Fatima Prayer Latin Versions

Our Lady of Fatima Rosary bw

Why are there so many versions of the Fatima prayer in Latin?

Simply put, the humble and uneducated shepherd children of Fatima relayed the Rosary prayer from Our Lady in Portuguese, their native language. Based on a private revelation, this prayer sadly has not been provided with an official Latin version from the Church. As a result, dozens of versions exist, and Latinists or in some cases people with little Latin knowledge have created much variation on almost every word in the prayer.

What then is a Latin praying Catholic to do?

One of the most prevailing and all encompassing benefits of Latin is its universality. A faithful Catholic can go anywhere in the world and pray together with other members of the Church in the same exact language and pray the same exact prayers together. He or she could likewise attend a Traditional Latin Mass and be able to pray in the same exact words and in the same exact language that countless Saints have throughout the centuries. Nevertheless, this Catholic then joins in a public devotion of the Holy Rosary in Latin, praying the most common prayers in the Church’s sacred language, and reaches the Fatima prayer and at that one and only point he encounters variation and a lack of unity. A universal standard is unquestionably needed, but because we have no official Church authority presently willing to undertake such a venture and then disseminate it to the faithful, we ought to find and then adopt the next best solution. 

No need to take a class or brush up on your high school Latin to add another translation to the list–let’s start by first seeing what’s out there. Since most information is disseminated online these days, in order to find the most prevalently used version, a curious individual could do a search for “Fatima Prayer in Latin” and see the different versions that may be found. It just so happens that such an investigation was thoroughly performed in 2009 and has again been performed and confirmed in 2019. The many sites and content of this inquiry are available here.

The results make clear that one version in particular stands out as being used in more places than any other version by a ratio of roughly fifteen to one. This version also is supported by the most amount of traditional Catholics in the world with only one word in minor variation form place to place. It is used and published by EWTN, catholic.org, thesacredheart.com, patheos, latinoffice, among many others. Also significantly, this version is used by a priestly group that has by far the largest numbers of traditional Catholic followers and priests and is used in their seminary. Finally, the international federation of Catholic lay organizations dedicated to the spreading and defense of the Traditional Latin Mass since 1964 and which helped influence the implementation of Pope Benedict’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, Una Voce, also has published a version nearly identical to this one. Thus, in terms of universality of translation by sheer number, we can clearly declare a winner.

Which version has by far the most universal usage?

Dómine Jesu, dimitte nobis débita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferni, perduc in caelum omnes ánimas, praesertim eas, quae misericórdiae tuae máxime indigent.

How does this translation compare word by word?

Here is a breakdown of the various parts of the prayer with translation comments and the variations that appear in minority translations:

