I picked up my spankin’ new copy of the reissue of Ludovico Trimeloni’s Compendio di Liturgia Pratica today (Milano: Marietti 1829, 2007), pp. 865, E. 40.
This heavy Italian tome teaches you how to do everything liturgical…. as it was in 1962.
If you read Italian and want to know how things are to be done in the Roman Rite … the “Tridentine” Rite, this book will probably have the complete directions along with practical and helpful tips. Anything added by the modern editor, Pietro Siffi, is set off in brackets so that you don’t get confused about who wrote what.
I don’t especially like choice to revive the use of the “j”, which Siffi calls “l’uso romano… Roman usage”. There is no “J” in Latin, or shouldn’t be. Fr. Foster, famous Latinist here in Rome, tells the story of when John Paul II was elected and he began to sign his first name with a “J” as in “Joannes”. Foster reminded the Pope that there is no “J” in Latin. The Pope thought about that for a while and then responded: “There is now.” No other man on earth could make that declaration. On the other hand, there is no “J” on JP2’s tomb. But I digress.
All the diagrams were redone for this edition. I find them to be not all that well done. They are a bit blurry, as if the resolution of the graphic image just didn’t translate well to the publishing software. Still, they are legible.
In a this volume is far more comprehensive than Fortesque O’Connell. It is organized with the sort of analytical precision that was possible, perhaps, only in the mind of pre-Conciliar Roman clerics. You just don’t see this degree of articulation any more. There are six pages on how to bow.
There is a preface by H.E. Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos. It is dedicated to the Holy Father. Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum caritatis is quoted at the beginning.
“But Father! But Father!” some of you are saying in white knuckled anticipation. “What does the book say about the Second Confiteor???!! TELL US NOW! ARRRRRGGGH!”
Be patient.
First, you find the important part on p. 522 for a “Read Mass”.
Here the famous brackets of the author come into play. you find, in brackets – meaning that the editor interpolated this part into the text – how to do the Second Confiteor before Holy Communion of the healthy faithful present.
However, there is a footnote (#4 my translation):
“The rubrics of 1962 suppressed the Confiteor before Communion, even if it is still being recited in nearly all the communities that celebrate in the traditional rite. For completeness the rite is indicated here, in anticipation of an official pronouncement of the Holy See.”
Okay… I guess I can live with that, provided we clearly understand that the Second Confiteor, as Siffi correctly indicated, was suppressed in 1962. Thus, because the Holy See gave use of the 1962 edition and not an earlier edition, the Second Confiteor should not be done. Still, there is an ongoing tradition of doing it in many places. I am sure that the Holy See will probably say go ahead, big deal.
This is the same technique used by those who wanted Communion in the hand and also girl altar boys, but that is another matter.
For the Solemn Mass, there is no mention at all of the Second Confiteor.
I am sure this will afford many clerics hours of delightfully picky and fascinating reading. As I find things of interest or delight, I will pass them along.
For example: in the paragraph on what to do if a Host is dropped during distribution of Holy Communion, it is recommended that if the Host falls onto or into a woman’s dress, she should fish it out herself (p. 523).
Loading ...
This is a magnificent book, even if it does not have some parts of the Mass or prayers from the pre-1962 Tridentine Latin Mass. The publishing of books like this make me think all the more that the Motu Proprio will be coming very soon. Why go to the trouble of printing up these books (think of the expense), if nothing were soon coming.
I think maybe that the Holy Father Benedict XVI had planned this well, and wants the books ready, many more priests trained etc. before actually issuing the Motu Proprio. Also, I think that it will be a huge thing, not just a little wider permission for the Tridentine Latin Mass. If it was going to be so limited, why print so many books, why the growing enthusiasm and expectation?
The fact that Cardinal Castrillon in Brazil gave a major speech about the Tridentine Latin Mass, and stated very firmly that it had never been supressed/banned etc. like the dissident liberals like to claim is very big news. It is a sign that Benedict XVI is preparing the groundwork for the return of the Tridentine Latin Mass very throughly, and so it can not be reversed by another Pope (God Forbid).
I predict that the Motu Proprio and the wide expansion of the Tridentine Latin Mass (without permission from the Bishops), comes out before Summer is over. I predict the enthusiams will be overwhelming, and the demand for this Mass to be likewise overwhelming. I think it will be a surprise to everyone, except maybe for Benedict XVI who knows more thay many people (liberal dissidents) give Him credit for.
Father, I am in Rome. Where can I get this book?
Thanks
Fr. Enrico: For sure at Leoniana, Ancora, or the Paolin1 all near the Vatican.
Matthew: A few things. I think it would be useless, even a little harmful to publish a pre-1962 edition. We have permission to use the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum now. That is surely what the new legislation will expand. Certainly publishing this book indicates that the publishers were optimistic about a good market. That does not, however, prove anything about the MP.
