08 July 2007

More Good Stuff

From Seminarian Zach at Road to Reform. I have been in several discussions so far about whether the "readings in the vernacular" component of Summorum Pontificum meant merely that a vernacular translation of the 1962 calendar and readings could be used, or if it meant that the novus ordo lectionary could be used. (I've argued the former). But the post above considers that it says neither, but merely that after the Latin readings the celebrant could also proclaim them then in the vernacular. In other words, what most of us already experience. It's an intriguing thought, and I will devote some time to this whole component in future posts.


Zach said...

Ha! Thanks for the plug. I was banned over at NLM for making my case. I hope this ends the silly confusion over article 6 of Summorum Pontificum.

Gregor Kollmorgen said...

I know he says he consulted a a canon lawyer, which I am not (I'm a lawyer, though), but I still think, he's mistaken. To be honest, to my mind, the meaning of Art. 6 Summ. Pont. is pretty obvious.
It says "In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula".
1) The Mass is celebrated according to the Missal of Bl. John XXIII. This, to me clearly, means that the readings contained in that Missal can be read in the vernacular, not readings from the other, ordinary Missal.
2) They can be proclaimed in the vernacular, not merely repeated. I think exactly the arguments used by Zach show this to be true: If the repeating is already an option in the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, Art. 6 is superfluous. It is an established principle of legal interpretation, that a norm cannot supposed to be without application. The legislator would not have included an extra article (among a very short and concise regulation) to state something (and then only one very specific issue) which already follows from permitting the use of the Missal.

thetimman said...

Zach, you're welcome, but I still hold to my previous position,as restated above by Berolinensis.

There is no need to mention the vernacular proclamation again if this was already allowed. I believe the 1962 Missal said nothing of the vernacular re-reading, but rather this was a custom outside of the Mass.

The point about feast days added to the calendar only after the PCED considers this is, though, very much against the notion that the new lectionary could be meant here.

I think Berolinensis is right on both counts, but to me, the "vernacular proclamation" is far less problematic (although I wouldn't have wanted it) than mix-and-mismatch lectionaries.

Zach said...


Article 6, even if interprated in the way I have, is not supurflurous. The pope, with this document, is restating the obvious with the whole document. All this document needs to say, and it has, is that the Mass according to the Traditional Roman Rite was never abrogated. That being said, the pope with the rest of the document reiterates the rubrics regarding the Missal of John XXIII. If such a thing were superflourous than article 2 is as well where it repeats an established norm that no private Masses may be said during the Sacred Triduum.