Irish religious tried to delay new Missal

The Tablet reports today:

The Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI) has confirmed that it tried to persuade the Irish Bishops’ Conference to delay the introduction of the new translation of the Missal fearing it would cause further difficulties for a Church already in crisis.

The request was made in a letter to Cardinal Sean Brady and other bishops last spring by CORI director general, Sr. Marianne O’Connor, on behalf of her executive. Sr. Marianne told The Tablet that she expressed misgivings about the new translation, “given the current state of the Church and the possible misinterpretation of its introduction at this point in time.”


  1. I am no big fan of the new translation. It is awkward, sometimes confusing, and mostly I think it is unnecessary. That said, I don’t understand the advantage in delaying the introduction. To what end? To have a crisis (if at all) in a few more months? I can’t see the use. Anyone else?

    1. If they delay long enough, the text will prove so unpopular across the world that it will get dropped.

      Well, we can hope. Personally, I am starting to lose hope. Given the way the new text was introduced, I am under no delusion that the Vatican gives a flying … er … thingy what we grunts in the pews think. The Vatican knows best. We will sit, kneel and bend as directed, and be grateful that we’re still allowed in the building.

      1. and be grateful that we’re still allowed in the building.

        And this long-present silent reality is quickly becoming public spectacle. Laity and priests are being shown the door in subtle and unsubtle ways – as the Germans, Austrians, and a number of priest I know deciding to retire rather than use the new missal. We should have known we were in trouble when Bernardin’s own confreres devoured him for his Common Ground initiative. So much for the wheat and tares – we live in the age of ecclesiastical mega-farming with its incessant use of self-righteous herbicide. Of course, its only a matter of time before the entire shebang is doused with agent orange by the über-sanctified.

    2. The ultimate goal would be to prevent the change from happening.

      It’s no coincidence that while this change has been planned for a number of years, that most Catholics are only being told about it by their priests only a few months before it is starting. The church knows that it will be unpopular to the majority, and they don’t want to give people time to think about it, so they’re hoping to quickly introduce it, and hope that people will groan and say “oh, Okayyyy”

      So, delaying it is to make sure that more people become aware of it, the clumsiness of how it is worded, and to give them a chance to see what is being foisted upon them, versus what they are praying now, or even alternative translations.

      People need to make their opinions known by continuing to use the old words in the parts of the liturgy that use the new words, by staying silent in the parts of the mass where no change was made, and by withholding their weekly contributions until the church agrees to act.

      1. I bet some Priests are not educating their flock in an attempt to rile up discord and frustration which of course will only be the result of not being prepared more than about the change in translation.
        It wouldn’t be foisted upon them if Priests took the adequate time to teach their parishoners. They were given plenty of time to do so and we having been hearing about the new translations coming for a year already. If they chose to stay quiet in silent disobedience the people should raise Cain about it. It is not fair to them. How they are led into the new translations will have alot to do with how they perceive and accept it.
        In making my opinion known I will speak my parts in the new translation just as Rome has asked from Advent on when attending the NO Mass. I like and support the new version. Encouraging people to continue to mumble the old versions sounds like the same thing as people who continued to speak the Latin responses in vernacular Mass decades ago and were chastised and criticized to no end for their supposed disobedience. Are you advocating the same? Isn’t it supposed to be about progression for progressive standpoints?

  2. The control freaks in Rome imagine that the crisis in the Church is due to the faithful’s lack of the spirit of true obedience. The new liturgy is being sold as an obedience test.

  3. Sorry to hear that Mitch attends the NO (I think that’s the way they say it) in a parish where they mumble the present prayers. Where priests like myself have modeled conscious, active, and full participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the people are full participants in its offering. I simply find it difficult to believe that anyone who has a good grasp of both Latin (I studied it for five year) and English cannot discern the lamentable quality of English prayers with Latin syntax and word order.

  4. I don’t believe that dogmatism is a fruit of the Spirit. Nor is voluntarism, something Rome these days seems full of.
    But all we have to do is wait for the verdict of our sensus fidelium. After all, if Rome cannot hear the Spirit, maybe some us in the pews will.

  5. I hope that what is being advocated is to resist the change.

    My ultimate hope is that so many people resist the change that the church will reverses the change and stops using the new translation.

    The first thing that must be done is to ask the people if they want a change. We’re not children, and don’t need to be told what’s good for us and what isn’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *