![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Motu Proprio development: “Where is it?”
I just received a "solid" on the status of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio to derestrict the older form of Mass.
A source in the Secretariate of State says the MP is still in the office of Latin Letters.
If we are at this stage, then it is signed and it will be promulgated.
Keep in mind that translation issues have plagued this papacy and the last. The letter to Chinese Catholics is also in the works. The Post-Synodal Exhortation was long delayed by the translation problem. Benedict XVI even referred to the problem with producing a translation.
The Motu Proprio will not need to express modern concepts like "marginal propensity to consume".
The work ought to be straight forward.
I don’t think that one ought to read anything sinister into this. First, the Latinists are constrained to work from the ITALIAN translation, no matter what the original draft was in. I stipulate that there are not a few people who would prefer that this MP not happen at all. Finally, it is important that they get this right: time is needed to coordinate well all the language versions which will need to be released simultaneously.
I would rather see a delay for the sake of gettin the translation right, than see mistakes and ideologically motivated "errors" along the lines of what appeared in the Post-Synodal Exhoration Sacramentum caritatis.
Indeed, Father, proper translation is important. Nevertheless, what does it say about the current state of the Vatican that translating this simple letter is so difficult? What hope is there for the work of Vox Clara?
Comment by Chris Garton-Zavesky — 7 June 2007 @ 7:30 amWell, this is exciting, is it not? I was just thinking about something I’ve been studying (the persistent religiosity of America); and the argument was that because America never had an institutionalized Church, Churches of all denominations were required to be actively evangelistic or else they’d simply lose a congregation. I think that by injecting the Tridentine mass into the mix you’ll radically (though little by little) change the new one and increase the quality of both. For, both Latin rites will probably become more “evangelistic” in their attempts to “sell their product.” This may result in convergence, or it may result in divergence: either way, its hard to see how this could harm the Church.
What do you think, Father?
PS
Comment by David — 7 June 2007 @ 7:53 amTwo side notes. First, I love this blog and have been “trolling” for quite some time. Second, why does this not work with the Eastern rites? Well, I’m personally Chaldean, so I’m very sensitive to the Eastern rites; but from my experience they’re simply not widespread enough. Where they do exist, however, they have a tendency to be perfectly contented with “Chaldeans,” “Melkites” etc (most Latin Church people don’t even know whether or not they’re Catholic) and don’t reach out like I know the Tridentine rite people will.
Well, for one thing, translating into Latin is rather more demanding than translating from it. Translating into Latin involves composing prose idiomatically in a language not one’s own. One trusts that the members of the Vox Clara Committee are well used to composing English prose.
I am interested in what Father says about the Office of Latin Letters being constrained to work from an Italian draft. I can see how this would be the case for a document which was the product of drafting by many hands. However, in the case of a document like this, which is the Pope’s own initiative and has doubtless largely been drafted by him personally, I could have imagined that he might have drafted it in Latin himself to start with.
He is, after all, quite capable of doing so. I well remember taking the text of his first homily as Pope to the pub with me at lunchtime on the day after the Conclave, and being very struck by the density of the Latin text which had apparently been produced overnight and under what must have been the most extraordinary strain.
Comment by Cerimoniere — 7 June 2007 @ 8:00 amThis is driving me crazy. What kind of amateurism is this? Just say: ‘I need it by that date.’ Basta. If they don’t have enough translators, well: appoint them.
Comment by Fr. Enrico — 7 June 2007 @ 8:02 amSo that makes this inforamation a “solid”...what? Delay is no guarantee of quality or rectitude in translating this document. If they’re having such difficulties, I’d like to suggest they mail it to Fr. Harry Neely, OSA, former Latinist at St. Augustine’s High School in San Diego, now resident at the Villanove Prep School in Ojai, California. He could knock it out for them in about 20 minutes. He’s only been at it for 70 years.
No excuses Fr., not after Sacramentum Caritatis. The only problem here is getting someone to do it. It’s rather simple, really. For an experienced latinist, there aren’t that many options. The great virtue of Latin, with its highly limited vocabulary, is that there is no such phrase as “In other words”. There are no other words. In Latin, you say what you mean. Come to think of it, that would make a great modus-operandi for running either a Roman Empire or a Universal Church of Christ, One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic, wouldn’t you think?
The Vatican needs to cut the politically-correct ecumenical double-talk, and say what they really mean. With latin, they have no choice. I suspect that they are struggling against that very reality as we speak.
Proud Recipient of Fr. Z’s Sour Grapes Award
Comment by John Polhamus — 7 June 2007 @ 8:17 amAs someone who wrote his doctoral thesis on Virgil first in Latin, only to translate it into English…the point of the exercise being that the text would be more concise, more succinct, more immune from some of the verbiage English seems to have by nature (at least for its native speakers)...I must say, I am always troubled by the apparent problems the Vatican seems to have of late with translations.