Even before MP comes (and I am sure it will, sooner or later) this new volume will be very helpful for many clerics and laypeople who can understand the Italian text.
Father, How does this compare to Fortescues book
and others found in English ?
What reading would you suggest for someone raised in the New Rite butinterested in the old?
JPG
Fairfield, CT
The bit about the host and dropping into dresses – it’s very good advice. When I first came back to the Church, I was on crutches. I received on the tongue, but the priest wasn’t very comfortable with this method.
One day the Host dropped onto my chest (I didn’t know quite so much about modesty in dress then either)… the priest reached forward to pick up the Host, and it slid further… at which point he realised where things were going and decided to retreat (and let me retrieve the Host)!
About the last sentence, good call.
Looks wonderful! I do wish I spoke more than elementary Italian.
What books are comparable in English?
I find Father Z somewhat harsh, one-minded and, yes, over-confident in his zeal in favor of rubrics (62) which lasted only three years, and of which we know only too well that they were of Archbishop Bugnini´s making. He him self saw them as temporary, before new changes and “reforms” could be made. This we k n o w.
Besides, I find it very odd that one should strive for further discord among liturgically traditional Catholics. — For there can be no doubt that discord is what will ensue. — Not one single traditional priestly Fraternity nor monastery or religious Order follows 62 entirely (and quite a few are deeply divided over the matter). Everyone who knows the question is aware of very good arguments against 62. Demands for a strict 62 are only divisive. We should beware the destructive power of yet more divisions within “the traditional movement” (not a theological brand, for sure).
Then, I dislike the argument altogether : “Ecclesia Dei” only mentions 62… Well, as far as I know, Paul VI demanded that the new rite be followed by all (although he did allow for indult exceptions due to age or local cicumsatnces – the U.K. for instance). And I for one am very hapy that there were bishops, priests, Religious and laymen not to please him.
Besides, if “Ecclesia Dei” only mentions 62, it is obviously due to the particular character of that one document, which only concerned itself the Society of Saint Pius X and the matter of the consecrations of Bishops in 1988. Now, speaking of the Society of Saint Pius X… All should know, by now, that 62 is not what was done in Ecône before the 80s — and even then… — But then, all of a sudden, in the early 80s, the Archbishop, for his own reasons, decided to impose 62 on the whole of the Society. Regardless of what had been done until then. And this is why “Ecclesia Dei” says 62. Had the Archbishop chosen 1939, well… father Z´s personal indult document would be mentioning 39. Quite simply.
Now… why on earth should every Catholic in the universe have to obey the (strategically motivated) personal choices of Archbishop Lefebvre in matters liturgical ? (In the face of the evidence against 62, I might add. But that´s another topic.) Why Fr. Z wishes to certainly baffles me.
There has been enough of (hardly very traditional) dictates from Rome in this matter. Let people who are still in the Church recover from it all before new reforms can be shoved down their throats. Trust in the Hierarchy cannot be rebuilt by decrees and threats.
One last point. May I remind the readers of this blog that when the Holy Father, during Holy Week, made explicit reference to the traditional Holy Week, he clearly spoke of a most beautiful and ancient ceremony which does not exist in the “Renewed” Holy Week of Archbishop (at the time : Father) Bugnini. Simply because the Holy Week of 62 is that of Bugnini and not that of the classical Roman liturgy. What are we to make of this ? Is Father Z to rebuke the Pope for his non-Lefebvrian choice ?
” if a Host is dropped during distribution of Holy Communion, it is recommended that if the Host falls onto or into a woman’s dress, she should fish it out herself ”
Well, if baseball is the game God loves most, is golf the game liturgical experts love most? This sounds like something those old gents at Augusta National would deliberate over.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
On one relatively small rubrical matter, I know the PCED is of a “lenient” (for want of a better word) mind: the use of the pre-1961 rubrics for the Divine Office. Many clergy of the Campos Personal Apostolic Administration use the full Matins for Sundays and those III Class feasts that retained proper antiphons at Matins. Note also the PCED allows the use of the new lectionary in the 1962 liturgy. The PCED does not have a “sola 1962” approach.
I cannot resist a note on the subject of “J” in Latin. The useful letter (designed to tell someone of less intelligence that a given I was consonantal, not vocalic) has a very respectable history in medieval orthography/manuscripts. I worked on Peter Lombard manuscripts for a forthcoming critical edition, and the “J” was lavishly used, as is typical from an early date.
So is there a “J” in Latin? Yes, so long as we don’t think Latin died with Apuleius.
Pope Benedict told Alice Von Hildebrand that the Motu Proprio would be out in May.
Father,have you heard anything more on this?
God bless you.
“girl altar boys” – the term you are looking for is “serviettes”.
It would be interesting to poll the Traditional Latin Mass Attendees as to if the second confetior is used or not.
One FFSP parish I attend does and another does not.
