By Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From the dissident Fishwrap‘s long-time dissident columnist, Fr. Richard McBrien, comes this piece about the new, corrected translation.

Pay close attention to the contempt he shows for a vast number of people and also the attitude of disobedience he promotes.

It is not merely that he doesn’t like the new, corrected translation. He doesn’t like the people who like the new, corrected translation.

Furthermore, note that McBrien will advocate that priests disobey lawful authority and continue to use the obsolete ICEL translation. He advises them to impose their own will on the people in the pews. He has advised disobedience before.

McBrien’s suggestion is scandalous in its disrespect toward proper authority. It also shows contempt for people in the pews, who have the right to a liturgy celebrated as the Church desires. People have a right not to have the priest impose his pet ideas on their worship. This is a particularly brutal form of clericalism.

The faithful are obliged to attend Mass. McBrien would oblige people to endure the oppressive whims of a priest.

In this piece McBrien reveals his ultra-clericalist attitude.

Dealing with the new translation of the Mass
by Richard McBrien on Dec. 26, 2011
There used to be an anti-liturgical joke circulating that said that the only difference between a terrorist and a liturgist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist. [I think there is another which involves finding yourself with two terrorists and liturgist and having only two bullets in your gun….]

By the same token, there is a seriously mistaken impression abroad that the new translation of the missal was inspired and promoted by liturgists. Nothing could be further from the truth. [I think I know what he means here, in this muddled statement. I think he means the final product. But is what he wrote true? Liturgists did not "inspire and promote" the new translation? If not, who did "inspire and promote it"?]

The great majority of liturgical scholars were opposed to the new, literal translations. [Fact check: the new translation is NOT a "literal" translation. And note his phrasing here. LOL!] Those who favored the changes were adherents of the so-called “reform of the reform.” [I wonder what he thinks that phrase means?]
In other words, the changes were inspired and promoted, not by liturgists, but by traditionalists in the hierarchy and a minority of ultra-conservatives within the Catholic church generally. [Oooooo. I guess this means that McBrien's brand of liturgists must be incredibly feckless! No?]

Such Catholics were never supportive of the liturgical reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council: turning the altar around so that the priest would face the congregation during Mass, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?] receiving Holy Communion in the hand, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]celebrating the Mass in the vernacular, [The Council said that the liturgy was to remain in Latin.]having altar girls as well as altar boys, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]and so forth.

In the extreme, they attended Latin Masses wherever they were available. [Imagine such a thing! Members of the Latin Church going to Mass in the language the Council said Mass should be used. No. Wait. Again, McBrien is playing fast and loose with terms. I think he means the Traditional Latin Mass. "Latin Mass" can be Novus Ordo.] Their celebrants continued to wear the so-called fiddle-back chasubles and birettas. A Catholic Rip Van Winkle awakening from a long sleep beginning sometime in the 1950s would assume that nothing had changed in the meantime. [puhleez]

To be sure, the advocates of the “reform of the reform” have won only a partial victory with this new translation (for example, “I believe …” rather than the more communal “We believe …” in the Credo). [Is the writer unaware that Latin credo means "I believe"? But, no! Wait! "I believe" would be literal.] But the Mass is still in the vernacular; the altar is still turned around; the great majority of people receive Communion in the hand; and there are more likely to be altar girls in the sanctuary than boys. [And there won't be any vocations from the parish.]

Such changes as these are anathema to traditionalist Catholics, who continue to receive Com-munion on the tongue (as is their right), grit their teeth when they see girls serving Mass and attend a Latin Mass from time to time. [Which is their right.]
But they are happy nonetheless to see so many of their fellow Catholics out of sorts because of the new translation of the Mass. They know that it galls Catholics for whom Pope John XXIII is a hero and Vatican II was a great event. [Is this an example of "rash judgment"? Cf. CCC 2477-78.]

I’ve heard Catholics say that their pastors, though not conservative, have praised the new translations. Either their pastors are not being honest because they don’t want to be reported to their bishop or they are deep-down right-wing in their thinking. [Again? So, McBrien, apparently a psychic who can read minds at a distance, is accusing the aforementioned pastors of being liars. Did I get that wrong?]

A retired pastor I heard prepare his congregation the week before the changes were to go into effect had the congregation practice giving the simple response, “And with your spirit.” But he said by way of introduction that the “what” of the changes he and they could handle; the “why” he would leave to the Holy Spirit. [And that is supposed to be proof of... what exactly?]

I suspect many older priests had the same reaction. Only some of the younger (or not-so-young), conservative priests, ordained during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, would more likely be in favor of the changes than opposed to them. [He finally got something right!]

But what good would come of outright opposition? A well-respected priest in Seattle led a movement recently to have the U.S. bishops slow down the process until all the kinks could be worked out, but that movement, though it gained thousands of supporters, fizzled and died in the end. [Again the word that pops into my mind is feckless. So many people. So little power. Maybe they were just wrong.]

The Vatican had already made up its mind, and the largely conservative U.S. hierarchy [Have you gotten his not so subtle point yet? Liberals/liturgists good... conservatives bad.] would not buck the Vatican, even if it were disposed to do so.
Some Catholics may continue to say “And also with you” rather than “And with your spirit,” or “We believe …” instead of “I believe …” in the Creed, or “one in being with the Father” instead of the highly technical and indecipherable “consubstantial,” also in the Creed. [Do you find it disconcerting that McBrien, who taught what was billed at theology at Notre Dame, finds the word "consubstantial" to be "indecipherable"? Or does he mean that it is "indecipherable" to everyone else?]

Presiders at Mass will have the most difficult time because there have been many tongue-twisting changes in the texts of the Eucharistic prayers. [Maybe they will have to slow down a little.]

Those priests who have been reciting these prayers for many years will inevitably stumble over the new wording, and those priests whose eyesight has failed them and who have memorized unchangeable parts of the Mass will continue to recite the words with which they have been long familiar. At least, that is what I would advise them if they were silly enough to ask. [Tu enim dixisti.]

This column will return to this subject a number of times in the future because it affects us all. In the meantime, I wanted to dispel a few of the most common misunderstandings about the new translations and their origin. [When will that take place?]

What happened at the beginning of Advent 2011, and the implementation of a more accurate translation, was a tiny change compared to the imposition of an artificially created, “New Order” of Mass in Advent of 1969.

Since McBrien uses his liberal psychic powers, I will use my even more powerful conservative psychic powers.

I think McBrien doesn’t like the new translation because he doesn’t like the theology of the Latin prayers, even those of the Novus Ordo, which now comes through more clearly with the new, corrected translation. Therefore he rains his atrabilious scorn down on those who respect their Catholic identity and want both what the Second Vatican Council actually asked for and also what their legitimate liturgical tradition has passed down through the centuries.