I expect problems in this area from local, diocesan level entities. I remember my shock when one diocesan tribunal needed me to consult for them on how to read annulment judgments they had received from Rome in Latin – apparently no one in their diocesan curia could handle the Latin.
I still fondly remember my (Jesuit-trained) Latin prose composition final exam: the first page of the Boswell Life of Johnson…go render it in Latin, with a time limit, no aids. That was a workout I shall never forget.
Comment by Dr. Lee Fratantuono — 7 June 2007 @ 8:33 amWhat I don’t understand is why all documents in the Curia are not drafted in Latin in the first place. Draft it in Latin and then translate into other languages. Surely there are enough people in the Curia who can write in Latin?
Comment by James — 7 June 2007 @ 8:51 amFather Z,
Why doesn’t His Holiness call you and ask you to do it? Surely you could handle it. Perhaps he’s afraid you’d say no, especially since you are now at Sabine Farm and couldn’t just drop in to his office. Of course he could always email it to you.
I know this isn’t how the Vatican works, I just wish it was. Plus I’d love to hear about your reaction when you answered the phone and heard the words “Papa Parla”!
Comment by Carolina Publican — 7 June 2007 @ 8:55 amI, too, would have certainly thought that this Pontiff would have drafted the original text in Latin himself. I’m sure he knows the language well enough!
Comment by Somerset '76 — 7 June 2007 @ 9:00 amWhat a shame… I was really hopefully today was the day, really I couldn’t think of a better feast to release the MP. It is a shame though that translations are always such a long and hard process in the Vatican of the last few decades. I really would have expected this Pope to write it in Latin himself, and maybe even do some of the vernacular translations himself like the German, French, English, Spanish, and maybe some others. I think the MP would have been released long ago if the Holy Father did do it himself. One thing that I do wonder, it may help explain the delay, could the Pope really be sending “experts” to the various places where this MP may not be received well? Anyone have any insights on that? Deo Gratias that it’s really coming however!
Comment by Humilis Famulus — 7 June 2007 @ 9:02 amI really would have expected this Pope to write it in Latin himself, and maybe even do some of the vernacular translations himself like the German, French, English, Spanish, and maybe some others.
Oh please! Like he has time to produce his own translations!
We have waited this long, we can wait a bit longer. The letter is written and signed, alleluia, alleluia.
Comment by Brian Crane — 7 June 2007 @ 9:11 amDid it take this long to promulgate a brand new missal in 1969?
Comment by danphunter1 — 7 June 2007 @ 9:20 amIt seems rather odd that a missal which has been in place for over 1000 years should take this much time to re-promulgate, when the novus ordo was ready to go and pushed forward in shorter order.
Seems odd, huh.
Maybe he’s going to announce it at the end of tonight’s Blessed Sacrament Procession on this (real) feast of Corpus Christi!
Comment by Augustinus — 7 June 2007 @ 9:36 am“I don’t think that one ought to read anything sinister into this.”
Unless, of course, the translators are left-handed.
Comment by afanco — 7 June 2007 @ 9:51 amA source in the Secretariate of State says the MP is still in the office of Latin Letters.
If we are at this stage, then it is signed and it will be promulgated.
I don’t understand.
Are you saying that the Latin text is not finished? If so, then how could it have have been signed. Or are you saying that the Latin text is established (and signed), but the translations are not yet finished?
Comment by RBrown — 7 June 2007 @ 9:58 amDan Hunter,
Did it take this long to promulgate a brand new missal in 1969?
That was much of the problem in 1969. Everything was pushed through rapidly, which meant that some embraced the new Mass thinking that the old one was defunct and no longer usable, and that others were quickly scandalized with no recourse.
This is the best news of my day. Deo Gratias!
Comment by GCC Catholic — 7 June 2007 @ 10:01 amFather,
Comment by danphunter1 — 7 June 2007 @ 10:04 amHypothetically, what would happen if His Holiness died before the motu proprio was issued?
Would the next Holy Father have to issue and promulgate it?
What if the next Pontiff did not aprove of the Missal of’62,could he put the kibosh on the whole thing?
“Did it take this long to promulgate a brand new missal in 1969 or 1965..
NO…the bishops were already starting the translations in 1963 as per the archive documents. The writings of Archbiship Halloran from Altanta are interesting to read during the entire Vatican II process and plus how ‘progressive” he and others were before the council even gave recognitio to any changes..check out the Archdiocese of Atlanta website and then go to the Georgia Bulletin(weekly Newspaper) and scroll down to archives..quite interesting reading from 1963 to 1965.
MJ
Comment by MJ — 7 June 2007 @ 10:09 amPray for it’s release tonight during the Eucharistic Procession. I still don’t see however why it takes so long to translate these things.
