“Magnum Principium” should be retitled "Magnum Insaniam"

+

JMJ

This is definitely one for the chronicle.

 On Sept. 9, with a new motu proprio, he delivered another decisive blow to those who would roll back the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. “Magnum Principium”restores and strengthens the council’s call for local bishops’ conferences to have authority with regard to the approval of translations into the vernacular. Source: America Magazine

There is a funny saying:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.Read more at: Brainyquote

Actually, that's not the definition of insanity ... this is:

Insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Source: Psychology Today

While the first one is simply tongue and cheek (ie funny), the second one is actually more appropriate for this age.

The leaders of the Church are:

• Unable to distinguish the damage wrought by 'V2' and the innovations from their fantasy of a "New Springtime".
• They are unable to conduct the affairs of the Church due to this psychosis
• and are subject to uncontrollable impulsive behaviour to tinker with everything in the Church (Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline, Law and Liturgy).

Ok, so I'm having some fun with this.

But seriously folks: I don't think traditionalists should really care if they want to continue tinkering with the Novus Ordo Missae.  As long as they leave the Tridentine Mass alone, we will have what we need - a liturgy that does what it is supposed to do: Render worship to God in a worthy manner.

Now to Fact Check: Did the Second Vatican Council really call for "... local bishops’ conferences to have authority with regard to the approval of translations into the vernacular...."?  Looking at the authoritative text on the Vatican's website we find ( SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM ):

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2 [Tradical: refers to the Bishops Conferences], to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

As usual we have the same double speak that is threaded throughout the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

First we have the intention:

... apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants ...

Then we have the opening of the door:

These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority ... to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used...

Oh and obviously, the norms weren't observed and latin was not preserved ... except by the Trads.

So this is simply yet another fruit of ambiguous phrases etc.

Aside from the obvious step backwards to bad translations, Traditional Catholics cannot but benefit from this latest development.

The onslaught of bad translations will only further galvanize those Catholics still sitting down for the Novus Ordo to move over to a Tridentine Liturgy.  I hope that there is an SSPX, or ED mass centre near them!

P^3


For further reading Dr. Shaw has some perspective here: http://www.lmschairman.org/2017/09/a-new-liturgy-war-magnum-principium.html#more

I particularly liked the last parapraphs:

I wrote the other day that Pope Francis’ criticism of the Reform of the Reform was about not opening up a new era of liturgical conflict. It seems I was wrong. At any rate, we can now look forward to a lot more liturgical conflict. Magnum principium insists that the existing guidelines of liturgical translation, notably Liturgiam authenticum, remains binding guides for translations: liberals hate Litugiam authenticum for calling for literal and hieratic language. Magnum principium underlines the point by saying that the vernaculars used must become truly ‘liturgical languages’, i.e. they should be hieratic. This may, or may not, make a difference to how the new powers of bishops’ conferences are used. Michael Davies’ own great principle remains true: look at a document from Rome and ask ‘what does it allow which was previously forbidden, and what does it forbid which was previously allowed?’ Everything else is just padding. 

Out of the noise and smoke of the renewed liturgical battle, as out of the heart-breaking liturgical abuses of the past, readers are heartily welcomed to the Traditional Mass.