  • Domine Jesu – translated literally “Lord Jesus,” which in this case does have a clear distinction from the “Oh my Jesus.” Defenders of this majority translation cite that this opening has been used for quite some time for this prayer due to its being of a more liturgical and grammatically proper nature. While “O mi Jesu” is a literal translation, liturgical prayers do not follow this structure. Moreover, the vocative case typically would express such a sentiment without adding the “O.” Thus, the “O mi Jesu” sounds much more like a translation rather than a prayer composed in the standard Roman liturgical style. Since the liturgy is to inform and direct our prayers, the ideal then follows the model provided in other prayers handed down by the Church. 
  • dimitte nobis debita nostra – “forgive us our sins” or literally “our debts.” This phrase comes verbatim from the Pater Noster. Out of the various minority translations, there are a couple that translate “forgive” as “remitte” (to send back, remit, dimmish) or “indulge” (to grant, be kind, or be lenient to), and while both words can in some contexts have that meaning, they have more of a different sense about them that does not quite fit as well as sticking with the liturgical and familiar words of the Pater. A couple other translations also use “peccata” instead of the word “debita” that is used in the Pater. 
  • salva nos ab igne inferni – “save us from the fires of hell.” The word “salva” literally means “to save” and is used frequently in both liturgical and private prayers (i.e. “Corpus Christi salva me,” litanies’ responses “salva nos,” or in compline “salva nos domine…”). The minority variations here simply fail in meaning and / or usage and seemingly without real purpose; “libera” (free, liberate), “custodi” (guard, protect), “conserva” (keep safe, save from danger, preserve): rare usage in any Latin prayers. Only one minority translation translates “fires” as “ignibus,” which is most likely a translation from the English, since the Portuguese is singular “fire of hell,” which corresponds to the singular “igne” in Latin. The other word that is used in variation is “inferiori” (below, beneath, underneath) instead of “inferni” (underground, infernal, of hell). This is the most commonly found variation among the translations and many of the minority translators will be identical to the rest except for this one word. It would seem that “inferni,” by its definition has a far clearer sense of hell and its burning fires that are asked to be saved from. The translation “ab igne inferiori” would be more in line with saying “from the fires (of) below” whereas “ab igne inferni” is saying “from the fires of hell.” Finally, the original Portuguese word used is “inferno,” which directly corresponds to the Latin use of “inferni.” One small minority translation also uses “gehennae,” referring to Gehenna, the place that Christ used as a metaphor for hell; however, the literal use of the place fits much better in this instance with the original prayer and its clear intent to reference “the fire of (the actual place) hell.”
  • perduc in caelum omnes animas – “lead all souls to heaven.” “Perduc” means “to lead, guide, or bring through.” This word represents the literal translation of the Fatima prayer in both the English and original Portuguese, which uses the word “levai,” which means “to lead.” Also “perduc” is used commonly in other prayers such as in the confiteor “miseratur tui…perduc ad vos…” Minority translations here will use either “conduc” (to draw), “duc” (to lead, command), and one use has even been found of “attrahe” (to attract, draw). “Duc” has a strong sense of commanding the action, which fails to as closely match in translation of the idea of the prayer. “Conduc” and “attrahe” seem to both be used for theological reasons in order to try to counter the heretical teaching of universalism, since some modernist adherents to this idea will cite the Fatima prayer as a sort of “proof” that God actually leads and brings all souls to heaven. Such a universalist notion, however, is entirely foreign and even directly contrary to the visions at Fatima. Interestingly, according to Br. Alexis Bugnolo, who bases his opinion on a discovery of the original Portuguese prayers written by Sister Lucia, the original Fatima prayer, he and others claim, was not referring to “all souls” but rather “all the poor souls” in Purgatory that God is leading through stages of purification into heaven. Nevertheless, the portion referring to God leading “all souls to heaven” understood correctly is a request for God to pour out His grace on all souls, which prepares, directs, and elicits every good work. “Lead us not into temptation” is a prayer requesting God to not permit us to be tempted or tested severely but rather that He would “deliver us from the evil (one).” God does not actually lead into temptation in the sense actively willing evil be done to one to be tempted to his limits, and God similarly does not actually lead and bring every single soul into heaven contrary to its will. A sobering matter of divine revelation will always remain that souls are in fact damned for all eternity, and this prayer in no way detracts from that reality, as the children at Fatima themselves were first shown a terrifying vision of hell where souls were actively falling into “like snowflakes.”  
    At least one minority translation omits “animas” (souls) altogether, so it says to simply “lead all…” and another takes liberty to add “ad caeli gloriam” (to the glory of heaven) even though these words are not found in the Portuguese, Italian, French, Spanish, German, or English translations, and this means of referring to heaven cannot be found in any other Latin prayers or translations. 
  • praesertim eas – “especially those.” Some other variations exist in minority translations as “præcípue” (especially, chiefly) or “praesertim illas” (especially those). “Illas,” however, remains less than ideal as it would be pointing to a more distinct and demonstrative “those” than the ones referenced here in this prayer; whereas, “eas” clearly points to the same “they” in reference to the souls that were mentioned previously.
  • quae misericórdiae tuae máxime indigent – “(who are) in most need of Thy mercy.” At least one minority translation inverts the last words as “maxime indigent misericordia tuae.” In Latin there is no official or standard word order because of declensions, and this feature provides a particular freedom to emphasize certain words or make the translation flow more poetically. Typically for emphasis and strength the last word in a Latin sentence will often be the verb. Last words often are also the most memorable and pack the most punch. For example, the St Michael prayer ends with “divine virtutae in infernum detrude” – literally in order “by divine power into hell cast” rather than the English leaving with “seeking the ruin of souls.” In this case of the Fatima Prayer, the majority translation ends with the verb “indigent” (to need, require).
    A few other minority translations use varying orders of the words “maxime egentes misericordiae tuae” (most needy / poor of thy mercy) or simply “misericordia” (mercy) followed by “egentes” (needy, poor) or even “ingentes” (huge, enormous). The variance among translations in word order especially at the end is not surprising. When translating into Latin the flow and sound as well as the emphasis and common usage should all be taken into account. In this case, the endings on “misericordiae” “tuae” “maxime” all share the same sound providing it with an exceptional ease and flow in prayer. 

