The fruits of the “Spirit of Vatican II” are detaching from the vine.
There was an article the Australian site The Age, I believe of Melbourne, about some priests who claim they will refuse to use the new, corrected translation of Mass.
Church’s revamp of Mass sparks rebellion by priests
Barney Zwartz And Leesha McKenny
February 19, 2011
THE Catholic Church faces open defiance over the introduction of its new Mass translation this year, with a dozen priests indicating they will refuse to use it and hundreds of others ”steaming” over a lack of consultation. [I wonder why Fr. Joe Bagofdoughnuts from Tall Tree Circle thinks he should have a say in this matter.]
The Mass has become the latest battleground in the culture wars between progressive Catholics and traditionalists suspicious of the reforms of the 1960s Vatican Council, [Doesn’t this introduce an irrelevant factor? Isn’t this about the translation of the Novus Ordo?] of which probably the most important was changing the Mass from Latin to the local language of worshippers. [Let’s not get started on the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium said that Latin was to be retained.]
The new translation is a more literal version of the 400-year-old Latin text, [400?] which changes what the faithful say and has been heavily influenced by a Vatican advisory committee headed by Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney.
Supporters say the new text is more elevated and reverent, while critics say it is artificial, uninclusive and stilted. [What is missing from this? They don’t touch on the issue of accuracy. The new translation is more accurate. Accuracy is not the same as “more literal” that they mentioned above.]
It will be introduced gradually in Australia between June and November and will be compulsory at every Mass in English.
National Council of Priests chairman Ian McGinnity said hundreds of his 1600 members were ”steamed up” at the Vatican’s lack of consultation, [First, I doubt very much that all 1600 members were angry. Second, they must be terrible impressed with themselves if they think they should have been consulted.] and were concerned that the unidiomatic language would alienate Mass-goers, most of whom had used only the present form all their lives. [Ah yes, the Lefebvrism of the left once again.]
He said most priests would not decide how to respond until they saw the changes, [The smart ones want to see the text.] but at least a dozen had told him, ‘I’m not changing.” [What do you want to bet most of them are at least 60 years old?]
When the church changed from Latin to English it accommodated those who dissented, [How many things, dear readers, are wrong with that statement.] and priests should be given time to adapt. [For pity’s sake. We have been dealing with the for years. There has been and there still is time to “adapt”.]
Asked what sanctions a local bishop could apply, Father McGinnity said: ”I really don’t know. I suppose he could suspend a bloke. But given the [priest] shortage, it’s unlikely.” [Perhaps bishops should suspend priests who refuse to use the new translation!]
Sydney priest John Crothers said he could not in good conscience use changes he believed were against the Vatican Council. [That battered old chestnut.]
He said he had told Cardinal Pell this at a clergy conference last year. ”I said at the conference, ‘I won’t be doing it, and where do I stand there?‘ [Sounds a bit like Luther.] And he’s just said that he expected all the priests will do it,” Father Crothers said.
In Ireland this month, 400 priests publicly denounced the new Mass as ”archaic, elitist and obscure” and urged their bishops to delay changes to the Mass for five years until the clergy and laity were consulted. [Consulted? To what end? Makes you wonder about the old “Interdict” option, no? The only problem is they probably wouldn’t care.]
Melbourne Archbishop Dennis Hart, vice-chairman of the international translation committee, said consultation had been extensive, but there would have to be ”dialogue and encouragement” for opponents. ”I think a lot of the criticism is really a fear of what we think the thing is, and when we get to the reality it’s not like that at all,” he said.
If they don’t like the new translation, there’s always Latin.
I can understand priests who get their back up about changes. At a certain age, priests tend not to like change.
But it is simply wrong to defy the proper authority of the Church and of the local bishops to whom they publicly promised obedience.
It is wrong to refuse to use the new translation.
What these men are doing is more damaging to their flocks and to themselves than implementing a translation allegedly so flawed that it should not be used.
Communicating concerns in private is one thing. Go ahead! Write letters! Have meetings behind closed doors! Beat your fists on the floor! Froth!
Going to the main stream media to express open defiance for ecclesial authority … another thing altogether.
Their grandstanding about defying authority does harm to the people of God. I fear they are also endangering their own souls. They are eroding the respect of Catholic people for ecclesial authority and placing themselves at the center of attention.
I hope that when The Day finally comes around for the new text to be used, these men will choose obedience. After all the stink they are raising now, a choice to submit to proper authority would help to repair the damage.