Allen on the Bertone appointment:

The logic for Bertone’s appointment, aside from his personal connection to the pope, is no doubt that he can ensure that concerns of Catholic identity trump the logic of compromise that is often the stuff of diplomacy. Further, he’s an Italian who knows the world of the Vatican well.

It will be interesting to see, especially in the early stages, if Bertone’s relative unfamiliarity with the inner workings of the Secretariat of State renders him dependent upon the very diplomats he was named to oversee. Such is sometimes the case with "outsider" appointments, and hence observers will be paying careful attention for early assertions of independence from the man who is now, in effect, the Vatican’s Prime Minister.

One sign to watch for may be Bertone’s line on China. As a Salesian, he will have considerable sympathy for Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong, also a Salesian. Under John Paul, the diplomatic corps was frequently leery of Zen because of his outspoken challenges to Chinese authorities on religious liberty, at a time when improved relations with China is a top Vatican priority. Benedict’s appointment of Zen as a cardinal suggested a break with this atmosphere of caution, and Bertone’s appointment may well embolden Zen and the other critics of the Chinese authorities even further.

An interview with Bishop Trautmann:

What’s most important is the motivation to implement this translation. We have to convince priests and lay people that this is a superior text, giving them a deeper spirituality. I don’t think we’ll convince them that ‘consubstantial,’ for example, is better than ‘one in being,’ which has been used for 35 years. People say that England has been using it for all these years, but I think our priests are stretched too thin already.

We have to make the argument that these are better texts, more accurate texts. Liturgists need to coordinate efforts to explain that these are superior texts to those issued immediately after Vatican II, that they bring a new richness. For example, the linking of the liturgy to scripture, and the more exact details they offer. We have to communicate the theological principles. This is a whole new missal that comes from the Vatican, and calls for our response.

I don’t just want the Committee on Liturgy to be involved with this, but also the doctrine committee and the catechetical committee. We need a full court press to bring this new missal to our people.

We also need to work closely with the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, and other bodies. It has to be a total effort, and a collegial approach.

Won’t that ‘team approach’ be difficult, since many members of the bodies you just mentioned were opposed to this translation?
We have to dialogue with them, to engage them in conversation. We have to explain that the text has been amended. The collects and prefaces can still be amended. We are trying to reflect the concerns of the liturgical establishment. But the reality is, it’s here.

When the vote was taken on ‘consubstantial’ at the bishops’ meeting, we won, but it was close. That said to me, we have to use a different approach. We have to stress balance and reason. Liturgiam Authenticam is a reality, even if I prefer to come back to Sacrosanctum Concilium [the document of Vatican II on liturgy], which is the ultimate foundation. In the end, I think this text is in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium.

For the sake of our people, we have to band together to make this work.

Yup.