There is a vocal minority out there who are opposed to the revised English translations of the Missale Romanum. These people, like Bishop Trautman, have been pulling out all the stops to try and delay, if not derail the implementation of the new translation in our parishes. A site has sprung up recently where people can sign an online petition to call for a review of the Missal translations (what have the bishops been doing for the past several years?). As one would expect, there are a number of Rochester names on this petition, and many of the usual personalities we would expect to oppose anything that moves us towards restoring tradition.
First, here is a link to the Web site: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/
The names of people who have signed the petition are publicly available on that Web site here: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/signatures.aspx (this list is constantly being updated, so check back often to see what new Rochester leader has added their name)
Below are passages from the front page of this site to explain its intent, its purpose, and the ideology of the people behind the project (emphasis and commentary added):
“In our wildest dreams could we ever have imagined that we would live to witness what seems more and more like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council’s decree? But we have.” [Nothing in the Mass is changing. Nothing called for by the Council is changing. By the way, wasn’t it the vision of the Council that the Latin language be retained in the liturgy?]
“We are very concerned about the proposed new translations of the Roman Missal. We believe that simply imposing them on our people — even after a program of preparation — will have an adverse effect on their prayer and cause serious division in our communities.” [The Vatican II reforms, namely the Novus Ordo Mass, were imposed on people with little preparation. How do you guys like it when the shoe is on the other foot? Why exactly are the new translations going to cause divisions anyway? Everyone will be required to use them.]
“We are convinced that adopting translations that are highly controversial, and which leaders among our bishops as well as many highly respected liturgists and linguists consider to be seriously flawed, will be a grave mistake. “ [Highly controversial? What is so controversial about properly translating the Mass? Maybe we would be better off using the Novus Ordo in Latin, then there would be no “controversy” that these people claim exists. Starting to see the benefit of the universal language of Latin? Also, many highly respected liturgists consider these translations to be greatly improved over our present ones. Since when did “pro multis” mean “for all”? It’s “for many”! We need these translations. This isn’t about turning the N.O. into the Traditional Latin Mass, it’s about making the English N.O. better reflect the Latin N.O.]
“For this reason we earnestly implore the bishops of the English-speaking world to undertake a pilot program by which the new translations — after a careful program of catechesis — can be introduced into some carefully selected parishes and communities throughout the English-speaking world for a period of one (liturgical) year, after which they can be objectively evaluated. “ [This is called a delay tactic, a fillibuster if you will. These people don’t want these translations because they view it as moving away from the Council (see above). Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, we’re moving closer to what the Council called for. Nothing is happening that alters the Novus Ordo Mass. As for a careful program of catechesis, that’s what priests and pretend priests called lay pastoral administrators should be doing right now! Instead of dragging your knuckles in hope of some miracle delay which won’t happen, get on it and teach the people like you are supposed to be doing.]
“We are convinced that this approach will address the concerns of those many bishops who feel that they have lost their voice in this matter and that it will also give a voice to the People of God whose prayer is at stake and who accordingly have the most to gain or lose by the translations.” [Hold the phone… “many bishops”? Did not the majority vote in favor of the translations? These bishops had their chance. Their voices were indeed heard. And you know what, they lost. Shoe on the other foot…]
“We realize that a pilot project of this kind is unprecedented, but so is the process by which these translations have been approved. “ [The bishops voted on this, and the dominating majority voted in favor. Too bad, tough luck, build a bridge and get over it.]
And of course, below are screen shots of the prominent Rochester figures who signed this petition. Here are the priests (No real surprises here):
Here are the religious:
And here are various lay ministers (including a lay administrator):
Many of your average lay people signed as well. If one really wants to know, they can check the link above. I will state this once again, this list is available publicly online, viewable to all. Nothing posted here is not already available for all to see on that Web site.
Tags: Liturgy, Progressive Drivel
|
What's the problem, is the language in the new translation not inclusive enough for these progressives?
Thanks for the link. It seems that there are a lot of sister religious from Buffalo on the list as well – most from SSMN (Sisters of St. Mary of Namur). I found it interesting to read the comments left by some who signed the list.
It's already gotten worse
Rev. Michael J. Bausch Priest Rochester, NY USA
Donald Smith Lay Minister Rochester United States
There's also a genius who can't read and tell the difference between County and Country…she's from the country of Monroe…*chuckle*
James Zavislan Lay Person Rochester USA (Professor at U of R)
Goo Goo Ga Joob Bishop Harrisburg USA BRILLIANT
"Goo Goo Ga Joob Bishop Harrisburg USA BRILLIANT"
Ha.
