Archbishop Bugnini and the Novus Ordo Mass

[Brian_Crane]

ByzCath:

So let me get this straight. Archbishop Bugnini was so bad that he was sent away to head a Diocese in Iran.

So hypothetically, what does the Pope do with a bad Archbishop who is tremendously powerful and influential?

ByzCath:

So the Holy Father thought so much of the poor Catholics in Iran as to place someone he was trying to get rid of as their shepard?

Much nonsense, or are you saying that the Church hates the Catholics in areas where they are not the majority? I would think that these Catholics would need an even more capable shepard than those who live in predominately Christian nations.

What you must think of the Church and of your fellow Catholics in nations where they are the minority. So sad.

So let me get this straight. At the height of Bugnini’s power and influence he was sent to Iran … to share his gifts? to enhance his influence and power? I’m sorry, but I have a real hard time buying that, and I’m pretty certain Bugnini himself didn’t believe that. In Iran, he was out of the way and unable to influence anything. Neither do I see see how an “exile” of sorts would be proof of hatred of Iranian Catholics (all 50 of them). He was sent as papal representative. I’m not even sure if a person in such a position holds much responsibility at all. It is probably more ceremonial. At any rate, I doubt if the Iranian Catholics were much affected either way by his tenure there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brian Crane:

So hypothetically, what does the Pope do with a bad Archbishop who is tremendously powerful and influential?

Hmmm, why don’t you give Carinal Law a call and ask him or better yet how about I tell you. He is assigned to a largely ceremonial post that has no temporal power at all.

So let me get this straight. At the height of Bugnini’s power and influence he was sent to Iran … to share his gifts? to enhance his influence and power? I’m sorry, but I have a real hard time buying that, and I’m pretty certain Bugnini himself didn’t believe that. In Iran, he was out of the way and unable to influence anything. Neither do I see see how an “exile” of sorts would be proof of hatred of Iranian Catholics (all 50 of them). He was sent as papal representative. I’m not even sure if a person in such a position holds much responsibility at all. It is probably more ceremonial. At any rate, I doubt if the Iranian Catholics were much affected either way by his tenure there.

The position of a bishop, all of them, is service, not to enhance their influence and power. You are a bit off there.

I could have bought your rant here but you show your contempt for the Catholics in Iran with the “(all 50 of them)”.

So sad.

 

[Brian_Crane]

ByzCath:

Hmmm, why don’t you give Carinal Law a call and ask him or better yet how about I tell you. He is assigned to a largely ceremonial post that has no temporal power at all.

Exactly! You get it. So was Abp. Bugnini’s situation was all that much different?

ByzCath:

I could have bought your rant here but you show your contempt for the Catholics in Iran with the “(all 50 of them)”.
So sad.

You are incorrect my friend. Facts are facts, There are not many Catholics in Iran. In fact there are darn few. If Abp. Bugnini was in the good graces of Pope Paul at the time, the Pope would not send one of the most powerful and influential Bishops in the Church, the architect of the most major change in the Church since… who knows what, to a country with **VERY **few Catholics. He would not hide this prominent, shining light of the Church in a missionary country unless he wanted him out of the spotlight, out of his sphere of influence. Archbishop Bugnini himself understood what happened to him all too well. It is not the way things are done in the Vatican. I’m sorry if this makes you uneasy, but there you have it. Btw, my sister was a Catholic in Iran, for many years. My Catholic niece was born there so I don’t have any contempt for them whatsoever (not that I should have to explain myself against the erroneous conclusion to which you jump).

 

[rwoehmke]

fix:

I am no conspiracy nut, but one man can do much damage. Look at Judas.

Judas had a job to do. Jesus came to die for us and old Judas was part of the plan. If Jesus had not wanted or intended to die in the way he did, do you think it would have happened? Was he damned to hell for it? I don’t think there is an official teaching that says that.

 

[fix]

rwoehmke:

Judas had a job to do. Jesus came to die for us and old Judas was part of the plan. If Jesus had not wanted or intended to die in the way he did, do you think it would have happened? Was he damned to hell for it? I don’t think there is an official teaching that says that.