The entire prayer together in the majority translation possesses a remarkable rhythm and flow that also in a unique way sets it apart from all the others. Thus, due to its common usage, liturgical style, word choice, and particular flow, this version should ideally be used as a Fatima prayer translation of choice, until or unless at some time the bishops or pope would provide a standard Latin translation to be used by the faithful. But perhaps first let us pray for a continual and regular consecration of Russia and the world to Our Lady of Fatima!

What to do now with these insights?

Follow our Lady of Fatima’s urgent request … 
Pray the Holy Rosary in Latin.

Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Latin

Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Submit your feedback here

Contact Us

Latin Fatima Prayer Online Study

The following is a compilation of websites containing various forms / translations of the Fatima Prayer in Latin. It was originally performed in 2009 and then again in September 2019 without much difference in result. The versions of the prayer will be cited followed by the websites that contain that form of the prayer:

  1. Domine Iesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferni (/inferiori), perduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim eas, quae misericordiae tuae maxime indigent.

  2. Identical except begins with “O Iesu”
  3. O mi Jesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, libera nos ab igne inferni, conduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim illas quae maxime indigent misericordia tua.
  4. O mi Iesu, indulge peccata nostra, conserva nos ab igne inferni, duc omnes ad cæli gloriam, præcipue tua misericordia indigentes.
  5. O mi Jesu, remítte nobis peccáta nostra, salva nos ab igne inférni, perduc in cælum omnes ánimas, præsértim eas quæ misericórdiæ tuæ máxime índigent.
  6. Iesu mi, dimitte nobis peccata nostra, salva nos a flammis inferorum, duc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim misericordia tua maxime indigentes.
  7. O mi Iesu, dimitte nobis peccata nostra, salva nos ab igne inferni, conduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim eas, quae misericordiae tuae maxime indigent.
  8. O mi Jesu, remitte nobis peccata nostra, libera nos ab igne inferni, conduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim illas quae maxime indigent misericordia tua.
Powered by

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970 

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970.  The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion.  There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded.  In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.  The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration.  It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”.  Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.  At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.  Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level.  Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood.  This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration.  We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.  I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion.  And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite.  At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully.  Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about.  Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio.  On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question.  Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities.  This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.  Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.  This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.  I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide.  You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.  In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13).  Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject.  Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.  In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.  What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.  It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.  Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful.  Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.  Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect.  If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio.  Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007 

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

Universae ecclesiae

PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI

INSTRUCTION
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

I.
Introduction

  1. The Apostolic LetterSummorum Pontificumof the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI given Motu Proprio on 7 July 2007, which came into effect on 14 September 2007, has made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church.
  2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father PopeBenedict XVIpromulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.
  3. The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer(lex orandi)corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).”[1]
  4. The Holy Father recalls also those Roman Pontiffs who, in a particular way, were notable in this task, specifically Saint Gregory the Great and Saint Pius V. The Holy Father stresses moreover that, among the sacred liturgical books, theMissale Romanumhas enjoyed a particular prominence in history, and was kept up to date throughout the centuries until the time of Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently in 1970, following the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI approved for the Church of the Latin rite a new Missal, which was then translated into various languages. In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition of this Missal.
  5. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to theSecond Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason,Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum regarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here.
  6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared underPope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively asordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.
  7. The Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificumwas accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy. By reason of the increase in the number of those asking to be able to use the forma extraordinaria, it has become necessary to provide certain norms in this area.

Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”[2]

  1. The Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificumconstitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.[3] The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,[4] and has the aim of:
  2. offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in theUsus Antiquior,considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;
  3. effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of theforma extraordinariafor all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;
  4. promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.

