US CATHOLIC: Dumb article on the new translation

I haven’t yet been impressed with much that the publication US Catholic produces when it comes to anything remotely liturgical.  An article by Bryan Cones has lowered it in my estimation even more.

What kind of God do the new Mass texts imagine?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
By Bryan Cones

I had a chance to peek at the new liturgical texts, coming this Advent. Here’s one for you, a prayer over the people for one of the weekdays of Lent:

Prayer over the people, Tuesday of the 5th week of Lent:

O God, who chose to show mercy not anger to those who hope in you, grant that your faithful may weep, as they should, for the evil they have done, and so merit the grace of your consolation. Through Christ our Lord.

There’s a lot going on in that prayer, and I’m not sure much of it is good. [Then perhaps you should have waited until you were sure before writing this?] Like most of the prayers, it focuses more on sin than anything else, [First, I don’t think most prayers in the Novus Ordo are about sin.  Second, if they were, that is a pretty good reason to pray.] and there’s little recognition that we are already baptized, already redeemed. [“already redeemed”… okay… but we can still blow it, Brian, and wind up in Hell.  Right?  And we should still be sorry for past sins even if they have been forgiven, right?  And there may be the problem of temporal punishment due to sin and the penance which in justice we must do, right?]

Or this one, a prayer over the gifts (or, rather, “offerings” in the new translation [corrected, translation]):

Be pleased, O Lord, we pray, with these oblations you receive from our hands, and, even when our wills are defiant, constrain them mercifully to turn to you.

[ANNOUNCER IN GOLF COURSE VOICE: “What Bryan doesn’t know yet is that is what the prayers of the Catholic Church  really say.  If he has a problem with our prayers, then he has a problem with our Church.]

I’d have to think about that one for a bit to figure out what it means, in fact I had to consult a dictionary more than once to figure out some of them. [Gosh.  He had to look something up and think about it.] They are also disturbingly heretical: [?!?] lots of “meriting” and “earning” in them (Pelagianism), lots of spirit/body dualism. [For heaven’s sake.  They are not heretical.  Let’s look at that text, above.  We ask God to make us weep.  The weeping isn’t something that we choose apart from grace.  By giving us that compunction for sin, Brick it backGod then consoles us. This is not Pelagian.  Also, this has been the language of prayer for a long time.  Also, is the sorrow part the “spirit” and “hands” the body part?  Cones is confused.  And think about what the Lord said to Peter about those who would bind his hands and take him where he would not want to go otherwise, or the parable about the wedding feast when people on the streets were compelled to enter.] What these naked translations really reveal is how imperial and pagan these prayers really are—you could substitute “Zeus” for “Lord” in any of them. [It’s “imperial” and “pagan” to call Jesus “Lord”?  I thought that was a biblical term.  Yes, I am sure I read that somewhere in the New Testament.  What about Philippians 2: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.] In fact, they use “Lord” so often that it is hard to tell if we are praying to Jesus or the Father. [That’s a problem?  To pray to the “Lord”? For more on the “Lord” question, see Romans 9: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.”  I have lots more of these verses, by the way.] (All Roman liturgical prayers, with rare exception, are addressed to the Father.) [Except when they’re not. Which is fairly often, come to think of it.] To me it seems not only that we shouldn’t be using these translations, we shouldn’t be using most of these prayers at all anymore. [Gosh.  Bryan Cones of US Catholic thinks we shouldn’t pray these prayers.] They simply reflect an approach to God–a distant, imperial God to whom we must beg for mercy– [God is distant.  God is still somewhat transcendent.] and an understanding of the church–sinful, unworthy, unredeemed–that I think we have left behind. Unless we want to recover that approach…  [Imagine how fun it must be to belong to a church in which there are no reminders of sin and which affirms you as definitely worthy of heaven.  God is so lucky to have us. How could She do without us?]

We commissioned our May cover story on prep for the new Roman Missal to see how parishes were preparing the faithful for this new way of praying, but I don’t see how you can prepare people for these prayers. [cf. common sense and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Not, apparently, by reading US Catholic.] They are exceedingly hard to understand, and often don’t make much sense when you say them aloud, as priests have to do.  [I suspect that what he really means by “hard to understand” is “hard to accept“.]

