[NYer]

“The new ICEL translation is like doing drastic major surgery on a patient in need of a few cosmetic procedures,” one bishop said.

One time when I would have loved to be a fly on the wall :-)

[wideawake]

“During the years I was teaching Latin,” another bishop observed, “had a student submitted comparable translations for classical Latin texts, I would have given him a low grade.”

It's always annoying when someone who is supposed to be a bishop tells an obvious, easily checkable lie in public.

[Claud]

Perhaps most jarring, the phrase “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you” would become, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.”

Jarring??! How about this: "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed."

Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, who heads the bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, said the summer survey found that 52 percent of bishops favored the changes, while 47 percent judged them “fair or poor.”

I'm inclined to agree with the "fair" designation, only because while these translations are thankfully more accurate, they are not beautiful. As has been pointed out ad nauseam on this board, any pre-1967 Missal has extremely accurate and beautiful translations, replete with the thee's and thou's that elevate the English to a more proper dignity.

In any case, the new proposals are still better than the current ICEL abomination.

[markomalley]

Et cum spiritu tuo = and with your spirit
Dòmine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum = Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof
and the mea culpe are there in the Latin.

So what's the problem, again???

[badabing98]

Can you imagine the howling comming from Arch Bishop Weakland if he was still in charge of the milwalkee diocese?

[Tantumergo]

“I don’t think they will handle ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof’ very well at all.”

Do you think that this twit doesn't even realise that these are the words of the Gospel? Most of the prayers of Holy Mass are taken from the Scriptures, so why should any Catholic have a problem with them?

He probably thinks that his flock is as Scripturally ignorant as he is.

[siunevada]

They have handled the abuse crisis very well,” one bishop said. “I don’t think they will handle ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof’ very well at all.”

Yeah. Faithless clergy we can handle. But changing a weak translation will stun us.

I do believe it is the 'progressives' who brought us squishy discipline that will be upset.

[TotusTuus]

“I feel we have put our people through a great deal these past few years. They have handled the abuse crisis very well,” one bishop said. “I don’t think they will handle ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof’ very well at all.”

When emotions are running high, even otherwise intelligent people can make incredibly stupid remarks.

In trying to imagine an actual Bishop say this, this statement leaves one in breathless shock.

It's unfair actually. I mean how is one to properly caricaturize this bit of burlesque "wisdom" that deserves nothing but the finest in the art of parody?

[TotusTuus]

Time and again, bishops said their people would not understand

To the extent that this is true, who is at fault here? Bishops are the primary teachers of the Faith. Are these particular Bishops suggesting that we dumb down the Holy Liturgy even more? Do they "feel" that the laity is just to stupid to learn the Faith?

-and probably not accept-changes to the prayers they had come to embrace over the thirty-five years since the council’s liturgical reforms were implemented.

"embraced"? "probably not accept"?

Weasel words from the editorial board of Commonweal. Er, or is that Commonweasel?

[Salvation]

**“It’s the most important thing we do, to worship God,” he said. “We’re all pastors here.”**

Thank God for Cardinal George!

[Unam Sanctam]

How depressing. Sounds like the bishops will let us down and fail to restore accuracy to liturgical translations.

[Dajjal]

Overall, the new translations would change twelve of the nineteen responses recited at Mass by the full congregation.... there are harsh responses from several bishops.... One archbishop seemed positively frightened by what might happen when trying to introduce the new translations.... the bishops demonstrated a deep pastoral concern for their flocks.... bishops said their people would not understand.... “What ought to be a source of stability-the liturgy-will become a source of uneasiness and frustration for the good people who continue to come to the Eucharist,” one bishop remarked.

ROTFLMHO!!!

This is rich!

The hierarchs can rip out altar rails, stautes, tabernacles, etc.
The hierarchs can install female altar boys.
The hierarchs can flush centuries-old rituals for all seven sacraments down the memory hole.
The hierarchs can rip up the liturgical calendar.
The hierarchs can build cathedrals that look like airplane hangars.
The hierarchs can eliminate the post of Devil's Advocate, and flood the people with slews of new "saints" so that people forget the traditional saints.
The hierarchs can reformulate the rosary along modernist lines.
And on and on ....

But if the hierarchs were to ask the Catholic-in-the-pew to say "and with your spirit" -- then the whole Church would become discombobulated and the sky would come crashing down!!!!!

[dsc]

"Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, who heads the bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, said the summer survey found that 52 percent of bishops favored the changes, while 47 percent judged them “fair or poor.” The new translations need a two-thirds vote to pass."

Another example of dishonest reporting.

Where's that earlier article that broke down the vote properly? As I recall, it was thirty-some percent that thought the translation was "fair," which means they might vote for it, and only the small remainder of that 47 percent that thought it "poor," which probably means they would vote against it.

This article lumps "fair" and "poor" together to make it look like 47 percent will vote against the translation, when in fact the translation might very well be accepted if there were a vote today.

Which, of course, is why there is not a vote today. The forces of evil want more time to work against it.