"Magnum Principium" (courtesy of Rorate Caeli)
  • APOSTOLIC LETTER

    ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO

    OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

    FRANCIS

    MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM


    BY WHICH CAN. 838 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS MODIFIED


    The great principle, established by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood, required the weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy and of preparing and approving the versions of the liturgical books, a charge that was entrusted to the Bishops.

    The Latin Church was aware of the attendant sacrifice involved in the partial loss of liturgical Latin, which had been in use throughout the world over the course of centuries. However it willingly opened the door so that these versions, as part of the rites themselves, might become the voice of the Church celebrating the divine mysteries along with the Latin language.

    At the same time, especially given the various clearly expressed views of the Council Fathers with regard to the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy, the Church was aware of the difficulties that might present themselves in this regard. On the one hand it was necessary to unite the good of the faithful of a given time and culture and their right to a conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations with the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. On the other hand the vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith.

    This was the aim of various Liturgical Laws, Instructions, Circular Letters, indications and confirmations of liturgical books in the various vernacular languages issued by the Apostolic See from the time of the Council which was true both before as well as after the laws established by the Code of Canon Law.

    The criteria indicated were and remain at the level of general guidelines and, as far as possible, must be followed by Liturgical Commissions as the most suitable instruments so that, across the great variety of languages, the liturgical community can arrive at an expressive style suitable and appropriate to the individual parts, maintaining integrity and accurate faithfulness especially in translating some texts of major importance in each liturgical book.

    Because the liturgical text is a ritual sign it is a means of oral communication. However, for the believers who celebrate the sacred rites the word is also a mystery. Indeed when words are uttered, in particular when the Sacred Scriptures are read, God speaks to us. In the Gospel Christ himself speaks to his people who respond either themselves or through the celebrant by prayer to the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

    The goal of the translation of liturgical texts and of biblical texts for the Liturgy of the Word is to announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. For this purpose it is necessary to communicate to a given people using its own language all that the Church intended to communicate to other people through the Latin language. While fidelity cannot always be judged by individual words but must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act and according to its literary genre, nevertheless some particular terms must also be considered in the context of the entire Catholic faith because each translation of texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.

    It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen between the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See in the course of this long passage of work. In order that the decisions of the Council about the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy can also be of value in the future a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See that exercises the task of promoting the Scared Liturgy, i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is absolutely necessary. For this reason, in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.

    Without doubt, attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful, nor must the right and duty of Episcopal Conferences be forgotten who, together with Episcopal Conferences from regions sharing the same language and with the Apostolic See, must ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text is fully and faithfully rendered and that even after adaptations the translated liturgical books always illuminate the unity of the Roman Rite.

    To make collaboration in this service to the faithful between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful, and having listened to the advice of the Commission of Bishops and Experts that I established, I order, with the authority entrusted to me, that the canonical discipline currently in force in can. 838 of the C.I.C. be made clearer so that, according to what is stated in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in articles 36 §§3.4, 40 and 63, and in the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, the competency of the Apostolic See surrounding the translation of liturgical books and the more radical adaptations established and approved by Episcopal Conferences be made clearer, among which can also be numbered eventual new texts to be inserted into these books.

    Therefore, in the future can. 838 will read as follows:

    Can. 838 - §1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

    §2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

    §3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

    §4. Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.

    Consequently this is how art. 64 §3 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus as well as other laws are to be interpreted, particularly those contained in the liturgical books concerning their revision. Likewise I order that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments modify its own “Regulations” on the basis of the new discipline and help the Episcopal Conferences to fulfil their task as well as working to promote ever more the liturgical life of the Latin Church.

    Everything that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio must be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if it be worthy of particular mention, and I hereby set forth and I dispose that it be promulgated by publication in the daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that it enter into force on 1 October 2017, and thereafter be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

    Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on 3 September of the year 2017, the fifth of my Pontificate

    FRANCISCUS P.P.
  • If this is the rumoured 'abandonment of Liturgiam Authenticam' then it seems to be in fact no major revolution. At first look, including the CDWDS commentary*, one effect will be to prevent what occured with the Missal last time, where someone made several thousand changes to the text after it was supposedly granted recognitio and signed off by the Pope, EDIT [there was a letter from an ICEL chairman condemning the process see here].
    [* full text now also posted at Rorate Coeli]
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    That's right. The pope has just given the right to episcopal conferences to translate and make their own adaptations to the Mass and sacraments. A big nothing burger; keep moving along. : )
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,138
    @JulieColl "If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it..."

    oh, if an episcopal conference mangles deforms the translation, and there are no priests to say it, or no people to hear it... Will it make a difference? Or perhaps as in France they are all either celebrating the TLM or N.O. Mass in Latin.