Comment by Humilis Famulus — 7 June 2007 @ 10:12 amRBrown: Right. I suppose the in the ultimate sense, the Latin that goes into the Acta, into the official archives, will be the signed Latin text on the very fanciest paper and the fanciest seals and gewgaws, etc. On the other hand, the text must be finished now.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 June 2007 @ 10:13 amFr, I wonder if the Pope will summon Bishops all over the world to Rome for this ie. “This is so important that I need to talk to you face to face” kinda thing.
Comment by Norman Lee — 7 June 2007 @ 10:14 amGCC Catholic,
Comment by danphunter1 — 7 June 2007 @ 10:15 amThe Classical Rite had been in place for 1500 years and still is.
There is no need to hem and haw about translations of it and the traditional sacraments.These have been in place for millenia,to bring myriad saints to heaven.
Its already there.The Pauline missal had to be fabricated from some existing essentials but from much that was novel.
It is a completely different situation that is found within the Church at this time as opposed to 1969.It would not be a situation of pushing something through to quikly and leaving many out in the cold.
Meanwhile a besieged world needs immediate spiritual assistance.
Ask any medic in the field if the shrapnel wound in the Marine’s side can wait for a few more days.
So much more so with the Mystical Body of Christ.
God bless you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/wlatin28.xml
The above U.K. Telegraph article, which appeared in January, 2007, quotes Fr. Reginald Foster, who is said to be the Vatican’s chief Latinist, as saying that the old Mass is “useless” and that the desire for it reflects a “stupid mentality.” Fr. Foster also is quoted in the article as saying that the motu proprio would not happen.
Let’s hope Fr. Foster is not in charge of the translation. (Also, why does he still have the job that he has?)
Comment by Dan — 7 June 2007 @ 10:16 amEVERYONE: I think it is good to remember that though this document will be a Motu Proprio of the Supreme Pontiff, the document is really coming from the Curia, especially the Pont. Comm. “Ecclesia Dei” which has competence in this matter. Just before I left Rome I had a nice long face to face with H.E. Card. Arinze. When our discussion turned to the Motu Proprio he said that it was really under the aforementioned, and not the Congregation, though of course the Congregation was involved, as were other dicasteries. This was out of necessity.
If people have some image of the Pope sitting in his study scratching away with a long goose feather quill, you had best adjust your thinking. The production of papal documents is complicated. Virtually all of them are to one extent or another drafted first by ghost writers (a few of whom I know). They make the rounds of various departments and experts for input and eventually a final copy is produced for the Pope’s review.
Finally, remember that the Pope will also provide an accompanying letter with the Motu Proprio.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 June 2007 @ 10:21 amDan: No matter what Fr. Foster might personally think of a text, his Latin work is always meticulous and correct. He is honorable in this regard, do not worry.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 June 2007 @ 10:22 amI appreciate that this document is important but some people here seem to have it waaay out of proportion. Some here have suggested that the pope would make several vernacular translations himself or that he would invite all the world’s bishops to Rome to discuss it! Let’s get some perspective! Yes this is a good and significant thing but it’s not The Most Important Thing Ever, and indeed won’t have much direct impact on 90% of Catholics.
Comment by Ansjo — 7 June 2007 @ 10:26 amI am very excited and patiently waiting. Having not known that the Mass used to be said in Latin, yet alone in a completely different rite until I was about 17 (1997), I can wait a few more days (or weeks), if need be. One of the priests at the campus church once said something to the effect that Holy Mother Church measures change and renewal in centuries, not hours and days.
But I seemed to have missed something regarding Sacramentum Caritatis. Could someone please fill me in. I purchased a copy in English to read over my summer break. Should I be concerned?
In Christ,
Comment by Luke Perez — 7 June 2007 @ 10:27 amNorman: I wonder if the Pope will summon Bishops all over the world to Rome for this
Let’s hope not! The last time that happened, well… you know.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 June 2007 @ 10:27 amDan Hunter,
I realize that this is something that should not be put on hold. However, the Holy Father made his concerns known about moving too quickly in regards to bringing back the Old Mass; those concerns surely are magnified now that he is Pope.
Besides, any anxiety with how slowly this is happening won’t make the situation any better, and it won’t make the MP come any faster.
Comment by GCC Catholic — 7 June 2007 @ 10:43 amThis is another great sign and the long wait seems to only build more momentum for the positive reception of the Motu Proprio. I also find it interesting about the “letter to the bishops”—might this take the form of an encyclical that will contain perrenial truths about the liturgy and the Mass, etc.?
Comment by schoolman — 7 June 2007 @ 10:45 amDes[ite the fact that I am not a fan of the Tridentine Mass ( then why do i read thi sblog?) iI think it is ironic that Fr. Foster would find the Tridentine Mass useless and interest in it medieval, but he thinks that studying and using Latin is just hunky-dory. There seems to be a disconnect in his thinking.
