To belong, or not to belong?

5 Comments

1. Ciacona says:

   18 April 2006 at 6:53 AM

   I’ve got a friend who basically associates himself with them, using “we” whenever the SSPX is brought up. Has a siege mentality and spouts the SSPX propaganda from time to time. Joined the liturgical groups and receives the sacraments there. Thinks he is not disobedient. Takes the Ecclesia Dei’s letter that it is not a sin to go there out of devotion as a carte blanche to do anything he likes there.

   This is one example of how bad things can get.
2. The Clapboard Contemplative says:

   18 April 2006 at 3:22 PM

   Father:

   First of all, thank you for a great blog. You offer better transaltions of the
   Latin originals not to poke ICEL in the eye, but to get us to reflect on a part
   of the Mass that can often be ignored.

   Secondly, kudos fro a creative use of symbols: o{]:¬)
3. martin says:

   18 April 2006 at 5:04 PM

   as posted under 18 iii 2006

   In all honesty your posts on “sollemnis” are a bit of a mess, Fr. Z.. I made a comment earlier today under Collect (1) of Easter Sunday instead of under the more recent Collect (2), so it is likely to languish there (with spelling mistakes: “sollemnis” is a regular trap and even the Romans fluctuated between one L and two). I therefore make a new post here.

   (A) The first Lenten collect to use the word (actually, “sollemniter”) was on Friday of week 1 (10 iii 2006), where you claimed a derivation from “sol” on which I corrected you in my comment, myself alluding to a doubtful derivation from “sollus + annus”. The point you were making was that “sollemnis” refers to an annual repetition.

   (B) For Laetare Sunday (week 4, 26 iii) you dropped the “sol” derivation but stayed with “yearly” (“that which is established to be done each year”) and mentioned other applications.

   (C) On Easter Sunday you have two posts on the Collect: post (1) dating from 2001, and post (2) dating from 2005. They are substantially identical, asserting a derivation from “sollus + annus” without noting that it is doubtful, and again you assert that “sollemnis” refers to something that takes place every year (“Its first meaning is thus ‘yearly, annual’ “) adding the idea that it means something “rare” and, because rare, “important”.

   “sollemnis” does not mean “rare” or “annual”, nor is the referend necessarily “important”. Its primary meaning is something performed ceremoniously (in a range of applications), and from there it means “customary” or “traditional”: see my post under Collect (1) for Easter Sunday based on the OLD. If your standby Lewis & Short say it means “yearly” or “annual”, I invite you to give a citation where “traditional” or “hallowed by custom” would not fit the bill better. This secondary meaning is, in any event, irrelevant to the use of the word in a religious setting.

   In the Church we have “solemn” dedications of churches, “solemn” professions, and “solemn” processions (most recently, on Palm Sunday but by no means confined to that day). The major feasts of the Church are “solemnities” (I count 16). The dedications and professions are unique; the processions and major feasts are numerous. Where, in all this, you get “rare” and “annual”, I have no idea. For sure, each individual feast comes once a year. We do not, however, need to be told that.
4. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   19 April 2006 at 6:02 AM

   Martin: In all honesty, this has nothing to do with this entry!

   OREMUS, however, pro invicem!
5. martin says:

   19 April 2006 at 9:46 AM

   Fr. Z., my post bore on the clapboard collective’s comment (which I had not seen when I made my post, to be sure).

   Now and again a corrective is indicated.

Comments are closed.