    Ah well if the Pope wishes to rearrange the deck chairs on the R.M.S. Titanic, good luck to him, the Iceberg is still waiting, and the ship carries on Full speed ahead. Meanwhile us Trads are already safely in the lifeboat 'Barque of Peter' and will be ready to pick up any survivors! I have friends in another lifeboat 'SSPX' and understand they are also ready to help with the rescue efforts.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,332
    " . . . us Trads are already safely in the lifeboat 'Barque of Peter' . . . "

    Hmmm
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    TomJaw, I'm sure lots of folks are starting to make contingency plans as the tempest intensifies.

    As Hurricane Annibale is upgraded to a Category 4, many are preparing to get out of Dodge.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • The episcopal Conferences have had this right and duty since VII. What has changed is that from now on adaptations require recognitio, which means consulting CDWDS who can propose changes, while translations require confirmatio which means CDWDS either approves what the bishops propose, or reject it. What CDWDS cannot now do is say they accept a translation and then make massive alterations by a process not disclosed to the bishops. What CDWDS did to the present translation was quite possibly contrary to Canon Law, but that is now clarified, they can't do it again.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    Certainly, a_f_hawkins, you don't mean to imply that Liturgiam Authenticam was contrary to Canon Law? Am I interpreting you correctly?

    Please forgive me if my translation of your comment is too literal and not dynamically equivalent (or is it the other way around?).
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    Just trying to figure this all out, but from what I can tell by looking at side-by-side comparisons of Canon 838 before and after it was tweaked, Magnum Principium removed the authority of the CDW to review translations and eliminates the need for episcopal conferences to obtain the approval of the CDW before publishing translations. In other words, the CDW is cut entirely out of the translation approval process.

    In addition, the episcopal conferences have been granted authority "to recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law."

    The Code of Canon Law on the Vatican website has still not been edited to reflect these changes.

    P.S. Not for nothing, but Pope Francis says in the first paragraph that "the great principle" of Vatican II regarding the liturgy was that "the liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood". He says this "great principle" REQUIRED the introduction of the vernacular language into the liturgical books.

    Really? Did Sacroscanctum Concilium REQUIRE that the Missale Romanum be translated into the vernacular?

    Just askin'.
  • I have no competence to judge the law, though I found LA unclear (in its English translation) and misguided*. Others have suggested that the procedure adopted by CDWDS was contrary to Canon Law. I do think that the procedure was unjust, because the bishops Conferences have responsibilities of supervision and they were not kept informed.
    *Given a choice between the translation principles enunciated by St Jerome, and those in LA I would go with Jerome.
    MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM doesn't take effect until Oct 1st, it says.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    Thanks for the clarification, but if it's alright for you to suggest that LA contradicts Vatican II and is "misguided", then is it okay for me to suggest that AL (Amoris Laetitia) contradicts Familiaris Consortio, and is similarly "misguided", and will similarly be scrapped within 16 years, or less?

    I'm not trying to be difficult, but what's good for the progressive goose is good for the traditionalist gander.
  • Old text of Canon 838 :
    §2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

    §3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.
    New text :

    §2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by Conferences of Bishops according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
    §3. It pertains to the Conferences of Bishops to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.
    Note the two references to the Apostolic See. This is NOT carte blanche for Conferences.
  • Julie,

    No, the Vatican Council did no such thing as require that the Missal be translated into the vernacular.

    Pope Francis has just laid the groundwork for the near canonization of H.E. Annibale Bugnini.

    The difference, since you mention progressives and traditionalists, is that one tries to see all aspects of the law and how they apply concretely and philosophically, while the other asks, "How can I get what I want out of this?"

    Thanked by 2JulieColl francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    GOOD BYE N.O.!

    Now it will completely decay into controversial and abusive existence and spun novelty
    ad nauseum once and for all.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • I'm ok with the suggestion that Amoris Laetitia is unclear. My view that the marital discipline of the Orthodox has something to teach us is not pertinent to this forum.
    While I have some 'progressive' views I am very strongly of the opinion that all liturgical texts should be rigourously scrutinised. Legem supplicandi lex statuat credendi
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    Thanks, a_f, for putting these up. It's very helpful, but don't you see how the CDW's power of review/reassessment/reappraisal/revision has been totally eliminated from the new norm:

    §2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

    §3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves


    Poof! It's gone, with the stroke of a pen.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    I'm sure you know, a_f, amice bone, that Pope Pius XII turned that maxim around:

    Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi.

