05Apr Article by Angela Hanley on the new Liturgical Texts

Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power

By Angela Hanley     

Cardinal Seán Brady, in a homily for St Patrick’s Day 2010, declared that not only is ‘God is calling us to a new beginning, to a time of Patrician energy, reform and renewal,’ but that this renewal will require courage and foresight. Only one year on since he uttered these words, he now has the opportunity to lead such a time of energy and renewal, putting out in the deep in faith, hope and trust.

The challenge to Cardinal Brady, the Irish episcopate and the clergy generally is to refuse to implement the ‘new’ translation of the Roman missal in the Irish Church. Not because of semiotics, technical aspects of translation or inclusive language, though they are all valid reasons; rather, because it is yet another manifestation of the scourge of our Church – the untrammelled abuse of power. Through this abuse of power, the current translation being forced on the faithful is contrary to the spirit and fact of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium and to norms of justice, in how the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) was subverted. It is also contrary to ecumenism, to Catholic social teaching on subsidiarity, to sound academic principles, and to canon law.

The spirit and fact of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium

The documents of Vatican II are compromised documents, perhaps understandably so, and have been shown to be vulnerable to an interpretation contrary to the spirit of the Council. So much so that even the ‘spirit of the Council’ has become disputed in recent times. Reading accounts of the debates in the Council one gets a truer sense of what was in the mind of the Council Fathers.

The debate on the liturgy underlined that diversity is not an enemy of unity. As the debates progressed on the use of the vernacular, it became obvious that large numbers of bishops throughout the world understood the necessity of an inculturated liturgy, of which the vernacular was a necessary part. They also understood that unity does not, by definition, mean uniformity. The almost unanimous vote of acceptance of the Constitution leaves no doubt about the Fathers’ conclusions on liturgy. The post-conciliar documents, Sacram Liturgiam (January, 1964), Inter Oecumenici (September, 1964) Ecclesia Pastorum (1975) all confirm the thrust of the Constitution. Furthermore, a special papal commission[1] was set up by Paul VI to oversee its proper implementation. This commission drew up an excellent document on the translation of liturgical documents in January, 1969 called Comme le prevoit,[2] the principles of which are as valid today as they were 42 years ago – a testament to the skill and knowledge of those who drew it up. It makes it very clear that the responsibility of translation is that of local episcopal conferences (n. 2)

The subversion of ICEL

‘One can only assume that this nonsense will be inflicted on us as long as the shepherds of the local Churches put up with it.’ Thus wrote the late Fr John Fitzsimmons in a letter to The Tablet on 26 May, 2001. He was responding to the publication of Liturgiam Authenticam[3] a Vatican document, one of the bitter fruits of which is the current translation of the Roman missal. He perceived this document as ‘the last in long line of ill-informed, heavy-handed and negative measures adopted by the Congregation for Divine Worship’ which ‘is part of a much wider agenda which seeks to centralise everything in Rome, even things that Rome has proved … incompetent to handle’. Fr Fitzsimmons was a biblical scholar who, for 15 years, was in the chair of the advisory committee of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) and for 10 of those years a consultor to the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW). He spoke with an authority that cannot be ignored.

ICEL was a legitimately constituted body set up in 1963 by the main episcopal conferences in the English-speaking world, including Ireland. A significant number of other conferences who decided the English translation would be beneficial for their pastoral purposes became associate members. It had teams of experts in various disciplines, and its mandate was:

To work out a plan for the translation of liturgical texts and the provision of original texts where required in language which would be correct, dignified, intelligible and suitable for recitation and singing.[4]

ICEL did its job well, but never claimed the first translations of the early 1970s were perfect – just as Comme le prevoit had anticipated. Though they were translated conscientiously under the acceptable norms of translation, and in keeping with the Sacrosanctum Concilium, the pressure of time to serve an immediate need meant that some phrasing lacked a beauty desirable in liturgical texts. By 1982 the revision of the missal had begun. Fifteen years of dedicated work went into the revised translations, during which time relations with the CDW were mostly cordial and effective. That is, until 1998 when the Chilean Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez was brought to Rome and put in charge of the CDW. What happened to ICEL under his stewardship can only be described as an evisceration. This is not to use intemperate language, it simply describes the reality. A systematic takeover was set in train, such that if it were to happen in the political sphere, it would be considered akin to a coup d’état.

