Dolours, I respect your need for a break and want you to know that your posts have been so meaningful and edifying to me. You articulate perfectly what I can't and your knowledge of the faith has helped to fill in the gaps in my own. So just know that the time spent here and comments made have not been in vain. I will pray for you and hope you'll keep me in your prayers, too.
If someone has already mentioned this I apologize for the repetition. Haven't read all of the latest offerings of the past couple of days. A Communist Pope? An interview with author George Neumayr September 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Journalist Maike Hickson conducted an interview with author George Neumayr on his new book, The Political Pope. Neumayr offers insights into communist influences on Pope Francis. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-communist-pope-an-interview-with-author-george-neumayr
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/09/notes-more-on-josef-seiferts-retirement.html?m=1 Note: more on Josef Seifert's "retirement" for Amoris Laetitia critiques. Josef Seifert is the founding Rector of the The International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein, holder of the Dietrich von Hildebrand Chair for Realist Phenomenology at the IAP-IFES, Granada, Spain, and elected by Saint Pope John Paul II as ordinary (life-long) member of the Pontifical Academy for Life (a charge that ended with the dismissal of all PAV members by Pope Francis in 2016, and the failure to be re-elected as member of, a profoundly changed, PAV in 2017) IAP-IFES stands for "International Academy of Philosophy - Instituto de Filosofia Edith Stein". IFES, founded in 2005 and owned by the Archdiocese of Granada, notes on its website that it has acted as the Granada campus of IAP since 2009. In listing the IAP's faculty, the IFES website still starts, with evident pride, with Seifert: "The IAP has a permanent faculty of high quality professors, guest professors and friends who frequently teach at their campuses. Notable among them is the renowned phenomenologist Professor Josef Seifert, as well as figures such as ..." However, the Granada Archdiocesan notification reveals that Seifert had already stopped (or, as is more likely, been stopped from) teaching in IFES since September last year, shortly after his much-longer critique of AL (Amoris Laetitia: Joy, Sadness and Hopes) was published. The same notification also speaks of Seifert's impending "retirement" from the International Academy of Philosophy because of his criticisms of AL. (It is not sufficiently clear from the actual notification if he is being retired only from IAP-IFES, or from IAP itself.) this 2006 Rorate post), is now at the forefront of this new "orthodoxy" by his repeated acceptance of the "Buenos Aires" directive (last year and again in his notification directed against Seifert) and his recent endorsement of Tucho Fernandez's article denouncing critics of AL. This whole affair brings into focus the division among prominent "Wojtylians" that Amoris Laetitia has provoked. One of the members of the Academic Board of the International Academy of Philosophy is Rocco Buttiglione, one of the philosophers most identified with the papacy of John Paul II and presently a staunch defender of AL. Seifert himself is a phenomenologist, one of the intellectual heirs of Dietrich von Hildebrand, and a major figure in the phenomenologist-existentialist establishment that formed in Catholic philosophy during that papacy. Granada Archbishop Francisco Javier Martínez Fernández was himself appointed a bishop in 1985 and elevated to his present position in 2003 by John Paul II. Prior to the current papacy, Archbishop Martinez was considered part of the "conservative" Wojtylian-Ratzingerian wing of the Church in Spain.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/the-dubia-surrounding-pope-francis-election We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBTQ rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it. This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict’s resignation, the same members who stirred up so much chaos at the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family. Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved. According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O’Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013. As the conclave neared, they held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker. Ivereigh points out that “because the organizers of his campaign stayed largely below the radar, the Bergoglio bandwagon that began to roll during the week of the congregations went undetected by the media.” Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work in and around the time of the conclave, but this directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which lays down the rules for conducting conclaves. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it *renders the election “null and void.” ... Clearly, “the conditions laid down” by the Holy Father were not observed, so it’s only proper to say (or to at least consider) that the 2013 election conferred “no right on the one elected.” Should one retort by saying it is up to a committee of bishops to declare this nullity, let him remember the pope’s ruling that vote canvassing renders the election “null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter.” Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II
I know many are warning us not to question the validity of the last conclave, but I am convinced that will be the sole path Church historians will be able to take to explain this pope's heresies, and the promises Christ made to His Church. I'm NOT judging this pope, I pray ardently for him by name daily and offer up fastings and sacrifices for his eternal salvation, but I see no other way in which Church historians will be able to explain his documented errors and heresies.