But I am also worried about people’s tolerance for this sort of thing. [Ohhh… I don’t know.  They have put up with a great deal since about 1970.  I suggest that the writer sit down and read through the text of the Order Mass, looking for references to sin and our unworthiness.] Many already tune out during the longer prayers, but what will happen when they become even more unintelligible? [Who wouldn’t have slept through the lame-duck ICEL prayers all these years.  The smart ones probably do tune out.  And… come to think of it, I suspect I could wake them up.]

Guess we will find out this Advent.

Good grief.

Several minutes of my life I will never have back.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Gregg the Obscure says:

    I’m put in mind of the end of the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John: “Many therefore of His disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? . . . After this many of His disciples went back; and walked no more with Him.”

  2. Banjo pickin girl says:

    I’m sure glad I wasn’t exposed to this sort of nonsense during my conversion process, I never would have made it. I would have given up on religion completely!

  3. Hieronymus says:

    What’s funny (though not humorous) is that he seems to think this is a different text, i.e. a different missal, than the one he is accustomed to. It isn’t. It is simply a better translation of the NOM. So in reality, it is the NOM with which he has a problem — and for its overemphasis on sin, no less! Now that is laughable!

    We are nearing 50 years after the council, and little has been done to check the universalist attitude that it engendered. Then again, if it has taken 40 years to get a less watered-down translation of the original watered-down Latin NOM, I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising.

  4. Jordanes says:

    I long ago learned not to bother reading anything in the falsely-named “U.S. Catholic.” This guy’s essay is blasphemous as well as theologically clueless. He wouldn’t know Pelagianism if it jumped up and bit him on his self-originated works.

    [LOL! “bit him on his self-originated works”! Yes.]

    Fr. Z's Gold Star for the Day

  5. SimonDodd says:

    I share Hieronymus’ mordant amusement. Are the critics of the corrected translation incapable of grasping that this is the novus ordo? This is what the prayer really says. [Indeed!] The translators didn’t invent this stuff; this is is what the Roman Mass has always said yon these many years. The criticisms ultimately reveal that the critics’ allegiance is not to the novus ordo but rather to the lame duck translation—to the ICEL, not (as they claim) the council or even the consilium. It’s clear that their beef is not with the translation but with the Roman missal itself, and instead of making that argument openly, they want to use translation to “correct” what they see as “defects” in the editio typica text.

  6. Joseph says:

    This B.Cones beautifully demonstrates, what is wrong within the general understanding of the Catholic faith in the last decades. The sense of sinfulness has to a large extend vanished, a place in heaven is assured. So why work for ones salvation, if one can just slide through the heavenly gates?

  7. mike cliffson says:

    That illustration: a dunce is as per St Augustine a conventional sign, dunce’s cap on and in the corner.
    But , please enlighten a alzheimeric thicko, me: is there any further allusion to Duns Scotus? Did the poor man really deserve this use of his name? I was taugtht it was all platonists versus aristoteakleans,and vicecersa, the schoolmen and sich like, all above my head anyway.
    NB re post : Lewis: what DO they teach them in these schools? You can’t make this sort of stuff up.

  8. SimonDodd says:

    Nor could it be much clearer—and I’m sorry to sound uncharitable, but the text positively screams it—that Bryan’s personal beef is that he doesn’t feel guilty for his sins and doesn’t much appreciate being asked to.

  9. maynardus says:

    He doesn’t sound stupid enough to have come up with these objections on his own, methinks he’s somewhere been carefully steeped in the attitudes and platitudes of the litnik establishment. One would expect no less from a writer for “Us Catholics”.

    On another note, when I read Conesy’s bit about “tuning out” and Father’s rejoinder, I was reminded of William F. Buckley’s droll comment on the “new Mass” (really, the xlations in use from ’64-70):

    “I am practicing yoga so that at church on Sundays I can develop the power to tune out everything I hear, while attempting, athwart the general calisthenics, to commune with my Maker, and ask Him to forgive me my own sins, and implore him, second, not to forgive the people who ruined the Mass.”

