The value of tradition: Inspectis dierum nostrorum

I mentioned yesterday the document Inspectis dierum nostrorum, which up to now has been available in English only as a scanned image in a dark corner of the website of the US Bishops' Conference. It has now been retyped so it is much more legible and also searchable. I always wonder whether any particular thought goes into the non-availability of particular documents on the Vatican website; we owe to EWTN's library and various others a huge number of items which, I suspect, some people in Rome would rather had disappeared down the memory hole. Inspectis dierum is now available on the LMS website here (as a Word file) and in pdf format here.

Inspectis dierum contains a very interesting attack on the notion one constantly meets in modern Catholic theological studies, that theology should be done by juxtaposing the Bible with modern concerns and problems. The Bible itself is then subjected to the kind of (often very shoddy) 'scientific' analysis which seems designed not only to rid us of all reverence for the sacred text, but to relativise its contents to such a degree that we will end up saying: so, this is what some editor thought, unless it inspires some thoughts of my own, why should I care?

The traditional approach is to say that the interpretation and application of the Bible to pastoral issues by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is normative for us. We are not presented with the Biblical text in an aching vacuum, but in the context of centuries of commentary which, while it can go in different directions and leave many things open, is on many controversial topics actually pretty unanimous. This tradition is a source of theology alongside the sacred texts themselves.

If the Church began in 1962 with the opening of the Second Vatican Council, then the traditional view of theology has to be eradicated. Inspectis dierum, which is supposed to set the tone for the study of the Fathers in seminaries, is having none of that. Here are some quotations. 

Today there are many theological concepts or tendencies which, contrary to the indications of the decree Optatam Totius (No. 16), pay little attention to the fathers’ witness and in general to ecclesiastical tradition, and confine themselves to the direct confrontation of biblical texts with social reality and life’s concrete problems with the help of the human sciences. These are theological currents which do without the historical dimension of dogmas and for which the immense efforts of the patristic era and of the Middle Ages do not seem to have any real importance. In such cases, study of the fathers is reduced to a minimum, practically caught up in an overall rejection of the past.

            In various theologies of our times which are detached from the stream of tradition, theological activity is either reduced to pure “biblicism” or it becomes a prisoner of one’s historical horizon by being taken over by the various fashionable philosophies and ideologies of the day. Theologians, who are practically left to themselves, think that they are doing theology but are really only doing history, sociology, etc., flattening the contents of the Creed to a purely earthly dimension.

...

To follow the living tradition of the fathers does not mean hanging on to the past as such, but adhering to the line of faith with an enthusiastic sense of security and freedom, while maintaining a constant fidelity toward that which is foundational: the essential, the enduring, the unchanging fidelity usque ad sanguinis effusionem to dogma and those moral and disciplinary principles that demonstrate their irreplaceable function and their fecundity precisely at the times when new things are making headway.

...

The first thing that strikes us in their [sc the Fathers'] theology is the living sense of the transcendence of the divine truth contained in revelation. Differing from many other ancient and modern thinkers, they give proof of great humility before the mystery of God contained in Sacred Scripture on which they, in their modesty, prefer to be mere commentators who are careful not to add anything to it that might alter its authenticity. It can be said that this attitude of respect and humility is none other than lively awareness of the insuperable limits that the human intellect experiences in the face of divine transcendence.

...

It is obvious that the study of the fathers also requires adequate instruments and aids such as a well-equipped library from the patristic viewpoint (collections, monographs, reviews, dictionaries), as well as knowledge of classical and modern languages. Given the well-known deficiencies in the humanities in today’s schools, everything possible will have to be done to strengthen the study of Greek and Latin in centers of priestly formation.

The full text can be downloaded LMS website here (as a Word file) and in pdf format here.

Photos show St Cuthbert's Seminary at Ushaw, Country Durham, during the Latin Mass Society's Priest Training Conference of 2009. Having acquired the reputation as the most 'progressive' seminary in England and Wales, it is now closed. It is to be hoped that the magnificent chapel and other buildings find some worthy use. More photos here.

Latin in Seminaries: more forgotten documents

The Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis is one of those documents readers of this blog are extremely unlikely to have heard of, but it is important: it sets the ground-rules for seminary education. There have been two editions, issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education, in 1970 and in 1980.

We may think of it as a intermediate document between the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Priestly Training Optatem totius, and the more specific national guidelines for seminary education, which should be produced by each Episcopal Conference and submitted to Rome for approval, the Ratio studiorum. Also relevant of course, and of a higher level of authority, is Canon Law, which has some things to say about seminary education, although the new Code of Canon Law (1983) came out after the most recent edition of the Ratio fundamentalis. Another important document is Bl John Paul II's 'Post Synodal Exhortation' on Seminary education, Pastores dabo vobis, which dates from 1992.

The distressing state of many seminaries around the world is not unconnected with the failure of the theoretically rather strict system control the Holy See has over what seminaries teach. For one thing, it is rather surprising that, after refreshing the Ratio fundamentalis only ten years after the first edition, the Congregation for Catholic Education never produced another edition. There have been a few developments since 1980, not least the new Code of Canon Law. Now responsibility for seminaries has been transferred to the Congregation for Clergy, and we may wonder if they will do a new edition. If they do, no doubt it will take some time to prepare.