To bad most clergy here in the US won’t be buying it, since the majority of US Bishops will not allow the TLM. MP or no MP!. The Pope’s words are only words. Quote “Pope Benedict told Alice Von Hildebrand that the Motu Proprio would be out in May.”
Well he has less than a week to go. But I highly doubt it will see the light of day. The Pope doesn’t control the Catholic Church. Only the rich laity and their modernist clergy. Get used to it!. The Pope is now only a mere symbol. He does what they want or else!. All this MP stuff is a mere fad. Let’s talk about it to get peoples hopes up. Nothing more. A shame!!
If you still want tradition than visit the Holy Orthodox Church!!. That’s the only denomination that still has it. The Roman Catholic Church has been protestantized and will remain that way for many years to come. The SSPX would do better in the The Holy Orthodox Church rather than a denomination that only harrases them, because they are not protestantized and only want to worship God the way their ancestors did. Rome with the exception of the Pope considers them second class citizens, even though they are completely loyal to the Pope and Catholic tradition. More than many modernist Catholic clergy. A huge shame!!.
Cardinal Castrillon´s preface already calls the Rite of St. Pius V
the “extraordinary rite of the Latin Church”!
Not abrogated liturgy, not indult rite, not pre-Conciliar Roman Rite, but the
currently extaordinary form of the Roman Rite.
The Motu Proprio will come out and those Cardinals and bishops who have the real power in the Catholic Church, will sit back and laugh in the Pope’s face. Then when the next Pope comes it will be completely reversed back to the TLM banished for good. I can see it coming. Look at the Anglican Church people. That will be the Roman Catholic Church in the future. God help us!!. We are living in a secular society. Cardinal Arinze has already said to the German Bishops who told him that they do not want the Motu Proprio, ” I don’t want it either”. And Arinze has power!!. Cardinal Sedano hasn’t left yet. They are all waiting for Pope Benedict XVI to pass on so they can continue protestantizing the Catholic Church.
Quote “Cardinal Castrillon´s preface already calls the Rite of St. Pius V
the “extraordinary rite of the Latin Churchâ€!
Not abrogated liturgy, not indult rite, not pre-Conciliar Roman Rite, but the
currently extaordinary form of the Roman Rite.”
So why does only two parishes offer it once a week in the Archdioceses of Philadelphia. It isn’t even offered in many of the dioceses here in the US. The Bishop of Johnstown PA has already said it will never be offered in his dioceses. It’s going to be like having a great feature you will never use. Even though this feature is a life saver.
(waiting eagerly for Bob K. to get a richly-earned “Sour Grapes Award”….) :-)
I’m not being a “Sour Grape” I’m just telling it as I see it here in the US. The only news I get of the MP is on the internet. I don’t hear anything about it on EWTN. I don’t hear anything about it at sermons. Except that more Latin is needed in the Novus Ordo Mass. The majority of priests I have asked care less. Say they will not go back to the traditional mass, even if there is a demand. I haven’t yet been to one in my life, only to Orthodox Liturgies, which I find more to my liking, over what the Catholic Church offers here, do to reverence and sacredness. The only Gregorian Chant I have ever heard was via cds. When do you all think this will change?. Will I have to live in France to ever experience the traditional latin mass, and tradition regularily. What are my options?. All these articles here are great but when will I begin to see more action in the US parishes?. When will our priests start giving us the wisdom of the early church fathers vs modern man.
Bob K: I don’t hear anything about it on EWTN.
NOT ON EWTN?? OOOooo…. well, there it is.
So Father I take it that you don’t think much of EWTN. Fine!. But why all the negative feedback that I am getting from priests on the TLM. When clearly everyone who goes to them loves it.
Well, three weeks ago, Father Michael Lang held a lecture in our parish about his book. During the same time I heard that, when renovation has ended, the altar in our side nave will be back to the wall again. Times they ARE a-changin’ indeed!
Bob K: Typical. No, you cannot read any negative opinion of mine about EWTN. However, EWTN has no privileged position to know anything about anything before anyone.
I am fine with ETWN.
If you are getting only negative feedback, I suggest you start seeking things and people who are positive.
“six pages on how to bow”
I’ve got to have this book!
Bob K.
I hear you, brother.It is getting really tough to deal with.
But this suffering is nothing compared to what so many saints went through.
Just think of St.Pio, St Joan d’Arc, or The Blessed Mother and Christ.
We should offer up this pain for what we are really talking about here, namely the salvation of souls.
God bless you,sir
Bob K.,
I too live in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and know of a place or two that might be to your liking. Email me at hocket (at) gmail (dot) com.
Dr Lee Fratantuono: I rather liked the J for the distinction you mention. I moved from preconciliar liturgy of the hours to the new version in 1993 and still miss the Js.
On moto proprio: A fitting release date would be Corpus Christi, 7 June this year. Don’t believe I have seen anyone else mention this date.