    (Meant to give this one: "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi". Sorry about that. Both are in n. 48 in Mediator Dei.)

    (By the Orthodox view of marriage, are you referring to the "three strikes, and you're out" rule? I might be wrong, but I think AL moves past that.)

    P.S. I don't mean to refer to you as a progressive, it's just that the statement that LA contradicts Vatican II strikes me as avant-garde. Do carry on, though, this is a very fun conversation.
  • The power of revision of translations is gone, but NOT the power to withold approval. The power to revise 'adaptations' remains, I think that includes any texts that are not translations.
    Progress, to me, means building on the established structure, not pulling it down to start again.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    Let's cut to the heart of the matter. We're going back to the bad old days of the '70's and '80's and Rome rubber stamping "dynamically equivalent" translations.

    Try this passage from Magnum Principium:

    While fidelity cannot always be judged by individual words but must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act and according to its literary genre, nevertheless some particular terms must also be considered in the context of the entire Catholic faith because each translation of texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.


    Let's not forget that this whole question about adaptations in the liturgy---that sounds an awful lot like the Fourth Stage of Arbp. Bugnini's plan for "renewing" the sacred liturgy---in other words, inculturation.

    It's no secret that a certain percentage in the episcopate were against the more faithful translation of the Mass and wanted to keep the old ICEL "dynamically equivalent" translation.

    They told us that the Catholic people were too religiously illiterate to understand three-syllable words, and now it seems like they got their way, because we're headed back in the direction of textual banality and silliness.

    In the end, we should admit that Pope Francis and the new team running the Church are being faithful to the principles of Arbp. Bugnini as laid out in his massive autobiography. The Novus Ordo was not meant to be a fixed and permanent construct, but rather, was intended by its author to be sort of like liturgical Play-Do, something constantly evolving that could be adapted to suit the needs of local cultures within the context of service to ecumenism.

    I'm not putting a value judgment on that. That's what Arbp. Bugnini said, and Pope Francis is very consistent in following that vision. What they're saying is that it's time for more updating. If there's one constant about Arbp. Bugnini's "normative Mass", the Novus Ordo, it's that CHANGE and DIVERSITY within the service of inculturation and ecumenism are its guiding principles.

    For those who want that, hurray! For me, the only liturgical change/diversity I'm interested in is whether the processional at our EF Missa Cantata will be a beautiful baroque prelude, or whether we'll sing four verses of something from the Anglican Hymnal.

  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    play-doh
    play-NO

    This could lead to not only illicit Masses but the proliferation of invalid ones.

    This is the re-incarnation of Cranmer.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    Very true, Francis. The mind boggles at the prospect.
  • Francis, do you remember the thread about the Cranmertization of the Mass a few months ago?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    yea... was that something you started or me?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    uuugh... i just read that thread again... the roosters have arrived and are defac(at)ing [in] the sanctuary. I hope you all enjoy your "NUfound freeDumb" y'all!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,166
    Please keep the talk clean.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • I was more than happy to contribute to that thread. It makes for interesting reading sometimes.
  • Possible up-side to the new motu proprio:

    a year from retirement, the archbishop of [where I used to live] inadvertently increased attendance at the only TLM he allowed in his diocese, when he mandated that faithful Catholics would stand all the way through the Communion Rite.

    Perhaps it is His Holiness' intention to fill up the parishes where the TLM is said, and to increase vocations to the priesthood thereby?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    yea, that has been the talk I hear going around. as the spirit of VII comes to its last breathe, the pre conciliar church grows stronger by the day.
  • Well, standing for the Communion Rite is what IGMR suggests, it is entirely within the tradition of the Latin Church. Translation :
    43. The faithful should stand .... and from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren), before the Prayer over the Offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated here below.

    BUT it adds later in #43
    Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the Priest says, Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God), it is laudable for this practice to be retained.
    The US GIRM is of course different. On the other hand it is for the bishops Conference to determine, not an individual diocesan. ¿Did this mandate purport to apply only to the diocese or the whole province?
    NB pews are a Protestant innovation which we have adopted.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • A.F. Hawkins,

    You're mixing apples and cumquats. To say that standing at this point is "entirely within the tradition of the Latin Church", means that the folks who claim that kneeling is a medieval invention have some merit to their claim (which is, of course, utter nonsense.)