Unsubstantiated allegations were made against the executive secretary of ICEL, Dr John Page, who had given 20 years of loyal service.[5] In a letter to the then chairman of the Episcopal Board, Bishop Maurice Taylor, in October, 1999, Cardinal Medina accused Dr Page of taking ‘certain liberties’. These unsubstantiated allegations were never specified, and were seen as false by those who worked with Dr Page. Fearing his continued presence would damage ICEL, he felt he had no option but to resign.

The revised translations that were 15 years in the making, because of the care given to them, were rejected out of hand. The CDW implied that many bishops were unhappy with the translations. This was a strange claim. Because ICEL was an episcopal commission there was ample opportunity for bishops to voice any concerns they may have had. As people finished their terms of office and retired, ICEL more and more became an extension of CDW. Matters were complete in 2009 when a ‘well-known celebrant of the Tridentine Rite’[6] Fr Andrew Wadsworth, was appointed as the executive secretary, the post formerly held by Dr Page.

Ecumenism

One of the benefits of liturgical renewal was the increased co-operation with other Christians, and ICEL played a critical role in this. National and international ecumenical groups took the lead from ICEL and formed English-language consultation groups on liturgy. A number of agreed common texts for prayers were appreciated by all concerned. Catholic renewal had a significant impact on Protestant worship. So much so, an ecumenical version of the Roman lectionary was produced. The ecumenical opportunities here were without parallel. The Calvinist, Horace T. Allen states that ‘the Lectionary and the use of the Christian calendar have transformed Protestant worship in the English-speaking world’.[7] A singular benefit of this was the joy it brought to Christian couples who belonged to different ecclesial communities, who were able to share the same Word in both liturgies.

What an opportunity was lost. Cardinal Brady in his homily of St Patrick’s Day adverts to the violence in Northern Ireland: ‘Dealing with the failures of our past, as a country, as a Church, or as an individual is never easy. Our struggle to heal the wounds of decades of violence, injury and painful memory in Northern Ireland are more than ample evidence of this.’ The Cardinal is especially well-placed to understand the corrosive effects of religious hatred in Northern Ireland. Just imagine what healing could take place in true ecumenical encounter – not the superficial ecumenism over cups of tea, but the real ecumenism over the Word.[8]

The norms of Catholic social teaching on subsidiarity

There are several headings under which the translation of the Roman missal might be considered in the social sense, not the least of which is the common good and subsidiarity. The gospel Jesus preached was not in a vacuum but in the bits and pieces of everyday life and Catholic social teaching reflects that. That is why it makes so much sense and is so well regarded.

Liturgical celebration is the celebration of the mystery of our faith. It is the public action articulated not only by the individual person, but the whole community. It is the celebration of the mystery of the presence of the Triune God in our lives. Whether lex orandi, lex credendi is interpreted as the liturgy being the norm of faith or as faith determining the liturgy, a concern for the public good is integral to any liturgical law. ‘The demands of the common good are dependent on the social conditions of each historical period and strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights.’[9]

‘The principle of subsidiarity protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfil their duties. The principle is imperative because every person, family and intermediate group has something to offer the community.’[10] The Church is social before it is anything else if, of course, we base our thinking on gospel values. The principle of subsidiarity can be validly applied to the translation project and nothing of the dogmatic or catechetical value of the missal need be lost.

Sound academic principles

After the evisceration of ICEL, came the CDW’s document Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001. The norms for the subsequent translation of the missal were based on this. If one is to undertake a critical translation such as the missal, significant expertise in liturgy, history and patristics would be, one imagines, an a priori requirement. The authors of Liturgiam Authenticam (LA) seemed to be singularly lacking in this. The dangers of such ignorance was anticipated during the Council, when Bishop Ancel, auxiliary bishop of Lyons, suggested the actions of those who were to undertake the task of liturgical renewal ought to be guided by two principles: they should have deep knowledge of, and feeling for, the liturgy; and an understanding of the ‘local’ psychology. He stated that no adaptation would be worthwhile that did not take these into account. The chant historian Peter Jeffery, who says his personal tastes in liturgical rite ‘are as conservative as one can get without rejecting Vatican II’, gives an in-depth analysis of LA in his exceptional book: Translating Tradition.