Anyone who doesn’t like the “J” in Latin had also better get rid of the “V”, which is merely the consonantal “U”. Or they could imitate epigraphists of antiquity and only use “V” and ditch “U”, since “V” has nice straight lines that appeal to stone cutters.
Latin never had a standardized orthography during antiquity; it acquired one in the early Middle Ages that was as standard as standard gets, except for Hebrew names, which always seemed to cause even the Medievals disputes and problems in transliterating.
Dr. LF: Anyone who doesn’t like the “J” in Latin had also better get rid of the “V”
And their sense of humor too! o{]:¬)
The Motu Proprio will come out and those Cardinals and bishops who have the real power in the Catholic Church, will sit back and laugh in the Pope’s face. Then when the next Pope comes it will be completely reversed back to the TLM banished for good.
Not if the rift is healed with the SSPX. Any reversal of the virtual MP would mean the SSPX would walk out again. No pope wants that.
I can see it coming. Look at the Anglican Church people. That will be the Roman Catholic Church in the future. God help us!!. We are living in a secular society. Cardinal Arinze has already said to the German Bishops who told him that they do not want the Motu Proprio, †I don’t want it eitherâ€. And Arinze has power!!. Cardinal Sedano hasn’t left yet. They are all waiting for Pope Benedict XVI to pass on so they can continue protestantizing the Catholic Church.
Comment by Bob K.
Arinze turns 75 on November 1st.
Anyone who doesn’t like the “J†in Latin had also better get rid of the “Vâ€, which is merely the consonantal “Uâ€. Or they could imitate epigraphists of antiquity and only use “V†and ditch “Uâ€, since “V†has nice straight lines that appeal to stone cutters.
1. But the consonantal “I” is not pronounced like a “J” but a “Y”. This because it basically becomes a diphthong with a following vowel, e.g., iubilent.
2. It makes sense for the vowel version of “V” to be written as “U” because of the similarity to the classical pronounciation of “V” (W).
1) The consonantal I, that is, J, does not become a diphthong with a following vowel, as a study of the meter of Latin poetry proves. True, it is not pronounced like the English “J”, but English wasn’t around when Latin pronunciation developed, and, in any case, the exact classical pronunciation (say, c. Cicero’s time) of many consonants remains uncertain.
2) Not sure what you mean here. The English “W” is actually the same sound as the Greek digamma, a sound that can be approximated by the Latin consonantal U, that is, V.
The history of the orthography of the two sets of letters is identical: originally ONE letter served as both vowel and consonant, and then, in the early Middle Ages, different forms of each were used with increasing regularity to represent the different sounds for people who had begun to need the help. Some Medieval manuscripts don’t use a J; they just put a little line over the I, or some other device.
Inasmuch concerns the Second Confiteor in the Roman Missal of 1962: if it is not prescribed, then any community which is privileged to use the same Missal would do well to observe the rubrics as they are, not as they are interpreted. One does not interpret rubrics – that is nonsense. Rather, one follows them. On that note, if the rubrics of the 1962 Missale Romanum as defined in the Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani under Blessed John XXIII explicity indicate that the Second Confiteor is to be suppressed, then why does virtually every 1962-Roman-Missal community include it? That is hardly a gesture of liturgical honesty.
I shall never cease to be amazed at how much unrest is had over the issue of the “Second Confiteor”. Does anyone else deem this matter a bit trivial?
It would be in the best interest of advocates of the Pian Missal to utilize the Missal as it is, and not as it “should be” in their liturgical Candyland.
The Second Confiteor isn’t a big issue. But let’s not pretend that rubrics don’t sometimes invite interpretation. Of course they do.
As for the Second Confiteor, the problem is it was actually never mentioned even BEFORE 1962. It’s not in the 1956 typical edition. Why? Because Communion for the Faithful was actually not mentioned in the Missale. The rite found in the Rituale Romanum was used, and it had a Confiteor. Presto, Second Confiteor. That’s the source of the confusion.
The Rituale was last revised/published in 1953. There was a 1962 version, in proof form, never published.
Let’s also remember that even before the Council, custom was a powerful reality. The Second Confiteor is hardly something to get worked up about, one way or the other.
When will we have the Motu Proprio? Corpus Christi, MP? Pentecost Sunday,MP? Ascension Thursday Sunday, MP? Divine Mercy Sunday,MP? The Pope’s Birthday,MP? Blah, blah, blah! Sometime before the Second Coming? Maybe, but not likely!
1) The consonantal I, that is, J, does not become a diphthong with a following vowel, as a study of the meter of Latin poetry proves. True, it is not pronounced like the English “Jâ€, but English wasn’t around when Latin pronunciation developed, and, in any case, the exact classical pronunciation (say, c. Cicero’s time) of many consonants remains uncertain.
Of course, it does. A diphthong is two consecutive vowels that are compressed to become a single syllable. We only think of the “I†in “iubilent” to be a consonant because of the German “J†that later entered Latin.