I agree with you, Brian And I pray for Pope Francis as well We have clues from Pope Benedict XVI I think he referred to himself at one point as surrounded by wolves Correct me if I am wrong Thank you for your keen assessment
A long story short. PF's philosophy, liberation theology was condemned by St JP2. Unbelievably he is now pope. His theology has already been condemned. Why would anyone who IS catholic take him seriously?
I agree Brian, but I think future cardinals and bishops will recognize the invalid resignation of BXVI. There is so much evidence regarding this its sickening.
Yes, I believe the Church will eventually judge that BXVI's resignation was coerced/irregular or done in error thus null, and everything Pope Francis has said and done therefore void and his heretical actions/statements therefore will not violate the Church and Christ's promises. The problem now is that UNTIL the Church speaks, we must assume he is a valid pope, pray for him as such, obey his statements not at variance with Church teachings on Faith and Morals - and oppose his errors and heresies.
I'll be there along with Praetorian. If anyone else from MOG will be there, let us know and we'll have an MOG pow wow!
I want to go but I have to work that weekend. I was really excited for a minute. It is only a few hours away from me. I'm so sad.
Pope amends church law on Mass translations, highlights bishops' role https://www.catholicregister.org/fa...-on-mass-translations-highlights-bishops-role someone imagines what this means for the liturgy of the Church
Of course one must consider the source here. Again, just what are the motivations for such emphasis? Pope Francis Shifts Power From Rome With ‘Hugely Important’ Liturgical Reform VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis, who has used his absolute authority in the Vatican to decentralize power from Rome, made a widespread change Saturday to the ways, and words, in which Roman Catholics worship by amending Vatican law to give national bishop conferences greater authority in translating liturgical language. “It’s hugely important,” said Rita Ferrone, a specialist in Catholic liturgy who writes for Commonweal, a liberal Catholic magazine. She said that by loosening Rome’s grip on the language of prayers, Francis had restored the intention of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and erased some of the rollbacks of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. “It was especially astute that he put it into canon law because it makes it official.” Francis has not been shy in efforts to reform the church and has tread on some of its most delicate subjects, from challenging the Roman bureaucracythat runs the church to emphasizing acceptance of gays and the divorced. On Saturday he stepped squarely onto the battlefield of the so-called Liturgy Wars, which, especially in the English-speaking church, have divided liberals and conservatives for decades. With “Magnum Principium,” a papal Motu Proprio — or a document issued under the pope’s own legal authority – Francis altered a key 2001 instruction by Pope John Paul II that empowered Vatican officials in Rome to ensure local translations adhered to the standard Latin. ....... The amendment is a significant development in a liturgical schism that has split Catholics across the world and was evident at the highest echelons of the church. In 2007, Benedict himself issued a Motu Proprio increasing access to the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, a move seen as a microcosm of the church’s shift toward traditionalism during his papacy. In changing the law, which will go into effect on Oct. 1, the pope recalled that the Vatican Council entrusted bishops with the “weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy.” He added that “in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.” More here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/world/europe/pope-francis-liturgical-reform.html I think the only "language" being spoken here, liturgical or not, is that of Babel!!