"Rev. Michael J. Bausch Priest Rochester, NY USA"
He's listed in the image included with the post. There are a TON of Rochester laypersons who signed the petition. I don't have the energy to go through each and every person. If someone wants to take on this project to see if any hold leadership positions in our parishes, good luck. It's a lengthy list.
~Dr. K
I have not had an opportunity to see all of the proposed texts; however, does it not seem prudent to implement such extensive changes to our common worship practices in stages? Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes we made in implementing the Novus Ordo too quickly?
Rev. Joseph Marcoux | Priest | Rochester NY | USA
Huh? I fail to understand why these are rleated. They are not extensive changes, they are the fixing of screw-ups. This is not a new Ordo, just a new translation.
I wish to add that it is the process, as much as the translation itself, that I find so disturbing. Officials appointed by the Vatican were in charge. They have not listened to the voices of the bishops or the voices of the people, and liturgy is "the work of the people." I do not know how people can pray with a translation that has been delivered in such a dominating way, or with a translation that is so terribly flawed. It makes me heart-sick, especially after the joy of the Second Vatican Council.
Gloria Ulterino | Lay Minister | Rochester, NY | USA
HUH? Please, please, please somebody explain to me…y'kno what, i'm just not gonna bother. she clearly has no idea what she's talking about…i mean, unless she means the translation we use already, which is indeed so terribly flawed. Why is Rochester so dumb?
"Officials appointed by the Vatican were in charge. They have not listened to the voices of the bishops or the voices of the people, and liturgy is "the work of the people.""
The bishops developed and voted on the translations. There was much debate, for example, over using the word "ineffable", so clearly they have thoroughly discussed and debated the matter. It's incorrect to say that their voices were ignored.
The voice of the laypeople is irrelevant in this process. We do not craft our own liturgies (though some in Rochester take it upon themselves to do so).
~Dr. K
A priest friend not from DOR was near giddy over the whacking that Bp Trautperson received at the Bishop's meeting a few weeks back. Even Cd. Mahony tired of his old nonsense and jumped him. Now that is really embarrassing! I understand Bp Trautperson was near a hissy fit and tears.
To the Crypto-Protestants who signed the useless petition….I understand the Anglicans now have a few openings in their pews. Why don't you go and reserve yourselves a few spots?
ROFL @ "lay minister". HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
I'm not surprised that the coven from Erie poked their beaks into this either.
Another HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Shame on those people! They're a disgrace! They should just renounce the Faith they work so hard to deny, distort and defy and leave us and our Church alone.
You point something out which I forgot to earlier – this petition bears absolutely NO weight whatsoever. The matter is finished.
As a certain Rochester administraitor so gleefully declared, "The Church is not a democracy." Yes, indeed. The road goes two ways – we may not have any voice over our schools closing and dissidents leading our parishes. However, they have not say to make that correct in the eyes of the Church.
The comments on that web site are hilarious.
The 60's are gone. Get over it!
Many of these clowns are in charge of the biggest parishes in our diocese. Hmmm… Don't tell me the bishop didn't assign them to these posts for nothing. He's obviously trying to indoctrinate as many minds as possible with the progressive fluff these patsies of Clark preach.
The DoR list is a who's who on dissent.
Lay preachers
Woman's ordination advocates
Gay rights advocates
And on and on!
Thanks for the link. I will add my name to the list and also post the link on my blog today. Peace!
I think I should warn everyone before more people go over to sign this thing – it's actually run by the Vatican and Pope Benedict. He's begun to round up the liberals, and he's using this list as a guide.
Let them sign. By doing so they are saying "There is no place for us in The Church." Let them say what we already know.
Be gone, people. YOU LOSE! AGAIN.
The changes must be tough for some – they will have to figure out new dance routines and the hand-jive will have to develop to a new rhythm. So many artistic challenges, so little talent. (Did I just say that?) No worries, in regard to my own talent, I'm no good at clapping my hands to Alleluia when I'm at Mass. Calvary just does not make my hands feel in a clapping kind of mood.
Zheze people zufferr frrom diabolical dizorientation und za zublevel of demonic pozzezzion. Zhey arre havink za interrperrzonal conflictz between zhemselvez und Za Churrch. Za izzuez arre zubjectively meaningful only to zhemzelves az Za Churrch haz zpoken und zheirr opinionz arre of no conzequencze. Zhey arre merrely zelf-imporrtant zmall perrzonz. Zherreforre ve might zay zhat zhey are havink za interrperrzonal conflict between zhemzelvez…und zhemzelvez! he he
The "Anonymous" signers crack me up. Have the guts to sign your name, at least.
