"Magnum Principium" (courtesy of Rorate Caeli)
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    And the strife between CDWDS and ICEL delayed the (much needed) replacement of the original ICEL text by over 15 years.

    So what? You seem to be approving second-best for the sake of comity. Really?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    If I understand right, it seems to be a Jesuit pattern: to accept partial improvements where they may be obtained, for the sake of encouraging a positive direction. Following that rule, it would be correct to take whatever improvements the Germans can bring themselves to offer now, and hope for more down the road. They are affluent enough to replace their liturgical books every ten years, if they could be moved to make improvements that often.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • dad29: What is this second-best you refer to? I wanted the original ICEL version replaced ASAP, as I said. The 1993/8 version was prepared using the then existing guidelines on translation, and the translated orations are better expressed than those we now have, IMHO.
    I do see that there is a problem with the newly composed orations, which under the revised Canon 838 would fall under §2 rather than §3, and would therefor require a different process. The refusal of CDW to talk to ICEL caused that; ICEL would have abandoned them if when they asked whether they should continue they had ever received a reply (I was not there, but that is what ICEL staff say).
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    Well, you have your opinion, and CDW has its opinion. Of the two, CDW's prevails.

    We have no reason to take ICEL's word for anything, by the way. Those are people who were losing their rather exalted jobs, remember.
  • Pope Francis has his opinions (my emphases)
    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.
    And an action
    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.
    The pope's view prevails.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    A plague on all their houses.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,934
    Excerpts from a recent article by Steve Sojeck

    (Full article here: https://onepeterfive.com/new-motu-proprio-antithesis-authentic-liturgical-development/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Onepeterfive+(OnePeterFive))

    Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”.3

    Amores Laetitia 3

    He goes on to say...

    This is moral relativism, plain and simple…

    …Some are already speculating that the battle over “pro nobis” and “pro multis” in the words of the Consecration will come back with gusto, with individual conferences potentially allowing even more substantive changes to this most important prayer of the Mass — changes significant enough that the validity of the sacrament could be called into question. How naive must we be to hope that the damnable scourge of inclusive language won’t rear its ugly head after we thought it had breathed its last? It takes only a little imagination to envision just how unpleasant things might become…

    …But as my friend Hilary White has so often said, “The Church couldn’t have survived another ‘conservative’ pope.” Francis has woken people up, and they will never be able to sleep again. And once they began to evaluate why what he was doing was wrong, many began examining with a more critical eye all that has happened since the council that made the present moment possible…

    Steve Skojec

    Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, — a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven.
    – St. Basil the Great; Epistulae 242, 376 AD.

    Like I have said before, and I will say it again, ‘hold on to your horses... that is, unless you want to exchange them for the trojan variety."
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    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. (PP. Franciscus, Magnum Principium)

    Translation: the CDW better get with the new program. Faithful translation is out; dynamically equivalent, ideologically based translations are in, and nobody better get in the way of "adaptation" and "inculturation".
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    In other words, Pope John Paul worked hard to dismantle the liturgical cabal that created the first and second mutilated, dumbed down translations. He thoroughly restructured ICEL (1999-2001), published an Instruction on translations, Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, revised GIRM in 2002 and set up Vox Clara in 2002), a committee of English-speaking bishops to assist the Holy See in assuring “that the texts of the Roman Rite are accurately translated in accordance with the norms of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam” and are published “as quickly as possible”. cf. https://adoremus.org/1996/07/15/icels-translation-of-the-roman-canon/

    Quite significantly, Vox Clara made an estimated 10,000 changes to the ICEL's proposed text in 2008, and in 2011, the new translation was finally put into use with this thoughtful commentary by Pope Benedict:

    "Many will find it hard to adjust to unfamiliar texts after nearly forty years of continuous use of the previous translation. The change will need to be introduced with due sensitivity, and the opportunity for catechesis that it presents will need to be firmly grasped. I pray that in this way any risk of confusion or bewilderment will be averted, and the change will serve instead as a springboard for a renewal and a deepening of Eucharistic devotion all over the English-speaking world."

    However, a mere three years into his pontificate Pope Francis, early this year, set up his own commission to overturn the arduous work of his predecessors.

    In the period of a few months, there's been a massive shake up at the CDW, Canon Law has been amended, new powers delegated to the bishops' conferences, and the 2011 translations will no doubt soon be relegated to the ash heap of history, with rumors that a new "ecumenical Mass" is in the works.