I am not following your position. My intent was to point out one man can cause many problems. It is a simple concept.

 

[romano]

fix:

I am not following your position. My intent was to point out one man can cause many problems. It is a simple concept.

Confucius said:

One family can ruin an entire nation..

 

[HagiaSophia]

EddieArent:

Of coarse Archbishop Bugnini was just the greatest ever. C’mon being sent over to Iran after all his “good work”? That’s a place where he ministered to millions of Catholics!

Archbishop Bugnini has been described by someone who knew him well as a total secular humanist but no Freemason. His appointment as nuncio to Iran was the result of something else entirely but all the bad PR prior to it didn’t help him any. He fell into the bad graces of Paul VI who posthaste dispatched him to Iran.

 

[usqueadmortem]

DavidJoseph:

I often hear Archbishop Annibale Bugnini brought up regarding the alleged “evil” of the Novus Ordo Mass. It’s rumored that he was a Freemason, and there are those who claim that because of that he served as the principal “architect” of the Novus Ordo Mass just so he could make the Mass into something less than Catholic. But even if the Freemason rumors are true, how can I explain to someone why that doesn’t make the Novus Ordo intrinsically bad?

Because according to the Dogma of Indefectability it is absolutely impossible for a Roman Pontiff to universally promulgate a rite that is harmful or sacriligious. The Latin edition of the Novus Ordo, by the dogma of indefectability, is free from heresy and valid. I refer you to Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma;the articles on the Church, its indefectability etc.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

Because according to the Dogma of Indefectability it is absolutely impossible for a Roman Pontiff to universally promulgate a rite that is harmful or sacriligious. The Latin edition of the Novus Ordo, by the dogma of indefectability, is free from heresy and valid. I refer you to Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma;the articles on the Church, its indefectability etc.

I would say that this goes to all translations as they are approved and promulgated by the Holy Father also.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

I would say that this goes to all translations as they are approved and promulgated by the Holy Father also.

Hey ByzCath,
I think we had this discussion before. The NO was never promulgated in the venacular. That would be an impossible task. There are too many tranlations, and promulgation is a very specific and solemn act of the Magisterium.
The translations were merely prepared by the Bishops confrences and rubber stamped by the CDWDS.
I have a NO Sacramentary right in front of me and Benno Card. Gut of the CDWDS clearly says that it belongs to the Bishops confrences to prepare translations, which are given approval by the CDWDS, not the Pope.
If Paul VI had promulgated in say English, the English would enjoy Indefectability, but it was not. But he would never promulgate in multiple languages.
There is a typical edition of documents put foward by the Holy Father, and the typical edition of the NO is the Latin, which enjoys the promise of Indefectibility.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I disagree with this statement.

usqueadmortem:

I have a NO Sacramentary right in front of me and Benno Card. Gut of the CDWDS clearly says that it belongs to the Bishops confrences to prepare translations, which are given approval by the CDWDS, not the Pope.

As without the Pope the CDWDS has no authority or power. It acts on behalf of the Pope.

As translations are approved by the local conference of bishops and then by the Vatican I would say that they are protected as they are an act of the Magisterium.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

I disagree with this statement.

As without the Pope the CDWDS has no authority or power. It acts on behalf of the Pope.

As translations are approved by the local conference of bishops and then by the Vatican I would say that they are protected as they are an act of the Magisterium.

But by this logic, everything every Congregation does is infallible. You are backing yourself into a corner, and are going to have a hard time fighting your way out of it. Indefectibility is a very specific charism limited to certain acts of the Pontiff (and collectively all the bishops in union with the Pontiff). Promulgation of a universal rite, such as the Latin NO, enjoys indefectability. Promulgation is something very different from approval by a Vatican Congregation. And authority does not equal indefectability.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

But by this logic, everything every Congregation does is infallible.

I am only dealing with this sentence becuase the rest comes from this faulty premise.

To be without error is not infallibility.

What I mean by without error is that it does not teach anything against the Church, is not sacrilegious, blasphemous, or invalid in anyway.

Also, the Holy Father does not speak infallibly whenever he speaks.

All of the Congregations work by the power of the Holy Father, they have no authority aside from him.

