Bugnini: Not all bad?

[Eric_Olsen]

I think he went over board with “reform”. It was in 1972 that the pope reeled him in when he proposed to totally butcher the rosary.

christianorder.com/features/features_2003/features_may03.html

Thank God the pope came to his senses and said no to this.

Love him or hate him Annibale Bugnini was certainly an interesting character. My opinion of the man tends to run pretty negative. But, I just read something that shows that he was capable of generosity and compassion when it came to the Old Rite - at least to St. Josemaria Escriva.

The present Opus Dei prelate Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez said that Escrivá strove to follow whatever was indicated by the competent authority regarding the celebration of Mass. When the new rites were adapted by the Catholic Church after Vatican II, Echevarria said that Escrivá “accepted the reform with serenity and obedience.” Since his prayer was much integrated with the liturgy for the past 40 years, Escrivá found the shift difficult and asked Echevarria to coach him in celebrating the new rites. Although he missed the practices of the old rites, especially some gestures such as the kiss on the paten which showed love, he prohibited his followers to ask for any dispensation for him “out of a spirit of obedience to ecclesiastical norms.” “He has decided to show his love for the liturgy through the new rite,” commented Echevarria. However, when Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, Secretary of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, found out about Escrivá’s difficulties, he granted Escrivá the possibility of celebrating the Mass using the old rite. Escrivá celebrated this rite only in private.

Source: Wikipedia article on Saint Josemaria Escriva (Emphasis Mine)

James

 

[Auntie_M]

Isn’t it a bit odd that all these “anti” modern articles, and the “pope bashing” articles come from the same source.

The Remnant Magazine, The Regina Coeli Report, The SSPX magazine, Catholic World News.

One magazine just writes what the other magazine writes. This way their “message” gets to more people. One doesn’t know that they are all run by the same group.

Be wary of what you read. KNOW your source. Alot of Propanganda is out there and most stem from the same sources.

And as far as Wiki…Information can be CHANGED…(it’s edited and re- edited all the time)

What DO you want to believe. Would you really rather believe an article from these “sources” or believe what is real…

A “wolf in sheep’s clothing”

 

[PrayforMallory]

Isn’t it a bit odd that all these “anti” modern articles, and the “pope bashing” articles come from the same source.

The Remnant Magazine, The Regina Coeli Report, The SSPX magazine, Catholic World News.

One magazine just writes what the other magazine writes. This way their “message” gets to more people. One doesn’t know that they are all run by the same group.

Be wary of what you read. KNOW your source. Alot of Propanganda is out there and most stem from the same sources.

And as far as Wiki…Information can be CHANGED…(it’s edited and re- edited all the time)

What DO you want to believe. Would you really rather believe an article from these “sources” or believe what is real…

A “wolf in sheep’s clothing”

You’re right, but also some of Bugnini’s own writings kinda give credence to the idea that he held a lot of destructive views, in my opinion.

 

[James_Miller]

I fear my intrepretation would be less generous. I was living in Pamplona Spain in 1971 when Msgr Bugnini gave his permission to the founder of Opus Dei “to celebrate Mass anyway he wants”. So he always celebrated in private with one priest of Opus Dei making the responses of altar server.
Was it not a clever move to put at peace and silence the opposition of the influencial founder of Opus Dei?

 

[japhy]

I can’t read Italian, unfortunately, so the original doesn’t tell me anything.

Here’s what I have gleaned. Bugnini was talking (in the L’O.R. article) about the changes being made to the Good Friday orations. Prayer #7, for non-Catholic Christians, was changed in the Latin, and rendered like so in Italian:
“Preghiamo per tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo: – o Signore Dio nostro, concede che essi, – seguendo la verità, – siano riuniti e custoditi nell’unica tua Chiesa. – O Dio onnipotente ed eterno…”
Which is, roughly, “We pray for all our brothers who believe in Christ: O Lord our God, grant that – following the truth – they may be reunited and guarded in your one Church. All-powerful and everlasting God…”

After this, he says:
Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur della settima orazione? E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
Which means roughly: “How can we not mourn, for example, that ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur of the seventh oration? However, the love of souls and desire to in any case to facilitate the way of union for our separated brothers, removing any stone that could cause stumbling or uneasiness of reason, has induced the Church to the point of these painful sacrifices.” He also points out that the prayer is no longer “For the Unity of the Church” (since the Church is always one) but “For the Unity of Christians”.

So the “translation” that gets bandied about is a very liberal one (ironically!).

