“…significantly amended…”, but to what?

Here is one soundbite from His Excellency Bishop Donald W. Trautman, chair of the BCL and opponent of the norms of Liturgiam authenticamThis says a great deal:

"I’m pleased that the text has been significantly amended. That made an important difference for me," said Bishop Trautman, ….

 

So, as long as the draft wasn’t actually the draft, he was okay with it.

If he is pleased with the changes, … what could those changes be like?

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “…significantly amended…”, but to what?

  1. Al says:

    I’ve just been reading some interesting comments made by an English priest about these amendments. What he said implied that in practice these amendments could end up meaning very little.

    The amended text that the US bishops have got approved now goes back to ICEL for final review, along with the texts approved by the other ten Conferences. And there will only be one final text for all countries: in other words the US gets no more say in this than Scotland, or the Philippines.

    These amendments just get thrown in the pot with all the others for ICEL’s consideration. If the US bishops are the only ones who don’t like ‘consubstantial’, then the chances are that they’ll be ignored. Don’t forget that ICEL has already made the decision to reject the US suggestion ‘one in being’, so why would they change their mind unless there is significant pressure for them to do so?

    Ultimately, the significance of this vote is that the matter is now out of the USCCB’s hands (bar the American adaptations, more’s the pity). Bishop Trautman has had his say, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the world necessarily has to accommodate his hobbyhorse. The final text is produced by ICEL alone and sent straight to the CDW. Everything is going to plan…

  2. Tim from St. Agnes says:

    In the interest of consistency, shouldn’t Bishop Trautman be referred to as Bishop Trautperson?

  3. Tim Ferguson says:

    no Tim – Trautperson contains the sexist and patriarchal word “son” as though all people – persons as well as perdaughters were male – the appropriate pronunciation of the good bishop’s name is either Trautindividual, or (to avoid the appearance of speciesism), Fishthing.

  4. Al says:

    That’s still too specific and politically loaded. Why should fish be specifically designated when people aren’t. The correct BCL translation of ‘Bishop Trautman’ is ‘Thing Thingthing’.

    Funny, I’m so bad with names, that’s what I call most people. PC without realising it….

  5. anonymous says:

    In our seminary, out of respect for the great diversity of underwater creatures, Bishop Trautperson is often referred to as Bishop Fishperson.

    But Thing Thingthing is probably more PC.

  6. Cure d'Ars says:

    Father,

    Rocco Palma at Whispers has an apparent “exclusive” on the “adaptations” and “amendments.” The link is here:

    http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2006/06/anything-but-dew.html

    I am not sure whether Rome will accept these or is wont to just overturn them after “due consideration.”

    Le Cure