"Ex Quo" of Pius X?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boniface
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Boniface

Guest
Does anybody know of an online English translation of Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical “Ex Quo” on the reunion with the Eastern Churches? I believe it’s dated Dec 26th, 1910. It is not on the Vatican website nor on Papal Encyclicals.
 
Does anybody know of an online English translation of Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical “Ex Quo” on the reunion with the Eastern Churches? I believe it’s dated Dec 26th, 1910. It is not on the Vatican website nor on Papal Encyclicals.
Ex Quo can be found on the Vatican’s website in Acta Apostolicae Sedis Volume III (1911) at this link.
 
But that’s not English, is it? The OP asked for English.
And how have you helped the OP? Your unnecessary post does not seem to help the OP in anyway. Although it is quite typical of posts we see on here.
 
And how have you helped the OP? Your unnecessary post does not seem to help the OP in anyway. Although it is quite typical of posts we see on here.
Sorry, I thought the OP specifically asked for an English translation.

I thought your answer didn’t provide what was requested, so I was looking for clarification in case I misunderstood.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post, or offended.

By the way…do you know of an English translation?
 
By the way…do you know of an English translation?
No! The Latin was difficult enough to track down. Ex Quo wasn’t really an official document issued by Pius X it was a letter he wrote. I think that taking into account the date it was written and that it was basically a papal letter as opposed to a more formal document it is going to be extremely difficult to find an English translation.

I posted the link because I didn’t know whether the OP had seen the document at all. Perhaps he can find someone who will be kind enough to translate it.
 
It might take a little time to do this, but if what is needed is critical to have, perhaps you could cut and paste paragraphs or sentences into google translates. I know they have a Latin translator and while it might not be perfect it could possibly give you an idea of what was written.

ChadS
 
Try asking MarkThompson if he’s interested in translating this one. He’s studying Latin and has been translating some Church documents into English for practice. He’s good 👍
 
It might take a little time to do this, but if what is needed is critical to have, perhaps you could cut and paste paragraphs or sentences into google translates. I know they have a Latin translator and while it might not be perfect it could possibly give you an idea of what was written.

ChadS
I believe that Google’s Latin translator gives some unusual results although I’ve no personal experience of using it.
 
I believe that Google’s Latin translator gives some unusual results although I’ve no personal experience of using it.
It gives results not too dissimilar from the english.

Given:
TITULUS I
DE LEGIBUS ECCLESIASTICIS

Can. 7 — Lex instituitur cum promulgatur.

Can. 8 — § 1. Leges ecclesiasticae universales promulgantur per editionem in Actorum Apostolicae Sedis commentario officiali, nisi in casibus particularibus alius promulgandi modus fuerit praescriptus, et vim suam exserunt tantum expletis tribus mensibus a die qui Actorum numero appositus est, nisi ex natura rei illico ligent aut in ipsa lege brevior aut longior vacatio specialiter et expresse fuerit statuta.

§ 2. Leges particulares promulgantur modo a legislatore determinato et obligare incipiunt post mensem a die promulgationis, nisi alius terminus in ipsa lege statuatur.

Can. 9 — Leges respiciunt futura, non praeterita, nisi nominatim in eisde praeteritis caveatur.

Can. 10 — Irritantes aut inhabilitantes eae tantum leges habendae sunt, quibus actum esse nullum aut inhabilem esse personam expresse statuitur.

Can. 11 — Legibus mere ecclesiasticis tenentur baptizati in Ecclesia catholica vel in eandem recepti, quique sufficienti rationis usu gaudent et, nisi aliud iure expresse caveatur, septimum aetatis annum expleverunt.

Can. 12 — § 1. Legibus universalibus tenentur ubique terrarum omnes pro quibus latae sunt.

§ 2. A legibus autem universalibus, quae in certo territorio non vigent, eximuntur omnes qui in eo territorio actu versantur. § 3. Legibus conditis pro peculiari territorio ii subiciuntur proquibus latae sunt, quique ibidem domicilium vel quasi-domicilium habent et simul actu commorantur, firmo praescripto can. 13.

translate.google.com gives:
TITLE 1
LAWS OF THE

Can. 7 - law is established when it is promulgated.

Can. 8 - § 1. Ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by the universal appear in public in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostolic See the official, unless in particular cases for proposing the mode of the other was prescribed, and the force of his own exserunt only after three months from the day of issue of the Acta, who is it, but from the nature of the thing they bind immediately in the law itself, or shorter than the is longer than the exemption from, or has specifically and expressly to the statutes.

§ 2. Particular laws are promulgated in the manner determined by the legislator and begin to oblige one month from the date of promulgation, unless a different period in the law itself put in place.

Can. 9 - Laws regard the future, not the past, unless they expressly past in the same provision to the contrary.

