An opinion piece about the coming "new translation", (it'll be ancient by the time it arrives in the pews....) by an Australian Catholic seems to have invented people, "out there in Catholic blogger land, particularly in the US, [who] see the new translation as payback for what happened after Vatican II. Now the 'liberals' are going to know what it felt like to have their liturgy changed without consultation, without explanation. 'They made us suffer, now it's their turn.' "
I have been pretty disconnected for a few months, so I may have missed it, but I should dearly like to see any evidence of such characters, if it exists.
"Any expectation that people will flock back to mass because a new translation is in place is not likely to be fulfilled."
I would be really surprised if anyone had such an "expectation." I'd like a link, if anyone has one.
But I should think better translation, a better Mass, would primarily beneift, oh, I dunno, those who were actually AT Mass?
And it is they, with their lived Faith, and their evangelization, who will or will not bring people "flocking back" to Church.
I am surprised at commentators who think this is all so much kerfuffle over nothing, or worse, rearranging "the deck chairs on the Titanic."
I would think they would all be staunch supporters of VCII.
Because if you actually believed what the Second Vatican Council taught, you know, that the Liturgy was the source, the actual font of our faith -- wouldn't you want that spring from which you drink to be as pure, and as perfect as we can manage this side of heaven?
(Yeah, yeah, we all know from Man vs Wild that you can drink and survive on some pretty unappetizing water... but why settle?)
Is it wrong of me to suspect some people with whom I have discussed this of a certain disingenuousness?
If it really didn't matter, if the changes were really immaterial or too insignificant to be worth doing... why would anybody care enough to object? or waste their breath bringing the subject up so that they can express its unimportance?