    No wonder everyone's head is spinning.

  • To take a page from Oswald Spengler, Bergoglio has gone beyond "Singing a New Church Into Being". He's "Singing a New Church Into Becoming."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    My understanding that in one of his previous posts, one of his successors indicated it took 20 years to straighten up the mess he made. Take our pope, please - apologies to Henny Youngman.
  • Also, this may just be my naughty integralist ways peeking through again, but when I saw the Latin title of this Motu Proprio I almost thought it was listing its author - the Great Prince, Prince of this World, perhaps? < /slight tinge of purple >
    Thanked by 2CharlesW JulieColl
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,934
    a new "ecumenical Mass" is in the works
    It is the logical outcome of VII... one that, in Francis' words, "cannot be reversed."
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,934
    For those of you who need to strain your credulity some more:

    We cordially invite you to experience the Latin Mass:
    High Mass in the Extraordinary Form
    7:00pm Each Sunday
    SAINT VICTOR CHURCH (8634 Holloway Dr)
    West Hollywood, CA 90069

    The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is 100% in union with Rome, and was established in 1988 by Pope St. John Paul II.

  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    There is some good news here. ICEL is out of the picture.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    I wonder how Vox Clara is doing these days.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    To be happy that "ICEL is out of the picture" would be a fair comment about the ICEL of the 70s; but that organization practically doesn't exist any more. The reforms carried out under Pope St. John Paul II in 2002 changed practically everything about ICEL: its legal basis, its relationship to the bishops' conferences, its leadership, its translation principles. What does dad29 not like about the work of ICEL in recent years?
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • I point out again that ICEL were following the translation guidelines the Holy See (ie. the Consilium, secretary Annibale Bugnini) had promulgated. If the Holy See wished to change the guidelines, it would have been sensible to warn ICEL that they were wasting their effort, instead of refusing to talk to them. The translation principles enunciated by St Jerome produced the Vulgate which has served and guided the church, indeed formed, the church for 1500 years. That suggests to me that 'formal equivalence', which Jerome rejects, is not the way to go when producing modern vernacular translations.
  • ICEL is out of the picture
    ¿And we would be better off with 26 Conferences all with different translations?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    a_f_, your point that ICEL was dutifully following Arbp. Bugnini is not an argument in favor of the original ICEL, but, rather, an argument against Arbp. Bugnini and ICEL. They were both responsible for preparing the "dynamically equivalent" texts which were riddled with mistranslations, omissions, and additions which never appeared in the original Latin.

    They even mistranslated the words of Consecration.

    Arbp. Bugnini and the original ICEL were united in their work and carried it out with zeal. That's why Fr. Gelineau, SJ, a Council peritus and proponent of the Bugnini reforms had this to say:

    “To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed… [the former edifice]… appears to-day either as a ruin, or the partial substructure of a different building.”[13]

    So, to sum up, Arbp. Bugnini created a completely new structure with the Novus Ordo, and ICEL took that structure and modified it even further.

    Michael Davies tells us that so horrified was Arbp. Dwyer by the ICEL's 1974 translation that he wrote this scathing lament in the Natl. Catholic Register in 1975:

    The inept, puerile, semi-literate translation which has been foisted upon us by the ICEL—the International Committee for English in the Liturgy—a body of men possessed of all the worst characteristics of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, which has done an immeasurable disservice to the entire English-speaking Catholic world. The work has been marked by an almost complete lack of literary sense, a crass insensitivity to the poetry of the language and, even worse, by a most unscholarly freedom in the rendering of the texts, amounting at times, to actual misrepresentation.

    In a recent scathing article the redoubtable William F. Buckky, Jr., tells us he is practicing Yoga at Mass on Sundays, so as to "develop the power to tune out of everything I hear, while attempting . . . to commune with my Maker, and ask Him to forgive me my own sins, and implore Him, second, not to forgive the people who ruined the Mass." With which thorough un-Christian sentiment we are in noisy agreement.

    What can be done? Likely nothing, at least for the foreseeable time ahead. The ICEL rides high, immune to criticism, contemptuous of it, and the bishops of the English-speaking world seem in no way disposed to take action on the issue.
    Thanked by 1mmeladirectress
  • They were only obeying Orders. And while I would not be as scathing as Abp Dwyer, I am sure that all involved regarded 1974 as only a rushed interim translation. (What they wanted to replace it with is a smellier question)
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • rushed interim translation

    That's the problem right there: this overlying idea that "if it's wrong, we can always fix it."