Can. 10 - invalidating or incapacitating Only those laws are to be considered, to whom that an act is null, or that there is a person incapable of expressly stated otherwise.

Can. 11 - Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who were baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, who have a sufficient use of reason and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed the seventh year of age.

Can. 12 - § 1. Universal laws are binding everywhere in the world all those for whom they were enacted.

§ 2. From universal laws, which in a certain territory are not in force, are exempt from all who are in an act of that territory they are present. § 3. , Laws enacted for a particular territory they were issued are subject to speeches in support of, and who in the same place domicile or quasi-domicile there and who are actually residing at the same time, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 13.

and the official is
TITLE I.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS (Cann. 7 - 22)

Can. 7 A law is established when it is promulgated.

Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio).

§2. Particular laws are promulgated in the manner determined by the legislator and begin to oblige a month after the day of promulgation unless the law itself establishes another time period.

Can. 9 Laws regard the future, not the past, unless they expressly provide for the past.

Can. 10 Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.

§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.

§3. Laws established for a particular territory bind those for whom they were issued as well as those who have a domicile or quasi-domicile there and who at the same time are actually residing there, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 13.

It’s good enough for casual reading.
 
I believe that Google’s Latin translator gives some unusual results although I’ve no personal experience of using it.
I tried a paragraph from Ex Quo and while it sort of made sense parts of it were a lot of jibberish.

ChadS
 
It gives results not too dissimilar from the english. It’s good enough for casual reading.
As I said, I’ve no experience of using it for Latin. I was just relaying hearsay. For other languages I haven’t been too impressed as I’ve had numerous occasions when it hasn’t been able to translate a single word.
 
No! The Latin was difficult enough to track down. Ex Quo wasn’t really an official document issued by Pius X it was a letter he wrote. I think that taking into account the date it was written and that it was basically a papal letter as opposed to a more formal document it is going to be extremely difficult to find an English translation.

I posted the link because I didn’t know whether the OP had seen the document at all. Perhaps he can find someone who will be kind enough to translate it.
Thanks. I haven’t been able to find an English translation online either.
 
Is there something in this letter that is very important? Or do you just want to know what it says out of curiosity?

ChadS
 
Does anybody know of an online English translation of Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical “Ex Quo” on the reunion with the Eastern Churches? I believe it’s dated Dec 26th, 1910. It is not on the Vatican website nor on Papal Encyclicals.
Here is a little part of it from Denzinger # 2147a.

Certain Errors of the Orientals *
[From the letter, “Ex quo,” to the Archbishops Apostolic Delegates in Byzantium, in Greece, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Persia, in Syria, and in the Oriental Indies, December 26, 1910]

2147a

No less rashly than falsely does one approach this opinion, that the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son by no means is taken from the very words of the Gospel, or is sanctioned by the faith of the ancient Fathers; --most imprudently, likewise, is doubt raised as to whether the sacred dogmas on purgatory and on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary were acknowledged by the holy men of earlier years; --. . . regarding the constitution of the Church . . . first of all an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor, Innocent X, is being renewed [cf. n. 1091], in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter; --then, with no less falsity, one is invited to believe that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of one person, that is a monarchy; or that the primacy of the Catholic Church does not rest on valid arguments. --But . . . the Catholic doctrine on the most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is not left untouched when it is taught inflexibly that the opinion can be accepted which maintains that among the Greeks the words of consecration do not produce an effect unless preceded by that prayer which they call epiclesis, *although, on the other hand, it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments; and no less inharmonious with this is the view that confirmation conferred by any, priest at all is to be held valid.

These opinions are noted as “grave errors.”
 
An alternate translation of a portion of Pope Pius X (1911) Ex Quo nono:

“But the Catholic doctrine on the most holy Eucharist is not left intact when one resolutely teaches that it is possible to hold the opinion which maintains that, among the Greeks, the consecratory words do not produce their effect, unless that prayer which they call the epiclesis, has already been offered. For it is certain that the rights of the Church in no way make her competent to alter the substance of the sacrament in any respect …”

The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era by John McKenna, p 89.
 
What is the doctrinal force of this statement?

I have my own ideas, but I’d like to see what some of the learned posters out there think.
 
What is the doctrinal force of this statement?

I have my own ideas, but I’d like to see what some of the learned posters out there think.
I doubt that it has any doctrinal force other than the fact that it restates accepted Church doctrine. It’s most likely a private letter expressing his hopes, thoughts and opinions in regards to reuniting with the Eastern Orthodox churches. It would be wise to consider what he has written and consider it, but it was not intended to be something that rises to the level of an encyclical or something meant for the priests and bishops of a particular country or region.

Just consider the difficulty of even finding a translation of the letter or that it appears to only be online in the Acts of the Holy See and not available in any sort of translation.

ChadS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top