Comment by thomas tucker — 7 June 2007 @ 10:48 amWouldn’t it have been more effective for His Holiness, at one of his Wednesday audiences to simply state “Today I grant an indult to every validly ordained Roman Catholic priest to celebrate the Holy Mass of Pius V.”? The way this MP has been handled speaks poorly of our once noble Church. We have lost our way when a document must be tested for political correctness before it is promulgated.
Comment by Fr. Patrick Persinger — 7 June 2007 @ 10:53 amThe Vatican needs to cut the politically-correct ecumenical double-talk, and say what they really mean. With latin, they have no choice. I suspect that they are struggling against that very reality as we speak.
Your comment touches on a previous comment by someone about Latin and the Curia, etc. Although Latin is still de iure the language of the Church, it is sadly not the lingua franca anywhere in Rome (exc maybe in Foster’s classes). That sad fact, combined with the influence of the press, makes necessary extremely reliable translations.
The current Latin deficit also has academic consequences. No decent university grants doctorates to people who cannot read the original text, but now Roman pontifical universities do—in Scripture (exc the Biblicum), Theology, and Canon Law.
A friend who was Dean of the Canon Law faculty at the Angelicum once told me that he asked a candidate at a doctoral defense why he had chosen a particular translation. The reply: He didn’t know Latin; there were various translations—he just randomly picked one.
Nor is it limited to Rome. I knew a man who received his doctorate in Medieval History from St Louis U, with a dissertation on St Boniface. He knew no Latin.
Comment by RBrown — 7 June 2007 @ 10:54 amMy friend, a Classics Ph.D. student at Cornell, is with Reggie right now in Rome, at his summer program. Within the first day or so, Reggie debunked “Tridentinism” and said that the pope wasn’t going to restore the Mass. In other words, Reggie’s usual antics. I suppose those comments, taken in a certain way, are consistent with the mp being in Reggie’s office right now. Or, another possibility is that Reggie himself is not working on it – but I can only imagine that he would know if someone in his office were.
I certainly hope that your source is correct. But as of Monday, at any rate, Reggie wasn’t yet a believer.
Comment by Iosephus — 7 June 2007 @ 10:55 amDes[ite the fact that I am not a fan of the Tridentine Mass ( then why do i read thi sblog?) iI think it is ironic that Fr. Foster would find the Tridentine Mass useless and interest in it medieval, but he thinks that studying and using Latin is just hunky-dory. There seems to be a disconnect in his thinking.
Quod factum non est disputandum.
Comment by RBrown — 7 June 2007 @ 11:03 amMy exclusive source in the vatican (leakius biggius) tells me that the english translation is very interesting:
The MP in Latin.
Benedictus XVI Pontifex Maximus, promulgatius latin tridentus missa, expanionus massivo, ecclesclesius permissionus negatus, ecclesius causus problemus inquisitionus maximumus, tutti frutti.
English Translation
Pope Benedict would be most grateful if the bishops would condescend to allow the occasional latin mass to keep the reactionaries happy until they all die off, I know it might upset some of your lay activists but you could hold them in a small church the middle of nowhere at two o’clock in the morning if its going to cause a big fuss.
Comment by Paul,South Midlands, UK — 7 June 2007 @ 11:07 amFather, with the best will in the world, proud recipient of your paternal attentions and awards that I today seem to be, the majority of the posters, as a sampling of the orthodox Roman Carholic world, don’t buy your argument that they just have to be SOOOOOOO careful, and that scrupulous curial correctitude is the reason for this delay. Nor are we so naive as to think of the Holy Father scratching away in his office with a goose quill. Come on. But I think you and I both know that there is a good chance Benedict will be killed before the curia, the world’s protestantized diocesans or their dissident priests roll over for the return of orthodox Roman liturgy. I pray against this with all my heart, but mere beurocratic paperpushing in no longer a sufficient excuse.
Munching discontentedly on one of my sour grapes.
Comment by John Polhamus — 7 June 2007 @ 11:18 amWell, for practice they could translate this.
Pontem habeo… vendibilem vobis!
Comment by John — 7 June 2007 @ 11:19 amNorman: I wonder if the Pope will summon Bishops all over the world to Rome for this
Let’s hope not! The last time that happened, well… you know.
Um, the last time was Vatican II. Would another ecumenical council be a bad thing (except for the time required to get all of the Bishops there at once)?
Comment by Brian Day — 7 June 2007 @ 11:23 amJohn: But I think you and I both know that there is a good chance Benedict will be killed before the curia, the world’s protestantized diocesans or their dissident priests roll over for the return of orthodox Roman liturgy.
Weird.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 June 2007 @ 11:43 am