s the full press release on Bishop Trautman’s speech to the Catholic Academy of Liturgy. It’s still not the exact text of the speech, but it’s a press release summarizing it from the group to which he spoke, so I think we can trust it.

There is more reaction to this speech today.

First, Michael answers the question:

My answer: Never! The 70’s are over…in fact that was last century.

He continues:

I’ve spent a lot of time pouring over the new translation…it is faithful to most English translations of the Scripture–and that is what these responses that we are saying are taken from.

When we gather at Mass we gather as the Body of Christ–we die to ourselves. We do not speak our own words but by and large the Word of God taken directly from Scripture–as the Body of Christ we speak with His Word, not ours. We do not move as we’d like but our gestures in unison move as one Body–again the Body of Christ. I sure wish that Bishop Trautman had spent time encouraging liturgists to catechize people versus sowing discord among them.

Fr. Z adds comments to the text, and concludes:

Let’s turn this on its head.

What would the reaction be, I wonder, from priests and bishops and liturgists if people far and wide went public in speeches and articles about how their priests were too stupid to explain the prayers, they were incompetent teachers, that they were using little goo-goo words in homilies and sticking to the lowest common liturgical denominator because they themselves aren’t capable of rising to the challenge they were ordained for. D’ya ‘spose that might raise the ire of a few clerics? What would they do if, perhaps, people said these clerics of ours are showing themselves to be incompetent with the money we give them. We had better give them less and less because they just don’t have what it takes to use it wisely.

This is precisely what is being suggested when the dumbed-down lame-duck supernannuated ICEL versions are defended in full view of translations that are manifestly more accurate. They are saying that people are too dumb to grasp what Mother Church is praying.

And then they ask you for money.

At Mere Comments, Anthony Esolen comments. (the italicized text is from the bishop’s address)

(In case you don’t know, Anthony Esolen is Professor of English at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island. He has translated Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberate (Johns Hopkins Press) and Dante’s Divine Comedy (Random House). )

A translator from Latin into English needs to know two things: Latin, and English.  Now if the Latin is ecclesiastical, and highly allusive to Scripture, and steeped in theological terminology, in exegesis, and in typological symbolism, then he ought to know those things too, which is another way of saying that he ought to know the peculiar form of the Latin he is translating.  But what Bishop Trautman neglects to say is that the old transmuters of the text had bleached away the scriptural allusions.  Two egregious examples: the clear and potent spatio-temporal allusion to Malachi, "ab oriente ad occasum," "from the rising of the sun to its setting," has been flattened down to "from east to west"; and the powerful words of the centurion, "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum," "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof," has been flattened down to "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you."  With what pastoral consequences, every wise Catholic knows: empty liturgies in vacuous non-scriptural language make for empty pews and churches converted to antique shops.

he contended that the new translations do not adequately meet the needs of the average Catholic

Note the condescension.

and expressed fears that the significant changes in the texts no longer reflect understandable English usage.

The Bishop is worried about two things.  One, he thinks that if you say, "Peace on earth, good will to men," some people will actually be in doubt whether Cissy and Flossie are included.  Nobody is in doubt about that; nobody, upon hearing, "It’s a night not fit for man nor beast," will recommend that therefore Lulabelle should go out to corral the horses.  I could argue at great length that the troweled-over Ken-doll language is unfaithful to the original text, sometimes confusing and often plain dumb in English, and ultimately heretical (for one thing, it leads to the dilution of the name "Father"), but I’ll leave that for another blog.  His Excellency is also worried that the people will not understand theological terms such as "consubstantial," which will replace "one in being with" in the Creed.  No question he’s right about that.  You dumb down your liturgy, dumb down your sermons, dumb down your catechizing, dumb down your schools, and then, then you discover that your people are not too bright.  Well, there is an alternative.  Why not try teaching?

Trautman argued that the proposed changes of the people’s parts during Mass will confuse the faithful and predicted that the new texts will contribute to a greater number of departures from the Catholic church.

He meaneth, forsooth, an even greater number of departures.  You’re sinking in quicksand and there’s a willow branch over your head.  Don’t grab hold of it — it might snap.  By the way, let it be noted that solicitude for the feelings of Catholics in the pews was never very high among liturgical innovators, who didn’t care at all, say, whether anybody would be confused by revisions of well-known Christmas carols.  Then the rubes had to learn their lessons.  Call it the post-Vatican II Eat Your Peas ecclesiology.

Comments open in a bit.

Me, from a few months ago, on a related piece:

Honestly, these folks like Bishop Trautman and Fr. Reese and all of the other experts quoted in these pieces are doing great violence to the post-Vatican II cry of "TREAT THE BAPTIZED LIKE ADULTS! STOP INFANTILIZING US! WE’RE THE MOST HIGHLY EDUCATED LAITY IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH! " The gist of their dire warnings and huffing and puffing and resigned sighs is that the American laity are pretty, pretty dumb and probably can’t understand three-syllable words and Scriptural allusions.

Get your stories straight, folks.