John Allen reports that Bishop Donald Trautman is concerned about the new liturgical translations. He’s worried that lay people will be confused, and might not understand Catholic teaching. He called upon members of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy to protest the proposals.
“Bishop Trautman challenged Catholic liturgical scholars of North America to assist the bishops in promoting a liturgy that is accessible and pastorally aware,” the release said. “He urged them, in a spirit of respect and love for the Church, to be courageous in questioning those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible and betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).”
So the “Liturgy wars” are not over, Allen says. I don’t think anyone suggested they were. But it is interesting now to see the folks who led the charge for thirty years on the defensive. Where were their concerns for “confusing the faithful” when the faithful were concerned and were complaining? How did they respond to those complaints? How did they respond to complaints that inaccurate translations could lead to confusion about Catholic teaching? The shoe is now on the other foot. (Amy makes this point a little more pointedly).
This is not the first time Bishop Trautman has complained about these things, of course. See this article from Adoremus Bulletin in 2000.
I’m left wondering how translating the liturgy accurately (and in keeping with our Scriptural translations) could “render the liturgy incomprehensible,” and how faithfulness to the liturgy of the Second Vatican Council could “betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council.”