"Magnum Principium" (courtesy of Rorate Caeli)
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Francis, I understand the sentiment, but somehow I suspect we are in antepenultimate or penultimate times and not experiencing the ultimum tempus. Hopefully, this phase is a mid-course correction, and the world will continue to spin merrily along after a few adjustments.

    eft94530, thanks for the Catholic Herald article. It also states that the Pope's letter "noted that most of the websites “erroneously” cited Cardinal Sarah as the author of the commentary. "

    Totally, totally bizarre. If this were true, why did Cardinal Sarah tweet on Oct 15 (the same day the pope's letter of correction was issued) and confirm that he was the author of the commentary?

    Would Edward Pentin, a highly respected journalist, who uploaded the English translation of the commentary on scribd.com, really have made such an amateur and colossal mistake and not verify Cardinal Sarah as the true author of the commentary? If it was an error, wouldn't he have immediately clarified it after the pope's correction was issued--- and the other websites, too? To my knowledge, no one has acknowledged that the original postings were in error.

    If Cardinal Sarah wasn't the author of the commentary, wouldn't he have immediately issued a public correction when he found out?

    Last thing: if Pope Francis is wrong and told the entire world that Cardinal Sarah didn't really write the commentary, wouldn't someone have corrected him so that the Vatican could instantly clarify that the pope's public letter was incorrect?

    Many more questions could be asked, but I will forbear. Let's just say I'm highly suspicious that this was not an accident, or that the pope was misinformed.

    Hey, the thought occurs: could it be that the pope's letter of correction was erroneously attributed to the pope? Anything is possible.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,367
    I think Vladimir Putin is responsible for the hacking of Cardinal Sarah's Twitter account, but that information probably will not be leaked from US intelligence agencies to the New York Times until six months from now.

    Until that happens, it may be best for everyone to breathe slowly, drink lots of green tea, and memorize the score of Igor Stravinsky's Threni.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Lifting my glass of kombucha now in salute to the wiliness and omnipresence of Uncle Vlad and then I will play the adagio of Rachmaninoff's Piano concerto 2. Viva Vlad!
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    Let's focus on the issue, folks. The Pope told the Cardinal that going forward, Bishops' Conferences will have the final say on translations of the Mass (et al). That's exactly what some of us understood from the get-go on issuance of the document.

    We were told that we were deplorables for that, but oh, well, we were correct.
    Thanked by 1ronkrisman
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,367
    @dad29, while what you write is true, unfortunately it doesn't have the "pop" that a good conspiracy theory that depicts Pope Francis as the deplorable one does.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    As you can see in the first two pages of this thread, the translation issues in Magnum Principium have been discussed at great length. As Dad29 points out, some already realized some time ago that the latest papal document merely resumed the original Bugnini Plan after it was temporarily derailed by Liturgicam Authenticam and Vox Clara.

    It's not a conspiracy theory to wonder aloud why the pope seems to be spreading falsehoods about the prefect of the CDW. You may think this is a nothing burger, but I believe it's important to find out more about this papal misstatement and why it has not been corrected.

    It is a great injustice to Cardinal Sarah that this untruth about the authorship of his commentary was proclaimed to the world by the pope and has been allowed to persist.

    I'm not accusing the pope of malfeasance or malevolence in any way, but he made an erroneous statement that is demeaning to the Cardinal, and it should be corrected immediately.

    How is it a conspiracy theory to ask questions about this disturbing incident?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    .
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,576
    What this rollout needs is a google spreadsheet with a few columns

    URL_timestamp [i.e. year_month_day_hour_min]
    URL_link [twitter, doc, article, blog, etc]
    Comments

    Sorted by timestamp, oldest to newest,
    it might suggest which items are source
    and from which sources the various data bits were copied.

    Go for it !

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y0ng-vnOvpRPKl8vwKlWsm5WSJh1imE7Mv1mPcpgyMQ/edit?usp=sharing
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,367
    As Dad29 points out, some already realized some time ago that the latest papal document merely resumed the original Bugnini Plan after it was temporarily derailed by Liturgicam Authenticam and Vox Clara.

    I don't see Dad29 saying that at all. And I certainly do not see Magnum Principium as doing that. Rather, it seems to me that Pope Francis is saying that the Church should return to what Sacrosanctum Concilium says about the authority of territorial episcopal conferences to approve vernacular translations. That directive of SC was not "derailed by Liturgicam Authenticam and Vox Clara." If anything, the "derailing" occurred about one year after SC was promulgated.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    the "derailing" occurred about one year after SC was promulgated.


    By Bugnini & Co.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Hello, Father. Although we don't agree on much, I certainly admire your attempts to defend what is going on. I would respectfully disagree with you on both narrow and broad grounds.

