3 Comments

• #1 by Ronald Ciavolino on January 6, 2010 - 11:01 am

  Reply Quote

  

  Good luck on your mission. You can do a great deal of good.

• #2 by Ioannes Andreades on January 9, 2010 - 1:59 pm

  Reply Quote

  

  I have to admit that many of the names of the contributors are unfamiliar to me. None of them have Latino surnames, however. One massive liturgical issue that North Americans need to think about is how best to incorporate the liturgical needs and practices of the burgeoning Latino population in the U.S. and Canada. Will churches need to have 3 Sunday masses–one for the TLM crowd, one for the N.O. crowd, and one for a more charismatic Spanish-speaking crowd?

  Maybe, if you don’t have one already, you could have a contributor or two who are real specialists in the liturgical practices and expectations of Latino immigrants.

• #3 by Rev. Salvatore Cavagnuolo on June 1, 2010 - 12:48 pm

  Reply Quote

  

  I’m coming to the discussion late, so forgive me if my observations/reservations have already been discussed. Given the fact that this is a “fait accompli”, I just have to vent some of my frustrations. Having been through all this back in the ’60’s, I’ve gone over the changes with a careful eye & actually tried to say a “dry Mass” every day for the past month. Here’s what I noticed:
  1. Innumerable instances where adjectives or adverbs were inserted that limited the theology inherent in the
  phrase, or contradicted it (”spiritual” instead of “substantial”!).
  2. The order of the phrase was reversed just to be different, but added nothing.
  3. Several convoluted, run-on sentences that sounded like gibberish when SPOKEN.
  4. Several incomplete sentences, misplaced modifiers, pronouns and co-relative clauses that didn’t
  agree with their antecedents.
  5. Synonyms were used that added nothing; some words were just archaic (”dewfall” ?)
  Thus my questions”
  1. Was there anyone on the committee who had the slightest concept of grammar, style or sentence
  structure, or how unprofessional & stupid this looks?
  2. Granted a noble purpose, the solution causes more problems than it solves. So
  how do I answer my parishioners when they ask me “Why”?
  3. How do we justify the phenomenal outlay in energy, resources and expense (books, hymnals, etc.)
  to implement a vehicle that is at best marginally better than what we have now, & in many instances
  worse?
  4. Any chance they’ll admit it was a good idea that didn’t work & go back to the drawing board to do a
  better job, or am I just dreaming?