Vatican II mandated (SC 50) that liturgical "elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are to be restored (restituantur) to the vigour which they had in the days of the holy Fathers."
S Paul VI in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum changed restituantur to restituuntur ("are being restored"), thus claiming to be fulfilling that Conciliar mandate. He gave two or three examples, again taken from the Conciliar Decree, of such 'restorations'.
That pope did not, clearly, regard the changes which had occurred in the liturgy over the centuries as being irreversible. He himself confidently, even with pride, reversed some of them. And the Council, he claimed, had ordered this policy of reversal, of historical recovery.
PF, on the other hand, rigidly observed in 2017 (NCR August 24) "We can affirm with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reforms are irreversible".
Yet, despite this assertion of rigidity, in his Address to the Curia, he has recently asserted " ... there is a need to be wary of rigidity. A rigidity born of fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred. Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some form of imbalance [squilibrio*]. Rigidity and imbalance [squilibro*] feed one another in a vicious circle. And today this temptation to rigidity has become very real".
So who is to be believed? The Ecumenical Council and the Pontiff who said that the Church can and should reach back into the past and recover things which have been lost ...
... or the pope who, because of his fear of change, builds a Berlin Wall, makes a 'minefield' (campo minato), to prevent any brave souls from venturing out to recover what has been lost?
And which of these two Bergoglios is to be taken seriously: the 'unbalanced, deranged' (vide squilibrio) Bergoglio who with formidable rigidita ("affirm; certainty; magisterial; authority; irreversible") upholds the post-conciliar liturgical distortions ...
... or the Bergoglio who incessantly warns the rest of us against Rigidity?
* I have only the merest smattering of Italian; can somebody explain to me what the difference is between squilibrio and squilibro in the Italian text of this address? And ... I presume the -libr- comes from the Latin root, but where etymologically does the squi- come from?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
balance = equilibrio
disbalance = squilibrio = "ex"-equilibrio
And ... I presume the -libr- comes from the Latin root, but where etymologically does the squi- come from?
cf. equilibrium and disequilibrium - I suspect that the 's' is some form of contraction of an Italian negative prefix?
The Dizionario Treccani states that squilibrio is derived from equilibrio, in which the e- had been (wrongly, since it is derived from the Latin aequi-) felt as a prefix. The s- is a negative prefix, such as the Greek alpha privativum; see e.g. bilanciato vs. sbilanciato, 'disbalanced'.
It looks like squilibro, on the other hand, is a typo. (And the first person singular of the verb squilibrare, 'to unbalance', but that is not the case here.)
I understand that squilibrio derives from equilibrium with the addition of a contracted negative prefix dis-; hence 's-(e)quilibrio = un-balance. The word squilibrio is a noun, but (according to Wiktionary) squilibro is the first person singular of the verb squilibrare, meaning "I unbalance" ("I disturb", "I topple"). In the context of the sentence quoted, it looks like a slip of the tongue/pen on the part of either PF or the transcriber. The verb is in a transitive form rather than the intransitive "I am unbalanced", but either way the slip does look more than a little Freudian!
Squilibro is merely a typo for squilibrio, which is correct.
The prefix is not squi- but rather the s- negating the word equilibrio. In Italian, the s- is a common negative derived from dis-. The word disproportion, for example, is sproporzione in Italian.
Similar (if you trust it), says that the verb "squilibrare", to imbalance, is "s- + equilibrare", where "equilibrare" is "to balance".
The "s-" negative prefix is supposed to be a shortened version of "dis-".
Squilibrato <— Dis + equi + libri
Italian sometimes contracts prefixes that end in “s” followed by a consonant to s-. For example “squisito” (delicious) rather than esquisito (exquisito), or "strumento" (instrument) rather than instruments/istrumento.
Are those Italian words which begin with s and a consonant not abbreviations of the Latin dis- with the consonant ?
It would be from 'equilibrio', and the 's' would be a negative prefix, like 'des' in French or Spanish.
[Di]s[e]quilibrium?
Under previous pontificates, I would have classified "squilibro" as a typo; but I must now entertain the possibility that it results from a non-rigid approach to Italian orthography.
As for the etymology, s- is a privative prefix in Italian, reduced from latin dis-. It has displaced the first vowel of its antonym, equilibrio, derived from the adjective aequus, a, um, "level", and the substantive libra, ae, f., "scales".
Squi- seems to come from equi. So equi + libra = equal balance.
