What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

I just got off the phone with a representative of a Catholic publisher.  He had some questions about the pronunciation of liturgical Latin.

His experience in digging into this issue is much the same as what I have found through the years, namely, people can get pretty worked up about this stuff.

Relax.

Remember that language is… well.. language.  There are no hard and fast rules to prescribe in human speech.

Sure, there are conventions and "standards" of pronunciation. 

I think we have all heard that "BBC English" was the "standard" for broadcasting the the UK for a long time.  The upper-midwestern accent of the US, such as Omaha, was the "standard" in American broadcasting to which everyone, such as Texans, had to conform.  It is usually held that the Italian of Lucca in Tuscany is the "purest" Italian or the French of, if I remember properly, Orleans, is their reference point in France.  In China, the official stand on Mandarin is the Beijing pronunciation. 

Insofar as Holy Roman Church is concerned, since at least the time of Pius X the Roman pronunciation of Church Latin was considered the language standard.  This has been reinforced more recently, in the time of Bl. John XXIII (e.g., in Ordinationes ad Constitutionem Apostolicam Veterum Sapientia Rite Exsequendam in AAS 54/6 (30 Maii 1962), p. 345 and n. 10.

So,... that would either make Rome the Omaha of the Church, or Omaha the Rome of American broadcasting…. hmmm….

For example, pick up your handy English edition of the Liber Usualis and you will find in the front a section called "Rules of Interpretation".  You will find therein not only directions about how to sing a scandicus and climacus, but also the values of vowels, diphthongs and consonants.

The Liber says:

"In good Latin diction – listen to Roman professor lecturing in Latin – the tonic accent stands out clearly" etc. 

And further…

"Our aim, in compliance with the wishes of his holiness Pius X, is to pronounce and speak Latin in the Roman Style so eminently suitable to Plainsong."

And more…

"Many have never learned the Roman pronunciation or know it imperfectly.  Besides its great importance in Plainsong it makes for that uniformity which inspired the Vatican Edition itself: Unus Cultus, Unus Cantus.  We therefore give a list of the correct pronunciation of the vowels and consonants to which reference can be made in case of doubt; it is advisable to peruse it from time to time."

 

The Liber is rather prescriptive, but… well… you have to say something more than "say it any way you want".  Still, I need to observe that finding a Romano di Roma is getting harder and harder… especially a well-educated Romano di Roma who knows Latin.  They exist, but they are getting rarer.

Also, note that the Liber is not talking about a French guy lecturing in Rome in Latin, but a Roman.  All of us are going to tend, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on one’s "ear" to impose the sound inventory of the mother tongue even on the well-practiced Roman style of ecclesiastical Latin.

So, we mustn’t be overly rigid about these things and wind up breathing spittle-flecked imprecations against someone whose pronunciation strays a bit from personal norms, or those in the Liber.... or elsewhere.

Nevertheless, we should stick to the Roman style to the best of our ability.

I got these questions via e-mail:

I have a question dealing with the proper understanding of the Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum.

A hypothetical diocese has a policy in which the Extraordinary Form is only allowed where explicitly permitted by the bishop but the Ordinary Form is permitted in any church in the diocese.  Is this consistent with Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum?  I would think that wherever the Ordinary Form is permitted the Extraordinary Form is also permitted since these are simply two different uses of the same rite.

This seems not to be consistent with the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

As I read it, the Motu Proprio places these decisions in the hands the priests, not the bishops.  Bishops may not, it seems, forbid celebrations of the older form of Mass. 

Pastors can schedule Masses with the older form of Mass either on a regular basis or ad hoc.

A second question:  may a priest deny a local group the use of "his" church for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?  Assume a local group has arranged for a visiting FSSP priest to come to town, the visiting priest has obtained faculties, and the local group approaches the pastor respectfully and courteously to ask whether thevisiting  FSSP priest may offer Mass on a single occasion at some time in which the church is not being used for something else.  Does the pastor have the right to refuse to allow the group & the FSSP priest access to the church?

Yes, I think a pastor of a parish could forbid a visiting priest and an outside group from doing something in his parish. 

Pastors of parishes (or those in charge of other churches and chapels) should extend to visiting priests the opportunity to say Mass. 

However, a pastor is not obliged to let visiting groups or priests move into his church and do what they please, even when what they desire to do is laudable.

Check out the PODCAzT page.

UPDATE: 21 AUGUST 17:59 GMT

2289 – Pope and snake, et al.
2291 – Fr. Z and Fr. Finigan, et al.

And His Hermeneuticalness Fr. Finigan’s interview in PODCAzT 64 has taken the lead!

He is now beating the Holy Father and the big snake Sebastian in downloads and "listens".

__________________________

ORIGINAL POST (edited):

Here are links to the last few PODCAzTs:

068 08-08-04 Interview – Fr. Tim Finigan on the Oxford TLM conference; don Camillo (Part III)
067 08-07-29 St. Augustine on Martha, active v. contemplative lives; don Camillo (part II)
066 08-07-25