In addition, it appears that the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales have never proposed a Ratio studiorum for their seminaries. The obligation to produce one and get it approved is spelled out in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 242), so to say that this is pretty surprising is an understatement. The process of checks and balances between the bishops and Rome is simply not functioning.

For what they are worth, let's see what these documents say about the teaching of Latin.

Optatem totius 13: Seminarians 'are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church.'

Ratio fundamentalis (1970): 66. 'On the completion of these studies, any deficiency in knowledge which is required in a priest must be made good either before or during the study of philosophy, as n. 60 indicates. An example would be that reasonable proficiency in Latin, which the Church continually and insistently demands. A list and program of these studies should be included in the Scheme for Priestly Training.'



Ratio fundamentatlis (1980):  'It has been abundantly proved that the general orientations of the Council, if they are faithfully observed, do not irritate the People of God. They rebel only against novelties and excesses. For instance, the Council is far from having banned the use of the Latin language. Indeed, it did the contrary. Thus the systematic exclusion of Latin is an abuse no less to be condemned than the systematic desire of some people to use it exclusively. Its sudden and total disappearance will not be without serious pastoral consequences.'

Code of Canon Law (1983): Can. 249 'The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.'

Pastores dabo vobis (1992): 'Hence the importance of studying sacred Scripture "which should be the soul, as it were, of all theology", the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, the history of the Church and the teachings of the magisterium.'



This last reference to the study of the Fathers of the Church refers back not only to Optatem totius (which is the source of the quote about biblical studies), but also to an Instruction on the subject, Inspectis dierum, which came out just three years before Pope John Paul's Exhortation. This, like Optatem totius, makes it clear that it is going to involve a knowledge of Latin.

Inspectis dierum (1989) 'The study of Patrology and of Patristics, which in its initial stage consists in outlining [the subject-matter], demands that manuals and other bibliographical resources be employed. When one arrives at difficult and involved questions of Patristic theology, however, none of these aids suffices: one has to go directly to the Fathers' very texts.'

'Given the well-known deficiencies in the humanities in today’s schools, everything possible will have to be done to strengthen the study of Greek and Latin in centers of priestly formation.'

Inspectis dierum is so interesting and important that, despite having blogged about it before, I am going to blog about it again. I have also had this document re-typed, so it can be more easily be read and searched. It is now available on the Latin Mass Society's website here (word .doc format; pdf format here).

Photos: ordinations to the priesthood in the Seminary of the Fraternity of St Peter in Denton, Nebraska, USA, peformed by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, Saturday 21st May 2011. More here.

Pius XI on Latin: Officiorum omnium

I've blogged about this briefly before; now, thanks to some very generous help from various Latinists, I can present the whole thing in English for the first time online. It is particularly important to keep in mind the consistent teaching of the Church on issues like this, as expressed in proper magisterial documents printed in the Acta Apostolicis Sedis. They can be ignored, of course, but they don't go away.

This document is referred to repeatedly by Bl. John XXIII's Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (1962). Its importance lies not only in its content, but the fact that as an Apostolic Letter it is an act of the Papal Magisterium; many documents on this topic are Instructions, which are of lesser weight.

It helps to demonstrate the remarkable consistency of the teaching of the Church on the importance of Latin before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council: compare the above mentioned Veterum Sapientia, the Council's Decree on Seminary Education Optatam totius, and later documents such as Paul VI's Sacrificium laudis (1966) (also available in English only on the LMS website here), Bl John Paul II's Dominicae cenae (1980), the Congregation for Catholic Education's Inspectis dierum (1989), Pope Benedict XVI's Sacramentum caritatis (2007) and Lingua Latina (2012).

Most of these documents are not primarily concerned with the liturgy; Officiorum omnium doesn't even mention it. The concern is with Latin as an irreplacable foundation for a seminary education, opening the door to an immediate engagement with the Latin Fathers, the documents of the Church, Canon law, and an enormous body of theology, history, and literature.

For more on Latin in Seminaries, see the FIUV Position Paper 12: Latin in Seminaries.

Officiorum omnium can be downloaded in full here; below is a key passage.

Since Latin is such a language, it was divinely foreseen that it should be something marvellously useful for the Church as teacher, and that it should also serve as a great bond of unity for Christ’s more learned faithful; that is to say, by giving them not only something with which, whether they are separated in different locations or gathered into one place, they might easily compare the respective thoughts and insights of their minds, but also – and this is even more important – something with which they might understand more profoundly the things of mother Church, and might be united more closely with the head of the Church. It is clear that the clergy should, in advance of the rest, be very studious of the Latin language for both these reasons, not to mention others; for we do not here run through the estimations by which this kind of speech is recommended, that it is compact, rich, rhythmic, full of majesty and dignity. And you might say with wonder that it was ready-made to serve the glory of the Roman Pontiff, to whom the very seat of Empire came as by a bequest.