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/09/new-...paration-approval-of-liturgical-translations/ New Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio changes law about preparation, approval of liturgical translations Posted on 9 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf Today a new Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio was issued under the Latin title “Magnum principium”. In various languages HERE (including the Latin text). There’s a lot to say. I can’t now be exhaustive. Also, I want to read slowly the commentary on the canons provided by Arcbp. Roche, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments [CDWDS]. In brief, Pope Francis established that the CDWDS will have less of a role in the creation of liturgical texts. Till now, the CDWDS could strongly intervene and make changes on its own to translations of liturgical texts. Henceforth, their primary role will be to approve the texts prepared by Episcopal Conferences. This takes effect in October. That’s the nutshell. Let’s see the introduction and explanatory part of the text with my emphases and comments. After that, I’ll make some general observations. APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM BY WHICH CAN. 838 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS MODIFIED The great principle, established by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood, required the weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy and of preparing and approving the versions of the liturgical books, a charge that was entrusted to the Bishops. [One might add, “An even Greater Principle is the clear mandate from the Council Fathers that Latin remain the principle language of worship in the Latin Church.”] The Latin Church was aware of the attendant sacrifice involved in the partial loss of liturgical Latin, which had been in use throughout the world over the course of centuries. [The partial loss?!?] However it willingly opened the door so that these versions, as part of the rites themselves, might become the voice of the Church celebrating the divine mysteries along with the Latin language. [There’s a problem here. Translations rarely communicate the whole content of text. This problem is magnified when trying to render liturgical texts which have deep and many layered ancient origins. Also, translations are sometimes simply wrong. So, are the errors now also enshrined “along with” the content of the originals? Does this Motu Proprio seek to place the content of the many and diverging translations on the same level (“along with”) the Latin originals?] At the same time, especially given the various clearly expressed views of the Council Fathers with regard to the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy, the Church was aware of the difficulties that might present themselves in this regard. [The Council was pretty clear that the Latin language should remain the principle language of worship even as it opened the possibility some greater use the vernacular. Hence, I wonder if the writers of this Motu Proprio read the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium or if they are operating in the cloudy spirit of Vatican II.] On the one hand it was necessary to unite the good of the faithful of a given time and culture and their right to a conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations with the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. [Here’s a little translation irony: that “active” there is supposed to reflect Sacrosanctum Concilium’s word “actuosa”, which is better rendered as the deeper “actual”. However, what does “substantial unity” of the Roman Rite mean? How much divergence is allowed, how many options are to be tallied, before it isn’t the Roman Rite anymore?] On the other hand the vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith. [“In a progressive manner”… meaning… what? That we’ve had to take a few runs in the pole vault in order to get over the bar? Is that what our long ecclesial nightmare with the first ICEL translation was? Does this indicate that we will soon see alterations to the 2011 ICEL version which people have just gotten used to? That “would be able to become liturgical languages” seems to admit that vernacular versions around the world haven’t been that great. REMEMBER – this Motu Proprio isn’t just for the English speaking world.] This was the aim of various Liturgical Laws, Instructions, Circular Letters, indications and confirmations of liturgical books in the various vernacular languages issued by the Apostolic See from the time of the Council which was true both before as well as after the laws established by the Code of Canon Law. The criteria indicated were and remain at the level of general guidelines and, as far as possible, must be followed by Liturgical Commissions as the most suitable instruments so that, across the great variety of languages, the liturgical community can arrive at an expressive style suitable and appropriate to the individual parts, maintaining integrity and accurate faithfulness especially in translating some texts of major importance in each liturgical book. [Let’s take the last part first. “Some texts of major importance”… so, “accurate faithfulness” applies… sometimes. When I read that first sentence, my mind immediately jumped to the debate stirred by chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia. Some have suggested that moral standards for the divorced and civilly remarried are merely “ideals” which not everyone can attain. Nor should such couples be expected to attain them. Moral standards taught by Christ and the Church