This volume is as fine a treatment as one might hope for on any Church document. It is balanced, meticulously argued, thoughtful and beautifully written. His assessment of LA is scathing.

Canon Law

Canons 825, nn. 1-2, 826, nn. 2-3, 838, nn. 1-4 of the revised Code of Canon Law make it very clear that the diocesan bishop and territorial conferences of bishops maintain significant authority with regard to liturgical translations and moderation of the liturgy. Though there is reference to the Apostolic See in terms of being the final arbiter (hardly surprising), canon 838 certainly suggests that this authority of the Apostolic See is very much as oversight and exception, and attuned more to consistency, than an active interference in the competence of the diocesan bishop and territorial conference of bishops. This can be inferred not only from the canon itself, but also from the significant change in the 1917 Code (canon 1257) which had reserved the regulation of the liturgy exclusively to the Apostolic See.

It is interesting to note that in the preparatory of the text of canon 838 for the revised code, Rome was to ‘approve’ (approbare) vernacular translations, and in the final version of the canon this role was modified to ‘recognise, examine, inspect’ (recognoscere) the translation, a more collegial than vertical role. The regulation of the liturgy (of which translation into the vernacular is a vital component) is, therefore, no longer uniquely or exclusively the responsibility of the Apostolic See. The bishops are generally understood to have primary competence in accepting the translations made by their delegated body of experts and scholars.

reclaiming legitimate authority

The bishops of Vatican II took some time to find their collective voice, but when they did, mountains moved. The bishops of the present day have a responsibility to carry on the reform that began in such good faith. Right now, the spotlight is on the bishops of the English-speaking world. The Irish bishops have an opportunity to serve not only the Irish faithful, but Catholics worldwide, if they can find the courage. Unfortunately, it seems to be yet another opportunity that will be squandered, especially when one reads that a spokesman for the Irish Episcopal Conference said the new missal ‘was set in stone.’[11] There was not a whisper of the ‘wounded healer’ who had learned from his mistakes; nor any mention of his place in the new beginning needed in the Church, in which he could ‘have a part in shaping the future.’

At the recent liturgy of lament and repentance in Dublin, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said ‘there is still a long path to journey in honesty’ before the clerical church can truly merit forgiveness over the sexual abuse scandals. Witnessing the naked abuse of power which has lead to this ill-planned, ill-informed translation, it is not unreasonable to claim that ‘there is still a long path to journey in honesty’ before the clerical church will accept the endemic nature of the abuse of power at the core of the Church’s administration. Colluding with the abuse of power is always wrong.


[1] This commission was later named The Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

[2] ‘Comme le prevoit: on the translation of liturgical texts for celebrations with a congregation’ <http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CONSLEPR.HTM> Accessed 28.02.2011

[3] Liturgiam Authenticam: on the use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy. Approved by Pope John Paul II on 20 March, 2001, and came into effect on 25 April, 2001.

[4] Maurice Taylor. It’s the Eucharist, Thank God (Brandon, Suffolk: Decani Books) p. 40. http://www.decanimusic.co.uk/acatalog/Decani_books.html  Bishop Maurice Taylor was the last Chairman of the Episcopal Board, before ICEL’s effective dismantling by CDW. This slim volume gives a comprehensive exposition of the fate of ICEL

[5] Dr Page is described by Maurice Taylor in his book (see note 4) as ‘an American layman, a wise, learned, hard-working and totally conscientious servant of the Church.’ p. 51.

[6] The Tablet 31 January, 2010 p.18.

[7] Horace T. Allen, Jnr., ‘Common lectionary and Protestant hymnody: unity at the table of the Word – liturgical and ecumenical bookends’ in James F. Puglisi, ed. Liturgical Renewal as a Way to Christian Unity (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, a Pueblo book, 2005) p67.

[8] Cardinal George Pell, Chairman of Vox Clara, was reported as saying that it is more important to have new Catholic translation of the Mass than to have common texts for prayers that English-speaking Christians can use together. (The Tablet, 20 November 2004, p. 33).

[9] Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Dublin: Veritas, 2005) p. 80, n. 166

[10] Ibid. p. 89, n. 198

[11] The Irish Times, 04 February 2011, p. 3.