When the Latin “IU” is pronounced very quickly, it becomes “yoo”, as in “iubilent”, but the sound of both vowels are still present respectively as the beginning and end of the syllable. This beginning “IU†produces the sound of the English words beginning with U, as in “Useful” or “Usual”.
Compare “Utility” with “utilitas”, the English being “yoo” and the Latin “oo”. The English is pronounced as if the Latin were “Iutilitas”.
I don’t see how there would be a difference in Latin poetry. The number of syllables is the same, and the accent is on the second.
I realize there are no Arpinum cassettes.
2) Not sure what you mean here. The English “W†is actually the same sound as the Greek digamma, a sound that can be approximated by the Latin consonantal U, that is, V.
That was my point. But if the “V†is pronounced in the medieval (or English) way, it loses its relationship with the “U†and can only function as a consonant.
On the other hand: A word like “metuens†all but becomes “metwens†if it’s said quickly. If so, do we assume the “U†is functioning as a consonant? I don’t think so—it’s just the natural laison between the sound of the “U†and the “Eâ€. .
The history of the orthography of the two sets of letters is identical: originally ONE letter served as both vowel and consonant, and then, in the early Middle Ages, different forms of each were used with increasing regularity to represent the different sounds for people who had begun to need the help. Some Medieval manuscripts don’t use a J; they just put a little line over the I, or some other device.
One other example. The Slavic Christian name “Tatiana” is often pronounced in the States as having 4 syllables. In fact, it has 3 because of the “IA” diphthong.
No, there is no diphthong, I assure you. Because it ISN’T two vowels. It’s a vowel plus a consonant.
Latin had two letters that could be both vowels AND consonants. That’s simply a fact of Latin phonetics, and has nothing to do with German or its sister English.
As for V, again, I care about Latin, not English. V/U is, like J/I, either a vowel or a consonant. Simple fact of Latin phonetics.
If people want to think “iubilent” has a diphthong because the “iu” makes one sound, I can’t stop them. But the I in iubilent is a consonant, NOT a vowel. Hence sometimes written as a J to distinguish. And this does impact meter. Because not even all vowels in close proximity = diphthongs. Consider the Latin word “iambos”. No diphthong there!
Regarding certain comments stating how trivial the issue of the second Confiteor is… Obviously, one could link the suppression of the second Confiteor to the matter of the celebrant´s communion during Mass, which is part of the sacred sacrifice, and that of the faithful which is not. In such a case, 62 paves the way for the New Mass where no distinction whatsoever is made between the two.
Also, one could see the obvious connection to the Dialogue Mass (which I loathe and) which should not be made the norm (the norm in the Latin rite is the Bishop´s Mass, which is sung). Especially in its most extreme and absurd form, where people who will never go up the altar end up stating “Introibo ad altare Dei”. In this form av Dialogue Mass, the congregation will say the server´s Confiteor and thus need not repeat it before holy Communion. At least, this is the argument often made, and it certainly explains the way holy Communion is done in the novus ordo.
Now, whether the matter is important or not is one of judgement ans perhaps taste. In any case, Archbishop Lefebvre´s decision of 1983 (which is the found in the Society od St Peter and within the document Ecclesia Dei – and this was my main point) should not be made a law unto every one else. Let those who do not like 62 (and who have very good reasons to) be.
In “Ecclesia Dei”, 62 can mean several things, obviously (the tradition to preserve, after all, wasn´t created by John XXIII). The context itself (the consecrations, the FSSPX) makes it obvious why 62 is mentioned at all. Had the Archbishop chosen 65 (or… 51), “Ecclesia Dei” and Father Z`s personal document would be mentioning 65. Let us not make absolutes out of things that are not. In that light, the second Confiteor (which stems from the service of Communion given outside of Mass, since only the priest´scommunion is part of the liturgy of the Mass itself) seems to me much more important than the Bugnini rubrics and reforms from 1951-1970.
And please, let not pretend that “Ecclesia Dei” was anything else than a concession. To the FSSPX. Let us not argue from authority, on this. Those who believe in strict obedience always and at any cost should rather consider being happy with what the competent autorities clearly demanded : the Mass of Paul VI. I for one do not believe in tradition being created by commissions and Papal decrees.
One last point : the matter of 62 is made especially grave by the reforms of Bugnini concerning Palm Sunday and Holy Week : http://www.kristkonung.se/gromier.html . This matter cannot be eschewed. One may of course share Bugnini´s own preferences. But why wish to impose them on others ?
Jon: “Ecclesia Dei” and Father Z`s personal document would be mentioning 65.
If you think I am for the 1965 edition, you either have not read what I have written or you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
The Church’s norms presently say that the last edition before the Council, the 1962 edition, may be used. The Church does not give permission for a previous edition. That is just the way it goes. If you don’t like that, too bad. The law ought to be obeyed.
