What Archbishop Bugnini Really Said - The Article that Proves It

  • Thread starter Thread starter QOM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

QOM

Guest
For the Record and From the Source - What Bugnini Really Said

Source: Queen of Martyrs Press
(An image of the original L’Osservatore Romano article is provided at the site for historical, clarification and educational purposes)

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was the secretary of the Liturgical Commission that devised the New Order of Mass after the Second Vatican Council. Over the past several decades a quote has circulated, having been attributed to the late Archbishop, that was purported to have appeared in L’Osservatore Romano in 1965. The purported quote was in regards to the liturgical reforms which he was in charge of directing after the Council. What follows is the “quote” that has been famously attributed to Bugnini, the Great Architect of the Novus Ordo Missae:

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.”

We have seen the aforementioned attributed words cited throughout the years by many well-respected authors, particularly those who use the preceding words as proof that the New Order of Mass was designed to suit ecumenical goals with the Protestants. Moreover, it has been used to articulate how the liturgical reformers of the 1960’s sought to “Protestantize” the way in which Catholics pray. However, it must be said, for the record that these are not the exact words of Annibale Bugnini in the March 19, 1965 edition of L’Osservatore Romano. What follows are the actual words (in which the reader will certainly still see the clear ecumenical goals aimed for in the liturgical reform of the liturgical prayers on Good Friday) from the article written by Bugnini titled Le “Variationes” ad Alcuni Testi della Settimana Santa (The “Variations” of Some Texts of Holy Week):

"L’orazione 7° reca il titolo; ‘Per l’unità del cristiani’ (non ‘della Chiesa’, che è sta stata sempre una). Non si paria più di ‘eretici’ e ‘scismatici’, ma di ‘tutti i fratelli che credondo in Cristo’…

Gli studiosi penseranno e mettere in luce le fonti bibliche e liturgiche da cui derivano o alle quali si inspirano i nuovi testi, elaborati col cesello dai Gruppi di studio del ‘Consilium’ E diacomo pure che non di rado lavore è proceduto ‘cum timore et tremore’ nel dover sacrificare espressioni e concetti tantocari, e ormai per lunga consuetudine familiari. Come non rimpiangere per esempio ‘ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catolicam 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 ogni pietra che possa constituire pur lontanamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indoto la Chiesa anche a quiesti penosi sacrifici."

In English:

“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: ‘For the Unity of Christians’ (not ‘of the Church’, which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’

Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."

(Translation found in Reasons for Resistance; The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Speaks on the Post-Vatican II Crisis, Queen of Martyrs Press. pg. 21)
 
Hehe. So Archbishop Bugnini’s defenders are objecting to the fact that the quote attributed to him all these years appears to have been translated into English by someone from the 70’s era of the ICEL.

And they’re mad as heck that the translation isn’t remotely precise. Oh the irony! 😛

Ironic too that his critics used a sloppy dynamic equivalence for all these years. You can’t make this stuff up!
 
I am sorry. What exactly is your question, or point that you would like to discuss?
 
Big_Feet said:
I am sorry. What exactly is your question, or point that you would like to discuss?
Click to expand...
I think the point was to set the record straight. I’m not sure a link to a blog does that, but if this is true, it is rather eye-opening.
 
manualman said:
Hehe. So Archbishop Bugnini’s defenders are objecting to the fact that the quote attributed to him all these years appears to have been translated into English by someone from the 70’s era of the ICEL.
Click to expand...
Rather to the contrary. When you look into it, it appears that the fabricated version originates with Marcel Lefebvre. He doctored the quotation and presented the falsified version as real in a speech in Montreal in 1982; it has been circulating that way ever since.
 
MarkThompson said:
Rather to contrary. When you look into it, it appears that the fabricated version originates with Marcel Lefebvre. He doctored the quotation and presented the falsified version as real in a speech in Montreal in 1982; it has been circulating that way ever since.
Click to expand...
Is it falsified or just dynamically translated? 😛
 
MarkThompson said:
Rather to the contrary. When you look into it, it appears that the fabricated version originates with Marcel Lefebvre. He doctored the quotation and presented the falsified version as real in a speech in Montreal in 1982; it has been circulating that way ever since.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m somewhat confused. How does Marcel Lefebre fabrication relate to Archbishop Annibale Bugnini’s fiasco. There entirely two different incidents.

Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II tanbooks.com/doct/vatican_liturgy.htm
 
I don’t see the distinction between “Protestantize” and “remove stumbling blocks to our separated bretheren.”

The two things are functionally the same. To make things less offensive to Protestants is to make them less Catholic.
 
Warrenton said:
I don’t see the distinction between “Protestantize” and “remove stumbling blocks to our separated bretheren.”

