Meanwhile, the likes of Fr Z will pump polls to demonstrate the rapturous reception of the new translation. The Washington Times, EWTN and First Things will report in earnest.

No translation change goes off without a hitch (I remember well journeys in the Lands of Inclusive Usages), but after a few years, people get used to it. It’s in the nature of things.

My main concern is that sharpening the axes of resentment under the guise of pastoral solicitude involves an insidious kind of enslavement, not liberating at all. Hence why I pour cold water on the sharpening stones all the time.

Why shouldn’t I be allowed to modify the words of the Creed, for example, or use my own private translation of the responses?

How many of the priests who’ve signed the petition are the ones who regularly fiddle with the liturgy (for “pastoral” reasons) and resist implementing the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, etc.? Is that trustworthiness? Is that working-well?

How many priests who have signed the petition think that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was a “compromise document” that we must go beyond? Or that guidebooks like “Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite” are silly?

South Africa’s accidental (?) implementation of the new translation was a terrible mistake. Changing things without preparing the people is terribly unpastoral. (I’m perplexed that the Holy See permits them to continue using the new and INCOMPLETE translation!)

You are completely right. This is nowhere near a “large number of Catholics” in absolute terms. But the Church isn’t a democracy so that doesn’t matter anyway. The question is, are they right? And I do think the collective “weight” of the signatories should make the bishops look at this matter again. It’s the same in the parish. You know when somebody complains who is just cranky, and you know when it’s somebody you’ve trusted and who is working with you–it’s the latter that you listen to, and sometimes you do moderate your plans. The church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorship. Thanks for your comments.

I’m not “asserting” that 17,500 signatures is a trifling number. It simply is, statistically speaking.

17500 /65000000 = .00269 or roughly 1/3000th of the Catholic population. Even if the number of estimated Catholics is grossly overestimated, say by 3x, this would still only represent 1/1000th, or the rough equivalent of a half dozen parishioners in a very large suburban parish of 6000 regular attendees. Even if these were very knowledgeable and prominent parishioners, would they, or even more so, SHOULD they have the ability to dictate parish policy?

I find the fact that so many are priests and theologians to be more troubling than indicative of substance. Along with the commenter above, I have to wonder if these individuals will put their whole being into proper implementation when the time comes. If not, why should their views now have any force?

It’s very easy to get 20,000 people to sign a petition about “waiting” on this new translation, because – no offense – it’s much easier to be ignorant about something than to be educated about it: education takes time and effort.

People need the new translation explained to them, pastorally and mystagogically.

The Book of Common Prayer was English educated idiom when it first came out. This is most certainly not.