    Dear translators: do us all a favor - translate it as if you'll never get a translate it ever again. I know it's not job security for you, but you'll save us all a lot of trouble.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    a_f_hawkins writes:
    ICEL were following the translation guidelines the Holy See (ie. the Consilium, secretary Annibale Bugnini) had promulgated.

    Again, this was the case in the 1970s; the 2010 Roman Missal and more recent work has been done according to Liturgiam authenticam, which replaced the Consilium/Bugnini guidelines.

    And ICEL's work on the new Roman Missal edition was not left alone by the Holy See; it was modified at hundreds of points by CDWDS, in ways that -- if I remember the discussions at the time -- were sometimes awkward. It's not even clear that the modifications were drafted by native English speakers. But I don't have examples to cite: that all happened several years ago. The current edition is not 100% ICEL's work, so I'd urge anyone to do some research before blaming anyone for specific passages you don't like.
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,351
    Meanwhile in Ireland...

    Only six Irish sign up for the priesthood – a 222-year-record low

    A mere six men will be starting the classes required to become a priest at the National Seminary at St. Patrick’s College Maynooth in County Kildare this fall – the lowest number in the seminary’s more than two centuries of existence.

    Fifteen men, the Irish Catholic reports, are currently undergoing preparatory work that will allow them to become seminarians in the fall of 2018.

    Maynooth, which opened in 1795, was once the largest seminary in the world with space for 500 men to train to become priests.

    Last year there were only 80 men undergoing the necessary studies at the seminary to become members of the clergy.

    The number is likely to have dipped even further...

    Oh, lets change the Translation, I sure that will work! All the new priests are going to love it (purple bold).
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    The canon-law interpretation is as follows:

    Paragraph two of the revised canon 838 concerns active review and evaluation of adaptations of the liturgy itself. The confirmation required by paragraph 3, on the other hand, concerns vernacular translations of the original Latin text of the liturgy. The change here, from the recognitio of the Holy See to the confirmatio, shifts evaluative authority away from the Holy See and onto the episcopal conference.

    Archbishop Roche explains that the confirmatio is “not to be considered an alternative intervention in the process of translation” but only “an authoritative act” by which the Holy See “ratifies the approval of the [episcopal conference].”

    In practical terms, it seems that all future translations of the liturgy will be carried out by local bishops’ conferences, who alone will be responsible for the “faithfulness” of the translation; the necessary approval of the Holy See will be an act of simple ratification and not provide an opportunity for specific changes or improvements.

    Rome’s future passive role in future translations is underscored in an accompanying, unsigned, explanatory note from the Congregation for Divine Worship, which observes that the confirmatio will be “ordinarily granted based on trust and confidence”. The same note points out that the new wording of canon 838 §3 is deliberately phrased so that it “cannot be equated to the discipline of canon 455” which governs how and when episcopal conferences can issues laws.

    See: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/09/12/what-no-ones-noticed-about-the-new-liturgy-rules/

    IOW, "Rome" is not a safeguard against Bishops' Conferences Gone Wild, just as most of us thought.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    For the benefit of A F Hawkins and a few others, today's news on the topic:

    ...the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship clarified that the rule that still governs the translations of liturgical texts is Liturgiam Authenticam, dated 2001.

    Well, it seems that Sarah's interpretation is not correct. Precisely the Pope wanted to offer to episcopal conferences the freedom of translation of liturgical texts, an extensive interpretation against which the cardinal warned in his letter.

    Last Monday Francis sent a letter to Cardinal Sarah in which he described the cardinal's comments as "inaccurate" ...