I will tell you one thing: were the traditional wing of the Church demonstrate greater respect for authority and a more joyful spirit of submission, at the same time as creating a unified front in making their legitimate aspirations known, they would rapidly overcome a great deal of resistance. In other words, they would be agents for real and positive change in the Church.
Pray or lobby the proper authority for a change to the edition of the Missale we can use, but until then dura lex – sed lex!
I do so wonder where you got that idea, Father. I never said you liked the 65 rite (though I can´t say I understand why, given your love of 62). Although I expect you of course would submit to the “dura lex” of 65 if it were to be imposed.
Thank God Archbishop Lefebvre (“et alii”) had a less legalistic mind — or else there would only be the “dura lex” of 1969/70 for you (and us) to obey.
I still believe the 62 thing is deeply problematic. And I still believe that demands for obedience and submission with different kinds of appeals to various “durae leges” have lost very much of their credibility in the view of far too many Catholics. Obedientism will not solve anything. How many people were estranged from the Church due to legalistic demands for blind obedience while the Pope himself knelt to Dutch and French illegally introducing communion in the hand, women altar servers and the like ? In fact, I believe the crisis we have seen proves that modernism was not the only problem before the last Council.
Besides, I wonder how… pastoral of an approach legalism is. Or how far into this “dura lex” of yours the Orthodox would be prepared to go. For, surely, you are not about to tell me that your views on this are at odds with the competent authority ? Obedience is foremost and non-selective – is it not ? Well, frankly, I can hardly imagine Cardinal Kasper demand of the Orthodox simply to submit to just any “dura lex” that Rome mightwish to put forth…
Seriously, Father, can´t we let the wounds heal before the clergy tries to impose yet another “dura lex” ? Let trust grow out of charity. But until then…
Jon: I do so wonder where you got that idea, Father. I never said you liked the 65 rite (though I can´t say I understand why, given your love of 62).
I got it from you. You wrote something to that effect, unless your English skills are not quite good enough to convey what you meant.
Although I expect you of course would submit to the “dura lex†of 65 if it were to be imposed.
Or, I could simply opt to use only the Novus Ordo.
Thank God Archbishop Lefebvre (“et aliiâ€) had a less legalistic mind—- or else there would only be the “dura lex†of 1969/70 for you (and us) to obey.
I still believe the 62 thing is deeply problematic.
When you are Pope, you can make the changes you think are best.
Besides, I wonder how… pastoral of an approach legalism is. Or how far into this “dura lex†of yours the Orthodox would be prepared to go. For, surely, you are not about to tell me that your views on this are at odds with the competent authority ? Obedience is foremost and non-selective – is it not ? Well, frankly, I can hardly imagine Cardinal Kasper demand of the Orthodox simply to submit to just any “dura lex†that Rome mightwish to put forth…
This is simply tendentious. You understand not the slightest thing about what I think or what my position is.
If I may jump in…
…I don’t think, Jon, that you are appreciating Father’s argument…though in your defense, I didn’t get from your posts that Father had any preference or fondness for the 1965 Missal.
Actually, there is no 1965 Missal. There was a Vatican Missal published in 1962, and another in 1970. No complete Missal was published in Rome in between; there were numerous liturgy decrees and some fascicles, but no complete Missal.
Some of the “changes” of 1962 are near phantoms. So, for instance, take May 3. Conventional wisdom has it that the Feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross was abolished. Well, sure. But the Mass for it is still in the 1962 Missal, still perfectly fine for May 3 (which rubrically allows “any Mass”)…ditto John Before the Latin Gate, Apparition of Michael, Finding of the Body of Stephen, etc., etc….all those Masses are still in the 1962 Missal, except relegated to an optional Appendix.
The real issue of the 1960 Codex Rubricarum is the Breviary, where Matins was gutted. The Breviary suffered the most changes in 1960, not the Missal.
Many clergy who use the indult for the Breviary read the full Matins; that’s hardly “disobedient”, especially when John XXIII specifically urged clergy to read the Fathers on their own since Matins was getting so abbreviated.
Holy Week is a different story. The Institute of Christ the King claims they have permission to use the pre-1956 Holy Week, though at the times stipulated ad experimentum in 1951. Who knows if they do, but I can verify that they do indeed use the pre-56 Holy Week, which I must admit makes for an impressive Paschal Vigil at 10:00 p.m., with 12 prophecies…
No, there is no diphthong, I assure you. Because it ISN’T two vowels. It’s a vowel plus a consonant.
Latin had two letters that could be both vowels AND consonants. That’s simply a fact of Latin phonetics, and has nothing to do with German or its sister English.
As for V, again, I care about Latin, not English. V/U is, like J/I, either a vowel or a consonant. Simple fact of Latin phonetics.