    Really – given the post-Conciliar emphasis on “ecumenism”, I wonder why nobody thought of “outsourcing” the English translations to… the Anglicans! It’s one thing to invite protestants to help re-form the Catholic liturgy, ‘twould have been far better to invite them to employ their most worthy gifts in translating it! Might have done *them* some good as well…

  10. theloveofwisdome says:

    This mentality is definitive proof of a de facto schism in the church that has not yet been manifested de jure… yet. I suspect that something of the sort is in the making. I pray that Wisdom Himself guide the Holy Father to enact the necessary changes in this NOM translation (and hopefully posture and rubrics also), as well as in promoting the TLM, in such a way as to minimize the effect/emergence of this schism while at the same time not dulling the effectiveness of the changes that need to be made!

  11. ipadre says:

    Maybe it’s time for the “US Catholic” to hire people who know just a little bit of Catholic theology so they don’t look so foolish!

    Thank God for the new translation. November 27th can’t come fast enough!

  12. Rich says:

    Right, the readers of U.S. Catholic have every right to be wary…because we all know they will faithfully be attending Mass and to the prayer over the people on Tuesdayof the 5th week of Lent.

  13. cblanch says:

    Yes Rich, that was the first thing that jumped out at me…I bet this guy has never been to Mass on the 5th Tuesday of any Lent.

  14. Christo et Ecclesiae says:

    Sometimes I think we were better off in the Middle Ages when no one could read… the Church had to do the thinking for us!

    It wouldn’t be so bad today if we used our literacy and wisdom, well, wisely :D

  15. Lepidus says:

    Just wondering how many of you out there would even know that the correct translation is coming if you weren’t reading on your own? My parish has not even mentioned it and I’m willing to bet that there are going to be place out there where the priest says “I’m too old to learn the new prayers…and since I don’t use the words that are currently written anyway, I’m just going to ignore it”. Maybe a poll Fr. Z?

  16. Konichiwa says:

    The corrected English translation seems to have the same effect on liberals as holy water does on certain things (i.e. burn). To me the results of things like this are signs of our Catholic identity getting restored.
    BTW Fr.Z, I like your golf course announcer voice, and I would welcome it use again.

  17. Brad says:

    Mother Angelica said once re. sin and thus hell: “You’ll believe in it when you get there.”

  18. Leonius says:

    The reason Bryan Cones is opposed to the prayers seems to be because he does not understand important aspects of the Catholic Faith.

    His article shows just how necessary and needed the corrected translation is, many people are either ignorant or willfully ignore important parts of the Faith and the corrected translation will enlighten the ignorant and force those who willfully ignore the parts of the faith they don’t like, such as the need to have contrition for sin, to confront the fact that this is part of the Catholic Faith.

    They will be forced to confront the fact that Catholics do not belief in the heretical idea that all we need is to be baptized and we are automatically saved from that point forward commonly referred to as once saved always saved(OSAS).

  19. Gregg the Obscure says:

    In Denver we’re getting plenty of notice about the new translation. There have been bulletin inserts on many occasions, mentions in homilies, notes in the archdiocesan newspaper, etc. The other day I was chatting with a lady who is somewhat of a pillar of the parish, if crumbling and slanting rather far to the left. She was greatly apprehensive about the new translation. I did what I could to reassure her that it’s merely coming closer to the full meaning of the original when compared with the recent translations that were written in language more suitable for children. She seemed at least partially mollified.

  20. anilwang says:

    Actually those comments are quite interesting. If you ignore the snide remarks, he seems to understand exactly what the new translations are trying to achieve, especially where they correct his mistaken understanding about God and the liturgy. He thinks the old N.O. understanding was correct, which is why he’s complaining. His comments demonstrate three things:
    (a) The old N.O. translation leads people to error.
    (b) The revised N.O. translation leads people to truth.
    (c) People who were mislead by the old N.O. translation will have a difficult time with the new translation and might feel alienated with the revised N.O. translation and might think this is an innovation rather than a restoration. Catechesis, particularly with references to the Catechism is definitely needed.

  21. Fr Levi says:

    There’s a clear agenda here. How do you make the faith sit comfortably with modern ‘I’m ok – you’re ok’ secularism? Get rid of sin. Now I’m all for getting rid of sin, but I think we have to do it the old-fashioned way! That is prayerfully do our best with God’s Grace not to sin, & when we inevitably fail to ask God’s forgiveness. We can’t just stick our head in the sand and pretend that sin doesn’t exist and that we’re not sinners. Mr Cones may think such an attitude is progress. It is not. It is the road to perdition.