    See: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://infovaticana.com/2017/10/22/papa-desautoriza-al-cardenal-sarah-le-exige-difunda-rectificacion/

    In fact, then, Roman "authorization" is not necessary, according to the supreme legislator. That means we're back to the "I think altar girls are needed, so we'll just make it happen!!" and "It's time for the laity to grow up and feed themselves the Lamb of God, so we'll just make it happen!!" days. The 1960's have called, and gotten their Pope!
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins Jani
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,062
    This revision, as clarified, gives responsibility to the Bishops' Conferences, not to any individual bishop, archbishop, or cardinal. The Catholic Herald article above interprets Canon Law to mean that CDWDS will only have to accept if the Conference is unanimous, so no 'I think ... '.
    I will be happy if we return to the translation of the orations by ICEL in 1998, as approved by all English speaking Conferences. I think this:
    May these mysteries, O Lord,
    in which we have participated,
    profit us, we pray,
    for even now, as we walk amid passing things,
    you teach us by them
    to love the things of heaven
    and hold fast to what endures.
    is open to damaging misunderstanding, because of its clumsy syntax. While this:
    Lord our God,
    grant that in our journey through this passing world
    we may learn from these mysteries
    to cherish even now the things of heaven
    and to cling to the treasures that never pass away.
    says in much clearer terms what the Latin means. (Post-Communion Advent 1)
    However I would not be happy with reverting to the dumbed-down ICEL original, and I do not want further changes to the peoples' parts. It's the orations which are the problem, since we only hear them once a year, or so, they need to be comprehensible at one hearing. Just my views, from the pew.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    OK. I exaggerated slightly on the "I think..." And that particular oration is poorly constructed, but only the placement of "...by them" needs correcting.
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 387
    How much longer will Francis go on trying to tear down his predecessors' works and humiliate his orthodox prelates?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    I'm not so concerned with 'tearing down his predecessors' works' as I am with the Dancing With Heresy he encourages, not only in the marriage kerfuffle, but in the Luther stuff, the utterly vacuous (and erroneous) yapping about the death penalty....

    This is becoming serious.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • becoming serious...

    I just read this thread from day 1 through today. I am crying.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    Yah, well, remember "...I shall be with you for all time...." That's something that no Jesuit can obviate.

    Prayer helps.
  • yes I know. but what a great mystery it all is.
  • Between this, and hearing that one of the chaplains of our local TLM group - who was planning a Requiem Mass next week - has just been suspended indefinitely by the bishop, I'm really not the biggest fan of the Vatican II cheerleaders at the moment.
  • Not to be blunt, Stimson, but when were you even a small fan of the "Vatican II cheerleaders"?
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 255
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,351
    'if they hate you, remember they hated Me first... ' oh and we can "shake the dust from our shoes..."

    Another apt quote, 'never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake'. While they are wasting their time on a fruitless search for an ideal translation, we can be storing away treasures that the moth cannot corrupt...
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Fr. Zuhlsdorf does some close reading of the Pope's letter to Cdl. Sarah and disputes some claims made by opponents of the Cardinal:
    Thanked by 1PaxTecum
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks for this, Chonak.

    However, the plot thickens. On October 15, Cardinal Sarah tweeted "Cardinal Robert Sarah's Commentary on Magnum Principium:" and linked to a copy of his Commentary on scribd.com.


    The tweet remains on the Cardinal's Twitter page.

    Why did Cardinal Sarah identify the "Commentary" in question as his on his Twitter page if it was not really his, as Fr. Z claims Pope Francis states in his public letter to Cardinal Sarah?

    If the Commentary was actually written by Cardinal Sarah, why did the Pope claim it was wrongly attributed to the Cardinal?

    There are many more questions as well. In fact, there are so many questions about this bizarre exchange and so many possible implications that it's just a matter of time before this explodes like an atomic bomb.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    P.S. It's kind of ironic that Cardinal Sarah's attempt to give an orthodox interpretation of Magnum Principium had to be publicly and almost instantly corrected by the Pope. Could one say that Pope Francis violated his own principle that bishops and lesser ecclesiastical entities than the Vatican have the power to interpret without intervention by a higher authority?

    After all, one might say that in his commentary Cardinal Sarah used the principle of dynamic equivalence to convey the impression that Magnum Principium had not changed the status of Liturgicam Authenticam as the authoritative text for liturgical translations.

    The authoritative text concerning liturgical translations remains the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam (L.A.) of 28 March 2001. Thus, the faithful translations (“fideliter ”) carried out and approved by Episcopal Conferences must conform in every way to the norms of this Instruction. There is therefore no noticeable change regarding the imposed standards and the result which must follow from them for each liturgical book.

    In his public correction of Cardinal Sarah, however, Pope Francis confirms that Cardinal Sarah's interpretation of Magnum Principium is unfaithful to the text because his new document does indeed consign Liturgiam Authenticam to the ash heap of ecclesiastical history.

    “Magnum Principium does not sustain anymore that translations must conform in all points to the norms of Liturgicam Authenticam,” Francis wrote.