I would like to add that all Missals contain a Nihil Obstat and Imprimature. These are offical declarations of the Church that the work is free from doctrinal or moral error.

What you seem to be saying here is that only the Latin is free from error that the Mass done in any other language can have error within it. I do not accept that as those translations have the approval of the Magistirum of the Church.

 

[usqueadmortem]

Hey.
No, what I was saying is that only certain specific acts of the Pontiff enjoy the charism of indefectability. And promulgation is one of them. The Novus Ordo is protected from heresy because it was promulgated, but only in latin. While acts of the CDWS participate in the authority of the Pontiff, they do not necessarily participate in indefectability.

ByzCath:

I am only dealing with this sentence becuase the rest comes from this faulty premise.

To be without error is not infallibility.

What I mean by without error is that it does not teach anything against the Church, is not sacrilegious, blasphemous, or invalid in anyway.

Also, the Holy Father does not speak infallibly whenever he speaks.

All of the Congregations work by the power of the Holy Father, they have no authority aside from him.

I would like to add that all Missals contain a Nihil Obstat and Imprimature. These are offical declarations of the Church that the work is free from doctrinal or moral error.

What you seem to be saying here is that only the Latin is free from error that the Mass done in any other language can have error within it. I do not accept that as those translations have the approval of the Magistirum of the Church.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

To be without error is not infallibility.

Ok, then what is it?
If I say 2+2=4. That is infallible. Why? Because it is without error.

What I mean by without error is that it does not teach anything against the Church, is not sacrilegious, blasphemous, or invalid in anyway.

I’d say that this is an example of indefectible against heretical, but not infallible.

I would like to add that all Missals contain a Nihil Obstat and Imprimature. These are offical declarations of the Church that the work is free from doctrinal or moral error.

That used to be the case. Today, it is a risky proposition. The declaration is usually by 1 ot 2 people authorized to issue such. Infallibilty does not reside in such.

What you seem to be saying here is that only the Latin is free from error that the Mass done in any other language can have error within it. I do not accept that as those translations have the approval of the Magistirum of the Church.

What is certain is that the Eng. translation varies in substance from the Latin. Whether that creates a theological defect will be debated adinfinitum. To me it sucks, to another it may be heaven-sent.

The NOM was designed to accommodate ecumenism by the admission of its designer. The Eng. translation was made to further advance that ecumenism.
If one does not agree with this application of ecumenism, they can attend a TLM. If one agrees with it, then the NOM is just hunky dory in any translation.

I personally believe that anyone, Pope on down, who promotes the modern mode of ecumenism is sadly misled. If ecumenism is not oriented to conversion, then it is a thin disguise for indifferentism.

 

[Steve_Green]

Good points TNT !!!

 

[otm]

People who get themselves worked up about the Pauline rite and Bugnini display a remarkably narrow vision of what the Mass is about, show little or no historical knowledge of the Mass, have a version of sacramental theology that borders on magic, and ignore the fact that the Roman rite of the Catholic Church is not the sum and substance of the Catholic Church, but a part of it.

Other than that, they are doing just fine. Never mind that the ice on which they skate - that of the SSPxers and their ilk - has melted, and they are trying to skate on water.

Next we’ll be hearing about the Illuminati… :banghead:

 

[chevalier]

Nuncio could be a banishment kind of post, but diocesan bishop? Well…

 

[TNT]

otm:

Next we’ll be hearing about the Illuminati… :banghead:

The New Mysteries of the Rosary are discussed on another thread.

 

[usqueadmortem]

otm:

People who get themselves worked up about the Pauline rite and Bugnini display a remarkably narrow vision of what the Mass is about, show little or no historical knowledge of the Mass, have a version of sacramental theology that borders on magic, and ignore the fact that the Roman rite of the Catholic Church is not the sum and substance of the Catholic Church, but a part of it.

Other than that, they are doing just fine. Never mind that the ice on which they skate - that of the SSPxers and their ilk - has melted, and they are trying to skate on water.

Next we’ll be hearing about the Illuminati… :banghead:

Let me ask you, have you ever read Bugnini’s memoirs?