The signers also need to remember that the English translations are for the entire English-speaking world in the Church, not just the U.S. How arrogant can we be? Somehow we, American Catholics, know best?
I am happy to see that my priest's name is not on the list (yet). Fr. Marcoux's comment is laughable. Please. There are some wording changes, there are some complex sentences with many pauses. Our brains will have to think (oh, my!). Frankly, I find it insulting that the signers assume people are too stupid to understand the new translations. You should see the sentences my 9th grade son has to diagram in his English class. Apparently the protesters of the new translations would fail 9th grade.
Smack of the Crozier @ Tmac
It's people like T-Mac and her progressive cronies at St. Joseph (including the many former Corpus parishioners who attend there) who are running this diocese into the ground. They literally have the diocese by the balls, squeezing any masculinity that it once had completely dry so that we're left with this progressive, feminine pile of rubble that we currently have. It's these people who destroyed the promising priestly career of seminarian Matt Nannery when he was doing his pastoral work at St. Joe's a few years ago. These people do not want anything close to an orthodox priest being ordained in this diocese. If you don't support their heresy, specifically the ordination of women, they will run you out of town and dash your calling to serve Christ. It's the shameful truth of these selfish politically motivated people. This domestic terrorism will end in 2012. We will have our day progressives, and soon it will be your progressive candidates who will need to look elsewhere for ordination.
I agree 100% Nerina! It's amazing how people are afraid to affix their names to something so inconsequential. Blogging is something where you can/ought to remain anonymous to some degree if you have something to lose (which most of us do). What satisfaction can be had when all that your life stands for is "Anonymous Lay Person Rochester?"
Secondly, I wish to re-affirm that I (and only I) have the authority to issue crozier-smacks. This authority was conferred upon me by Bishop Clark himself, so I would not want to tread on his blogging authority. If you want the authority to crozier-smack and miter-nod people, please send Bishop Clark a letter asking for that authority. I am certain you would get a response.
I think that it's also very telling that for the entire English-speaking world of Catholicism, only ~6000 people have felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to sign their names. If they derive some sense of spiritual satisfaction, then let them continue to do so.
I spoke to a priest this morning at Mass who declared, "What hypocrites! 'Don't rush into reform.' Pah! These people are just whining because now it's their turn. Open wide, fellas, open wide and swallow the reform of the reform."
I smiled.
Gen "his authority was conferred upon me by Bishop Clark himself"
LOL. Would that make you an "Authorized Crozier Smacker ?"
The new translation is the will of the Holy Spirit. How dare these liberals try to stand in the way of God. Such hypocrisy from a people claiming to Keep the Spirit Alive.
Anon 1:07, yes, that does mean I am an official crozier-smacker. I have an official document signed by Bishop Clark which clearly states my duties to smack dissidents with my crozier.
Amen, Anon 1:08.
"It's people like T-Mac and her progressive cronies at St. Joseph (including the many former Corpus parishioners who attend there) who are running this diocese into the ground. They literally have the diocese by the balls….." OUCH!!!
"Smack of the Crozier @ Tmac" OUCH, AGAIN!!!
GEN – thanks for saving me from a smack of the crozier. I owe you one.
Peace On Earth Good Will Toward People (sorry but the word "men" is not inclusive enough)
Our Parent, who art in heaven . . .
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among people . . .
Hail Monarch of heaven . . .
Hail Holy Monarch enthroned above . . .
God rest ye merry gentle people, let nothing you dismay . . .
Glory be to the begetter, to the begotten, and to the Holy Spirit . . .
Need I continue?
The reason the word "man/men" appears in the Mass is because it references hu-MAN-ity. It's not saying "men, to the exclusion of women." People with political agendas hijack the words to suit their personal longings. The word in Latin is "hominum," or "man" as in "mankind" as in "humanity." It's not some conspiracy TMac, it's the ancient texts of the Church being more faithfully translated.
Let's not forget the politically correct Frosty the Snowperson.
I would think the liberals should be happy with the new translation for being more inclusive. In many cases the "Father" in the current translation will be replaced by "God" as a more faithful translation of the Latin Deus.
Exactly. Why are people arguing when all that's happening is an ACCURATE translation and its implementation.
Hey, we're not talking about turning the altars around again! At least, not for the time being . . .
ROFL!!!!!!!!! @ politically correct Snowperson.