My friend Jeffrey Tucker is scratching his head again. ICEL of 1988 criticizing the work of ICEL in 1970: this does not compute.

Do liturgical conservatives think that ICEL was some sort of liturgical star chamber inserting Wiccan texts written backwards into the Roman Rite? Do they really think that liberal liturgists were really happy about being stuck with a transitional Missal? It took the CDWDS until 1981 to produce a second edition of the Missal. The preparation/translation efforts seemed to take forever … for good work that was ultimately deep-sixed by Roman bureaucrats in 1998.

The alternative offered to my recollection of liturgical history is the usual conspiracy theories.

I find it peculiar to say the least that the vernacular was rammed down the faithful’s throats ASAP …

It was as if anything Latin was evil …

… a concerted effort at promoting a certain ideology even if at all costs…

On this site, part of my purpose is to share with you an intelligent reading of church documents, especially those of Vatican II and of the liturgy. The real reason things are as they are, and less than how we might want them to be, are likely more mundane or even slightly more ridiculous than we suspect.

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in the Pacific Northwest, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Liturgy, The Blogosphere. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to ICEL vs ICEL

  1. Joe of St. Thérèse says:

    As a seminarian, I plan to do what the Church asks of us, whichever Missal I have in front of me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s