Okay…. Summorum Pontificum

So we know the title.

Summorum Pontificum

(Something or other) of the Supreme Pontiffs (something or other)
Anyone care to speculate about the way the rest of the sentence continues?
Be nice.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Okay…. Summorum Pontificum

  1. Dr. Lee Fratantuono says:

    Summorum Pontificum…cura recognitum (…Missale)…

  2. Irulats says:

    SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ACTA AD SACRAM LITURGIAM SPECTANTIA

  3. Barrett says:

    I vote for “cura” as the next word, echoing the title of the 1962 Missal: MISSALE ROMANUM EX DECRETO
    SS. CONCILII TRIDENTINI RESTITUTUM SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM CURA RECOGNITUM. Something like, “The great care (solicitude, carefulness, concern) of the Supreme Pontiffs has always been to safeguard the integrity of the sacred liturgy. . .” Taking bets.

  4. Bede says:

    Barrett: No bet. I think you’ve nailed it.

  5. Paul, South midlands UK says:

    That Moto Proprio in Full:

    Paulus VI ponitfex maximus allowus extraordianary ministerius, in sanctum, meanum extraordinary verius rareus. Duom Episcopatus allowus extraordinary ministus, maxuimus even XXV in smallus parishus, Extraordinary nowus meanus ubiquitous, et Benedict XVI pontifex maximus noticus, et now definus missa Bl John XXIII extraordinary ritus. Letus see episocpatus europus and americanus get out of that one, verily. Tutti Frutti!

  6. Richard says:

    I think Barrett’s right as well.

    We’ll know soon enough, however.

  7. Prof. Basto says:

    Barret,

    There is an Italian news website claiming that the first three words of the Motu Proprio will be, exactly as you have just said: “Summorum Pontificum cura”.

    The website is:

    http://notizie.alice.it/notizie/politica/2007/07_luglio/04/papa/_messa_in_latino,_la_'summorum_pontificum'_il_7_luglio_-2-,12829217.html?pmk=nothppol

  8. danphunter1 says:

    The Voice of Divine Reason of the Supreme Pontiffs doth mandate that our Universal patrimony of the Missal of 1962 will be given honored and sole place as the Sacrifice of Holy Mass henceforth and forevermore.

  9. Patrick says:

    Interestingly, Summorum Pontificum is also the title of the Constitution Declaring St. Ignatius Patron of All Spiritual Exercises by Pius XI, dated July 25, 1922.

    “…We deem it proved that the Spiritual Exercises, made according to the plan of St. Ignatius, have the greatest efficacy in dispelling the most stubborn difficulties with which human society is now confronted…”

  10. milanta says:

    Let’s search (advanced one) into http://www.vatican.va in google with “Summorum Pontificum” and We just see many good alternatives. But “cura” it’s the best choise at the moment.

  11. Jim says:

    I’ll give it a try: “It has never been the intent of the highest pontiffs to scrap the liturgical traditions of nearly two millenia . . .” Or words to that effect.

  12. Syriacus says:

    ” 2. Exinde, Summorum Pontificum cura, magnum opus instaurandi libros liturgicos Ritus romani coepit initium, quod amplectebatur translatione in sermones populares eo consilio ut instauratio diligentissima sacrae Liturgiae efficeretur, scilicet unum ex praecipuis praedicti Concilii propositis.”

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_lt.html

  13. Barrett says:

    Thanks, Prof. Honest, I hadn’t seen that Italian site! Well, more cura is exactly what we need!

  14. Barrett says:

    …cura could be in the ablative also: “Through the care of the Supreme Pontiffs…” Summorum Pontificum cura, sacra liturgia ritus Romani semper custodita instaurataque est…

  15. Michael C. says:

    What powerful first words: “Of the Supreme Pontiffs”

    He’s not messing around, is he?

  16. There is an Italian news website claiming that the first three words of the Motu Proprio will be, exactly as you have just said: “Summorum Pontificum cura”.

    Anyone have any leaks telling what the 4th word might be? How much of the document can we put together before its release? ;)

  17. PMcGrath says:

    [The cure] of the Supreme Pontiffs [for liturgical malaise is: More Latin!]

  18. berenike says:

    Paul from the Midlands – your fault I have wasted 15 minutes posting on a 324b connection instead of doing some work.

  19. Widukind says:

    For what it is worth, a friend of mine noticed the MP will be promulgated on 7 – July – 07, that is, 777, the Apocolyptic number for the “King of Kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16).

  20. Raymundus says:

    Someone brought up “we” and “our” – why is it in both Latin and Italian, the Holy Father uses the royal plural first person, while in English it’s always first-person singular?

  21. Parochus says:

    Pope John Paul II decided that the traditional plural of majesty (“Nos”) would continue to be used in the official Latin texts, but in all the vernacular translations of those texts, as well as in his homilies and other discourses, he would use the first person singular. He was determined not to continue practices borrowed from the trappings of secular authority, e.g., the tiara, the plural of majesty, the “sedia gestatoria,” etc. — even though the last of these would have been quite useful in his declining years.

  22. Prof. Basto says:

    Parochus,

    A terrible decision by Pope John Paul II, that encourages the plague of “creative translations”.

    Translators should be faithful to the original text they are translated, and translations should not involve any creativity: if what is written in the original means “We”, then the translations should read “We”, not “I”.

  23. Barrett says:

    Nos tibi congruimus. Aut forsan pontifex maximus se in tertia persona debet vocare, ut Caesar Dict. solebat, sic:

    Benedictus XVI Pont. Max. litteris motu proprio datis, iuxta bullam venerabilis decessoris eius Pauli V, felicis recordationis, editionem typicam missalis Romani anno MCMLXII promulgatam, in omnibus Missis in quibusvis ecclesiis abs ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequi licet, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate eius Apostolica, perpetuo concedit et indulget.

  24. Prof. Basto says:

    That would be strange.

  25. MJ says:

    It seems the blog Whispers in the Loggia has a bit more on the MP with the next few lines of the document! could it be???

  26. Barrett says:

    Just joking Prof. Royal we vs. third person, take your pick. And, mea culpa, it should say Pii V not Pauli V, obviously.

  27. Barrett says:

    Wonder where they got this?

    SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM cura ad hoc tempus usque semper fuit, ut Christi Ecclesia Divinae Maiestati cultum dignum offerret, «ad laudem et gloriam nominis Sui» et «ad utilitatem totius Ecclesiae Suae sanctae».

    Ab immemorabili tempore sicut etiam in futurum, principium servandum est «iuxta quod unaquaeque Ecclesia particularis concordare debet cum universali Ecclesia non solum quoad fidei doctrinam et signa sacramentalia, sed etiam quoad usus universaliter acceptos ab apostolica et continua traditione, qui servandi sunt non solum ut errores vitentur, verum etiam ad fidei integritatem tradendam, quia Ecclesiae lex orandi eius legi credendi respondet»….

  28. Dan O says:

    Fr. Z, This is a great drama. How will you handle it? Now the embargoed paragraphs are listed on your website by Barrett. You would almost have to close off all comments until Saturday to keep the embargo.

  29. Prof. Basto says:

    Dan O,

    Fr. Z is not saying that that is the authentic text.

  30. Brian Crane says:

    I figured it would be a matter of time until someone leaked the text. I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner. There are unfortunately enough folks in chanceries who have no shame and could care less about things like the pontifical secret. It’s too bad that Rocco Palmo has aided and abetted this very shameful practice. And to use it seemingly for profit also. Shameful.

  31. swmichigancatholic says:

    Yes, you could be getting this from anywhere. You could be making it up and putting it through an English to Latin translator online. Who knows? We will wait for the real one, thanks.

  32. Brian: “seemingly for profit also.”

    For profit?

  33. Dan O says:

    Prof Basto,

    Agreed, the text may not be accurate and Fr. Z has certainly not validated its correctness. However, I believe that you and others including Fr. Z have siad that it is a shame or shameful that the text has been leaked. I am just pointing out that the text is also here in this blog. While it seems that Rocco may have been the first to print it and that is not right in my opinion. WDTPRS.com is also a source for others to get the document early. I think in a sense of fairness, we must also say it is also a shame that the document or paragraphs of it are also in this blog. Or is shame only for the liberal blogs?

  34. Dan O: I am frankly not sure that I have the moral obligation to remove the text posted by Barrett (above).

    I do not think Barrett did something wrong posting it here.

    It is now “out there”. There is no getting it back.

    By discussing it we do not participate in the morally questionable act of the person who leaked it, whoever that person may be.

    Now that it is “out there”, while I don’t believe it is simply fair game, I would rather see it discussed here than in some place moderated with fewer scruples. Also, I get compliments from priest friends that sharp people visit this blog and that the discussions are good. Better to set the tone here and control the damage.

  35. Jon says:

    Father,

    “For profit?”

    Rocco’s obviously using the opportunity of inevitably increased traffic to rattle the can. Questionable taste? Definitely. Sin? I don’t think so.

    “Studying the text of yet another Whispers exclusive; full report on the way….

    …in the meantime, the fund drive’s still on — remember the guitar case.”

  36. Brian Crane says:

    Fr. Z: For profit?

    Yes, he posts a teaser from the MP and mentions that he is working on it as an “exclusive” and then takes the opportunity to mention his fundraising drive in the same post.

  37. Barrett says:

    Gosh, no one had any scruples about publishing and discussing the first two words; I fail to see why reprinting the (alleged) first 91 words is qualitatively dirrerent. There is nothing of substance in it anyway, merely introductory recitals, quite along the lines we anticipated. It gives away nothing as to what the rules will be. Anyhow, we are not journalists given an advance copy in exchange for agreeing to an embargo. We have no obligation to close our eyes to what has been publicly posted, licitly or not. Who (may have) violated a confidence is a different question.

  38. Barrett: Yes… it is different. The first two (or three) words are a title. There is some substance to 91. I said (above) I did not think you did wrong by posting what you posted. I suggest you leave it there. Good idea, no?

  39. Barrett says:

    Ab immemorabili tempore omnia deceta secreta leakata sunt. And wherever it came from, it was NOT an online translator. It’s real Latin.

  40. Barrett says:

    And let’s not forget the months of “official” leaks. News is news. I doubt the Holy Father will be much put out by his letter escaping early. Whole thing has to be one of the worst kept secrets in history.

  41. Chironomo says:

    And so we now begin a new stage in speculation. Any guesses as to what will happen NEXT?? I think the MP is a sure sign that Benedict is willing and able to take on the opposition within the Church, don’t you think? I’ve also noticed a great deal of “silence” on other issues that were making the rounds last fall and then suddenly were off the map (the Directory for Music, revision of MCW)… these are all issues concerned with following the liturgical norms faithfully… an issue that is brought to the front in (the leaked version of) the Motu Proprio. I think it was no accident that these were “put off” until after the publication of this document. Much more to come I think….

  42. Paul Milligan says:

    It’s out!

    Summorum Pontificum cura ad hoc tempus usque semper fuit, ut Christi Ecclesia Divinae Maiestati cultum dignum offerret, «ad laudem et gloriam nominis Sui» et «ad utilitatem totius Ecclesiae Suae sanctae».

    Ab immemorabili tempore sicut etiam in futurum, principium servandum est «iuxta quod unaquaeque Ecclesia particularis concordare debet cum universali Ecclesia non solum quoad fidei doctrinam et signa sacramentalia, sed etiam quoad usus universaliter acceptos ab apostolica et continua traditione, qui servandi sunt non solum ut errores vitentur, verum etiam ad fidei integritatem tradendam, quia Ecclesiae lex orandi eius legi credendi respondet»[1].

  43. doug says:

    Friends – Summorum Pontificum is now posted at Vatican Information icon on Vatican website.