    In other words, Cardinal Sarah's translation of Magnum Principium failed to receive the papal recognitio, and there is indeed a "spirit of imposition" most evident in Pope Francis' reply.

    Has Cardinal Sarah's autonomy has been violated by this very public correction? Does the iron fist of Rome still exist to hammer down unapproved thoughts by lesser clerics? Decentralization is barely out of the box, and it has broken down.

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    If the Cardinal didn't actually write that document -- which appeared on a French magazine website and of which the Register's Ed Pentin posted an English version -- then is he the victim of an imposture intended to portray him as resisting or minimizing the effect of Magnum principium? Unfortunately, it isn't possible to view the French magazine L'Homme nouveau today, because the site is off-line.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Perhaps, but did someone hack Cardinal Sarah's Twitter page, too? In an Oct 15 tweet, Cardinal Sarah wrote "Cardinal Robert Sarah's Commentary on Magnum Principium" and gave a link to his commentary on scribd.com, which is apparently the same commentary he sent Pope Francis:


    The tweet has not been deleted.

    Here's Cardinal Sarah's commentary signed on October 1, 2017: "Humble contribution for a better and accurate understanding of the Motu Proprio Magnum Principium"

    (This is the same document Ed Pentin linked to. Edward Pentin uploaded this document to scribd.com.)

    IF Cardinal Sarah was not the victim of an imposture, and he actually did write the commentary, then was Pope Francis ordering Cardinal Sarah to lie and say he didn't write the commentary? One shudders to think this is the case. Something's very screwed up.

    P.S. The Pope's correction letter to Cardinal Sarah is dated Oct 15 (per Crux Mag), and Cardinal Sarah's tweet linking to his commentary is also dated October 15. Was that Cardinal Sarah's rebuttal to the Pope's correction letter? Was Cardinal Sarah in effect saying, "No, the commentary was not wrongly attributed to me. I wrote the commentary, and I will not disavow it."?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    I'm going to make a wild guess and say that the Cardinal probably doesn't post to Twitter or FB directly. Is it possible that his social-media representative was misled?

    If Father Z's reading of the situation is right, it would seem that the Cardinal sent the Pope a copy of the commentary in order to disavow having written it.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Without further proof, I think it's quite a stretch to think Cardinal Sarah's Twitter has been compromised. I was actually joking about that. : )

    It does appear that Cardinal Sarah tweeted and identified the Edward Pentin-uploaded commentary as his in response to the Pope's correction letter since the Cardinal's tweet is dated October 15 which is the same day as the Pope's public missive to Cardinal Sarah was issued.

    Fr. Z may be right, but one could also say that the Cardinal sent the Pope a copy of the commentary in order to confirm that he wrote it and wanted the pope to read it. Without seeing the Cardinal's letter, one doesn't know, but we do have his Tweet in which he identifies himself as the author of the commentary in question.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    One last thought: Per Fr. Z's translation of Pope's October 15 public correction letter: the Pope said, “Thanks for letting me know about this Commentaire, which you did not write and which some out there on the internet have incorrectly said that you wrote.”

    However, on the same day, October 15, Cardinal Sarah tweeted a link to the commentary and identified himself as its author: "Cardinal Robert Sarah's Commentary on Magnum Principium" which seems to confirm the reasonable notion that the cardinal sent a copy of his commentary to the pope to share his thoughts on Magnum Principium with the pope, and not, as Fr Z claims, to show the pope a fraudulent document that was wrongly attributed to him.

    If it's true that Cardinal Sarah sent the Pope the commentary to prove it was not written by him, why didn't the cardinal also immediately correct Edward Pentin and all the websites who originally published the commentary under his name instead of just sending the pope a private letter telling the pope he didn't write the commentary?

    The fact that Cardinal Sarah doubled down on his authorship the same day as the papal correction letter would lead one to surmise that either the pope was misinformed about the authorship of the commentary, or the pope is not telling the truth.

    If the pope was misinformed, a public clarification is in order.

    If, on the other hand, the pope deliberately allowed a false narrative to be disseminated publicly that Cardinal Sarah is NOT the author of the Commentary, then that is very troubling indeed. Hope this is not the case, but if it is, it might be a ruse to give Cardinal Sarah a way to distance himself from his Commentary, or may be a challenge to Cardinal Sarah to come out and publicly contradict the pope again.