But if, in any layman who is indeed imbued with literature, ignorance of the Latin language, which we can truly call the “catholic” language, indicates a certain sluggishness in his love towards the Church, how much more fitting it is that each and every cleric should be adequately practised and skilled in that language! It is certainly their task to defend Latinity with all the more steadfastness, since they are aware that it was with all the more violence that it was attacked by the adversaries of catholic wisdom who in the 16^th century shattered the accord Europe had in the single doctrine of the Faith.

Therefore – and this is something guaranteed by canon law (Codex Iuris Canonici can. 1364) – in the schools of literature where the sacred order's expectations reach maturity, we wish the alumni to be instructed very exactly in the Latin language. We wish it also for this motive, in case, when they later approach the higher disciplines that must certainly be both handed on and received in Latin, it happens that through ignorance of the language they cannot achieve full understanding of the doctrines, let alone exercise themselves in those scholastic disciplines by which the talents of youths are sharpened for defending the truth.

Thus the occurrence we often grieve over will happen no longer: - our clerics and priests, when, through neglect of the copious volumes of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in which the dogmas of the Faith are presented, being both set forth very lucidly and defended invincibly, they have not put enough effort into the study of Latin literature, seek for themselves a suitable supply of doctrine from more recent authors; among these one can virtually say not only is a clear kind of speech and an exact method of arrangement generally lacking, but so too is a faithful interpretation of the dogmas. So it was that Paul warned Timothy: “Hold the form of sound words… Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called; which some promising, have erred concerning the faith” (2 Tim 1.13, 1 Tim 6.20,21). These words, if it were ever otherwise, are in these times especially relevant, since all over the place so very many have become used to hawking various erroneous fallacies, masked under the name and pretence of science. But who could show up and refute these fallacies without thoroughly mastering the understanding of the dogmas of the Faith and the force of the words in which they are solemnly expressed, in short without being skilful in the very language the Church employs?

Officiorum omnium: decree on Seminaries, 1922

I'll be very impressed if anyone reading this blog has heard of this document, but it is referred to more than once by Bl John XXIII's great Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, which must be the most important modern magisterial document to fail to appear on the Vatican Website. Officiorum omnium is one of a long list of magisterial documents, from both before and after the Second Vatican Council, which call for more Latin in seminaries. A fairly comprehensive list can be mined in the FIUV Position Papers on Latin in Seminaries, with their main arguments examined.

Since Officiciorum Omnium is an Apostolic Letter (of Pope Pius XI), and not just an Instruction of a Roman Congregation, and since it is fairly short, I have commissioned a translation. The Latin is available on the on-line Acta Apostolicis Sedis (Volume XIV, 1922). The translation will be posted in full on the LMS website when it is ready, here are some highlights.

It came out in the first year of Pope Pius XI's pontificate, promulgated August 7th 1922: he clearly regarded it as a high priority. And so should we.

One striking thing about the pre-Conciliar calls for more Latin is that they are not particularly interested in the liturgy. Officiorum omnium doesn't even mention it. Latin liturgy could be taken for granted; the reason why seminarians must learn Latin is for their studies.

On praying for vocations.

First of all since, as we have said, the affairs of the sacred order and of the Church have a very close mutual linkage, there can be no doubting that at all times an adequate number of men is destined by God for the priesthood; otherwise God would ever be failing his Church in an essential matter, and even to mention that is wicked.

Even so, in this very matter, just as in other matters necessary for the common salvation of souls, that law of divine providence is in force, that prayers in common should have the fullest place for bringing it about.

God is sending us the vocations, but He still wants us to pray for them.

Fr John Hunwicke teaching at the LMS Latin Course in July.

On Latin as the language of the Church.
Since the Latin language is such, it was divinely foreseen that it should be something marvellously useful for the teaching Church, and that it should also serve as a great bond of unity for Christ’s more learned faithful; that is to say, by giving them not only something with which, whether they are separated by spatial location or gathered into one place, they might easily compare the respective thoughts and insights of their minds, but also – and this is greater – something with which they might understand more profoundly the things of mother Church, and might be united more closely with the head of the Church.
...And you might say with admiration that it was ready-made to serve the glory of the Roman Pontiff, to whom the very seat of Empire came as by a bequest.


Even the laity should study Latin

But if in any layman who is indeed imbued with literature, ignorance of the Latin language, which we can truly call the “catholic” language, indicates a certain sluggishness (apathy) in love towards the Church, how much more fitting it is that each and every cleric be adequately practised and skilled in that language! Their task is certainly to defend Latinity with all the more steadiness, aware as they are that it was with all the more violence that it was attacked by the adversaries of catholic wisdom who in the 16^th century shattered Europe’s accord in a single doctrine of Faith.

Latin is necessary for the study of theology and philosophy.

we wish the alumni to be instructed very exactly in the Latin language, and also for this motive, in case, when they afterwards approach the higher disciplines which are certainly both to be handed on and to be received in Latin, it happens that through ignorance of the language they are unable to achieve full understanding of the doctrines, let alone to exercise themselves in those scholastic disciplines by which the talents of youths are sharpened for defending truth.

Br Richard Bailey teaching at the LMS Latin Course

Lack of Latin throws seminarians to the mercy of second-rate modern theologians.

...that our clerics and priests, when they have not put enough effort into the study of Latin literature, by neglecting the copious volumes of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in which the dogmas of the Faith are presented and are both set forth very lucidly and defended invincibly, seek for themselves a suitable supply of doctrine from more recent authors, in which not only does a clear kind of speech and an exact method of arrangement often scarcely usually exists, but also a faithful interpretation of dogmas is lacking. 

Another of Pope Pius XI's headaches was the rise of Italian Fascism, and he was not slow to condemn it as a form of paganism. It seems he has a little swipe at it in this document, promulgated just weeks before Mussolini's coup.

Mussolini and his Blackshirts march on Rome, October 1922

For the Church, since it both contains all nations in its embrace and is  also going to endure until the consummation of the ages, and it absolutely keeps the mob away from its governance, requires by its own nature a universal language, unchangeable, not that of the mob.

Anne Roche Muggeridge on Liberalism's tragic trajectory

Why are liberals so brutal, when their entire self-understanding is about opposing brutality?

There is both a general answer, applicable to revolutionary liberalism in general, and a specific answer for the case of the Church, in this interesting passage in Anne Roche Muggeridge's excellent book, The Desolate City.

It has often been said that all revolutions fail since the ideals of early reformers are inevitably betrayed by the dynamics of the very process intended to secure them. James Hitchcock, in his early study of the post-Conciliar revolution, The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism, noted this. The radicals had wanted a Church "more open, more honest, less authoritarian and more humane than at present." But they soon discovered that "it is also impossible to have effective revolution...without having authoritarianism, strong discipline, enforced orthodoxy, the sacrifice of individuals to the cause - all the abuses which the revolutionaries object to in the establishment...have already begun to appear within radical American Catholicism." [p.43] To survive in power over a large number of unwilling subjects who still adhere to the older idea, a revolution is forced to maintain more rigid and punitive orthodoxy than the one it is trying to supplant. Twenty years after Vatican II, the revolution, though it has failed to behead the king, has for all intents and purposes become the establishment. Yet the horrid truth has begun to dawn that the teaching authority of the Church, centred on the Roman magisterium, is not after all going to abdicate, scrap its cosmology, become a constitutional monarchy or a parliamentary democracy or a revolutionary commune. Therefore, instead of being able to settle down to consolidate its gains, the revolution has had to step up its attack. Though the post-Consiliar hierarchy, up to and including Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, have been consistently patient and gentle - the traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is suspended, Hans Küng is not - the charges of brutality directed against it by the revolution become ever more outrageous. ...

It is now time for conciliation of the revolution by the magisterium to stop. It had to be tried, but it hasn't worked; it never does. 

The Desolate City: revolution in the Catholic Church (1986, revised ed 1990) p174-5

Anne Roche Muggeridge, who died in 2010, was a great pro-lifer and Traditionalist. She married Malcolm Muggeridge's son John, and was an influence in Malcolm's conversion. Her best-known book, The Desolate City was published in 1986 and revised and expanded in 1990; in this passage 1986 seems to be the present (I don't think the reference to Archbishop Lefebvre has caught up with the 1988 consecrations and excommunications).

See an obituary of Anne Roche Muggeridge here.

The cartoon above nicely illustrates the point about the ever-shriller denouncements of oppression by the very people who represent, for many purposes, the Catholic establishment. It accompanied a 2011 article by Elena Curti which, with the thinnest of veils, called for the ordination of women. More about that here.

Universae Ecclesiae and the Office: a reply to Mgr Wadsworth

Can priests mix and match the old and new Breviaries?

Mgr Andrew Wadsworth, very much a friend of the Traditional Mass (and the Latin Mass Society) and recently most famous as Executive Director of ICEL, and a key person in the preparation of the new translation of the 1970 Missal, raised an interesting question about wording of Universae Ecclesiae on the 1962 Office, in the comments on my post about our new translation of Universae Ecclesiae.

Mgr Wadsworth was Assistant Priest to Bishop Arnold at the LMS' AGM Mass in 2009; he's on the left.

He wrote:

This project is an excellent idea and a real opportunity to consider how some of the provisions of this important document can be applied.

I'm not sure that your literal translation of para 32 supports the idea that those bound to the recitation of the office may use either one form or the other at whim. While we understand that it is always possible to fulfil this obligation by assisting at isolated celebrations such as Vespers, Compline, Matins or one of the little hours in either form, I think this clarifiction is actually to ensure that combinations of the two forms are not habitually used on a daily basis.

For instance, I would imagine that the injuction "quidem integre et Latino sermone" suggests that it is not licit for a priest to pray Office of Readings everyday from the Liturgia horarum and then to say the days hours from the Breviarium Romanum. In this way, the integrity of the day's office would be continually compromised and the basic principle of praying of the whole psalter rendered continually impossible (in either form). A person who is not obliged to the entire office obviously has greater liberty. 

The Latinists who prepared the translation have replied as follows.

Latinist number 1: My view is that each of the two interpretations is technically 'probable'; and that, accordingly, one can invoke the principle that a lex dubia does not constrain.

The idea that one might lawfully mix up the two uses is supported by Laudis Canticum of Paul VI, 1970, giving bishops the power to allow priests with age-related or other problems "Breviarium Romanum, quod antea in usu erat, sive ex toto siveex parte retinere". So, even if Mgr Wadsworth is right, all a priest who wishes to oscillate between the uses needs to do is to get a faculty from his bishop under the Pauline legislation!

Latinist number 2:

Universae ecclesiae, s. 32:

Omnibus clericis conceditur facultas recitandi Breviarium Romanum ....., et quidem integre et Latino sermone.

Vat trans: ...gives clerics the faculty to use the Breviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be prayed entirely and in the Latin language.


'Slavish' trans: To all clerics is granted the faculty of reciting the Roman Breviary of the year 1962 ....., and, what is more, entirely and in the Latin language.

The meaning of s. 32 depends on quidem. The force, to me, seems to be: “and indeed they may use it entirely and do so in Latin.” “May use”, because we are talking of a faculty, not a requirement. Quidem can mean “certainly” (L & S, II), and seems to be intended to remove any doubt that might exist whether clerics can use it all and nothing but, and are not required to say the occasional hour in the OF or in the vernacular. But it does not seem to stop clerics doing the latter if they wish.

Yet I concede that quidem (L & S, B.2) can accompany a qualificative or opposing thought: “but, yet, however”. In this case the clause could be interpreted in a restrictive sense- “it’s all, and in Latin, or nothing”.“Quidem” is untranslated in the Vatican version, except perhaps by implication. “What is more” is intended to bring out the generosity of the concession, not to make it more restrictive – and this in a document whose entire purpose is surely to be generous. 

Latinist number 2: 
I am tempted to write “obviously” for “quidem”: - you don’t need some kind of extra permission to recite the whole thing in the EF rather than just part of it, or to use Latin rather than the vernacular, though (if you wanted) you could do part of it only, and in the vernacular. For this nuance, how about the Preface for Easter? - Te quidem Dne omni tempore sed in hoc... “Given that it is you, Lord, that we are talking about, it is “obviously” right that we preach you all the time, but all the more so now...”

Nevertheless, if I am wrong, and Mgr Wadsworth is right to suggest that the legislator wished to be restrictive, it seems to me that the legislator has not managed so to express himself (and then lex dubia non obligat). For he could very easily have been clearer: dummodo officium totius diei recitent integrum et solo Latino sermone, or the like.Mgr Wadsworth’s point that a carte blanche to mix the EF and OF offices would compromise the integrity of the day’s office is reasonable enough. On the other hand a priest who daily says the EF mass and recites the OF office (or, for that matter, vice versa) would also be doing this – and this is certainly allowed by the legislator.

New translation of Universae Ecclesiae

I am delighted to announce the completion of a little project I've had in had for some weeks: a completely new translation of Universae Ecclesiae, the 2011 Instruction of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesiae Dei which clarifies and in some ways gives substance to the liberation of the Traditional Mass which Pope Benedict effected in 2007 with his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. This is thanks to a lot of work by some very good Latinists - not me, I hasten to say!

This may sound desperately dull, but Universae Ecclesiae is the last word on the legal status of the Traditional Mass, the Extraordinary Form, and of the process by which we can ask for it. I suspect it will remain the last word, substantially, for a good while, partly because it did what was needed, and partly because Pope Francis has other priorities. This means that understanding this document properly is of particular significance.

And this is another chance to embarrass the Latinists of the Vatican who think they can fob us off with inaccurate or tendentious translations from the Italian version, or whatever it is they do, instead of giving us a faithful rendering of the Latin. I'd love to hear of a single example in this document, or of many others, when sloppy translation favours the cause of the Traditional Mass and those who wish to celebrate or attend it. It is not carelessness, it is a systematic bias.

I've put it on the LMS website, and created a pdf with the Vatican's translation, the Latin, and the literal translation, are side by side in parallel.

Here are some examples.

Vatican website:
'5. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition.'

Literal translation:
'5. But quite a number of Christ’s faithful, imbued with the spirit of the liturgical rites prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a noteworthy desire to keep the ancient tradition.'

They weren't formed in those rites, necessarily - that suggests they grew up in them. Few trads today were: but they are imbued with them.

Vatican website:
8. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.[3] The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,[4] and has the aim of:

Literal translation:

8. The Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, and of his munus of ruling, and of arranging the Sacred Liturgy,[3] and of his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the Universal Church[4]. The Letter itself has the aim of:

The Holy Father's gift of ruling is not limited to fiddling about with the liturgy, and that is not all that is at issue here. The Motu Proprio was not a piece of liturgical legislation, but a wider act of governing the Church.

Vatican website: the first aim of the Motu Proprio
8 a. offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved; 

Literal translation:
8 a. bestowing on all of the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, as a precious treasure to be preserved; 

No one is going to be forced to go, but it is given to all, it belongs to all, it is part of the Church's liturgical life - whether you like it or not. And it is not just 'considered' a precious treasure - 'prout pretiosum thesaurum' - it is one.

Vatican website:

21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin[8] and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

Literal translation:

21. Ordinaries are strenuously asked to provide for clergy who are in training a suitable opportunity for acquiring the art of celebrating in the forma extraordinaria; and this  is most especially applicable for Seminaries, in which it shall be provided that the students of sacred things be aptly instructed, by learning the Latin language [8] and, where circumstances demand it, the actual forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

They really let themselves go here. The Latin 'enixe', 'strenuously', is left untranslated: did the translator think that the Supreme Legislator of the Church, the Pope, who approved this Instruction, make a mistake in using this word? Clearly the translators also couldn't cope with the idea that the possibility of training in the EF applied 'potissimum', 'most especially', in seminaries.

Vatican website:

32. Art. 9 § 3 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum gives clerics the faculty to use the Breviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be prayed entirely and in the Latin language.

Literal translation:

32. To all clerics is granted the faculty of reciting the Roman Breviary of the year 1962, about which Art. 9 § 3 of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, and, what is more, entirely and in the Latin language.

Priests don't have to say the whole of the Breviary according to the 1962 books, or none of it: they can use any part of it they like. (This will come up, for example, if they attend a public celebration of Vespers according to 1962, and the like.)

Vatican website:

34. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.

Literal translation:

34. It is permitted to members of Religious Orders to use their proper liturgical books in force in the year 1962.

The Vatican translators made it sound as though the whole order would have to agree about using their old books. Not so: each and every member has a right to use them, of his own volition.

But have a look at the whole thing, hardly a section goes by without the translators sticking their oar in to weaken, confuse, lessen, and thwart, in subtle ways, Pope Benedict's clarity of mind and generosity of spirit in giving us this legislation. 

As always, comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome.

A forgotten Instruction on Patristics in Seminary

The Latin Fathers: Gregory, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome

In 1989 the Congregation for Catholic Education, under the American Cardinal William Baum, published an Instruction, Inspectis dierum nostrorum, on the place of Patristics, the study of the Fathers of the Church, in seminaries. This document is available in the on-line version of the 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis' (82 (1990) 607-636) the official record of all curial documents, but only in Latin; it is available on the Congregation's page on the Vatican website, but only in Italian.

Is this someoe's idea of a joke? That a series of documents lamenting the fact that fewer and fewer people can read Latin, are available only in Latin? For this is not a one-off. Pius XI's decree on Latin in Seminaries Officiorum omnium, the hugely important 1962 Veterum Sapientia of John XXIII, Paul VI's Sacrificium laudis of 1966: all call for more Latin, and by an amazing coincidence the Vatican translators haven't bothered to put any of them into English - or any other vernacular language, except, bizarrely, Spanish for Veterum Sapientia, and Italian for Inspectis dierum and Sacrificium laudis. And what's this? They haven't got round to an official translation of Summorum Pontificum yet either, except into Hungarian.

Inspectis dierum is available on the website of the Bishops of the United States of America. This link appears to be broken from the main page but you can get the document here. It is a scan of a printed translation - better than nothing. Veterum Sapientia is available and thanks to the Latin Mass Society so is Sacrificium laudis.

Cardinal Baum

Not having English (or other vernacular) translations freely available is a pretty effective way of ensuring that no-one reads these documents, and asks any awkward questions about the education our seminarians are getting. I've heard that the translation of texts is not the task of the Congregation which produces them, but is overseen by the Secretariat of State, so this is an example of un-joined up thinking in the Curia.

Here are some key passages.

11: 'Furthermore these days many students of theology, evidently graduates of technical schools, do not have that knowledge of classical languages that is necessary for any one to undertake an investigation of the Fathers in a serious way. For this reason, the state of Patristic instruction in institutes of priestly education grievously suffers from those changes in the culture that are observed in a growing scientific and technological mentality that attributes greater importance to the teaching of the natural and human sciences to the neglect of the liberal arts.'

(What of Catholic schools? Don't they have an obligation to resist this trend against the liberal arts?)

53: 'The study of Patrology and of Patristics, which in its initial stage consists in outlining [the subject-matter], demands that manuals and other bibliographical resources be employed. When one arrives at difficult and involved questions of Patristic theology, however, none of these aids suffices: one has to go directly to the Fathers' very texts. For it behoves Patristics to be both taught and learned—especially in Academies and in specialized curricula—with professor and student going directly to the primary sources themselves. Nevertheless, because of the difficulties that often detain students, it will be opportune to place into their hands bilingual editions known to be scientifically reliable.'

(A counsel of despair: having insisted on the necessity of reading the texts in the original, the authors seem to acknowledge that this is practically unattainable. But this is so only because seminaries are not teaching the languages to a decent level.)

64: 'For the teaching of Patrology and Patristics in Institutes of priestly formation, those are to be preferred who have followed specialised studies in that subject in the Institutes established for the purpose—as in the Roman Patristic Institute called “the Augustinianum” or in the Pontifical Superior Institute of Latin (the Faculty of Christian and Classical Literature). This is because it is useful for the teacher to have been instructed in the ability to go directly to the sources themselves.'

