+
JMJ
Bugnini wanted to erase Ash Wednesday. This guy was a maniac.
At the end of the article are three links to
I agree with Pope Francis the Liturgical 'Reform' is irreversable - the damage is done but at least they didn't damage the Tridentine Mass. They simply made up a new one ...
P^3
ccwatershed.org: Bugnini an Ash Wednesday
AS TROUBLING AS THE CALENDAR REVISION IS, something worse is what Msgr. Richard J. Schuler referred to as the “vulgarity” in the approved Scripture translations for Mass. To me, this is particularly scandalous in the Lectionary translation for the Passion of our Lord. (By the way, I looked at the 1970s version of the Lectionary and found that it was even worse!)
Yes, Msgr. Schuler uses that precise word (“vulgarity”) several times in his writings. If you don’t believe me, you can read Msgr. Schuler’s own words:
* * 1993 Editorial: “More Trouble From ICEL” • (Msgr. Richard J. Schuler)
* * 1990 Editorial: “Our English Translations” • (Msgr. Richard J. Schuler)
* * 1984 Editorial: “The Tridentine Mass” • (Msgr. Richard J. Schuler)
Just like the Mass Propers, respect for Sacred Scripture seems to have “gone by the wayside” following the Council (in spite of its clear directives to the contrary). Why couldn’t a reverent, traditional version of Scripture be allowed for the Ordinary Form, as an option? What possible harm could there be in that? Yet, as we’ve mentioned many times, the same bishops who pontificate about “pastoral sensitivity” and “avoidance of rigid uniformity” often fight tooth and nail to prevent such an option being given to the faithful. Can anyone explain this supremely puzzling dichotomy?
Novus Ordo Lectionary Reform, Reform of the Reform, The Old ICEL Translation of the Mass
Comments
Post a Comment