What Archbishop Bugnini Really Said - The Article that Proves It

[ProVobis]

"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’…

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…’

What I find interesting is that it was Bugnini himself made changes to Holy Week in 1955. So what exactly is the context here?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t see the distinction between “Protestantize” and “remove stumbling blocks to our separated bretheren.”

From what I read in the article, it was a removal of certain inflammatory terms that were the stumbling blocks spoken of. The Catholic Church is quite capable of speaking with precision without speaking with derision. Language and relationships evolve over time. Thus, what what was prudent in language in the sixteenth century may not be the best course today.

 

[TrueLight]

From what I read in the article, it was a removal of certain inflammatory terms that were the stumbling blocks spoken of. The Catholic Church is quite capable of speaking with precision without speaking with derision. Language and relationships evolve over time. Thus, what what was prudent in language in the sixteenth century may not be the best course today.

With all due respect, I find a lot of ambiguity in Church documents, not precision. Maybe it’s because I’m new and not used to this type of language.

 

[jonbhorton]

With all due respect, I find a lot of ambiguity in Church documents, not precision. Maybe it’s because I’m new and not used to this type of language.

Which documents? Encyclicals? Particular documents? Council documents? Writings of Church Fathers? Modern, newer documents? In general?

You have to keep in mind that truly brilliant men have often written these documents. Men who, if pitted in a contest of knowledge and applicability to truly run the world, against the supposed academic elite of the secular world- the various Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes, Doctors, Fathers, Martyrs, Confessors, and Laity- through the power and truth of God, would lay a smack down so intense it would look like, well, zee end of zee vorrrrrrlllllld.

But hey, let’s remember:

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/7/f6fad4af-81e8-499c-82dc-38e6eee5342c.jpg

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I recommend buying HE Abp Bugnini’s book: amazon.com/Reform-Liturgy-1948-1975-Annibale-Bugnini/dp/0814615716

It won’t prove in either way the quote concerned, but it will give very good insight into his ideology and the big question: “Why go so far?”

Did you end up buying it?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Did you end up buying it?

I am scraping some money together. The only new copy is $268, which I am not paying for. The cheapest used is $65, which is unreasonable beyond comparison, but I feel it is a necessary investment.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I am scraping some money together. The only new copy is $268, which I am not paying for. The cheapest used is $65, which is unreasonable beyond comparison, but I feel it is a necessary investment.

That is absolutely ridiculous. I’d rather spend the money paying for a pretty new Roman chasuble.

 

[TrueLight]

Never mind.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That is absolutely ridiculous. I’d rather spend the money paying for a pretty new Roman chasuble.

Psh, can’t buy no Roman chasuble with $65.

The reason the book costs so much is probably because it has been out of print for a while, and people are hoarding them to make money. I imagine this book might be popular with liturgists or “liturgists” (you know the difference!).

 

[Warrenton]

The Catholic Church is quite capable of speaking with precision without speaking with derision.

Let’s start with what was removed from the Good Friday Prayer. It was the prayer that Holy Mother Church prays that schismatics and heretics change their hearts and return to the Church. (That’s not exact - I’m going from memory).

That language was never inflammatory. It was accurate, and it remains accurate today.

Anyone can go over to the Eastern Cath. forum and see the same terms used about Latins right now.

Similarly, “Protestantize” is not inflammatory, either. It is simply the process of making something appear more “Protestant.” It cannot seriously be denied that Protestant services tend to have a look, sound and feel that are different than pre-Vatican 2 Catholic services. That is the context in which both Bugnini and Levebvre wrote and spoke.

I don’t know, I guess the blog failed to convince me either than the one man meant less than what he said, or that the other man meant any more.

 

[Mike30]

Bugnini didn’t use those words. What was just cited above were the words of Archbishop Lefebvre’s paraphrase of Bugnini’s article.

Could you please point to where that information can be found?

 

[Mike30]

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)

Just playing Devild Advocate here, but over the years I have seen a lot and I do mean a lot of, well, I could I put in charity, altered, falsified, totally counterfeited articles that support one side or the other in this matter as well as others. It does seem starnge to me, that if this information has been available for over fifty years as it appears to have been, why had it never been brought to light before?. As far as the assertation, made later in the thread that it was Archbishop Lefebvre who provided the translation that some traditionalists cling to, well, I have never seen any evidence of that either. In fact, I had never heard that particular tidbit until today…

Who knows, maybe the evidence will pop up in a few days:thumbsup: I can hardly wait.

 

[pnewton]

That language was never inflammatory. It was accurate, and it remains accurate today.

Similarly, “Protestantize” is not inflammatory, either. It is simply the process of making something appear more “Protestant.”

Really? Have you had a lot of success with referring to Protestants as heretics in evangelizing them? You really do not think being called a heretic inflames one’s emotional response? I will just say that I beg to differ.

In any case, a softer approach or a harder approach is a matter of prudence, and it appears the Church is heading toward ecumenism and evangelism based more on sound argument and charity, less on the name-calling and inquisition. In no way is exercise prudential restrain Protestant. That is empty rhetoric, and inaccurate to boot, but it is not like the insult hasn’t been hurled back at AB Lefebvre, again, inaccurately.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Psh, can’t buy no Roman chasuble with $65.

The reason the book costs so much is probably because it has been out of print for a while, and people are hoarding them to make money. I imagine this book might be popular with liturgists or “liturgists” (you know the difference!).

Hey, I meant the $200 which could pay for some nice embroidery on the border of the chasuble.

 

[Warrenton]

Really? Have you had a lot of success with referring to Protestants as heretics in evangelizing them? You really do not think being called a heretic inflames one’s emotional response?

In order: (1) I have no idea; and (2) No.

In any case, a softer approach or a harder approach is a matter of prudence, and it appears the Church is heading toward ecumenism and evangelism based more on sound argument and charity, less on the name-calling and inquisitio. In no way is exercise prudential restrain Protestant. That is empty rhetoric, and inaccurate to boot, but it is not like the insult hasn’t been hurled back at AB Lefebvre, again, inaccurately.

It’s not a question of a hard or soft approach. It is question of accuracy.

The Catholic Church has always been an advocate of reason. We deal with facts, draw the proper distinctions between different things, and make our appeals and prayers based on that.

The tenor of the comments in your last post diverge from the standard in several material respects. I believe that is because you are trying to follow Bugnini’s rationale.

First off, no one was being “called” or “inquisited” in the Good Friday prayer. It was a prayer, and certain classes of people were being referred to. The conversation, so to speak, was between Catholics and the Lord.

If any Protestants, heretics or schismatics were converted, it was the result of the Lord granting that prayer.

The prayer was accurate, in that it called for the separated to return to the Church. It was more accurate than the present prayer, which either asks the Lord to return the separated to us or us to them. “Unity”, unlike “return”, is a two way street.

Catholics must remember that the world looks to us not for flattery but for truth. The Word is a sword, and it cleaveth a man’s soul. The edge of that sword cannot be blunted, no matter how dearly some may hold the illusion that differences between people of good faith can just be ignored.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not a question of a hard or soft approach. It is question of accuracy.

Catholics must remember that the world looks to us not for flattery but for truth. The Word is a sword, and it cleaveth a man’s soul. The edge of that sword cannot be blunted, no matter how dearly some may hold the illusion that differences between people of good faith can just be ignored.

If it is a case of accuracy and not approach, what in the new form of the prayer do you believe is inaccurate?

 

[Warrenton]

If it is a case of accuracy and not approach, what in the new form of the prayer do you believe is inaccurate?

I did not say the new prayer is innacurate. I said the old prayer was more accurate. It’s a small point, but I think it is important.

The new prayer reads

“Let us pray
For all our brothers and sisters
Who share our faith in Jesus Christ,
That God may gather and keep together in one church
All those who seek the truth with sincerity.”

That’s not from an official source, but I don’t have a missal with me as I am writing and for some reason, I can’t frame my search for it on line correctly. This quote seems to jog my memory from this past passiontide, though, and I think it’s fairly close to what I heard.

There a couple things about this prayer: the first is we are praying for our brothers who “share our faith…” What does “share” mean? If we shared a faith truly, would not we all be Catholics? Is not the Catholic’s faith in Christ one with the faith in the Church?

The second thing is “gather and keep together in one church.” Which church? This could be either a prayer for Protestants to become Catholic, or Catholics to become Protestant. That is the point I made about the word “unity” earlier: it’s a two-way street.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I did not say the new prayer is innacurate. I said the old prayer was more accurate. It’s a small point, but I think it is important.

The new prayer reads

“Let us pray
For all our brothers and sisters
Who share our faith in Jesus Christ,
That God may gather and keep together in one church
All those who seek the truth with sincerity.”

That’s not from an official source, but I don’t have a missal with me as I am writing and for some reason, I can’t frame my search for it on line correctly. This quote seems to jog my memory from this past passiontide, though, and I think it’s fairly close to what I heard.

There a couple things about this prayer: the first is we are praying for our brothers who “share our faith…” What does “share” mean? If we shared a faith truly, would not we all be Catholics? Is not the Catholic’s faith in Christ one with the faith in the Church?

The second thing is “gather and keep together in one church.” Which church? This could be either a prayer for Protestants to become Catholic, or Catholics to become Protestant. That is the point I made about the word “unity” earlier: it’s a two-way street.

This is straight from the Roman Missal.

"For the unity of Christians

Let us pray also for all our brothers and sisters who believe in Christ,
that our God and Lord may be pleased,
as they live the truth,
to gather them together and keep them in his one Church."

I believe this is extremely ambiguous, but I’ll leave it up to the Holy See.

"For the Jewish People

Let us pray also for the Jewish people,
to whom the Lord our God spoke first,
that he may grant them to advance in love of his name
and in faithfulness to his covenant."

The tiny, tiny hint to the rejection of truth is at the words, “faithfulness to his covenant.”

 

[m134e5]

I am scraping some money together. The only new copy is $268, which I am not paying for. The cheapest used is $65, which is unreasonable beyond comparison, but I feel it is a necessary investment.

If that book isn’t leather-bound, made with the best paper in the world, and hand-transcribed by calligraphers, it sounds more like a rip-off than a necessary investment. I tend to be extravagant, but even I wouldn’t pay that much for a book- unless it was a relic, and I was buying it to give to a church and keep it out of secular hands.

 

[OraLabora]

If that book isn’t leather-bound, made with the best paper in the world, and hand-transcribed by calligraphers, it sounds more like a rip-off than a necessary investment. I tend to be extravagant, but even I wouldn’t pay that much for a book- unless it was a relic, and I was buying it to give to a church and keep it out of secular hands.

You should check the price of chant books… oh, say the Graduale Triplex. $65 almost seems like a bargain!

The Heures Gregoriennes (LOTH in chant notation) is over 200 euros. Three volumes though.