(Note the concern here that even Patristics teachers won't have the languages.)


66: 'But it is clear that suitable instruments and resources are necessary to deal with Patristic studies properly. Such are libraries well stocked with respect to Patristics ('corpora' or collections, monographs, reviews or journals, dictionaries). And it is also clear that classical and modern languages are necessary as well. Since, however, the schools of our day and age are plainly deficient in the liberal arts, to the extent possible we shall have to further strengthen the study of Latin and Greek in our own Institutes of Priestly Formation.'

Popes and the Congregation for Education (and its former incarnations) have bemoaned the low level of clerical Latin, and called for improvements—culminating in Veterum Sapientia of February 1962 —since Leo XIII, himself echoing the alarm of the French bishop fifty-odd years earlier (in the 1830s!) when the French government-run schools dropped the Latin verse composition requirement.

Jacob's Spring, in the Holy Land

One of the watchwords of progressive theology of the Second Vatican Council era was 'ressourcement': 'going back to the sources'. This was a reaction to the over-use of textbooks in the bad old days. At least, in those days, the text books were usually in Latin, and as a result any seminarian could, with a bit of effort, read the original texts for himself if he wanted to, at least as far as Latin authors were concerned. Have we returned to the sources in seminary education? Alas no: most seminarians can't even understand the languages. Is reading a summary by a trendy modern theologian in the vernacular a good substitute? The Congregation for Catholic Education says NO!

If you want to know the ideal of pre-Conciliar seminary education, you need to read the document drawn up by the then Congregation for Seminaries which was to implement John XXIII's 1962 Veterum Sapientia, called Sacrum Latinae linguae depositum. But before you can hear what it says about the importance of learning Latin in order to read the Fathers, you know what you'll have to do? Learn Latin. That's the only language in which this document appears to exist. (You can find it in the online Acta: in the 1962 volume, ie vol. 54, it starts on p339.)

Tendentious translation of Quo Primum on the web

A curious issue revealed in the preparation of one the FIUV position paper is the widespread error on the internet in the translation of a key passage of Pope St Pius V's Bull Quo Primum. New Advent has it right; Papal Encyclicals Online, EWTN and others have got it wrong. This is not exactly a coincidence, since it seems that there are just two translations freely available on the web, and all the sites which want to offer a list of important Church documents have got one or the other. There's no 'official' one on the Vatican website (not that that would exclude the possibility of error...)

Everyone knows that Quo Primum promulgated a revised edition of the Missale Romanum, and made it available to the whole Latin Church. Recent liturgical innovations were suppressed. The translation issue is about the conditions for a diocese or religious order to stop using their legitimate proper liturgical rite or usage (one more than 200 years old in 1570) and adopt the Roman Rite

The Latin says:

'nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica adprobata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus; sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati, Capitulique universi consensu, ut quibusvis non obstantibus, juxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus;'

Which means:  

'saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over two hundred years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than two hundred years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to this rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding.’ 

The more widespread translation has, instead of the emboldened words: 

'provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter,'

But 'Capituli', '[consent] of the Chapter', has a '-que' stuck on the end (an 'enclitic'), which means 'and', just like the '-que' stuck on the end of 'filio' in the Creed ('filioque'). Just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and not the Father OR the Son, so the consent is required of 'the bishop or prelate AND the Chapter', not 'OR the Chapter'.
 
In any case, the second translation would suggest a very puzzling provision, saying that the bishop could override the Chapter, or vice versa, but only in the direction of innovation, in adopting the Roman Rite. On the contrary, Pius V stacked all the cards in a conservative direction: a single dissenting canon in the cathedral chapter, or religious in an order's chapter, can prevent the loss of a venerable liturgical usage, and the superior and bishop also have a veto.

There is a widespread myth that Pius V and the Council of Trent in general imposed the Roman Rite on unwilling Catholics all over Europe, having first conducted a root-and-branch reform of it, comparable to the post Vatican II reform. This is complete tosh. The changes made to the new edition of the Missale Romanum in 1570, compared to the first printed edition in 1471, are extremely minor, and consist mostly of textual corrections in the light of manuscripts dating back no further than the 13th Century. This was imposed on no-one, to speak of: all the rites and usages we think of as important, historically, had a history going back much further than 200 years before Trent, and they happily continued in use afterwards. Gallican rites were still being used in France in the 19th Century; the Mozarabic Rite, the Ambrosian  Rite, the usage of Braga, the usages of Dominicans, Premonstrensians, Carthusians and others carried on being used up to Vatican II, and many of them are still in use today.

Let's hope that the transparency of the web will allow accuracy to drive out error.

PCED Clarification on the Motu Proprio

Late as I am I want to comment on the recent document from the PCED on the interpretation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

First, here is a summary of the main body of the document. You can see a scan of the letter, in Italian, on the NLM (where the translation also come from).