    If the Pope was simply trying to give more power to the bishops' conferences while keeping in place the principles of LA--the principles enunciated by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI-- he could have easily done that, but notice what the papal letter of correction to Cardinal Sarah said.

    The Holy Father could not be more clear in stating that we are moving away from the principles of LA (he actually said the principles of LA have been abrogated) in favor of three new principles of translation.

    The pope gives a nod in the direction of LA by saying the first principle of translation has to do with paying attention to the original text. However, the pope begins his pivot away from LA in the second principle which has to do with the particular language being translated into, and completely moves away from LA in the third principle which has to with the comprehension of the text by the recipients.

    So, in reality and in practice, the pope is abrogating LAand is taking us back to the principles enunciated by Arbp Bugnini himself in the document Comme Le Prevoit, which started all the translations trouble over 40 years ago.

    Finally, in broad terms, it is no secret that, as Raymond Arroyo said, we are moving back to the liturgy wars with Pope Francis taking up the banner of Arbp Bugnini with the Ratzingerians who never had much use for the work of Arbp Bugnini on the other side.

    As Pope Benedict XVI said, the work of the Liturgical Movement which culminated in SC, was in fact hijacked. This hijacking, it can be argued, was done by Arbp Bugnini whose work represented "a break in the centuries-long process of liturgical development" which was replaced by "liturgy-by-committee".

    Like it or not, we are headed back to "liturgy-by-committee" and all the "banal, on-the-spot products" that flow from that paradigm.

    P.S. Speaking of the Liturgical Movement, the cause of Fr. Romano Guardini will be opened in December.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    This hijacking, it can be argued, was done by Arbp Bugnini whose work represented "a break in the centuries-long process of liturgical development"


    That's proven. Dom Reid wrote the book, with lots of citations from memoirs of the participants such as Fr. Bouyer. While Paul VI was no friend of the EF, he was also deceived, repeatedly, by 'Bugsy' Bugnini.
  • Could we have a show of hands of anyone who actually likes Bugnini?
  • About the implementing of Sacrosanctum Concilium.....

    Bugnini plays a game of bait and switch.

    He says that of course, Latin must be preserved, but, he continues, this preservation idea is over-ridden by the need for the people to understand the liturgy, since the addressee (I kid you not) should understand what is being said to it.

    He says that the treasury of sacred music must, of course, be preserved for use in Masses in Latin, and that there is no justification for the use of Latin in Mass, ever, for any reason..... so the treasury of sacred music is unsuited to the demands of Modern Man and the principles of the reformed liturgy.

    The Mass is made up of elements which are unchangeable and those which can and have been adapted at various times.... but everything must be changed to meet the expectations of modern man so,...... nothing may be held back from being changed.

    Reading Bugnini's book has been much like reading sections of AL.

    Just for fun, I wonder what would happen if we translated every utterance of His Holiness, Pope Francis, using the principles of Comme le prevoit.. Might he sound like Thomas Aquinas?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    sections of AL.


    Or Through the Looking Glass. IIRC, Solzhenitsyn had things to say about people with the Bugsy Bugnini mentality.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Just for fun, I wonder what would happen if we translated every utterance of His Holiness, Pope Francis, using the principles of Comme le prevoit.. Might he sound like Thomas Aquinas?


    HA! The irony of it all. Actually, wasn't Cardinal Sarah merely using the "great principle" of Magnum Principium to interpret Magnum Principium? Wasn't Magnum Principium about giving freedom to lower clerical entities to interpret texts?

    One could argue that Card. Sarah was offering a dynamically equivalent reading of Magnum Principium. Rather hilarious that Cardinal Sarah's free interpretation of the document that mandates decentralization was promptly stomped upon and power grabbed back in a hurry.
  • Julie,

    Surely the timing of this is fortuitous, coming so close to the 5th centenary of the argument for personal interpretation of Holy Writ?
    Thanked by 2JulieColl eft94530
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Personal interpretation and textual freedom! Oo-rah.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,576
    Could we have a show of hands of anyone who actually likes Bugnini?

    Hand up.
    I like Bugnini.
    In fact I love him.
    I love him to buy me a beer.

    Yeah that was purple. Purple bold.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,940
    where is the bug buried?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Arbp. Bugnini's extensive history of the Church in Iran is fascinating and offers a unique perspective on the rich and diverse history of Iran where, up until recent times, Catholicism and Christianity were allowed to flourish under the Iranian monarchy.

    I'm not fond at all of Bugnini's liturgical mindset, but I do admire greatly how he threw himself into the study of Iranian culture and history and produced such a valuable work and how he sought to make peace and further dialogue with all factions. He may not have been my cup of tea as a liturgist, but I'll bet I would have liked him as a statesman and diplomat, and I'm sure he would think it's abominable how it's been US policy for decades to treat ancient Middle Eastern societies with such high-handed arrogance, ignorance and cruelty.