  22. Rob Cartusciello says:

    Mr. Cones fails to understand that his issue is not with the New Translation – but rather the Roman Missal.

  23. amenamen says:

    The Claretrian magazine, US Catholic, seems to thrive on superficial analysis and first impressions. I never expect to find much wisdom, nor even accuracy, in those pages. What really surprised me, however, was the story yesterday about the holy Claretian priest in California, Father Aloysius Ellacuria. Did he ever write anything for US Catholic?

  24. cothrige says:

    Like Lepidus we have heard nothing in our parish about any upcoming changes in translation. I would have no idea it even existed if I did not read online about it. I also doubt it will exist as far as we are concerned, in the same way falling trees don’t make sounds, since the current translation is mostly theoretical here. North Florida really doesn’t, at this time, have a strong Catholic Church, it being more a product of absorption of local bible belt Protestantism into what I call the Bathutheryterian Church. I pray that the new translation benefits many of Christ’s faithful throughout the English speaking world, but I have little expectation of seeing any change here. I just don’t think this translation is going to appeal to us Bathutheryterians, to be honest.

  25. Harja says:

    It is interesting reading about the controvercy regarding the new Translation. I had some exposure to the ICEL when I was a Lutheran pastor in Canada and made comparisons to the Catholic Book of Worship and the Lutheran Book of Worship and found the texts were virtually identical.

    After coming to Finland and joining the Catholic Church, reading the examples of the new translation of the liturgy strikes me very much like a good translaiton from the Finnish (which was done from the Latin).

    I can only hope and pray that the other denominations in the liturgical tradition like the Lutherans and Anglicans will also adopt this better form of the language.

  26. asophist says:

    It’s hard for me to avoid ad hominem remarks in response to this drivel. “theloveofwisdome” may be right about a de facto schism. Sad. I’d like to say, “Don’t let the door slam them in the rear,” but it’s pretty much of a fait accompli (de facto, if not de jure).

  27. Heretics come in lots of shapes and sizes. Some know what Holy Mother Church teaches and rail against it, others are simply clueless. I’ve read Cones’ ramblings in the past and my impression is that he fits squarely in the latter category.

    Fr. Z jumped on his “already redeemed” comment, but I would only add that this is a perfect case in point. If the sacred liturgy is as we believe (we Catholics, that is) that through which Christ accomplishes (present tense) the work of redemption through, with and in His Church, then it is especially sophomoric to say in the context of a rant about the Mass that we are “already redeemed” as though it’s a done deal of the past tense. And if this is one’s view, then clearly the Mass isn’t about Christ working. Why would it be? He finished His job!

    For people like Cones who do not realize that Mass is nothing less than the work of redemption being carried out in our very midst through the Lord’s active, mystical presence, the liturgy really is reduced to being all about us working and doing. No wonder he finds the corrected text so disturbing. The poor kid appears to be flat out ignorant. Willingly or invincibly? Who knows, but either way, someone needs to take his bullet.

  28. Athelstan says:

    In fairness, Cones seems to realize the problem goes well beyond the translation: “To me it seems not only that we shouldn’t be using these translations, we shouldn’t be using most of these prayers at all anymore.”

    But of course that goes well beyond the brief of the ICEL. What he really wants, he may now realize, is a significantly altered missal.

  29. Fr-Bill says:

    It seemeth to me that the Tue of the 5th week in Lent is during Passion Week at which time the liturgical year is focusing on the Actual sins of mankind and how those sins require repentence and a Savior.. the God-Man who is the lead character in the story.
    The Tuesday of the 5th week in lentis a time when one ought to be considering getting to confession pronto, rather than celebrating how much our good works have changed the the world for the better.