1. If there is no other possibility, because for instance in all churches of a diocese the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum are already being celebrated in the Ordinary Form, the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum may, in the same church in which they are already celebrated in the Ordinary Form, be additionally celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, if the local ordinary allows.

2. A Mass in the usus antiquior may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the Ordinary Form. The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very incovenient mid afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter to the prudent judgement of the parish priest, and emphasises the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

3. A parish priest may schedule a public Mass in the Extraordinary Form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior. The response of the Commission here is identical to no. 2.

4. The calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Missale Romanum may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Missale Romanum in Masses in the Extraordinary Form.

5. While the liturgical readings (Epistle and Gospel) themselves have to be read by
the priest (or deacon/subdeacon) as foreseen by the rubrics, a translation to the vernacular may afterwards be read also by a layman.

It is fair to say that all these points were already in the Motu Proprio, but (since clarification was requested), they needed reiterating. In particular, it is quite astonishing that point 3 needed making, but Twitter was filled with re-tweets on this point as if it were surprising. But Article 2 of the MP says that any priest may say a private Mass (Missa sine populo) without requiring any permission to do so, and article 4 clarifies that despite its confusing Latin name ('sine populo') people can actually attend these Masses. Furthermore, article 5 notes that scheduling public Masses requires only the permission of the priest in charge of the church or chapel. In other words, the two forms of the Roman Rite are exactly the same where permission to celebrate is concerned. (The same goes for the need for the priest to be 'idoneus' and not juridicially impeded.)

Point 2 is implicit in the Motu Proprio, though not explicit. Since the two Forms of the Rite are equally in the power of the Rector of a church or chapel, he may introduce one at a time formerly occupied by the other. If you think about it, you have to ask: why shouldn't he be able to do this?

Point 5 is the most interesting. It was a custom in certain places before the new Missal was introduced for a vernacular translation to be read by a layman after the priest had read or sung it in Latin. In some cases this was done simultaneously with the priest's reading in Latin. The ruling here makes allowance for this, on the condition that the Latin text be read by the priest first. It must be read, and it must be read first before anything else happens.

A great deal of confusion has arisen over the Motu Proprio Article 6, which says

In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula, utendo editionibus ab Apostolica Sede recognitis.

This led to some suggestions that it would be possible to use the lectionary of the 1970 Missal (which would lead to the use of the 1970 calendar as well); this is not supported by the text, however, and is now definitively ruled out by point 4 of the PCED's letter.

Another interpretation of the MP Article 6 was that the readings may read in the vernacular without them being read in Latin first. But that is not what the Latin says: Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula means that it is possible to read them ALSO in the vernacular.

Unfortunately even the translation improved by Rorate Caeli and posted on their website fails to translate the 'etiam', as does the semi-official English translation provided by the Vatican Information Service on the Vatican website.

It is just possible that 'etiam' could mean 'even' (as in: 'on occasion'), but this is now ruled out by the PCED. The permission to have the translation read does not allow the Latin not to be read by the priest. The Latin texts of the epistle and gospel are part of the Mass.

That this should be so requires some explanation, which I propose to address in the next post.

Translation problems in the Motu Proprio

Now that the dust is settling, after the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, two serious errors in the English translation provided by the Vatican have been revealed.

Careless and tendentious translation at the Vatican is been an extremely serious problem, chronicled in detail by the famous blogger Fr Z. In the case of the MP, no 'official' translation has been provided, but the Vatican's 'unofficial' translation, from the Vatican Information Service, has naturally been the basis of commentary, and of the 'guidance' being offered by various bishops around the world. This can lead to errors, and of course even when an official translation appears, the Latin is the normative text, not the English or any other translation.

The two problems are these.
Article 5 secton 1: In paraoeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adherentium continenter exsistit, parochus eorum petitiones as celebrandum santam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat.

The Vatican translation: In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962...

The problem here is the phrase 'stable group of faithful'. The 'coetus fidelium' is to be 'continenter exsistet' - continuously present, ie not just passing through. (A separate article deals with the right of people passing through to the Traditional Mass: for funerals, pilgrimages etc..) Fr Z makes this point here: the word 'continenter' does not imply that the group must be of any particular size; a 'coetus' can be three people, including the priest, and it is this which would justify a pastor celebrating the Traditional Mass publicly.

Article 5, section 4: Sacerdotes Missali B. Ioannis XXIII utentes, idonei esse debent ac iure non impediti.

The Vatican translation: Priests who use the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.

The problem here is the word 'idoneus' implies only legal, rather than academic or intellectual, qualification. Just as a newly elected religious superior must be 'idoneus' to take up his or her position, so must a priest who is to say the Traditional Mass. While it would certainly not be fitting for a priest to say the Mass without proper preparation, and without knowing what he was doing, the Holy Father is not imposing a requirement for any formal qualifications (passing Latin exams etc.) by using the word 'idoneus'. Fr Z makes that point here.

The difficulty of translating 'idoneus' neatly has led Rorate Caeli, who adapted the English translation for its readers, to render the phrase simply 'must be idoneus'. Unfortunately, even their translation misses the first problem discussed above. Nevertheless, it is recommended because it puts the Latin and English in parallel columns.