The 'qui' comes from 'equi', equal. The 's' as a prefix comes from the prefix 'dis', the purpose of which is to negate something. And the final root is 'libra', which here means 'balance'. So, all together: s + equi + libera = unbalanced. The difference between the two words you asked about is that one is a noun and the other is a verb. Other than that, I don't see any difference.
Not sure of the difference between the two spellings, but the word comes from dis-aequilibrium according to Il Vocabolario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana di Ottorino Pianigiani by Albrighi & Segati (1907); the first two letters of the privative prefix routinely drop off in Italian derivatives.
Yet again Father I do not accept your attack on PF for rigidity. His defence of the liturgical reforms is surely not a matter of 'every jot and tittle' but of the broad thrust of the vernacular and of congregational involvement.
"Pope Francis: take Gregorian chant as “the first model” of sacred music (Sept 2019)"
"What defines the liturgy ... fulfillment, in the holy signs, of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, ..., a priesthood made present in a constant way through the rites and prayers, especially in his Body and Blood, ...(Papal address August 2017)"
I see rigidity in the liturgical views of those who reject the old forms as outmoded and say they should be forbidden, and in those who will never attend a celebration in the new form. Unfortunately these views can be found in people who are not on either lunatic fringe.
I understand well that etymological and orthographical issues are of great importance to both Father Hunwicke and to readers of this blog---as they are indeed to me. But far more important in this perilous time in which history (and Pope Francis) has placed all Catholics, and indeed the whole world, is the agenda of this revolutionary and schoolmarmish pope: the lesson that we must accept any and all changes---no matter how heretical, ahistorical, and harmful to souls and the Body of Christ---that his Jesuitical heart desires or else we are mentally ill at best and bad Catholics at worst is the "anti-rigidity" message that must be inculcated at every opportunity so that any resistance to heresy and apostasy can be dismissed as insanity and/or perversity. So that, in short, Papa Bergoglio can get his modernist agenda through without a peep from any in his world-wide congregation---thought out in the true spirit of the rigid dictator that he is. And the lesson must be repeated, like the multiplication tables once were, to the point of exhaustion, lest anyone forget one single iota and dare question his rigid, totalitarian diktats. Are we not on this blog, given the comments almost exclusively about semantics above, missing both the pope's intention and strategy. Does this academic interest---important and interesting though it is in other contexts---which seems to override the barely veiled attack on Catholic resistance to the destruction of their Faith give us any confidence that the Church Militant, what is left of It after the systematic neutering of ecumenism, is willing or even able to fight for the True Faith against a pope that degrades it on a regular basis? It does not seem that way to me, but I pray I am mistaken.
Mr Coradcor: I don't think many other readers will have seen my post as anything other than a thoroughgoing attack upon PF. I just don't like to enclose everything I write within the genre of a bad-tempered rant. I do also rather prefer the stance of being laid-back and getting a smile out of the risible absurdities of this pontificate. There is an aphorism that one should laugh at the Devil, for the old ape cannot abide it. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to laugh also at this pompous, unbalanced, and overbearing pontificate. I'm afraid I intend to continue doing so.
Mr Sapelion: I take your point; but, well, after all, PF did PUBLICLY HUMILIATE Cardinal Sarah for merely advocating a use of the Novus Ordo totally in line with the explicit words and permissions of the rubrics of that rite. And he cleared a lot of fine men out of that dicastery simply because they don't adhere to PF's own silly whimsies. I call it rigid when PF gets his knickers in a twist about a lawful liturgical style which does not seem to PF, with all his own fads, hangups, prejudices, and plain ignorance, to be quite the sort of thing which he personally happens to like. I think the words Tyranny and Obsession spring to mind.
Surely one of the dumbest statements in SC was that liturgical changes happen through 'accidents of history'. Things emerge or are diminished because they are found useful, or not so useful. Perhaps even Providence is involved. But accidents?
The 'restorations' that come immediately to mind are (1) the bidding prayers, which used to be a highly scripted series of prayers confined to Good Friday, but which is now a soapbox for the parish priest to moan about climate change and Donald Trump, and (2) the 'kiss of peace', which used to be confined to the ministers on the altar but is now an excuse for the congregation to have a good natter and grumpy kids to glower at each other. Despite GIRM specifically forbidding it, it's common for the priest to press the flesh with the first couple rows as well.
Post a Comment