are thus “general guidelines” that people might shoot for “as far as possible”. Okay, that’s where my mind went when reading that. That said, the work of translation of liturgical texts involves choices. You have to sacrifice one aspect of a prayer’s polyvalent content to express another aspect. So, we mind our guidelines and do our best… as far as possible. And, btw, “texts of major importance”, according to the attached NOTE from the Secretary of the Congregation, means, Order of Mass, Eucharistic prayers, forms of sacraments, prayers of ordination, etc.] Because the liturgical text is a ritual sign it is a means of oral communication. However, for the believers who celebrate the sacred rites the word is also a mystery. Indeed when words are uttered, in particular when the Sacred Scriptures are read, God speaks to us. In the Gospel Christ himself speaks to his people who respond either themselves or through the celebrant by prayer to the Lord in the Holy Spirit. [So far, this is the best paragraph in the document.] The goal of the translation of liturgical texts and of biblical texts for the Liturgy of the Word is to announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. For this purpose it is necessary to communicate to a given people using its own language all that the Church intended to communicate to other people through the Latin language. [Hang on. Remember that whole thing from the Council that LATIN should remain the principle language of worship? Also, I wrote a weekly column on liturgical translations, comparing the English ICEL versions with the Latin. Week after week I found nuances in the Latin that had to be sacrificed in order to put down on paper a literal version or a somewhat smoother version. This strong veer away from Latin as the language used for worship has impoverished the content of the Latin. Sure, not everyone in the pews would have homogeneously strong Latin skills. However, when Latin was used, people in the pews could have varying translation in their hand missals. Since we are swooping around in the blue sky of ideals, one might imagine Catholics comparing their translations over post-dismissal coffee and doughnuts and, as a result, getting more rather than less of the Latin original.] While fidelity cannot always be judged by individual words but must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act and according to its literary genre, nevertheless some particular terms must also be considered in the context of the entire Catholic faith because each translation of texts must be congruent with sound doctrine. [An admission that translations are traitors (tradutore, traditore). And, yes, some particular terms must be carefully guarded. I have in mind “pro multis“, for example.]
It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen between the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See [read: Germany, etc.] in the course of this long passage of work. In order that the decisions of the Council about the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy[Again, the Council Fathers said that Latin… oh, … why bother….] can also be of value in the future a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust[bzzzzzz] between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See that exercises the task of promoting the Sacred Liturgy, i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is absolutely necessary. For this reason, in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, [hmmm] it seemed opportune that some principles handed on sincethe time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice. [There were a series of documents after the Council about the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. They include Liturgiam authenticam which is the most recent document establishing the translation norms which eventually coughed up the 2011 ICEL version in current use. Other language groups have had their own adventures. His dictis, I must insist that Summorum Pontificum also contains principles for the “renewal of the whole liturgical life” of the Church. But this paragraph and the rest of the document have a different bent.] Without doubt, attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful, nor must the right and duty of Episcopal Conferences be forgotten who, together with Episcopal Conferences from regions sharing the same language and with the Apostolic See, must ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text is fully and faithfully rendered and that even after adaptations the translated liturgical books always illuminate the unity of the Roman Rite. [Latin: “semper refulgeant unitate ritus Romani”. An interesting choice of words: “refulgeant…illuminate” the unity. It seems not to be the goal to “strengthen” or “foster” unity, but “reflect” it in some way. Am I nitpicking?] To make collaboration in this service to the faithful between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful, and having listened to the advice of the Commission of Bishops and Experts that I established, [Do we have a list of names?] I order, with the authority entrusted to me, [now we get down to brass tacks] that the canonical discipline currently in force in can. 838 of the C.I.C. be made clearer so that, according to what is stated in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in articles 36 §§3.4, 40 and 63, and in the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, the competency of the Apostolic See surrounding the translation of liturgical books and the more radical adaptations established and approved by Episcopal Conferences be made clearer, among which can also