Holy See – online | USCCB – pdf online |
| Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat. | Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium stabiliter existit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat. |
Fr. Z. has noted an odd discrepancy between the Vatican's official version of the Holy Father's motu proprio, Summorum pontificum, and the version the USCCB used for its English translation. You can get the grammatical details from Fr. Z., however, suffice it to say here: the difference between the two Latin words is enormous! And this difference explains why a number of American bishops are attempting to limit the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to a "stable" group of parishioners whose interest in the rite pre-dates S.P.
Read Fr. Z.'s explanation of the difference between "continenter" and "stabiliter." Better yet-- ponder his closing question: why is the USCCB using an older version of the official Latin text? As my prior often says, "Pious minds can only speculate. . ."
Updated musings: One of the annoying habits of contemporaty, progressive liturgists is their tendency to trivialize Latin as a useful language for your average Catholic pewsitter. I have often heard, "Nobody speaks Latin anymore. . .dead language." And so, we have pretty much systematically eliminated Latin education from the Church in the last forty years. All in the name of "People Power," popular access, and making the liturgy relevant, we have effectively handed over to an elite segment of the Church's academic corps the power to translate--and thus the power to interpret--Latin documents from Rome. This would count as irony if it didn't happen almost every time an enlightened cadre of self-appointed prophets and revolutionaries destroyed an institution's history and culture in the name of the "People." I don't believe that there is any conspiracy here. The USCCB staff has a strong liberal bias, but they aren't stupid. The real test will be whether or not they adopt the official Vatican version and change their published guidelines to match.
See the original documents: official Vatican document and USCCB's version. You are looking for Article 5.1.
Read Fr. Z.'s explanation of the difference between "continenter" and "stabiliter." Better yet-- ponder his closing question: why is the USCCB using an older version of the official Latin text? As my prior often says, "Pious minds can only speculate. . ."
Updated musings: One of the annoying habits of contemporaty, progressive liturgists is their tendency to trivialize Latin as a useful language for your average Catholic pewsitter. I have often heard, "Nobody speaks Latin anymore. . .dead language." And so, we have pretty much systematically eliminated Latin education from the Church in the last forty years. All in the name of "People Power," popular access, and making the liturgy relevant, we have effectively handed over to an elite segment of the Church's academic corps the power to translate--and thus the power to interpret--Latin documents from Rome. This would count as irony if it didn't happen almost every time an enlightened cadre of self-appointed prophets and revolutionaries destroyed an institution's history and culture in the name of the "People." I don't believe that there is any conspiracy here. The USCCB staff has a strong liberal bias, but they aren't stupid. The real test will be whether or not they adopt the official Vatican version and change their published guidelines to match.
See the original documents: official Vatican document and USCCB's version. You are looking for Article 5.1.
No comments:
Post a Comment