Press Statement from ACP: Monday, March 28th
Press statement from the Association of Catholic Priests responding to our meeting with a Commission of the Episcopal Conference and their response to our submission, on the subject of the proposed new Liturgical Texts [The texts are not “proposed” now. They are “approved”. The ACP is operating, perhaps, on the foundation of fantasy.]
The Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) regrets the recent decision of the Irish Catholic Bishops, [And so they will make their regret public.] in response to a submission from the ACP, to press ahead with the implementation of the introduction of the new Mass texts as planned next November.
At a meeting in Maynooth on Monday, February 28th a delegation from the ACP met the Episcopal Commission of Worship, Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development. There were five members of the Bishop’s Conference and a number of others, including three women, present. [“including three women”…. LOL! Why make that point so pointedly?] The delegation from the ACP voiced the following concerns:
1. That the proposed texts [again with the “proposed”, as if they can now be derailed. Dream on.] are unsuitable and unacceptable in a number of respects:
(i) we believe that, as literal translations of the Latin, [No. They are literal. I work up “literal” translations all the time. The new, corrected translation is not “literal”.] they are too complex and too cumbersome. [This is another way of saying that they think people in the pews – priests as well – are too stupid to use the new texts.] The guidelines state that they should be ‘comprehensible even to the faithful who have received no special intellectual formation”. This is clearly not the case. [This is clearly not “clearly” the case. Moreover, we can’t know this before the new translations are implemented.]
(ii) we have reservations as to their theological veracity, for example at the very heart of the Eucharistic prayers, the new text states that Christ died ‘for many’ rather than ’for all.’ [This could be a) dumb or b) heresy. I don’t think you can say that something theologically doubtful is to be found in the Roman Canon without running the risk of being a heretic. As far as “dumb” is concerned, perhaps I should correct myself and say uninformed. I direct them to the Roman CatechismPart II, ch. 4 (264.7-265.14), not to mention the decision of Pope Benedict – the only one with the authority to approve translations of sacramental forms – that pro multis is to be translated properly.]
(iii) we fear that their introduction will damage the present fabric of worship in our parishes, dissuade people from active participation and introduce annoyance, discontent, resentment and possibly anger into the unifying ritual of the Mass [Certainly there have never been any liturgical abuses in those parishes. Nor is there any concern over the other problems that have abounded in the Church in Ireland… because of priests.]
(iv)we fear [There’s a good start. I fear that the Chicago Cubs might meet the Cleveland Indians in the World Series, thus sparking the Apocalypse. ] that the continued use of sexist language with its use of ‘man’, men’ and ‘brothers’ as generic terms will alienate some women and men, and is a very unfortunate reversal in an area where some progress had been made. [Man, what a good head of steam they have worked up!]
2. We believe that the process by which the texts have been drawn up is seriously flawed. There was no consultation with either priests or people and this is contrary to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Church. [As dull as an Ambrosian Chant Credo… this again? How would that “consultation” have taken place?] An instructive lesson the Church has learned in recent times is that decisions made by small groups and then visited on the Church as a whole without adequate consultation tend not to serve the good of the Church. [What small group is that? What on earth does this mean?]
While the Association of Catholic Priests recognises the need for a new and improved translation of the liturgical texts, we believe that the proposed new texts are unsuitable and inadequate. Many priests will struggle with them and many people will regard them as unnecessary and unusable. Consequently we believe it is unwise to proceed with them.
While the bishops listened to our concerns, we regret to say that, judging by their response, they failed to take on board what we said and did not furnish any reasons for not accepting the concerns that we raised with them. We do not regard this as an appropriate form of listening or dialogue. [Do you suppose this group will eagerly defend the rights of Catholics who desire the older form of Mass according to Summorum Pontificum?]
We remain convinced that introducing the new texts next November will have serious repercussions for parishes. While some priests may welcome them, it is clear that others will resist them, while many, maybe the majority, will accept them with a sense of resignation and without enthusiasm. In such circumstances it is, we believe, unwise to introduce them. [And they have every intention to sow as much dissent and as many misgivings as possible.]
We will convene a meeting of our members on Thursday, June 2nd , at 2.30pm, in the parish centre in Portlaoise to consider our response. In the meantime we encourage our members to continue to discuss this matter with their pastoral councils, and indeed their parishioners generally.
I am reminded of those little dogs behind their fences. They must always have the last word. Bark. If you look, and then look away, they bark again. Respond with a word or grunt to each bark, they match each time but with diminishing fervor. Finally all they muster is a muted “woof” lacking in conviction. But they will have the last word.
From The Anchoress I learned about 
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf on ASK FATHER: If a bishop and also priests confirm at the same time, who is the minister of confirmation?: “Bruised: You might be limiting your vision of the Church, which extends beyond where you live. There are places in…”