22 Responses

  1. Gerard Flynn

    I agree with Angela. The main problem areas of the 2010 translation are: (1) accuracy of the translation; (2) fidelity to the documents governing liturgical translation (Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis); and (3)literary, readable English. And this is quite apart from the flawed process which produced the translation.

    A vernacular translation as poor as this is causes one to wonder whether the entire project was not designed to frustrate people into using Latin. If that is not its purpose, perhaps it is to frustrate them into joining another christian denomination, or into abandoning organised christianity altogether.

  2. Joseph O'Leary

    If we regard the Church as a political system, it is close to the feudal monarchies that prevailed in Europe up to 1789. The bourgeois of that time had a lot of trouble realizing how their freedoms had been suppressed, for they were conditioned to revere the King and the Nobles. Catholics have drunk deep of the ultramontanist ideology reinforced in the 19th century in reaction to the rise of democracy. They have identified subservience to papal absolutism with Gospel obedience. Now they are paying the price, in (1) the abolition of Vatican II; (2) the corruption that has dogged the Church in recent decades because of monopolization of power and authority by the Roman Curia; (3) the imposition of an unprayable translation of the liturgy.

  3. Martin

    The Church is Christ’s and He left Peter and his successors in charge. If you don’t like it, nobody forces anyone to be Catholic. The Church is not a democracy.

    Vatican II’s aftermath was hijacked by Modernists but the Popes have worked hard to bring it back to the original purpose as set out by Blessed John XXIII in his opening address.

    The corruption that has dogged the Church came about as a result of sinful men who rejected faith and morals of the Church. Good Catholics don’t abuse boys or protect and enable those who do. In that sense, we can say with certainty that the problem was caused by liberals – precisely those who reject faith and morals so they can indulge their perverse, sinful desires.

  4. Dairne Mc Henry

    Thank you, Angela, for a very clear article.
    The back page of the April ‘Alive’ newspaper has the headline:
    “‘New Language’ used to impose new vision on the world.”
    A Vatican official is complaining that the UN is using ‘carefully chosen words to impose on the world a new, [anti-Christian] way of thinking, and people won’t realise what is happening until it is too late.”
    A case of the pot calling the kettle black..?!

  5. Martin

    Dairne, then you will agree that the new translation is, actually, more Catholic, and therein lies the problem for the ACPI. Words matter, and the words of the Mass matter a great deal. The old translation imposed, in actual fact, heresy in the Church, through a denial of grace, the immortal soul, sin, and a fostering of pelagianism. Of course, the Rite was and is valid, but the woeful translation was so nebulous and ambiguous that the fallen man took the lower course. The new translation will correct that. Every true Catholic should welcome that with open arms.

  6. Máire

    What an egregious non-sequitur Martin has offered: “Good Catholics don’t abuse boys or protect and enable those who do. In that sense, we can say with certainty that the problem was caused by liberals – precisely those who reject faith and morals so they can indulge their perverse, sinful desires.” Priests who abuse are certainly not, by definition, “liberal,” and only someone who simple-mindedly equates “liberal” with “evil” could entertain such a notion. Those who have repressed their sexual impulses to the point that the repressed drive achieves power over them and, in consequence, they abuse children are more likely to espouse a politics that seeks to limit personal freedoms by imposing strict moral rules, usually Old Testament-derived. Current lobbying by the US bishops against equal rights for LGBTs is a clear example. Such politics is far, far from “liberal.” But the question of “Who’s to blame for the abuse scandals?” is irrelevant to the question whether the new translation distorts doctrine (it does) or excludes on the basis of sexist language (it does) or results in a text unrecognizable in multiple passages as prayer (it does) or imposes addled English on the faithful (it does). The problem Catholics must now grapple with is how to stop the unjust imposition of such a text before it gives more of the faithful their final incentive to leave.

    Also, I find most worrisome the cavalier attitude toward those who have difficulties with the Vox Clara translation (“If you don’t like it, nobody forces anyone to be Catholic. The Church is not a democracy”). Not only does this statement seem to advocate ridding the church of any and all dissenters, but it is a patent petitio principii. Angela Hanley has presented a cogent argument, with reasoning from history, tradition and doctrine, to the point that “not a democracy” is not working and that a return to episcopal responsibility is clearly warranted by the debacle over the new “Roman” missal. That–not “who’s to blame” or “who does not belong in the church”–is the question at issue.