The two things are functionally the same. To make things less offensive to Protestants is to make them less Catholic.
Click to expand...
There is an unfortunate statement. Catholicism is not defined by what is or is not offensive to Protestants. It is a set of rich tradition that well precedes the existence of Protestantism. Protestantism essentially defined itself by being “not-Catholic” (hence the “protest”). How can we therefore define ourselves as not them? Doesn’t that seem to break down the entire meaning of the Church? I’m sure that isn’t what you meant, but I do think it would be wise to be careful how you approach things.
 
Actually think it through. If protestantism is truncated catholicism, then any alterations proposed to catholic teaching to reduce offense to protestants could have a tendency to be truncations, no?

I suppose that’s not necessarily so. Sometimes fueds are based on misunderstandings, maybe even most are. But I don’t think anybody here would argue against the fact that there ARE substantive differences between catholicism and protestantism. If a proposal seeks to make catholic teaching and liturgy more palatable to protestants on such topics, it’s probably worth some serious critical examination first!
 
I believe that people who meant well understood what Archbishop Lefebvre intended to be a paraphrase as a direct citation without taking the initiative to do the research themselves when he said the following:

As for myself, I do not want people to make me say that the New Mass is good, but that it is simply less good than the Traditional Mass. I cannot say that. I cannot say that these modern sacraments are good. They were made by Protestants. They were made by Bugnini. And Bugnini himself said on March 19, 1965, as can still be read in the “Osservatore Romano" and in “Documentation Catholique," which magazines published a translation of Bugnini’s discourse:

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants."

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Infiltration-of-Modernism-in-the-Church.htm
 
QOM said:
I believe that people who meant well understood what Archbishop Lefebvre intended to be a paraphrase as a direct citation without taking the initiative to do the research themselves when he said the following:

As for myself, I do not want people to make me say that the New Mass is good, but that it is simply less good than the Traditional Mass. I cannot say that. I cannot say that these modern sacraments are good. They were made by Protestants. They were made by Bugnini. And Bugnini himself said on March 19, 1965, as can still be read in the “Osservatore Romano" and in “Documentation Catholique," which magazines published a translation of Bugnini’s discourse:

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants."

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Infiltration-of-Modernism-in-the-Church.htm
Click to expand...
I’m confused. Doesn’t your OP say that he did not say this?
 
manualman said:
Actually think it through. If protestantism is truncated catholicism, then any alterations proposed to catholic teaching to reduce offense to protestants could have a tendency to be truncations, no?

I suppose that’s not necessarily so. Sometimes fueds are based on misunderstandings, maybe even most are. But I don’t think anybody here would argue against the fact that there ARE substantive differences between catholicism and protestantism. If a proposal seeks to make catholic teaching and liturgy more palatable to protestants on such topics, it’s probably worth some serious critical examination first!
Click to expand...
But Protestantism is not truncated Catholicism. Protestantism is essentially a different entity. It wasn’t about leaving things out; it was altering the underlying truths. It may be tempting to see Protestantism as Catholicism, less the pope, saints, magisterium, &c., but the entire idea of *Sola Fide *is not a truncation; it is an aberration. This is why I think this entire idea of defining our faith as being not-Protestant is not a helpful solution. There are many equally wrong positions that oppose the Protestant one and are nevertheless not Catholic, and there are some things upon which we agree with them.
 
thistle said:
I’m confused. Doesn’t your OP say that he did not say this?
Click to expand...
Likewise. This seems to be a complete refutation of the original post, which begs the question, why start two threads on this?
 
thistle said:
I’m confused. Doesn’t your OP say that he did not say this?
Click to expand...
Bugnini didn’t use those words. What was just cited above were the words of Archbishop Lefebvre’s paraphrase of Bugnini’s article.
 
QOM said:
Bugnini didn’t use those words. What was just cited above were the words of Archbishop Lefebvre’s paraphrase of Bugnini’s article.
Click to expand...
I think the confusion is that you cited these words with the preface “And Bugnini himself said”.

VC
 
FrancisB said:
There is an unfortunate statement. Catholicism is not defined by what is or is not offensive to Protestants. It is a set of rich tradition that well precedes the existence of Protestantism. Protestantism essentially defined itself by being “not-Catholic” (hence the “protest”). How can we therefore define ourselves as not them? Doesn’t that seem to break down the entire meaning of the Church? I’m sure that isn’t what you meant, but I do think it would be wise to be careful how you approach things.
Click to expand...
I meant exactly what I wrote.

Think about it. If what you say is true, then what Archbishop Bugnini said was doomed from the start. If Protestants define themselves as not Catholic, then they will do whatever we don’t do, and that should have been as obvious in 1965 as it was in 1565.

We took out Latin, we took out references to the saints, we took out the last gospel, well, the list goes on and on.

And the Protestants, what did they do?

Here’s a hint. some of them now consecrate openly homosexual bishops. Take a read of Bishop Spong’s tome “Reclaiming the Bible for a Non Religious World.”

What, one wonders, is the next stumbling block we should remove for the sake of the separated bretheren?

But we do agree on one thing: “one would be wise to be careful how things are approached.”

Cheers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top