Author Topic: Centenary of Divino afflatu (Read 5932 times)

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #15 on:** June 23, 2011, 01:21:29 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

I was going to prepare a discourse regarding the absolute authority of the Apostolic See in matters liturgical, but then I wandered over to my library and found a very beautiful book on Sacred Liturgy, full of erudition and unction: Catholic Liturgy: Its Fundamental Principles, by the Very Rev. Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. (of the St. Andrew Daily Missal and Vesperal fame), published at London by Sands & Co. in 1924, with a new and revised edition published in 1954.

In the book's fourth chapter, "Through the Church to God," Dom Lefebvre explains the relationship between Sacred Liturgy and the magisterium and authority of Holy Mother Church, something that has been unfortunately neglected by amateur clerical and lay liturgists (both sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists).

Thanks a lot for those scans, I really enjoyed reading them.
I have absolutely no doubts about the authority of the Holy See in Liturgical matters, maybe to your surprise.

The problem arises for me precisely there, namely that this authority is not exercised at the present.
With the lack of ecclesiastical structures and administration, can I even be sure to be bound to the Roman Rite? We know that this depends as to where you are born...but into which diocese are we born into nowadays? Certainly this matter can also not be solved with as to into which ecclesiastical province the clerics of these days are incardinated into.
The only historical references would be before the times of a stronger (exercised) central authority of the Apostolic See prior to the Late Middle Ages and the Council of Trent, as well as a less unified Code of Church Law, where clerici vagantes were a common phenomena and Liturgical usages widely differed - with the tacit approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, of course.
Then we also have the very old controversies of the use of the Celtic-Irish liturgy in the Christianization of Germanic lands, which did create a mess and a lot of questions regarding authority and liturgy.

So, what you (or some other people) are demanding is that Priests, violating the Canons of Trent and the Code of Canon Law just by their mere tonsure and ordination, while not being subject to any particular Diocese or Order, violating again several Canons by just starting to say Mass, are still bound to follow the 1955 typical edition of the Roman Missal, promulgated by an authority they otherwise seem to disregard and to which they cannot even turn to?
I could certainly add many more lines into this sentence, but I think I made the idea clear

Again, I can just say that I completely recognize the authority of the Roman Pontiff in matters liturgical, but I cannot see this authority being exercised at the present - and if exercised, the exact manner is unclear to me because of the complete lack of Canonical structures.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #16 on:** June 23, 2011, 01:45:43 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Thanks a lot for those scans, I really enjoyed reading them. I have absolutely no doubts about the authority of the Holy See in Liturgical matters, maybe to your surprise.

You're quite welcome! Although the scans were not meant to refute the points you have made in this exchange, but rather to contextualize Sacred Liturgy in its correct juridical setting, after all this thread is about a Papal Bull that promulgated liturgical reform a century ago or so.

And no, I'm not surprised (thankfully).

Quote

The problem arises for me precisely there, namely that this authority is not exercised at the present.

For me as well.

Quote

With the lack of ecclesiastical structures and administration, can I even be sure to be bound to the Roman Rite? We know that this depends as to where you are born...but into which diocese are we born into nowadays? Certainly this matter can also not be solved with as to into which ecclesiastical province the clerics of these days are incardinated into.

The only historical references would be before the times of a stronger (exercised) central authority of the Apostolic See prior to the Late Middle Ages and the Council of Trent, as well as a less unified Code of Church Law, where clerici vagantes were a common phenomena and Liturgical usages widely differed - with the tacit approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, of course.

This is a difficult question. I would venture to say that one is bound to the Roman Rite if one's ancestry is derived from Roman Catholics and who were born in what would have been the territories of Roman Rite prelates.

Obviously, the application of the principles of Canon Law is not as clear cut as some organizations and apologists make it seem. There are difficulties, and denying them is not going to solve them.

Quote

So, what you (or some other people) are demanding is that Priests, violating the Canons of Trent and the Code of Canon Law just by their mere tonsure and ordination, while not being subject to any particular Diocese or Order, violating again several Canons by just starting to say Mass, are still bound to follow the 1955 typical edition of the Roman Missal, promulgated by an authority they otherwise seem to disregard and to which they cannot even turn to?