What’s sad, though, is that the Italian (and English, of course) versions of the body of the new prayer for the unity of Christians aren’t quite literal translations of the Latin. Here’s my translation of the Latin: "Almighty and everlasting God, who unites the dispersed and protects the united, ad gregrem Filii tui placatus intende = “give your attention to the reconciling of your Son’s flock”?], that, they who one baptism has sanctified, may be joined in soundness of faith and united by the bond of charity.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Here’s what I have gleaned. Bugnini was talking (in the L’O.R. article) about the changes being made to the Good Friday orations. Prayer #7, for non-Catholic Christians, was changed in the Latin, and rendered like so in Italian:
“Preghiamo per tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo: – o Signore Dio nostro, concede che essi, – seguendo la verità, – siano riuniti e custoditi nell’unica tua Chiesa. – O Dio onnipotente ed eterno…”
Which is, roughly, “We pray for all our brothers who believe in Christ: O Lord our God, grant that – following the truth – they may be reunited and guarded in your one Church. All-powerful and everlasting God…”

After this, he says:
Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur della settima orazione? E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
Which means roughly: “How can we not mourn, for example, that ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur of the seventh oration? However, the love of souls and desire to in any case to facilitate the way of union for our separated brothers, removing any stone that could cause stumbling or uneasiness of reason, has induced the Church to the point of these painful sacrifices.” He also points out that the prayer is no longer “For the Unity of the Church” (since the Church is always one) but “For the Unity of Christians”.

So the “translation” that gets bandied about is a very liberal one (ironically!).

What’s sad, though, is that the Italian (and English, of course) versions of the body of the new prayer for the unity of Christians aren’t quite literal translations of the Latin. Here’s my translation of the Latin: "Almighty and everlasting God, who unites the dispersed and protects the united, ad gregrem Filii tui placatus intende = “give your attention to the reconciling of your Son’s flock”?], that, they who one baptism has sanctified, may be joined in soundness of faith and united by the bond of charity.

It’s not as edged. I can still see how Lefebvre interpreted it that way, though, in light of the controversies and what happened.

“However, the love of souls and desire to in any case to facilitate the way of union for our separated brothers, removing any stone that could cause stumbling or uneasiness of reason, has induced the Church to the point of these painful sacrifices.”"

It doesn’t sound as sinister to me as the alleged quote, but it still seems to carry the same basic meaning, i.e., that we need to dilute things to remove “stumbling blocks” for Protestants.

Course, I don’t know a whole lot about the man.

 

[japhy]

“However, the love of souls and desire to in any case to facilitate the way of union for our separated brothers, removing any stone that could cause stumbling or uneasiness of reason, has induced the Church to the point of these painful sacrifices.”

It doesn’t sound as sinister to me as the alleged quote, but it still seems to carry the same basic meaning, i.e., that we need to dilute things to remove “stumbling blocks” for Protestants.

Right; although the context, in this case, is specifically the changing of the Good Friday prayer that formerly mentioned heretics and deceits of the devil, the statement is still general enough to apply to the changes made to the Mass in general. We changed from being blunt (but honest!) about their separation from the Catholic Church to soft-spoken (but vague on too many occasions…) about it.

 

[Auntie_M]

It’s not as edged. I can still see how Lefebvre interpreted it that way, though, in light of the controversies and what happened.

“However, the love of souls and desire to in any case to facilitate the way of union for our separated brothers, removing any stone that could cause stumbling or uneasiness of reason, has induced the Church to the point of these painful sacrifices.”"

It doesn’t sound as sinister to me as the alleged quote, but it still seems to carry the same basic meaning, i.e., that we need to dilute things to remove “stumbling blocks” for Protestants.

Course, I don’t know a whole lot about the man.

I don’t know who wrote the above quotes, but let’s look at it this way.

'OUR SEPARATED BRETHREN"…Protestants? probably…
If we never get any protestants to even “Listen” to the reasons for being a Catholic, they never will be. But, If, by opening our doors, and make it easier for them to “learn” by seeing or hearing, we would have more impact than we do now. And Maybe, they will come to see the true Catholic faith. What, really, is wrong with seeing a need to be a little less “strict” to provide for others to come to accept the faith.

Jesus WILL not let HIS church fail. But if no one ever “hears” the truth (Catholic faith), then we are NOT doing what He tells us to do. (spread His word)

We go across alot of miles to “evangelize” foreign peoples when our own back yard is full of people to evangelize. We just do’t get that “vacation” that goes along with it. “Poor me”

I, personally, have spoken to people about the faith only to have this remark …“OH NO, I am not going to read any of THAT CATHOLIC STUFF”. Lets give them a chance to see “That Catholic Stuff” is pretty darn good stuff!

“If your door is always closed, you’ll never get any visitors.”