You’re clearly not a translator. That isn’t a translation, it is a slander against one of the successors of the apostles.Both are ‘translations’ Neil. Which one is the more ‘literal’ translation? I’m curious.
The idea of liturical changes for the sake of ecumenism is not new.The very idea of removing aspects of the liturgy to please any group of persons is problematic. Holy Mass is about what pleases God, not what pleases any of us.
If the idea was not different, they would have settled for an actual translation, rather than a rough paraphrase designed with the purpose of putting words into the Archbishop’s mouth.Personally I don’t see how the idea is any different in either quote. In both cases the point is to remove anything that is preventing Protestants from being Catholic. Well, one thing is the Real Presence and Holy Mass as a sacrifice - two things we see diminished as a result of the New Mass. The very idea of removing aspects of the liturgy to please any group of persons is problematic. Holy Mass is about what pleases God, not what pleases any of us.
Pax Christi tecum.
I don’t know. Either way I don’t like what he said.If the idea was not different, they would have settled for an actual translation, rather than a rough paraphrase designed with the purpose of putting words into the Archbishop’s mouth.
If they’re both the same, then why not use the other one when quoting the Archbishop?
Yes and we can all see how well that worked. Just because it happened doesn’t mean it was prudent or right or most pleasing to God.The idea of liturical changes for the sake of ecumenism is not new.
The Council of Lyons (1274), in an attempt to appeal to the Greek Orthodox and encourage their return, allowed them to omit the “Filioque” phrase from the Creed. The Filioque expressed a doctrine that had been denined by the Orthodox, and was one of the main reasons for their separation from the Catholic Church. The Church allowed them to omit the phrase from the mass if they would return to the Catholic Church. They were supposed to accept the doctrine, noneless, but they didn’t have to proclaim it publiclly in their mass because it was a stumbling block to their return.
Why was he consecrated a bishop and who consecrated him?Just because Annibale Bugnini was consecrated a bishop (a bishop, I might add, who never spent one second as the shepherd of a diocese) does not mean his actions automatically merit our respect.
agreed.The case against Bugnini is at best mixed, at worst the story of a man who was disgraced at the zenith of his power.
Not just fired, his whole Congregation at the Vatican was suppressed.He was fired in July, 1975, and sent to Iran some months later.
Yes it is, and I’m glad you didn’t counter against Lefebvre.You’re clearly not a translator. That isn’t a translation, it is a slander against one of the successors of the apostles.
**OK, my bad. However, once in awhile, Wikipedia gets it ‘right’, and they have an objective and quite informative essay on Bugnini on their website:Bugnini was consecrated on Epiphany, 1972, by Paul VI. It was customary then (as now) for certain curial positions to be restricted to bishops. However, I might note the example of the great Avery Dulles, who, when named a cardinal, refused the (also customary) consecration to the episcopacy; he did not see a point in accepting the episcopacy if he would not be a shepherd of souls.
Bugnini was consecrated and made a titular archbishop (he was a “bishop” per se). He was never made a cardinal. He was fired in July, 1975, and sent to Iran some months later.
Except for the allegations, this article reads like a resume that anyone could be most proud of. Is this the article’s intent?**OK, my bad. However, once in awhile, Wikipedia gets it ‘right’, and they have an objective and quite informative essay on Bugnini on their website:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annibale_Bugnini**
It’s worth the read.
You mean to tell me that the “architect of the Novus Ordo Mass” was a Priest at the time? Amazing.Bugnini was consecrated on Epiphany, 1972, by Paul VI. It was customary then (as now) for certain curial positions to be restricted to bishops. However, I might note the example of the great Avery Dulles, who, when named a cardinal, refused the (also customary) consecration to the episcopacy; he did not see a point in accepting the episcopacy if he would not be a shepherd of souls.
Bugnini was consecrated and made a titular archbishop (he was a “bishop” per se). He was never made a cardinal. He was fired in July, 1975, and sent to Iran some months later.
I think the intent is to show that Bugnini was our brother in Christ, had no disdain against the Church, and pastored as bishop to the best of his ability.Except for the allegations, this article reads like a resume that anyone could be most proud of. Is this the article’s intent?
You are incredibly uncharitable. Hopefully, the Lord will not be as judgmental as you are.He had zero pastoral experience as a bishop. That’s simply to say what is. He was a curial bishop. As for “best of his ability”…how do we know? We don’t.
What’s relevant is what he produced…not whether he was a “brother in Christ” or a bishop.
Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops…as Chrysostom said.