by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
My article on the “right to know,” which informed readers about the stance of key Catholic groups toward the new Mass text, drew sharp criticism. Ironically, these criticisms came from Catholic circles passionately enthusiastic about ecumenism. Having heard that charity begins at home, I don’t understand how people can be so ecumenical toward those outside the Church and yet be aggressive toward those inside. That is my main point about these brief articles. As for their content, they are so insignificant that I probably won’t bother with them any further.
As a reward for these trivial and unpleasant matters, I received a thoughtful and well-informed letter from a reader, Mr. Carlos Ribeiro, whose debating skills are comparable to Cyrano’s swordsmanship. I want to read it again myself to fully understand its content. Meanwhile, I share it with my readers.
Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. In the February issue of Catolicismo, I saw your article about the right to know, published in Folha de São Paulo on January 25.
You are right. We have the right to know what they are doing in the Holy Church with the most revered part of our religion, the Mass. We have the right to understand what affects the core of our faith and our eternal salvation. This right becomes even more sacred when faced with the thick veil of silence surrounding everything unaligned with progressivism. For example, the TFP’s impressive campaign to alert our people against prophetic groups and IDO-C. The well-organized progressive machine surrounded the campaign with a curtain of silence because your arguments had no answer.
Since you mention the Courrier de Rome, you have likely read the appendix to issue No. 62, “Les faux-monayeurs.”
If you haven’t already, here’s a small contribution to fulfill our Catholic right to know what happens behind the scenes of the now famous ‘liturgical restoration (!).’
These are the unofficial translations of the Constitution ‘Missale Romanum,’ which promulgates the new ‘Ordo Missae.’ The ‘Courrier’ reports:
This constitution consists of three parts:
The first, after a few sentences praising St. Pius V’s missal, describes the origin of the new one in about thirty lines.
The second, longer part discusses the innovations introduced in this revised missal across three pages.
The third part is the document’s conclusion, which should generally be the ‘dispositive’ section that clearly states the legislator’s intent: what he commands, forbids, and permits. Additionally, since Paul VI is legislating on a matter that already exists and is fully in effect, he should explicitly state the relationship he plans to establish between the new law and the existing one: abrogation, simple derogation, intent, etc.
This third section begins with the controversial phrase. Here it is:
“Ad extremum, ex iis quae hactemus de novo Missali Romano exposuimus quiddam nunc cogere et efficere placet.”
We underline the four important words.
This sentence’s sincere and accurate translation should be “From all that we have just expounded here on the new Roman Missal, it is now pleasing to us to draw a conclusion in order to finish.”
In issues nos. 59-60 of the Courrier de Rome, we cited numerous opinions from distinguished Latinists who confirm this translation, which is supported by the surrounding context. Let us add three additional opinions that were received later.
– From Rev. Fr. Antonio Coecis, O.F.M. Conv. (Rome): “Cogere” cannot mean to compel, but only to gather, to bring together; otherwise, quidam, something, would not make sense. Similarly, efficere can be translated as: to conclude, do, or effect.
– From Rev. André Noche: “To finish, we are pleased to draw a precise conclusion from what we have presented about the New Missal so far.”
– From an eminent religious scholar and American Latinist: “Finally, from all that we have said thus far concerning the Roman Missal, we would like to draw a particular conclusion right now.”
Now then, here is the ‘translation [sic] released by the Holy See Press Office’ (reproduced in Documentation Catholique, 8/10/1969, no. 1541, 517, col. 1): “Pour terminer, Nous voulons donner force de loi à tout ce que nous avons exposé plus haut sur le nouveau Missel Romain.”
The Italian translation is identical: “Infine, vogliamo dare forza di legge a quanto abbiamo finora esposto.”
The difference between the Latin and French-Italian texts is striking: there is more than a lapse of ineptitude, there is a positive and deliberate distortion.”
The Courrier de Rome continues to explore a subject I cannot precisely define. Among other things, it publishes a letter from Mr. Pierre Jounel of the Commission for the Application of the Liturgical Constitution, who admits there is a difference between the original text and the translations, and that this discrepancy raises questions about the Constitution’s binding authority. Mr. Jounel blames only the members of the Latin Letters section, who “malheureusement” (unfortunately) do not know how to accurately translate “les nuances de la redaction première” (the nuances of the first draft), so that, although “non officielles” (unofficial), the Italian and French translations better reflect the pope’s intentions” (!!!). The Courrier de Rome is right to be surprised and suggests one of three possibilities: either the pope did not read the Latin text, or he read it but didn’t understand it, or he read it, understood it, and decided to change his mind.
Here, our goal is simply to contribute modestly to the right to know.
With this same purpose, I will share one of the effects of my article. In fact, this effect deepened my curiosity to learn more about him.
Among the many boors who fill the earth, justifying the words of Scripture, ‘stultorum infinitus est numerus,’ there was an apparently progressive novice who, like street urchins hurling profanities without rhyme or reason to be better accepted into the flock, sought to brilliantly overcome all your arguments, as if you had attacked someone. He reasons: ‘If Max Thuriam can celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the new Ordo Missae and continue to be a Protestant, what’s wrong? I also say Mass with the new Ordo and remain Catholic (sic).’
As you can see, this is complete nonsense! So, is the liturgy acceptable to every religious creed? This is beyond foolish!
As I mentioned, this is a modest contribution to the right to know.
Greetings from your friend, Carlos Ribeiro.
Mr. Ribeiro, prepare for a possible barrage of invectives like those I referred to at the beginning of this article.
Cyrano de Bergerac (by Edmond Rostand) is one of the most famous plays in French theater, inspired by a real person, Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac (1619-1655). In this literary work, the main character is talented both in fencing and in his use of words. Above, a statue of Cyrano de Bergerac at Place de la Myrpe in Bergerac (Dordogne, France).