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.

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!

@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.

.

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.

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.

Could we have a show of hands of anyone who actually likes Bugnini?

sections of AL.

Or Through the Looking Glass. IIRC, Solzhenitsyn had things to say about people with the Bugsy Bugnini mentality.

Julie,

Surely the timing of this is fortuitous, coming so close to the 5th centenary of the argument for personal interpretation of Holy Writ?

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.

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=27128935

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!

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.

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

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.'"

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.

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.