    Yes, I know that pews are a Protestant invention, but that fact didn't stop people in former times from kneeling. When pastors and bishops (now) order the removal of kneelers, it is because they wish to discourage kneeling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (or any other time, probably) and most emphatically not because they wish to maintain connection to the "tradition of the Latin Church".

  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    interesting comment from another site


    9 September 2017

    Putting the vitally important liturgical questions aside for a minute, the decentralisation that Father notes is a clear and present danger.

    I am a former Anglican. Having no central authority, our communion was ripped apart by rogue provinces (led by the Americans) which unilaterally changed liturgical norms, then discipline, and then doctrine. The weight of having one rich and powerful progressive province distorted the whole communion and pulled it in a revisionist direction until the tension grew too great and the communion was ripped apart.

    It is clear that the Germans wish to resume their role, assumed at the Council, of being the Church’s progressive pressure bloc. If they persist, other like-minded conferences, in Latin America particularly, will join them. The US church will be horribly divided. There may be international schism.

    Pope Francis is on record as saying that he may go down in history as the one who divided the church. Given his admiration for Luther, and the force of his policies, it appears that this is an ambition rather than an unfortunate corollary of his pontificate.

    We are seeing an unprecedented crisis in the life of the Church. When the guarantor of orthodoxy and unity becomes an agent of dubious opinion and division, the whole edifice of the Church Militant is put at risk.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl dad29
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,087
    the pre conciliar church grows stronger by the day.

    As stated, francis, this strains credulity, tho' your sentiment is understood well.
  • [self-deleted]
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    melo

    well, if one follows this sort of thing (as I do daily), one would be more aware of its credability. Straining credulity comes from hearsay. I rely on situational facts. I suggest one might venture to strain ones credulity a bit harder.

    However, straining ones credulity with greater effort will not necessarily unveil the obvious because those who have no interest in these things at heart will be hard pressed to find the facts because those who do have these matters at heart are still hard pressed to find the situations since they are somewhat hidden from public view.
  • Ted
    Posts: 139
    I fail to see this Motu Proprio as something bad for the Church. It is no secret that there has been considerable strife beween the Bishops' Conferences and the CDWDS when it came to translations, with a great distrust and dislike between them. To this day the German Conference has refused to amend its translations to be in line with the meaning of the Latin texts. The idea would seem to be that it is up to the Conferences to make their finished product, BUT which would need a conformatio from the CDWDS before it can be published. I doubt the latter will be a mere rubber stamp, and can withhold its conformatio should it find problems. In other words, it forces both to work together for a change, setting a more precise role for each. The ICEL is an example of this co-operation.

    Moreover I find this paragraph in the preamble of the Motu Proprio most interesting:
    "The Latin Church was aware of the attendant sacrifice involved in the partial loss of liturgical Latin, which had been in use throughout the world over the course of centuries. However it willingly opened the door so that these versions, as part of the rites themselves, might become the voice of the Church celebrating the divine mysteries along with the Latin language."

    Do not the phrases "partial loss" and "along with the Latin language" suggest that indeed Latin must be preserved in the new liturgy, just as SC and the Council of Trent maintained?
    Thanked by 2francis a_f_hawkins
  • Yes, last statement regarding the loss of Latin is correct. However, I don't believe Latin will used more frequently in the NO because of the Motu Proprio. I believe the contrary: the Motu Proprio confirms what bishops have already been doing: excluding Latin, contrary to the desire of V2 (which they claim to follow), for whatever reasons they deem appropriate.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl francis
  • I have a dream: Message from CDWDS to all English speaking Conferences (Oct 2 2017) - In accordance with Canon 838§2 as now revised, we now require you to submit for our approval or revision any text used at Mass which is not in the current Roman Missal, including any hymn or song substituted for the propers.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    I can't remember precisely how many hundreds of errors in the old ICEL translation received the "confirmatio" of the Holy See circa 1974. It wasn't tens of errors, but hundreds of errors, or more.

    There were hundreds of translation errors; there were texts added that never even existed in the Latin, and there were texts that existed in the Latin that were simply left out.

    All of that received the "confirmatio" of the Holy See.

    This was because there was a French document written by Annibale Bugnini (surprise! surprise!) called Comme Le Prevoit which stated that the texts could be rendered into the vernacular using the principle of "dynamic equivalence". That meant that the texts could essentially be inculturated according to the sensibilities, theological and otherwise, of each local culture.

