What lessons to be drawn from this?
USCCB votes 203-14 to move on to the Liturgy of the Hours.
Bishop Brom of San Diego:
I’m hearing from the priests … that we not rush headlong into further translations and using the Roman Missal that we have now in its English version as the basis …
Bishop Matano of Burlington, Vermont:
I do think it is a bit counter-productive to go back in time and give a critique of the new Roman Missal.
USCCB votes 189-41 to move on to the Liturgy of the Hours.
Granted, there were speeches behind these comments, but let’s ponder some possibilities:
The bishops don’t care what their priests think, so what possibly could make anyone believe they are listening to lay people?
The bishops are tired talking about liturgy. They just want the MC to turn the page and point.
Twenty-seven bishops seemed to have changed their minds after the California intervention. But three bishops woke up and voted the second time who didn’t cast a ballot the first.
Is the curia thinking, “Thank goodness we have those Americans under our thumb. Now, what the bleep are we going to do with the Germans?”
Where does Father John “Slavish” Z fit in the notion that once a translation is complete, complaining about it “only opens the door to … disunity.”? I suppose it depend on if the Culture of Complaint is in its ascendancy or not.
PS: Nice work guys, on the economy. Four years into a depression and you can’t agree on a word of faith and hope. Do us a favor and don’t bother sending one out next time.