I am demanding nothing. I would say that for the sedevacantist (who does not recognize John XXIII as having been a Supreme Pontiff) the most consistent thing is to follow the most recent reforms of Pope Pius XII in order to conform to the spirit of obedience, but it is a question far more problematic that anyone may realize (especially me).

Quote

Again, I can just say that I completely recognize the authority of the Roman Pontiff in matters liturgical, but I cannot see this authority being exercised at the present - and if exercised, the exact manner is unclear to me because of the complete lack of Canonical structures.

It's unclear to me as well, which is why we ought to have an open and honest exchange between all "camps" of traditional Catholics, in order to frankly and intelligibly discuss these matters.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2011, 02:41:58 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

This is a difficult question. I would venture to say that one is bound to the Roman Rite if one's ancestry is derived from Roman Catholics and who were born in what would have been the territories of Roman Rite prelates.

Obviously, the application of the principles of Canon Law is not as clear cut as some organizations and apologists make it seem. There are difficulties, and denying them is not going to solve them.

I don´t completely disagree there, but thats entirely speculative and without a real basis in Canon Law (which again doesn´t know this extra-juridical situation we have, anyway). It also depends on whether you see the dioceses of old being still intact or not.

Quote

I am demanding nothing. I would say that for the sedevacantist (who does not recognize John XXIII as having been a Supreme Pontiff) the most consistent thing is to follow the most recent reforms of Pope Pius XII in order to conform to the spirit of obedience, but it is a question far more problematic that anyone may realize (especially me).

This is indeed problematic, also just because we don´t really know what this spirit exactly demands.
But what I do know is that the Holy See in the past retrospectively authorized liturgical usages, like in the Gallican Church, and even adapted it in the Roman Rite.

Now, were all those liturgical changes and varieties abuses, which just got official confirmation later, or did they act rightly and according to the spirit and demands of their time?
And also: Isn´t a "liturgical freezing point" of 1955 or whatever year really liturgical? The enemies of the NOM always complain that the NO did not evolve organically, as the old Roman Liturgy.
But in the present, there does not seem to be any organic development, either.

Cristian · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2011, 07:57:41 AM »

Very interesting post and discussion Hobble and Pyrrhos! Thanks!

Before all I have to admit both that I`ve read very little about liturgy and that I`ve a sort of deep devotion towards Pius XII (yes Raoul... I can`t help it :smile:) so I`ll try to be as objective as I can :)

Pyrrhos said

Quote

The question for me remains why there was any need for a new translation, when the Gallican psalter had such a long and beautiful tradition in the Church, written by a Saint – and especially in the light of Christian revelation

Well Pius XII addressed this point in his "In cotidianis precibus". He said that since the Vulgate was but a "translation of a translation" (LXX) there were some unintelligible passages. Before the translation some scholars have talked about the necessity of a new one, so it was no a novelty but something asked for (at least in certain circles)
I think it is incorrect to call this translation as "Bea`s" since it was performed by a commission "presided over" by Bea. In any case I think Bea made a good point in a conference after the publication, when he said the lay people had a better translation of the psalms than the one the priests had, since there already existed some translations from the Hebrew into French and other languages.

(We all know who Bea was, but I think we should focus on arguments and not on persons)

Pyrrhos said

Quote

Still, I don´t know how clergy and layfolk could really profit from the departure of the Vulgate psalter. Isn´t the Vulgate considered to be the dogmatically authentic Bible? Not that I would discourage Biblical studies, but I always found it interesting how much praise St. Jerome´s Vulgate received, especially in the recent Encyclicals concerning Sacred Scripture. A reversal of this policy seems to me pretty much of a rupture.

Well as Pius XII said the recognition the Vulgate had was "juridical" in the sense that it was a faithful translation, which doesn`t mean it is the best one.

As far as I read San Jerome merely revised the psalm version of the Vulgate. He didn`t translate it. But I may be wrong.

Talking about the 1955 rubrics, I believe a reform was needed... now if the one Pius XII made was perfect, good, etc I think that another point, although I like it :)

Hobble said

Quote

Ha, you reminded me of Marsilio Ficino, who wished he could have the Dialogues of Plato as Lessons in the Breviary.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL... he really said that??? I still have to read some of Ficino`s works but I`d need a 48 hs day!!!

In any case just my little opinion on this matter!