    This is what we are headed back to. The whole reason Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI dismantled the liturgical party responsible for the ICEL translations based on Comme Le Prevoit is because they wanted accurate and faithful translations of the Latin texts and not the theological/cultural adaptations of the Latin texts given to us by ICEL under the guise of "dynamic equivalence".

    To signal the end of Comme Le Prevoit, the Holy See published the document Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, which basically said that the Church was headed back to faithful translations free from the ideological presuppositions of the translators.

    Back then the progressive party howled and screamed, and, as Ted helpfully reminded us, the Germans refused to come on board with LA.

    So, we have come full circle and are returning to the days of inculturation, dynamic equivalence, PLUS the glittering new prospect of "adaptations approved by Episcopal Conferences".

    In the words of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, we're back to an even more dazzling "liturgy by committe" model.

    To stay with Ratzinger, if you like the "banal, on-the-spot product" the experts "fabricated" for us last time, you're gonna LOVE what's coming down the pike.

    You have to remember: that's exactly what Arbp. Bugnini called for, because inculturation at the service of ecumenism is the Fourth Stage of the Arbp. Bugnini's reform/revolution.

    If, on the other hand, you're someone who believes (with the former Cardinal Ratzinger) that the "centuries-long process of organic development" in the Liturgy should not be "replaced" by "liturgy-by-committee", then the only option you may have will be to head to the EF.

    I think it's providential that the Holy See, in launching the final phase of Arbp. Bugnini's reform, has helped us all to realize the main difference between the two rites which was so brilliantly explained by the former Cardinal Ratzinger. This will help everyone to decide where they want to invest both their future and their resources, with all that means and entails:

    1) the OF-- a permanently evolving liturgy-by-committee now entering its final phase of what will be constant adaptation based on the needs of every local community in the world. The only constant about this will be the guiding principle of change and diversity, and that nothing is fixed and unchangeable.

    2) the EF--- a stable and essentially fixed liturgy based on the centuries-long process of organic development, i.e, slight, almost imperceptible changes happening very slowly across broad swathes of time.

    The new team has essentially put in place the principles and the people who will ensure that the much-hoped-for "liturgical reconciliation between the two rites" called for by Pope Benedict has vanished.

    Good people can disagree as to whether this development is good or bad, but it's pretty clear that the philosophical tracks of the two forms of the Roman rite are now going in totally divergent directions.

    In reality, Pope Francis is to be commended because he is, in a sense, far more faithful to the vision of Arbp. Bugnini than Pope Benedict was. Pope Benedict wanted to put the brakes on the skids of permanent change that Arbp. Bugnini built into the Novus Ordo, whereas Pope Francis has chosen to celebrate, elevate and fully implement what Arbp. Bugnini intended all along. How do we know this? We know this from Bugnini's own writings. He wasn't shy and timid and left us an autobiography about 5" thick so we could understand his plan.


    Thanked by 2francis WGS
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,420
    P.S. In other words, haven't we all said, "If only the Novus Ordo could be celebrated as it's meant to be celebrated"? But, the essential error in that statement is that there is no one way that the Novus Ordo is meant to be celebrated.

    Since the permanent principle of adaptation and inculturation is built into the Novus Ordo, it is essential to realize that any norms governing its celebration are only valid for a particular time and place, i.e., what is good for Poland may be bad for Germany, and neither one of these things may apply to Swaziland. Moreover, what is good or bad in a particular country is itself only temporary, as it is only one vote of that bishops' conference away from being modified or discarded.

    You cannot plan anything permanent around the Novus Ordo because the only permanence about it is that there is no permanence. The only fixed norm is that everything is changeable and adaptable according to the needs of hundreds of different cultures.

    To try to capture a still, or model, of the Novus Ordo and say, "THIS is what the Novus Ordo should be!" is simply taking your own preference and trying to impose it on others. According to Arbp. Bugnini, there is no model of the Novus Ordo that is the pre-eminent, perfect, ideal model.

    All the liberals who told us that we were imposing a Tridentine mindset on them by demanding a "conservative" celebration of the Novus Ordo were in fact, correct. According to their system, bongo drums and electric guitars are every bit as good as a Palestrina motet, and clowns on bicycles are just as valid and beautiful as Gregorian chant. Altar boys in cassock and surplice processing to the altar as the Introit is being sung are fine, but then, again, women gyrating up to the altar with pots of incense to the beat of sacred drums are also valid.

