On social media there are clergy and others who are worried, as I am, about the extra burden of expense new missals would bring to parishes, and many an individual, already struggling to make ends meet.
However, it would be a brave anglophone bishops’ conference that would submit a new translation of the missal now. The last one took almost ten years to produce and was attended by such angst that one wonders who in his right mind would want to renew that saga now.
If the missal is in the crosshairs, it will be for small but crucial details. Continue reading “The Motu Proprio – where it will bite”
Let’s compare the old and the newly-decreed forms of canon 838.
Can. 838 – §1 The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.
§2. It is the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.
§3. It pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare vernacular translations of liturgical books, with appropriate adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of the Holy See, to publish these translations.
§4. Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down for the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.
The new (using Rorate Caeli’s translation): Continue reading “Motu proprio-gate: the upside”
Not unreasonably, some people in social media are at a loss as to why there is such a fuss about the change to canon law, and so liturgical law, in the pope’s just-released motu proprio, Magnum Principium. After all, it is just a change to an obscure canon, #838, that 99% of Catholics have never heard of, let alone read. Surely allowing bishops’ conferences to choose their own translations of liturgical books is sensible, and no big deal?
Well, yes and no. It should not be a big deal, all things being equal. However, in the current context of post-conciliar liturgical reform it is a potentially retrograde step that presages strife and turmoil. Continue reading “Magnum Principium: Why the Fuss?”
It has dropped. Not in L”Osservatore Romano as expected, but on the Vatican website. As yet it is only in Latin and Italian, so it will take some time for those slow in those languages (like me) to read it properly.
Attached herewith is the Latin text and the interpretive notes from the Congregation for Divine Worship.
This may seem to be a matter of small details. But as we know, the devil is so often in the details.
UPDATE: I have added my own rough translation here.
**Click here for the motu proprio in Latin
**Click here for the official guidance notes in English
There is quite some buzz afoot about an impending liturgical change. Fr Z outed the issue last night.
It seems that the change will not be to liturgical law but to canon law. In particular, canon 838. Currently it reads: Continue reading “Farewell Canon 838, and a new great principle — updated”
In a motu proprio released today by the Holy Father (though dated last Friday) several paragraphs are modified or replaced in the apostolic constitution governing conclaves, Universi Dominic gregis (UDG), issued by Pope Bl John Paul II in 1996. Pope Benedict’s decree, Normas nonnullas (NN), makes three significant changes, quoted from the News.va site:
By a modification to paragraph n. 37 of UDG
: Pope Benedict XVI allows for the College of Cardinals to begin the Conclave before fifteen days have passed from the beginning of the period sede vacante, provided that all voting Cardinals are present. The modification also provides that the Conclave must begin no more than twenty days after the beginning of the sede vacante, even if all the electors are not present.
By a modification to paragraph n. 48
: The oath of secrecy is extended to the individuals mentioned in Paragraph 55,2, among whom are the two “trustworthy technicians” who have the task of assisting the competent officers of the College in assuring that no audio-visual equipment for recording or transmitting has been installed by anyone in the areas mentioned, and particularly in the Sistine Chapel itself, where the acts of the election are carried out.
By a modification to the text of paragraph 55,3
: The punishment for any violation of the oath of secrecy is to be excommunication latae sententiae
(the old text provided for “grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope”).
The new norms now allow a conclave to be held earlier than 15 March, provided all the cardinal electors are in Rome. The technicians who will sweep for electronic recording and broadcasting devices are now also required to swear the oath of secrecy, given that they will most likely be privy to the deliberations of the conclave with little restriction. This effectively closes a loophole. In light of this, and perhaps as a possible cautionary slap to the increasingly trouble-prone cardinals, the sentence for a breach of this oath is no longer left to the discretion of the future pope, but is specified as automatic excommunication.
There are no shocks here. The Holy Father is clearly trying to facilitate an expeditious conclave free from outside influence, not least that of the secular media.