Just one paragraph from a letter written by John Page (ex-Twit-in-Charge of ICEL) will tell you all you need to know:
Liturgiam Authenticam is negative, depreciative and condescending. It is closed, introverted and defensive. There is no vision. Nothing uplifting or hopeful. Its scolds and belittles. It doesn't speak to the human longing for God but rather to a staid and airless world that contains solely in itself all the answers [...] The conciliar intent, deeply pastoral in nature, was in favor of the use of the living language in the Church's public worship. A document that only pays lip service to the genius and claims of the receiver language(s) is empty of all credibility. [...] This document creates ex nihilo "liturgical translation, sacred language" and fences them off (to be kept pure and uncontaminated from the reality of the living literate vernacular languages). Only the Holy See would have the hubris to enshrine such an ignorant position.
(Letter to Bp. M. Taylor, May 9, 2002)
Dare we say "divisssssssssive?"
Could the proper adjective be...ahhhh...."mean-spirited"?
Does "nasty name-caller" fit the fellow?
Of course not!!
He's a Liturgeist! That means that he is above reproach.
Gratias a Deo, he's also unemployed now.
HT: CWN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If only we could root out ALL those, currently working in the Church, that have such brazen contempt for her. I wonder if it's the deadwood in the pews that's enabling, or at least encouraging, these weevils.
Generally, laypeople are non-confrontational towards the priests and Bishops.
You only need look at the pathetic pleading-and-appealing to the coverup-artist "Bishops" when someone's own child was raped by a priest.
My reaction may have been a little different. A few smashed car-windows, perhaps, or other messages (dead horse-heads) might have been a bit more inspiring to these vermin.
But you do what you can, when you can. See, e.g., the blogspot "Get Up and Get Moving" for examples.
Besides the obvious arrogance he shows, I have to ask if he has ever read the Vatican II document on the liturgy? OOOOPS, I fogot, we don't have to read the words, what matters is the "spirit" or in his words "intent" of the council as inerrently discerned by him. In fact, I doubt if even he knows what Vatican II really said about the use of Latin & the vernacular in the Mass.
What Mr. Page hates is that Liturgiam Authenticam puts down into words the TRUE SPIRIT & INTENT of Vatican II. He just doen't like what it is since it shows how far from the truth he is, so he attacks it.
In fact, his writing is a perfect example of what is called in psychiatry as projection, putting onto others your own faults. My proof (& I quote): "negative, depreciative and condescending. . . . closed, introverted and defensive. . . . no vision. Nothing uplifting or hopeful. . . . scolds and belittles. . . . a staid and airless world that contains solely in itself all the answers. . . . pays lip service. . . . creates ex nihilo "liturgical translation, sacred language" and fences them. . . . the hubris to enshrine such an ignorant position."
'Nuff said!
Post a Comment