I can't help myself, again

I stumbled into a website of angry liberal Catholic liturgists* bemoaning the new and more traditional translation of the Mass set for December. I can't help noticing the frequent paradox: on the one hand they are outraged that the laity were excluded from the process but then show compassionate concern that "the average pew dweller" will be eternally flummoxed by the use of the words "consubstantial" or "incarnate" in the Creed.

Even in the simplest language, the Creed is still no walk in the park. 

Reveals a contradiction in that culture, condescending maternal/paternalism combined with egalitarian liberational empowerment. Which, I wonder, is the real story? Heh.

While I'm at it, one of the childish compulsions of the post Vatican II folks was the assumption that traditional language was arcane and should be made simple and clear to the uninitiated. So "Vespers" became "Evening Prayer" and "the Magnificat" became "The Song of Mary", etc. People who knew what a "novena" and "immaculate conception" was were apparently incapable of  learning the word "Matins". Yet we were forced to replace the familiar "Mass" with "Eucharist" (sorta like "African-American" replacing "Black") and to talk about "the liturgy" and the "epiklesis". Common English speech...not. As with all kinds of Newspeak, the issue is what words support the new agenda. Comprehension has nada to do with it.

*Catholic joke: What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.