  7. Máire

    The author writes, “Just imagine what healing could take place in true ecumenical encounter – not the superficial ecumenism over cups of tea, but the real ecumenism over the Word.” I have a question about ecumenism and new liturgical translations. Was it not common practice that changes in liturgy were presented not only to the Catholic bishops for their approval but also to those with whom the Vatican was engaged in ecumenical dialogue? For example, Anglicans would be invited to review and comment; sometimes ecumenical partners adopted some of the new translation. As I understand it, the Vox Clara translation, unlike past translations, has not been shared with ecumenical partners. Am I wrong about this?

  8. Martin

    Máire, I won’t even inquire into your comments about LGBT ‘equal rights’. I can guess. I think it is kind-of funny that you would accuse the new translation of ‘distorting doctrine’ and yet, I am willing to hazard a guess, you would espouse a sexual ethic incompatible with Catholic faith and morals. It’s inconsistent to make out on the one hand that you wish to preserve doctrine, and on the other challenge doctrine on sexual morality. Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it, and that includes all those ‘pesky’ commandments. Finally, you do not have the competence to decide what is and is not a good translation of the Mass.

  9. Máire

    Yet another assault on our intelligence from Martin: “WE have all the experts, so we need not listen to anyone on the outside.” Yes, I am aware that all members of Vox Clara are clerics and therefore they are exclusively male and I am by contrast entirely unlearned. Nonetheless, you know nothing of my competencies or credentials and have no grounds whatever for dismissing my textual criticism nor that of any other site visitor.

  10. Martin

    You did not address my concerns Maire: I said it was basically hypocritical of you to accuse the translation of doctrinal infidelity when you yourself dissent from faith and morals on gay/lesbian issues. I’m guessing you are not even a woman. Judging by the swiftness of both your comment and mine having been approved, I am willing to bet that you are one of the leadership team on his day off doing a bit of site admin! How about that!

  11. Joseph O'Leary

    “The old translation imposed, in actual fact, heresy in the Church, through a denial of grace, the immortal soul, sin, and a fostering of pelagianism.”

    This is totally untrue. Moreover, on the key doctrines of the Real Presence and the Sacrificial character of the Mass, the current translation is far clearer than the proposed new translation. The new translation is so murky and mealy-mouthed that it fails to get any theological vision across. It will indeed sap the fabric of worship and of faith.

  12. Joseph O'Leary

    For the Real Presence, compare:

    CURRENT TEXT: LET IT BECOME

    Bless and approve our offering: make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son our Lord.

    NEW VERSION: MAKE IT SPIRITUAL SO THAT IT MAY BECOME

    Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

  13. Joseph O'Leary

    Sacrifice of the Mass, compare:

    CURRENT TRANSLATION: Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.

    NEW TRANSLATION: Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son, and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.

  14. Máire

    Martin, since I support full civil rights for gays and lesbians, it would be counter-productive for me to respond, one way or the other, to your aspersion on my own sexuality except to point out that your reply is an ad hominem (ad feminae?–yes, I am female). The ad hominem is another very common fallacy of relevance: you suggest that my comment must be wrong because my sexual ethic is likely “incompatible with Catholic faith and morals” or because I am “hypocritical.” Who was the ancient Roman (Seneca?) who counseled, “When you have no defense, attack the opposition”? Consider the possibility that choosing not to “address” such concerns was charitable on my part. Also, I have never exchanged so much as a word with the owners of this site. But I have Googled selected sentences from your comments and found that you are reading from the same script as others who comment on the debate about the new Roman Missal translation. (They use different screen names but essentially the same words.)

  15. Gerard Flynn

    Martin, what is it about us Irish people that our first point of attack is the person making the argument. And, you have attacked Máire. Your presumption that she could not be a woman because of the cogent and swift reply is in fact a complete undermining of your own position. Such bigotry and chauvinism persuade no one of the rightness or otherwise of any argument you might make.

    The real point at issue here is the travesty of a translation with which we shall be faced in Advent. It is faulty, doesn’t adhere to the principles of translation set out by the Curia, it is not readable or proclaimable and its return to exclusive language another insult to women and to those men who believe that language does not simply reflect reality, but that it also creates reality. And the reality which exclusive language seeks to created is diametrically opposed to the values of the Gospel.

