Jul
11
2008

I’m Shocked. SHOCKED.

I was just gape-jawed in stunned disbelief when I read this:

The nation’s Catholic bishops have rejected a new translation of Mass prayers, a rare instance of U.S. prelates denying a Vatican-ordered liturgical change.

While ballots are still coming in, it’s clear they won’t add up to the 166 needed to pass the new translation, said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. A two-thirds majority of the USCCB’s Latin rite bishops is required for approval.

Walsh said she could not recall another instance in which the U.S. bishops have rejected a full document of Vatican translations, though they have at times tinkered with individual phrases and words.

Our bishops opposing Rome? Perish the thought.

Seriously, this must be a pretty darn good translation for them to so unanimously oppose it. Since when did the USCCB get the power to vote down a “Vatican-ordered liturgical change”, anyway?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Technorati

8 Comments »

  • Gonzalo Vásquez Villanueva says:

    These are the obvious fruits of the colegiality principle, and you should not feel surprised (even less shocked). In the past couple of years we have seen entire episcopal conferences (France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc) openly rejecting directives from the Pope, e.g. reinstatement of “pro multis” and Summorum Pontificum, which hence are both death letter. Everywhere else and based on the most intricate excuses, bishops deny the priest’s right to celebrate the Traditional Mass, no matter the Pope said in Summorum Pontificum that no permission, not even the Bishop’s or the Holy See itself (!), was needed for that. Who is then schismatic? Those “we don’t speak of” or the majority of the official hierarchy?

  • Steve Skojec says:

    Sorry Gonzalo, I was being sarcastic, but maybe I’m being too subtle.

  • Zach Frey says:

    It helps to have seen Casablanca to catch the subtlety.

  • Steve Skojec says:

    LOL! I wasn’t thinking about that (haven’t seen it in years) but well played on demonstrating the point.

  • Zach Frey says:

    I assumed you were deliberately referring to that scene, actually.

  • Steve Skojec says:

    No, but maybe somehow it got embedded in my subconscious.

  • Gonzalo Vásquez Villanueva says:

    Did you guys realize why was the inspecteur shocked-shocked? Because there was gambling in the place. The metaphore of Matthew 21, 13 is subtle, yet stronger…

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL


Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Theme: Aeros 2.0 by TheBuckmaker.com