  30. THREEHEARTS says:

    It would seem to me that Brian has not read any of the writings of Evagrius the Solitary or Pontus in the west. In his instructions on Prayer, “He demands we pray for tears and when we get them we remember why we got them”. He is writing about one of the greatest gifts which should be about the third stage in a good prayer life. It is the gift of Compunction which truly arrives when we begin to see just how sinful we are compared with God. It is a very necessary stage we must go through before we get to contemplation which proceeds a very personal conversation with Christ. Read Dom Savien Louismet on The Mystical Life, learn the difference between the supernatural and Mystical (Which all catholics are supposed to be) and the volume that follows. I cannot find my copy I must have loaned it out. For the so called modern catholic Dom Louismet will set right. Compunction or the gift of tears in a signpost we are proceeding towards God and the Trinity

  31. pelerin says:

    I recently read that Jacques Maritain once wrote that ‘In the English version of the Mass there are more than 400 errors of translation from the Latin.’ Was this an exaggeration or was it true? And if it were true can we now be certain that the new translation will be free of all errors?

  32. Tony Layne says:

    @ Athelstan: “In fairness, Cones seems to realize the problem goes well beyond the translation: ‘To me it seems not only that we shouldn’t be using these translations, we shouldn’t be using most of these prayers at all anymore.’

    “But of course that goes well beyond the brief of the ICEL. What he really wants, he may now realize, is a significantly altered missal.”

    The problem isn’t with the prayers; it’s with his understanding of Church doctrine. On the surface at least, he seems to be taking a “once saved always saved” position … definitely not Catholic! And he completely muffed the “Pelagian” call (“wouldn’t know Pelagianism if it jumped up and bit him on his self-originated works” … too funny!).

    But the true “oh what a giveaway” moment is this: “They simply reflect an approach to God – a distant, imperial God to whom we must beg for mercy – and an understanding of the church – sinful, unworthy, unredeemed – that I think we have left behind.” Out creeps the “hermeneutics of rupture”, and the “spirit of Vatican II” is exposed, complete with Birkenstocks and tie-dyed shirt. It’s not just that he states, incorrectly, that we’ve “left it behind”, but that to get to that declaration he distorts the concepts of merit and redemption in a manner completely consistent with “Catholic Lite” thinking. (“Imperial God” … like … “Ruler of the Universe”?)

    Cones may very well want a significantly altered missal. However, I very much doubt the way he wants it altered would be consistent with the faith of the apostles.

  33. I don’t see the “spirit/body dualism” in the things he quotes… and why is he surprised to find stuff about sin in a prayer for Lent?

  34. RichardT says:

    His objections show just how much the new translation is needed.

    If a (presumably) educated, practising Catholic has such a poor idea of the Faith, then the Novus Ordo has clearly failed in its aim of making things easily understandable.

  35. JKnott says:

    – from St Teresa of Avila’s “Interior Castle” chapter I
    10. “Let us speak no more of these crippled souls, who are in a most miserable and dangerous state, unless our Lord bid them rise, as He did the palsied man who had waited more than thirty years at the pool of Bethsaida. 13 We will now think of the others who at last enter the precincts of the castle; they are still very worldly, yet have some desire to do right, and at times, though rarely, commend themselves to God’s care. They think about their souls every now and then; although very busy, they pray a few times a month, with minds generally filled with a thousand other matters, for where their treasure is, there is their heart also. 14 Still, occasionally they cast aside these cares; it is a great boon for them to realize to some extent the state of their souls, and to see that they will never reach the gate by the road they are following.”

    Mr. Cones may not realize it but what he is suggesting is that souls stay out in the cold with the lizards and other beastly notions which keep it from entering even the First Mansion.
    The NO hasn’t done anyone any favors in this regard.

  36. JMody says:

    I would say this also a classic example of what to expect from the “pastoral” approach, as that phrase was used in the early part of Vatican II (prep and start and so on) — they were going to focus on the right and the “positive teaching” instead of the wrong and the “negative reprimands/anathemas”. Well as any parent can tell you, sometimes, reprimand and even a quick swat on the backside have their place, and a kid who only hears positive and “yeah, you did well, but I know you can do even better” ends up … writing for US Catholic?

    Fr. Z, as a warm-up to the days in your role as supreme and perpetual Grand Inquisitor, it’d be a hoot to rate this article and others like it against the canons of the Council of Trent (which the writings of Vatican II affirmed in every way, right?). It seems to me Mr. Cones can get about two anathemas per paragraph.

  37. EWTN Rocks says:

    It seems to me that Mr. Cones doesn’t like change (probably like most of us to some degree). If he had looked at the corrected translation without suspicion, he probably would have seen beautiful and spiritually rich prayers.

