Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance.
So says a National Catholic Reporter editorial. Though I bet if somebody said all there responses in Latin while attending Mass that they would give them quite a look. But hey they would be just using the same language they had been using for decades if they grew up before the council. Tradition is really really important especially if it only goes back 30 years or so. Yes God really wants us not to change to a translation that is more theologically accurate or one that gives him more glory considering that the current translation had gone on a diet from adjectives when it came to referring to our Lord. That they would suggest resistance just goes to show that once again they have no idea what obedience means. The same article laments the liturgical wars and how gracious they say Bishop Trautman is and then they suggest that people just go on using the old translation. Sure that’s one really good suggestion for liturgical unity and ending the liturgical wars.
But what I find so fun with NCR articles is that they are so cliche ridden with venom dripping when the Vatican is mentioned.
"crowd of powerful actors in the Vatican", "managed to overthrow that process", "Short-circuiting a six-year debate", "Of the group that met in secret,", Powers in Rome handpicked a small group of men who in two weeks undid work that had taken dozens of years,” "that was the beginning of the final phase of a coup that upended all of the processes that had been in place since Vatican II"
Being a editorial it is unsigned, but you have to wonder if Dan Brown is now on their editorial board? Though I think he would fit right in with no problem.
Update: Amy Welborn also comments to good effect on this article.