If people want to think “iubilent†has a diphthong because the “iu†makes one sound, I can’t stop them. But the I in iubilent is a consonant, NOT a vowel. Hence sometimes written as a J to distinguish. And this does impact meter. Because not even all vowels in close proximity = diphthongs. Consider the Latin word “iambosâ€. No diphthong there!
Of course, you can stop them–or at least, you can stop me. All you have to is refute my arguments. But you’ve only restated your previous comment as if it’s dogma.
It contradicts phonetics to call “I” a consonant.
1. A consonant constricts the flow of air by closure somewhere along the vocal tract. This happens, either beginning with a stop (at the beginning of a syllable) or ending with a stop (at the end of a syllable, by the lips, teeth, tongue, etc.—or by some combination of them.
2. A vowel does not close off the flow of air.
3. Latin words beginning with “I†(e.g., iubilent, iambus, iacere) obviously do not begin with a stop.
4. Beginning combinations like “IU†or “IA†are diphthongs, and the first letter is often called a semivowel. Why? Because it retains its vowel sound but is not in itself a syllable.
5. There are also various Italian words like “ieri, piove, pianoâ€. All have two syllables, the last two with an internal semivowel. Of course, in English “piano” has three syllables.
My comments may not be “dogma”, but they represent sound philology and can be verified by checking any number of Latin grammars, including the “Lateinische Grammatik” of Raphael Kuhner (3 volumes) which is the standard grammar of the Latin language.
“Consonant” is from the Latin consono, “to sound together”. The CONSONANT “i” in “iubilent” sounds together with the VOWEL “u” to make one sound. This technically does not equal a diphthong, which by definition is what happens when two VOWELS are joined to make one sound.
We can call I and U “semivowels” (so also Greek upsilon, the mother of Latin and English Y).
They have characteristics of vowels, and of consonants.
But any Latin grammar will verify what I said. The way Latin is taught is that I and U can be vocalic or consonantal, with resultant impacts on pronunciation and, in some manuscripts, orthography. Peter Lombard’s copyist wasn’t an idiot when he used the “J” to spell “Jesus” and “Joannes”.
He was using a symbol that has a long and venerable history of telling the user when the I is not the vowel, but rather the consonant.
This (tedious) debate may well be a case of looking at the same problem from two different angles. But I and U do double duty in Latin. The Oxford Classical Texts never use V in some editions; they only use U: Arma Uirumque Cano….something a rather brilliant article by a German some years ago showed = AUG (G=C) for Augustus, and Ab Urbe Condita…
Postscript…
In Latin “iambus”, which is from Greek, the I and the A are most definitely not pronounced together. The I is a pure vowel, and does not combine with the A.
Is there an English Translation of this book yet?
My comments may not be “dogmaâ€, but they represent sound philology and can be verified by checking any number of Latin grammars, including the “Lateinische Grammatik†of Raphael Kuhner (3 volumes) which is the standard grammar of the Latin language.
Let’s see:
First, I say that you think it a consonant because of German influence. Then you attempt to refute me, recommending a book written by a German.
Interesting.
“Consonant†is from the Latin consono, “to sound togetherâ€. The CONSONANT “i†in “iubilent†sounds together with the VOWEL “u†to make one sound. This technically does not equal a diphthong, which by definition is what happens when two VOWELS are joined to make one sound.
Not really. It is, as I explained above.
Strictly speaking, a diphthong is one syllable with two consecutive vowels whose sound involves a change along the vocal tract. Non Latin examples are Iago, ieri, Tatiana. Obvious English examples are found in words like “join” and “out”.
More broadly speaking, a diphthong is two consecutive vowels whose sound does NOT involve a change along the vocal tract but whose origin probably did. (Foster used to point out this was the case with AE (animae). It is still considered a diphthong because the sound is found only in such a doubled vowel. Of course, Italian has converted it to E (as in they).
We can call I and U “semivowels†(so also Greek upsilon, the mother of Latin and English Y).
They have characteristics of vowels, and of consonants.
1. Only the I in iubilent is considered a semivowel.
2. As I noted earlier, the I in iubilent does not have a closure of the vocal tract, which is what characterizes consonants.
But any Latin grammar will verify what I said.
Yes, any Latin grammar for those speaking Germanic languages.
The way Latin is taught is that I and U can be vocalic or consonantal, with resultant impacts on pronunciation and, in some manuscripts, orthography. Peter Lombard’s copyist wasn’t an idiot when he used the “J†to spell “Jesus†and “Joannesâ€.
He was using a symbol that has a long and venerable history of telling the user when the I is not the vowel, but rather the consonant.
Of course, Peter Lombard was from an area that had been all but taken over by Germanic people (the Lombards were northern Europeans) hundreds of years before he was born.
Interestingly enough, following the Master, St Thomas’ commentary on the Sentences uses the Jesus form, but in other works, e.g., both Summae and Quaestiones Disputatae, no J is to be found, e.g., Iesus, Ioannis.