    When my brother first learned of the corrected translation, he blew a gasket. Why? Because it was new, and he didn’t understand the change and why it was being made. Negative articles like the one written by Mr. Cones feed into suspicion and uncertainty most people have when facing change of any kind. With this is mind, I believe many of the faithful will be in an uproar when the corrected translation is first introduced during Advent, but will quickly get over it and develop an appreciation for the corrected translation once the “newness” wears off.

  38. Stephen says:

    I gotta say, I’m a liturgy nerd and still I rarely “pay attention” to the collect and prayer after communion. The new prayers will not offend anyone because the majority of the people in the pews aren’t really paying attention to the prayer anyhow. That said, I think those who, sadly, tune out the current translation respond “amen” not only out of habit but out of some desire to give their consent, even if it’s a “yeah, whatever he said”.
    No small part of that is the wretchedness of the ’73 ICEL. But I think the bigger part of it is that priests read the prayer without praying it. Diction, tempo, these things matter. I am by no means suggesting that priests should “read with feeling” but rather read the prayer (preferably prior to that Saturday night or Sunday) so he sees how the phrasing works and so be able to then pray it aloud at Mass.

  39. misternaser says:

    I happened to see the first part of yesterday’s royal wedding and couldn’t help but marvel at how much smarter British Anglicans must be than us American Catholic simpletons. After all, I heard “betwixt” at least twice! The language was so high and poetic, it made it appear that what was happening was of some special importance. How horrible it will be to have a Mass translation that attempts to attain that….

    As for US Catholic: My final year of college I interned at the Catholic student center, and upon graduation, the center director, a religious sister, tried to give me a gift subscription to the magazine. I declined, but that didn’t stop her from sending it to my poor parents’ house. They tried to forward it to me, but I told them just to throw it out when it came. I wonder who actually pays for that publication.

  40. VivaLaMezzo says:

    Ugh. I wish these people would stop telling me how stupid I am. I especially wish these people would stop assuming we’re all as dense as they are.

  41. Philangelus says:

    THREEHEARTS, thank you so much for that. I needed to read what you quoted.

  42. great scot says:

    It sounds to me that a certain columnist; (a) may wish to take a course to expand his grasp of his own language, (b) may wish to take an introductory course in Latin and sit down with a Latin-English dictionary to attempt a personal transltion to see what the prayers are in the original Latin, and (c) accept the fact that it is a matter of obedience that this translation be implemented.

  43. John Pepino says:

    Mr. Cones is a victim of the ICEL translation here.
    The liturgy hands on the faith, and the faith that has been handed on to him is that intended by those who translated the Mass into English. Short of being a “liturgy nerd” (i.e. knowing Latin and checking the original, or having subscribed to The Wanderer back in the day when that was Fr. Z.’s medium), he could not know what the Catholic faith actually is as taught in the editio typica of the Missal.
    In France (where the progressives were worse than in the US if you can imagine) there was a cabal to prevent access to the Latin original when the official version of the new Missal was published. The director of the “Centre National de Pastorale Liturgique” (Fr. Beguerie, I think, its second director, unless it was its first director Fr. Cellier) let it be known to Catholic bookshops that if they carried the official Latin missal, he would not sell the official French missal through them–the latter, of course, being the hot item of the year. Manifestly the point was a. to ensure that no priest could say the reformed Mass in Latin and b. to prevent any literal-minded person from checking the original. The French missal in many respects is worse then the English, especially in the propers. In fact in late 1974 the French members of the International Theological Commission (De Lubac, Congar, Bouyer, et al.) signed a letter denouncing Msgr A. Bugnini to Paul VI for authorizing it, which led to his Iranian exile the next year–you heard it here first!
    One bookshop, in Paris, was brave enough not to give in to the blackmail–and made a killing, since anyone interested in the Latin original had only it to turn to.
    *In any event* I think it would be best to be kind to Mr. Cones and help him see what the deal actually is: that what he has been taught through the ICEL is not, in fact, the Catholic faith. He can do what he wants with that piece of information: leave or change his thinking. Be patient though: in either case, he will have to face the fact that he has been trusting people (kind old nuns, cool priests) who themselves are deceived or who have willfully deceived him…

Comments are closed.