  16. Martin

    Don’t be silly Gerard. There’s nothing offensive about the new translation. You are on to something though – language does, in a certain sense, reflect our perception of reality. The feminists are unhappy with any reference to God the Father, ‘men’ etc… Seems the ACP has happily latched on to the rad-fem agenda. There is a very good book about this agenda called ‘Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism’. It is simply not Catholic and it is a pity the ACP is not more discerning about these matters.

    As regards me, how do you know I am Irish? It is not just the Irish who have a monopoly on incorrect guesses. I simply proposed that, this being the internet and all, not everybody is who they say they are.

  17. Gerard Flynn

    Martin, it is true. I don’t know who you are. You haven’t divulged this information, so you are operating from a position of anonymity.

    Your posts have been concerned with peripheral issues and you seem to be operating from a siege mentality. This has led you to hit out with gratuitous and bigoted insults. You label me as silly simply because I do not view things as you do. You presume that Máire could not possible be a woman becuase of the quality of her posts. When you allege that there is nothing offensive about the new translation you don’t even bother to add IMO, or more appropriately, IMHO. One example of an incorrect and offensive item in the new translation is the phrase ‘for us men’ as a translation of ‘propter nos homines’ in the Creed. Homo is the word for a human being. Vir the word for man.

    You have not dealt with any aspect of the translation per se, which is the main point at issue here. Your contributions have skirted around the text to attack and insult all who disagree with you. Have you even read any of the new translation?

  18. Máire

    Perhaps my earlier statement “the new translation distorts doctrine” was excessive; perhaps I should have suggested that I find the new translation to burden doctrine with extraneous matter as well as, at times, far too many words. The 1998 ICEL translation seemed succinct without sacrificing either doctrinal clarity or poetic diction. Please correct me if I am mistaken (I do not have the texts before me), but the new translation’s Creed not only uses the archaic, allegedly-gender-neutral “man” in its reference to salvation, but also seems to imprint male gender on the doctrine of the incarnation itself: “and became man” where, for example, other translators have long used “and became truly human” for “et homo factus est.” “Human” seems to this non-theologian more faithful to doctrine, less burdened by language that is, at best, ambiguous.

  19. Robert C Adams

    The new translation, an incarnation of Liturgiam Authenticam, is quite simply one more Vatican nail in the coffin of Vatican II. The Curia, since being given responsibility for the implementation of the documents of the Council, has worked tirelessly, quietly, and with great patience to undermine the teachings and gradually consign the event and work of the Council to a minor footnote in the Church’s history, much as it did to the Council of Constance. The “new” translations are essentially those that existed in Englsih (American) missals with which the faithful could follow the the Tridentine rite Mass. It is hard to say exactly what subsequent steps will be, but clearly the aim, has someone expressed in a previous comment, is to return to the Tridentine rite. This is not about piety but about politics and power.

  20. Martin

    Robert, what we are doing right now is not working, it really isn’t. I say this as a person about to leave his parish for one where the faith is preached and the Mass is offered reverently, despite having to travel a bit on a Sunday. You don’t realise how fed up ordinary Catholics like me are with how things are in the parishes. My anger is palpable! Is it too much for me to hope that a priest would preach the Gospel in its fullness, instead of the humanistic hogwash that is presented in most places?

    I suggest we all just drop what is really a form of clericalism, and embrace the new translation and give it our best shot.

    As regards Vatican II, it might one day be acknowledged as a waste of time. I’m not sure. It might have been more bother than it was worth. The jury is out on its value. Right now the Magisterium is trying to make a go of it.

  21. Gerard Flynn

    Your repudiation of the Second Vatican Council puts you in a position of diametric opposition to the magisterium of the church.

  22. Gerard Flynn

    Here is a link to the scathing report on the new translation, sent to the English-speaking bishops conferences. It details 13 major areas of concern.

    http://ncrnews.org/documents/translation_report.pdf

Leave a Reply

Keep the following in mind when writing a comment

  • Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  • Use appropriate language. Vulgarities, slurs and personalised insults may be edited.
  • Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.
  • Including multiple links in your comment will increase the chances of it being automatically marked as spam

 

*