I have been trying to contact a friend on the Leonine commission who should be able to fill me in on this entire matter, but no luck so far.
This (tedious) debate may well be a case of looking at the same problem from two different angles. But I and U do double duty in Latin. The Oxford Classical Texts never use V in some editions; they only use U: Arma Uirumque Cano….something a rather brilliant article by a German some years ago showed = AUG (G=C) for Augustus, and Ab Urbe Condita…
It’s only been tedious because I haven’t been able to get you to realize that you are seeing it through the prism of Germanic phonetics.
In Latin “iambusâ€, which is from Greek, the I and the A are most definitely not pronounced together. The I is a pure vowel, and does not combine with the A.
I realize it is Greek, which is probably why you wrote “iambos” in an earlier comment.
My dictionary shows it pronounced with two syllables, like “iactus”. Of course, the English word “iambic” has three syllables.
Considering neither Italian nor English, not to mention German, were around when Latin was, I find it amusing German categories of phonetics and grammar are somehow considered less correct than others.
Any classical scholar will tell you that the Germans have it all wrapped up on the philology of Latin and ancient Greek.
The Kuhner Latin grammar isn’t just a “German” grammar of Latin. It’s the fullest, most complete grammar of the Latin language ever composed.
I am perfectly well aware that in IUBILENT the U is a vowel, not a semivowel, not a consonant.
In UOCO (usually spelled VOCO, though NOT in the Oxford system), the U is a semivowel/consonant.
My point remains. If you want to call the IU in IUBILENT a diphthong, because you think the I is more vocalic than consonantal, good for you. You’re not only splitting hairs only the way you want them split, you’re also doing a pedagogical disservice to those who wonder about the differences between the letters I and U in certain words.
The I in IAM is not the I in IAMBUS, and it is not the I in REGIT. In fact, the Oxford Latin Dictionary splits hairs even beyond that, but we won’t go there.
I made a simple point, namely that “J” has a distinguisher of the consonantal I has a legitimate pedigree in Latin orthography.
After that all we’ve done is call the same things by different semantic games.
Still, when it comes to Latin grammar, nobody has it on Kuhner. He’s the only grammar cited in serious classical scholarship. The ones frequently used in the USA, for example, are more accurately called school grammars.
As for consonants being defined rigidly by closure of the vocal tract, that’s an overly strict phonetic definition, which does not account for all the peculiarities of Latin phonology.
The French commentary of Benoist on the AENEID also calls uses the J for consonantal J. And nobody was more anti-German than Benoist.
As for Latin ae, “Foster” should have told you it originated as AI and was not a diphthong. Perhaps he did. It was still AI even as late as the Augustan Age for the more consciously archaic poets.
AI, the original AE, was not a diphthong, but two separate vowels sounded apart. As proven by the scansion of Lucretius, where it occurs very often.
_ . . . As for Latin ae, “Foster†should have told you it originated as AI and was not a diphthong. Perhaps he did. It was still AI even as late as the Augustan Age for the more consciously archaic poets. AI, the original AE, was not a diphthong, but two separate vowels sounded apart. As proven by the scansion of Lucretius, where it occurs very often. . . ._
Chapter I
CAESAR INVADES BRITAIN
The first date(1) in English History is 55 B.C. in which year Julius Caesar (the _memorable_ Roman Emperor) landed, like all other successful invaders of these islands, at Thanet. This was in the Olden Days, when the Romans were top nation on account of their classical education, etc.
Julius Caesar advanced very energetically, throwing his cavalry several thousands of paces over the River Flumen; but the Ancient Britons, though all well over military age, painted themselves true blue, or _woad_, and fought as heroically under their dashing queen, Woadicea, as they did later in thin red lines under their good queen, Victoria.
Julius Caesar was therefore compelled to invade Britain again the following year (54 B.C., not 56, owing to the peculiar Roman method of counting), and having defeated the Ancient Britons by unfair means, such as battering-rams, tortoises, hippocausts, centipedes, axes and bundles, set the memorable Latin sentence, “Veni, Vidi, Vici,” which the Romans, who were all very well educated, construed correctly.
The Britons, however, who of course still used the old pronunciation, understanding him to have called them “Weeny, Weedy and Weaky,” lost heart and gave up the struggle, thinking that he had already divided them All into Three Parts.
(1) For the other date see Chapter XI, _William the Conquerer_
i just want to share my thoughts on the “missale romanum 1962” published by roman catholic books: although the said book is not “THE” 1962 missal required by the MP, i think that is is “a” 1962 missal, since it has an imprimatur date 23 february 1962 as found on page (293), further when compared with the missale romanum editio typica found on the CMAA website, the only difference seems to be the following,
1. name of st. joseph not in the canon
2. rite of confirmation in the appendixes (rcb missal has none)
just my thoughts…
thanks