be numbered eventual new texts to be inserted into these books. […] So, the Pope now changes the Church’s laws. I left that part out. As I said at the top establishes that the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments [CDWDS] will have less of a role in the creation of liturgical texts. Henceforth, their primary role will be to approve the texts prepared by Episcopal Conferences. That’s the nutshell. There was a phase in the preparation of translation at which Rome was able on its own to make substantial changes to the translations prepared by, for example, ICEL (for the English language). You might remember that during the preparation of what became the 2011 ICEL version, there was an advisory Committee under the CDWDS called Vox Clarawhich – though it didn’t have authority on its own – had influence in adjusting what ICEL (and the USCCB) prepared. And the Congregation indeed made changes on its own authority. That was not well received by some. That was welcomed by others. The German language process also had it’s committee. The Germans are always a problem, by the way, in just about everything, but I digress. The changes to the law seem to seek a middle path. They limit the role of the CDWDS to approving translations prepared by conferences and groups like ICEL. However, they also must still safeguard the integrity of the translations according to the norms, which at present are in Liturgiam authenticam (LA). My spidey sense suggests that this is a way of subverting the principles of LA enough to allow for a return to the dynamic equivalence approach which, in its more radical form, produced the rubbish we suffered with in the English world for decades before the 2011 version. However, the Congregation still retains the veto power. That’s good, provided the Congregation retains competent and strong personnel. There will be great pressure on the officials of the CDWDS to rubberstamp whatever comes their way. The results could be disastrous. There are several things, however, that bother me. First, the driving principle in the explanatory part of the Motu Proprio seems to be the spirit of Vatican II, rather than its letter. Second, the document reflects the effort to decentralize authority, taking it bit by bit away from the individuated dicasteries of the Roman Curia and distributing it to regional conferences of bishops. It seems to me that the unity of which the Motu Proprio speaks is undermined by such an approach. Given what we have seen happening in the wake of Amoris laetitia, I wonder whether the next amputation of the Curia won’t occur at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Think about it. What would happen were oversight of doctrine be devolved to conferences of bishops? Yes, conferences now have doctrinal committees. Results vary. I think that would be disastrous. Next, speaking of doctrine, liturgy is doctrine. Change the way we pray and you change what people believe. That is the inexorable principle of lex orandi lex credendi. The next problem is that the English translation of the rite for ordinations is going on. What’s going to happen with that? Will different conferences come up with their own versions which may or may not say the same things? How will that be worked out of the Holy See can’t intervene in the translation process to provide for unity? Finally, the document doesn’t specifically address this point, but, as I have written elsewhere, will the Supreme Pontiff continue to reserve to him the approval of translations of forms of sacraments? [See the UPDATE below.] Hitherto, only the Pope can approve, for example, the translations of the forms of consecration in the Holy Mass. You might recall the massive debates surrounding the translation of pro multis for the consecration of the Precious Blood. Benedict XVI mandated personally that the vernacular translations must accurately reflect the Latin. Conferences defied him. If that pontifical reservation is reversed, we might – no – will see divergent forms of consecration from country to country. Will the Congregation hold firm if the Pope doesn’t want to reserve to himself the translation of sacramental forms? UPDATE: I read in the NOTE: The “confirmatio” is an authoritative act by which the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments ratifies the approval of the Bishops, leaving the responsibility of translation, understood to be faithful, to the doctrinal and pastoral munus of the Conferences of Bishops. In brief, the “confirmatio”, ordinarily granted based on trust and confidence, supposes a positive evaluation of the faithfulness and congruence of the texts produced with respect to the typical Latin text, above all taking account of the texts of greatest importance (e.g. the sacramental formulae, which require the approval of the Holy Father, the Order of Mass, the Eucharistic Prayers and the Prayers of Ordination, which all require a detailed review). That answers a couple questions.
Someone on Father Z's site had a good comment regarding this. "Now that the bishops will be in the driver’s seat on these matters, the time has come for the faithful to speak out…LOUDLY. My suggestion is that there need to be lay organizations that will closely track the progress of each and every liturgical translation project. They should seek to attend meetings, ask for progress reports, and publicize matters far and wide. The faithful have a right to know, don’t they? Full, active and conscious participation, right? Whose liturgy is this? Whose?" "The bishops want to make these decisions? They should be hearing from the faithful, who will be on them to assure fidelity."