II.
The Responsibilities
of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

  1. The Sovereign Pontiff has conferred upon the Pontifical CommissionEcclesia Deiordinary vicarious power for the matters within its competence, in a particular way for monitoring the observance and application of the provisions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 12).
  2. § 1. The Pontifical Commission exercises this power, beyond the faculties previously granted byPope John Paul IIand confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, artt. 11-12), also by means of the power to decide upon recourses legitimately sent to it, as hierarchical Superior, against any possible singular administrative provision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio.
  • 2. The decrees by which the Pontifical Commission decides recourses may be challengedad normam iurisbefore the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
  1. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical CommissionEcclesia Deiwill have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

III.
Specific Norms

  1. Following upon the inquiry made among the Bishops of the world, and with the desire to guarantee the proper interpretation and the correct application of the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificum,this Pontifical Commission, by virtue of the authority granted to it and the faculties which it enjoys, issues this Instruction according to can. 34 of the Code of Canon Law.

The Competence of Diocesan Bishops

  1. Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses[5], always in agreement with themensof the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.[6] In cases of controversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.
  2. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for theforma extraordinariaof the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The coetus fidelium (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 1)

  1. Acoetus fidelium(“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.
  2. In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in theforma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.
  3. § 1. In deciding individual cases, the pastor or the rector, or the priest responsible for a church, is to be guided by his own prudence, motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome.
  • 2. In cases of groups which are quite small, they may approach the Ordinary of the place to identify a church in which these faithful may be able to come together for such celebrations, in order to ensure easier participation and a more worthy celebration of the Holy Mass.
  1. Even in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to celebrate in theforma extraordinariais to be offered to groups of pilgrims who request it (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 3), if there is a qualified priest.
  2. The faithful who ask for the celebration of theforma extraordinariamust not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

Sacerdos idoneus (“Qualified Priest”) (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art 5 § 4)

  1. With respect to the question of the necessary requirements for a priest to be heldidoneus(“qualified”) to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, the following is hereby stated:
  2. Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law[7]is to be consideredidoneus (“qualified”) for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.
  3. Regarding the use of the Latin language, a basic knowledge is necessary, allowing the priest to pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning.
  4. Regarding knowledge of the execution of the Rite, priests are presumed to be qualified who present themselves spontaneously to celebrate theforma extraordinaria, and have celebrated it previously.
  5. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in theforma extraordinaria.This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin[8] and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
  6. In Dioceses without qualified priests, Diocesan Bishops can request assistance from priests of the Institutes erected by the Pontifical CommissionEcclesia Dei,either to the celebrate the forma extraordinaria or to teach others how to celebrate it.
  7. The faculty to celebratesine populo(or with the participation of only one minister) in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite is given by the Motu Proprio to all priests, whether secular or religious (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 2). For such celebrations therefore, priests, by provision of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, do not require any special permission from their Ordinaries or superiors.

Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Discipline

  1. The liturgical books of theforma extraordinariaare to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.
  2. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal[9], according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.
  3. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.
  4. With regard to the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical discipline contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies.
  5. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificumderogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

Confirmation and Holy Orders

  1. Permission to use the older formula for the rite of Confirmation was confirmed by the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificum(cf. art. 9 § 2). Therefore, in the forma extraordinaria, it is not necessary to use the newer formula of Pope Paul VI as found in the Ordo Confirmationis.
  2. As regards tonsure, minor orders and the subdiaconate, the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificumdoes not introduce any change in the discipline of the Code of Canon Law of 1983; consequently, in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law.
  3. Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical CommissionEcclesia Dei,and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.

Breviarium Romanum

  1. Art. 9 § 3 of the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificumgives clerics the faculty to use the Breviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be prayed entirely and in the Latin language.

The Sacred Triduum

  1. If there is a qualified priest, acoetus fidelium(“group of faithful”), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.

The Rites of Religious Orders

  1. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.

Pontificale Romanum and the Rituale Romanum

  1. The use of thePontificale Romanum, theRituale Romanum, as well as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same Instruction.

 

The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 8 April 2011, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.

Given at Rome, at the Offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, 30 April, 2011, on the memorial of Pope Saint Pius V.

William Cardinal LEVADA
President

Mons. Guido Pozzo
Secretary

[1] BENEDICTUS XVI, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum motu proprio datae, I, AAS 99 (2007) 777; cf. Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, tertia editio 2002, n. 397.

[2] BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentis, AAS 99 (2007) 798.

[3] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 838 §1 and §2.

[4] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 331.

[5] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canons 223 § 2 or 838 §1 and §4.

[6] BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentis, AAS 99 (2007) 799.

[7] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 900 § 2.

[8] Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 249; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36; Declaration Optatum totius, 13.

[9] BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentis, AAS 99 (2007) 797.

 

Powered by