    Our insatiable quest for military domination in the Middle East has resulted in unspeakable atrocities and devastation, and our recent "liberation" of Raqqa is a poignant example of what the American Empire leaves in its wake.

    I have no doubt Arbp Bugnini would be appalled at the way the West continues its narrow-minded demonization of Iran, which is next on the list for regime change, and perhaps prayers for his intercession for a peaceful resolution to the current Iranian crisis would not be amiss.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • Arbp. Bugnini's extensive history of the Church in Iran


    Title, please? Also, does he refer to himself in the third person throughout this book as well?

    he sought to make peace and further dialogue with all factions.


    Yeah, but Reagan got the hostages out! 'MURCA!

  • Liam
    Posts: 4,608
    Reagan didn't "get" the hostages out, of course. He did get to announce they were out during his inaugural luncheon.

    I still remember seeing Marine One coming and going from the White House the day before in the last day of negotiations of the Carter Administration.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    It's called La Chiesa in Iran (The Church in Iran).

    Here's a great review: http://jaas.org/edocs/v12n2/review.pdf Don't know if it's in English.

    Reagan actually didn't do anything to get them out; they were released as a way to pay back Carter probably for the support he gave to the Shah and for the rescue mission he attempted.
  • >> Reagan actually didn't do anything to get them out; they were released as a way to pay back Carter probably for the support he gave to the Shah and for the rescue mission he attempted.

    my goodness don't tell Herb Cohen that! he worked very hard on that deal.

    I think we can now pronounce this thread officially off topic.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,677

    Reagan actually didn't do anything to get them out; they were released as a way to pay back Carter probably for the support he gave to the Shah and for the rescue mission he attempted.


    I question this. The Islamic revolutionaries hated the Shah and wouldn't have done anything favorable because of him. Carter was weak in dealing with Iran post-revolution. Some would say Carter actually undermined the Shah and created some of the problems. I remember at the time that the Iranians never feared Carter but were apprehensive as to what Reagan might do. At any rate, "On January 21, 1981, just a few hours after Ronald Reagan delivered his inaugural address, the remaining hostages were released. They had been in captivity for 444 days." So speaketh St. Wiki, source of all holy knowledge - purple, purple. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    Ehhh....mmmmm....so long as Iran provides support of Muslim terrorists, the US should treat them accordingly. I'm not a fan of those who kill Christians--or Jews--because they don't like their religion, either.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Of course the US should call out countries for supporting Muslim terrorists. Too bad that would include primarily sanctioning ourselves because we helped create and fund the Islamic State. Here's the document that proves US provided support to Al Qaeda, Salfists and Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq and backed the Syrian opposition from the get-go.


    BTW, speaking now of radicalization of the ecclesiastical kind, Sandro Magister had this to say about the Pope's letter to Cardinal Sarah which chastised the cardinal for his false interpretation of Magnum Principium:

    "Pope Francis is devolving liturgical adaptations and translations to the national churches, turning the Church into a "federation of national churches endowed with extensive autonomy, 'including genuine doctrinal authority.'"
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    Julie, your document is nice, but you may recall that AlQ was active LONG before the Obama-ites funded them in Syria. 9/11 followed Clinton's terms, remember?

    Also recall that Obama's interests and those of the US were not often aligned, and one of the results of that was Obama's funding of ISIS (et al) in Syria.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Obama's interests in creating ISIS may not have been aligned with everyone in the US, but many Congressional leaders, the State Dept, the DOD, and the CIA definitely helped fund and aid Obama's ISIS buddies. The US government is at war with itself, and that no doubt includes the armed services since there are many suspected cases of sabotage from the inside with incidents in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and, most recently, Niger.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,677
    The US government is at war with itself...


    Sounds a lot like the church, doesn't it?
    Thanked by 2JulieColl Vilyanor
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    An interesting time to be alive, and I'm watching with great interest the emergence of Cardinal Muller on the public scene who's obviously not going along with the Vatican interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

    Furthermore, he's written a book regarding the impossibility of women priests and women deacons. I think it's fair to assume we'll be hearing more from Cardinal Muller in the future, and, given his theological competence and training, he could emerge as a significant spokesman against what Cardinal Brandmuller suggested is the "heresy" of having a second liasion when one's original spouse is still alive.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    many Congressional leaders, the State Dept, the DOD, and the CIA definitely helped fund and aid Obama's ISIS buddies


    When the trumpet-call is feeble, the troops work in scattered and contradictory ways. Since JFK died, no President has commanded foreign policy well--if at all. Thus, the grifters, camp-followers, and (minor) traitors. Bush still does not understand the threat that Islam represents, and likely never will.