    In Arpb. Bugnini's liturgical theater, every model of the Novus Ordo is entitled to its own stage, as unity in diversity is the central theme. If you don't buy this, and you want stability, uniformity, permanence, absolutes, and something that endures, then, thankfully, you can choose the EF Latin Mass. Never has that reality been more clear than it is today.

  • Julie - Was it not rather, that the release of an interim vernacular version was thought urgent, and everybody involved knew that it would require revision. With the Church of England, they released a new liturgy (much less of an upheaval in their case) with an explicit time limit of 10 years, during which a new version could be thought through (in the event they extended the revision period to 20 years!). ICEL managed to put together a new version, of good quality, by 1993, which the bishops then took five years to agree often because they did not want to face the arguments which would then arise among the laity.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,435
    the power to withold approval


    You mean like for altar girls, right? Communion-in-the-hand, right? And the herds of "EXTRAordinary" ministers, right?

    Seriously: read Mgr Hayburn's "Papal Documents on the Liturgy" and you'll understand that the locals do whatever the heydiddle they want to do, whenever, and wherever. Hasn't changed yet, won't change ever.

    So in a way, this document simply confirms the practice.

    Yet the Church perseveres!
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,435
    considerable strife beween the Bishops' Conferences and the CDWDS when it came to translations, with a great distrust and dislike between them.


    So what? That certainly doesn't make the Conferences (which have VERY dubious 'authority' anyway) correct in their 'translations' nor in their 'rubrics.'

    Much as subsidiarity is to be admired, it is fatal to such things as doctrine, dogma, and, say, the formula of Consecration.
  • dad29 - you may think the authority of Conferences is dubious, but it is right there in Canon 838§3 'It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences ... ', among other places.
  • And the strife between CDWDS and ICEL delayed the (much needed) replacement of the original ICEL text by over 15 years.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    (purple) I propose a new consecration. May I submit my ideas to the local authority? (btw... this would be only for our diocese who may have a bishop who will easily buy in!) Better yet, I think we should start a thread here so we could ALL come up with THE BEST idea for a new consecration based upon what happened in the early church which is probably MORE AUTHENTIC to what we're using now.(/end the purple)

    (OPEN MASS) your preferred translation of consecration here (/THE END OF MASS ONCE AND FOR ALL) [illicit and invalid]

    (open choir loft) there is no longer a need, desire or place for sacred music (/close choir loft, sell organ, send any sacred music manuscripts to TLM parishes... please)

    (open the council of trent) let them be anathema (/close council of trent)
  • Not only are we going to base it off of the early Church, we are going to do it using primary sources that we "discovered" (read: fabricated. I'm looking at YOU, Jungmann!)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    don't forget Congers and Cranmer!
  • I'm hearing a lot of doom and gloom and patting oneself on the back in a kind of personal vindication against the OF on account of what appears to be a minor clarification to canon law. But of course, if that's your worldview and you're desperate to see the OF fail or fall apart or however you want to describe it, then you'll interpret everything to fit your hypothesis as a form of confirmation bias.

    As much as I hate the inanity that is allowed or at least tolerated in the OF and desire it's reform, I don't think it's productive to see the liturgy of the Church as an enemy. If you all despise the OF so much, why don't you just cordon yourselves off into EF land instead of spending so much time denigrating the form of the Mass in which so many people are attempting to enter into the Mystery or allow others to enter into that Mystery as best they can, not to mention gloating at every news piece that you can interpret to support your own feelings about the liturgy?

    To simply criticize or offer conjecture as to how the Church can move forward is one thing, but it's completely devolved into muckraking and gloating.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    Vilyanor

    We will FIGHT FOR THE FAITH UNTILL THE END, exposing error and falsehood as the Gospel AND the church calls us to do. If levity makes the point, use levity.

    No more happy gas for the congregation!

    I know... my purple hits hard.

    It's time for an intervention.

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

    o geez... that is 50 years old... O well... it's a good reminder.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,778
    what appears to be a minor clarification to canon law


    really?!

    it may APPEAR to be that to you... it don't APPEAR that way to me!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,086
    The OF isn't perfect, but neither was the TLM. Both have had human fingers messing with them. Yes, the OF could be celebrated better, but unless the law is laid down with penalties for infractions, too many will continue doing as they please. Seminary training is another area that needs to be brought under some control.

    So now we have two camps, OF where anything goes, and the TLM people who in some areas have devolved into cultic old ritualists intent on preserving their imagined ritual purity. The whole thing is crazy and illustrates to me that no one is in charge and the children are running the school.