Blessed Corpus for all of you! :)

Cristian

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2011, 09:21:30 AM »

Quote from: Cristian

Well Pius XII addressed this point in his "In cotidianis precibus". He said that since the Vulgate was but a "translation of a translation" (LXX) there were some unintelligible passages. Before the translation some scholars have talked about the necessity of a new one, so it was no a novelty but something asked for (at least in certain circles)
(We all know who Bea was, but I think we should focus on arguments and not on persons)

This is probably right, I mentioned before that I use the Nova Vulgata myself. But I think other texts like Providentissimus Deus speak a different language in regards to the authority of the translation/revision of St. Jerome.

And while I agree that this is not about certain persons, the "anti-Vulgate" faction was usually not on the most orthodox side. In particular also in regards to dogma, it was for example of extreme importance that the Vulgate put Genesis 3:15 "...et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius" for the Definition of the Immaculate Conception, while the Hebrew reads "...and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel."
For comparison, in Douay-Rheims 1899 its "and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Quote

Well as Pius XII said the recognition the Vulgate had was "juridical" in the sense that it was a faithful translation, which doesn`t mean it is the best one.

As far as I read San Jerome merely revised the psalm version of the Vulgate. He didn`t translate it. But I may be wrong.

This is of course right if you refer to the Gallicana used in the Liturgy, not the juxta Hebraicuм. I find it doubtful whether Bea´s research team had a better version than Origen with his Hexapla.
I also don´t necessarily want to imply that the Saint Jerome translation is the best one (even though that is my personal opinion).

I remember your preference for the Jesuits at Bellarmine forums, which you share with Pius XII. ;-) I guess I rather stand on Raoul´s side there, even though I don´t really know what he is saying about Papa Pacelli.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2011, 09:36:06 AM »

But despite my arrogance, I am certainly not a better biblical scholar than you, Cristian (or Cardinal Bea!).

As a matter of fact I have not too much of a clue of what I am speaking about, unlike you this didn't stop me from posting

Have a blessed feast of the Body and Blood of Our Lord,
Pyrrhos

LordPhan · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2011, 11:50:43 AM »

Quote from: Cristian

Very interesting post and discussion Hobble and Pyrrhos! Thanks!

Before all I have to admit both that I`ve read very little about liturgy and that I`ve a sort of deep devotion towards Pius XII (yes Raoul... I can`t help it :smile:) so I`ll try to be as objective as I can :)

Pyrrhos said
Quote
The question for me remains why there was any need for a new translation, when the Gallican psalter had such a long and beautiful tradition in the Church, written by a Saint – and especially in the light of Christian revelation

Well Pius XII addressed this point in his "In cotidianis precibus". He said that since the Vulgate was but a "translation of a translation" (LXX) there were some unintelligible passages. Before the translation some scholars have talked about the necessity of a new one, so it was no a novelty but something asked for (at least in certain circles)
I think it is incorrect to call this translation as "Bea`s" since it was performed by a commission "presided over" by Bea. In any case I think Bea made a good point in a conference after the publication, when he said the lay people had a better translation of the psalms than the one the priests had, since there already existed some translations from the Hebrew into French and other languages.

(We all know who Bea was, but I think we should focus on arguments and not on persons)

Pyrrhos said
Quote
Still, I don´t know how clergy and layfolk could really profit from the departure of the Vulgate psalter. Isn´t the Vulgate considered to be the dogmatically authentic Bible? Not that I would discourage Biblical studies, but I always found it interesting how much praise St. Jerome´s Vulgate received, especially in the recent Encyclicals concerning Sacred Scripture. A reversal of this policy seems to me pretty much of a rupture.

Well as Pius XII said the recognition the Vulgate had was "juridical" in the sense that it was a faithful translation, which doesn`t mean it is the best one.

As far as I read San Jerome merely revised the psalm version of the Vulgate. He didn`t translate it. But I may be wrong.

Talking about the 1955 rubrics, I believe a reform was needed... now if the one Pius XII made was perfect, good, etc I think that another point, although I like it :)

Hobble said
Quote
Ha, you reminded me of Marsilio Ficino, who wished he could have the Dialogues of Plato as Lessons in the Breviary.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL... he really said that??? I still have to read some of Ficino`s works but I`d need a 48 hs day!!!

In any case just my little opinion on this matter!