    Whatever the case, Cardinal Sarah's tweet was probably the most dignified and humble way to stick to his guns and not disavow his commentary.

    My apologies for rambling on about this, but I'm just trying to unravel what happened.
    Thanked by 1Mary Ann
  • when were you even a small fan of the "Vatican II cheerleaders"?

    There was a time, Chris - after I converted, and before I discovered the Latin Mass was still a thing. Dropped my Bugnini pom-poms rather quickly after that.

    In all honesty, though, I had (and still do have) some respect for the approach to liturgy fostered by Ratzinger, Bouyer, Crouan, Kocik, and other like-minded priests. To a certain extent, that sort of latitude in the interpretation of V2 was being realized at my home (OF) parish, for which I am truly thankful. But the sort of cavalier crassness as demonstrated by prelates which I mentioned above - no thanks!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    I have given up trying to understand this pope. I hope the western church survives him. We easterners take popes with a larger grain of salt.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,934
    In the first year of Darius, the son of Assuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans:

    The first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by books the number of the years, concerning which the word of the Lord came to Jeremias, the prophet, that seventy years should be accomplished of the desolation of Jerusalem.

    And I set my face to the Lord, my God, to pray and make supplication with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.

    And I prayed to the Lord, my God, and I made my confession, and said: I beseech thee, O Lord God, great and terrible, who keepest the covenant, and mercy to them that love thee, and keep thy commandments.

    We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly, and have revolted: and we have gone aside from thy commandments, and thy judgments.

    We have not hearkened to thy servants, the prophets, that have spoken in thy name to our kings, to our princes, to our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

    To thee, O Lord, justice: but to us confusion of face, as at this day to the men of Juda, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, to them that are near, and to them that are far off, in all the countries whither thou hast driven them, for their iniquities, by which they have sinned against thee.

    O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, that have sinned.

    But to thee, the Lord our God, mercy and forgiveness, for we have departed from thee:

    And we have not hearkened to the voice of the Lord, our God, to walk in his law, which he set before us by his servants, the prophets.

    And all Israel have transgressed thy law, and have turned away from hearing thy voice, and the malediction, and the curse, which is written in the book of Moses, the servant of God, is fallen upon us, because we have sinned against him.

    And he hath confirmed his words which he spoke against us, and against our princes that judged us, that he would bring in upon us a great evil, such as never was under all the heaven, according to that which hath been done in Jerusalem.

    As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: and we entreated not thy face, O Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and think on thy truth.

    And the Lord hath watched upon the evil, and hath brought it upon us: the Lord, our God, is just in all his works which he hath done: for we have not hearkened to his voice.

    And now, O Lord, our God, who hast brought forth thy people out of the land of Egypt, with a strong hand, and hast made thee a name as at this day: we have sinned, we have committed iniquity,

    O Lord, against all thy justice: let thy wrath and thy indignation be turned away, I beseech thee, from thy city, Jerusalem, and from thy holy mountain. For by reason of our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem, and thy people, are a reproach to all that are round about us.

    Now, therefore, O our God, hear the supplication of thy servant, and his prayers: and shew thy face upon thy sanctuary, which is desolate, for thy own sake.

    Incline, O my God, thy ear, and hear: open thy eyes, and see our desolation, and the city upon which thy name is called: for it is not for our justifications that we present our prayers before thy face, but for the multitude of thy tender mercies.

    O Lord, hear: O Lord, be appeased: hearken, and do: delay not, for thy own sake, O my God: because thy name is invocated upon thy city, and upon thy people.

    Now while I was yet speaking, and praying, and confessing my sins, and the sins of my people of Israel, and presenting my supplications in the sight of my God, for the holy mountain of my God:

    As I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man, Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, flying swiftly, touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice.

    And he instructed me, and spoke to me, and said: O Daniel, I am now come forth to teach thee, and that thou mightest understand.

    From the beginning of thy prayers the word came forth: and I am come to shew it to thee, because thou art a man of desires: therefore, do thou mark the word, and understand the vision.

    Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the Saint of saints may be anointed.

    Know thou, therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ, the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls, in straitness of times.

    And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people, with their leader, that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation.

    And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

    Daniel 9
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Francis,

    Are you making a direct correlation:

    Book of Daniel "And a people, with their leader, that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary" ------ Destruction of Jerusalem in 72 AD----- election of Pope Francis