Blessed Corpus for all of you! :)

Cristian

Heading to work so I don't have alot of time but, Saint Jerome Translated the entire Bible.

He spoke the same ancient greek that most of the New Testament was written in since birth. Was Fluent in Latin. He managed to convince a couple Rabbi's to teach him Hebrew and then translated most of the Old Testament, he hired someone to translate the book of David, then when he was finished with the rest he went back learned chalmedic(sp) so he could make sure that it was accurate.

Cristian · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2011, 03:21:20 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

And while I agree that this is not about certain persons, the "anti-Vulgate" faction was usually not on the most orthodox side

I agree there were some liberals against the Vulgate, but believe it or not the idea of doing a translation from the originals goes as far as Trent!

Quote

In particular also in regards to dogma, it was for example of extreme importance that the Vulgate put Genesis 3:15 "...et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius" for the Definition of the Immaculate Conception, while the Hebrew reads "...and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel."
For comparison, in Douay-Rheims 1899 its "and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Will you believe me if I tell you the St Jerome himself recognized that the first Latin version called the Itala says "ipse" instead of ipsa?

Quote

Quote
Well as Pius XII said the recognition the Vulgate had was "juridical" in the sense that it was a faithful translation, which doesn`t mean it is the best one.

As far as I read San Jerome merely revised the psalm version of the Vulgate. He didn`t translate it. But I may be wrong.

This is of course right if you refer to the Gallicana used in the Liturgy, not the juxta Hebraicuм. I find it doubtful whether Bea´s research team had a better version than Origen with his Hexapla.

Well... I should re-read some stuff before addressing this... I´m a little lost, lol.

Quote

I remember your preference for the Jesuits at Bellarmine forums

Well it is not that I prefer the Jesuits... for instance I hate Suarism! But you know the treatise I´ve studied the most is De Ecclesia and Jesuits are by far the best both in quality and in quantity... you can hardly find 4 or 5 good dominicans, Turrecremata, John of St. Thomas, Cajetan, Cano, Billuart, Schultes ( :boxer:), De Groot... and hardly any other. (The first 5 are from XVIII century and before)
Cajetan is famous because of his Papa deponendus theory (followed by John of Saint Thomas) and Billuart followed Suarez on the membership in the Church issue...

, and Schultes... well you can write a treatise on the Church and not quoting Billot! :)
In any case the Jesuits have St Robert, (Suarez), Passaglia, Palmieri, Franzelin, Billotius, Zapelena, Salaverri, D´Herbigny, De Guibert, etc.
In any case my point is that for some reason Dominicans had not good ecclesiologist theologians, I don´t know the reason.

So you were a member of Bellarmine?? Still trying to figure out who are you :read-paper:

Quote

which you share with Pius XII. ;-)

:)

Cristian · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2011, 03:23:25 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

As a matter of fact I have not too much of a clue of what I am speaking about, unlike you this didn't stop me from posting

LOOOOOOOOOOOL, and I don´t know either why I´m still writing in these forum since I´m kind of retiring :)

Quote

Have a blessed feast of the Body and Blood of Our Lord,
Pyrrhos

Thanks. You too.

Cristian

Cristian · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2011, 03:27:00 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Heading to work so I don't have alot of time but, Saint Jerome Translated the entire Bible.

He spoke the same ancient greek that most of the New Testament was written in since birth. Was Fluent in Latin. He managed to convince a couple Rabbi's to teach him Hebrew and then translated most of the Old Testament, he hired someone to translate the book of David, then when he was finished with the rest he went back learned chalmedic(sp) so he could make sure that it was accurate.

Maybe you are right and I should re read some things because I don´t know very much about this... but I don´t really know when. No time either!

God bless.

Cristian

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2011, 09:09:55 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

As a matter of fact I have not too much of a clue of what I am speaking about, unlike you this didn't stop me from posting

Neither did it stop me! :farmer:

Pobody's nerfect.

Happy Feast Day of Corpus Christi to all!

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #26 on:** June 24, 2011, 01:05:26 AM »

Quote from: Cristian

I agree there were some liberals against the Vulgate, but believe it or not the idea of doing a translation from the originals goes as far as Trent!

Of course, but the originals are, as yet, lost. Pius XII. rightly said that the closer we are to the inspired originals, the better it is (obviously).

Quote

Will you believe me if I tell you the St Jerome himself recognized that the first Latin version called the Itala says "ipse" instead of ipsa?

I completely believe you. But as far as I know the Vetus Latina is of very mixed quality.
But actually that is precisely the point I am making, that the Church obviously had a lot of trust in St. Jerome´s translation, even so much as to influence the definition of dogma.

Quote

Well... I should re-read some stuff before addressing this... I´m a little lost, lol.

As I said, the Gallicana used in the Liturgies of the Church was St. Jerome´s revision of the Hexapla. The juxta Hebraicuм is a real new translation from pre-Masoretic texts.
In the Nova Vulgata, you have both versions side by side.

Quote

In any case my point is that for some reason Dominicans had not good ecclesiologist theologians, I don´t know the reason.

Instead of writing all this you could have just admitted that you do indeed prefer the Jesuits

Quote

So you were a member of Bellarmine?? Still trying to figure out who are you :read-paper:

Actually I was just lurking around. The whole atmosphere was a little bit to jesuitical there, hehe.

In any case, you are a quite famous person, especially after the incident with the equally famous thesis 29.

:cheers:

Cristian · « **Reply #27 on:** June 24, 2011, 06:46:47 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Cristian
I agree there were some liberals against the Vulgate, but believe it or not the idea of doing a translation from the originals goes as far as Trent!

Of course, but the originals are, as yet, lost. Pius XII. rightly said that the closer we are to the inspired originals, the better it is (obviously).

C`est vrai!

Quote

But actually that is precisely the point I am making, that the Church obviously had a lot of trust in St. Jerome´s translation, even so much as to influence the definition of dogma.

Sorry the ignorance but did Pius IX base his definition on that text? I thought it had more to do with the words of the St. Gabriel to Our Lady and other texts. In any case weather you read Ipsa or Ipsum the sense is the same, as you can read here http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm

Quote

Quote
In any case my point is that for some reason Dominicans had not good ecclesiologist theologians, I don´t know the reason.

Instead of writing all this you could have just admitted that you do indeed prefer the Jesuits

LOOOOOOOOOOOL. Trust me I don`t like Jesuits very much (they tend to be Suarist, which means they believe in the primacy of the will above the intellect, etc.) Did you know that Suarez agrees in just 1 of the 24 Thomistic theses? If I were Pope one of the first measures would be to forbid Suarism :roll-laugh1:

Quote

Quote
So you were a member of Bellarmine?? Still trying to figure out who are you :read-paper:

Actually I was just lurking around. The whole atmosphere was a little bit to jesuitical there, hehe.

If you say so :dancing:

Quote

In any case, you are a quite famous person, especially after the incident with the equally famous thesis 29.

:cheers:

Ohhhh my beloved thesis 29... (between you and me if I were Pope the first measure would be to define it, looooooooooooooooooooooooool :roll-laugh1:)

Vivat Billotius!! :king: "Glory both of the Church and of France" (Card. Merry del Val)

:cheers:

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #28 on:** June 24, 2011, 07:05:41 AM »

Quote from: Cristian

Sorry the ignorance but did Pius IX base his definition on that text? I thought it had more to do with the words of the St. Gabriel to Our Lady and other texts. In any case weather you read Ipsa or Ipsum the sense is the same, as you can read here http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm

Well, I think it played its part, but I was actually not referring to the ipse/ipsa before. Even somebody as ignorant as me knew that the sense does not change(probably because Genesis is always in the beginning of each book on Sacred Scripture :) )

Quote

Did you know that Suarez agrees in just 1 of the 24 Thomistic theses? If I were Pope one of the first measures would be to forbid Suarism :roll-laugh1:

I did not know this fact, I rather kept away from Suarez in the past!

Quote

If you say so :dancing:

What can you expect from a forum which has a Jesuit as Patron :wink:

Quote

Vivat Billotius!! :king: "Glory both of the Church and of France" (Card. Merry del Val)

Oh, I absolutely agree - a certain Pope might not, though!

Cristian · « **Reply #29 on:** June 24, 2011, 08:06:32 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

What can you expect from a forum which has a Jesuit as Patron :wink:
Quote

LOL

Quote
Vivat Billotius!! :king: "Glory both of the Church and of France" (Card. Merry del Val)

Oh, I absolutely agree - a certain Pope might not, though!

I don`t understand