Skip to main content

Notes/Discussion

Here is a place to record disputed interpretations of particular constitutions and ordinations

  1. No. 257:
    1. When § II was removed in ACG 2010 Rome n. 268, it left the designation "§ I" in place. It is improper to have a § I without a § II. The official Latin text seems to have noticed this error and removed § I from the text, but the 2024 English translation still has a § I  in the text. This version removes the "§ I."
    2. ACG 2010 Rome n. 268 also had an addition with ordination that was made to § I , which was not seconded in 2013. Thus, the added text was in force 2010-2013, but this is not reflected in the official English translation of the text that I have (Dublin 2012). (In 2013, we revert to the pre-2010 text until the other changes introduced in 2010 are Confirmed in 2016).
  2. No. 114: Technice ACG 2007 Bogotá n. 293 made a change in the Latin that does not seem to necessitate a change in the English.
  3. No. 44: ** Resolved ** When did it get vacated? Ordinations are definitively abrogated in the second chapter, so, 2004 n. 355.
  4. No. 560:
    1. ACG 2010 Rome n. 289 definitively inserted a second point (§ II) about just investing. I cannot find when it was accepted or seconded.
    2. I no not know what changed in 2004, I just have the new text. § II should have been added, but I don't see an indication of that.
  5. ACG 2001 Providence n. 506 about LCO 480:
    1. There are typographical errors in the both the Original and English translation versions of LCO 480.IV.4 and 480.IV.5.
    2. 480.IV.8 had "6:" where it should have had  "6)". This seems to be where the changes are.
  6. ACG 2001 Providence n. 507 about LCO 494: English translation says it is just a technical change. Not true.
  7. ACG 2001 Providence n. 492 about LCO 352:
    1. Paragraph III was dropped (abrogated) altogether, but that is not how the text reads to me (Scott). So, just checking. It is indeed gone in the official versions of the LCO following Providence.
    2. The numbering in the printed versions of English translations does not agree with the Latin. The English should read: "The vocals of the provincial chapter are: I. 1. regional priors;", right?
  8. LCO 407:
    1. ACG 1983 Rome n. 369: says in total: "407 Const. §III." I assume that this is wiped out with an "Inchoated with Ordination", because n. 368 rolled it into a new point, II.6, which changes it but deals with the issue.
    2. ACG 2016 Bologna is fraught with errors. It says that it is confirming changes, which it should be doing, but then enters a new strike-out in I.4 (which needed to happen, because the statute referred to no longer exists). But then for I.7 it reverses the house -> convent,  vicariate -> "convent of the vicariate" that had been introduced in 2013. So, I left the first change and ignored the second one. Yes?
  9. LCO 415:
    1. ACG 1974 Napoli n. 100 specifies that the IV.3 begin with "ii omnes statim magistro Ordinis indicent." Somewhere along the way that got changed to "hi omnes statim magistro Ordinis indicent" but I see no record of that. What should it be everywhere?
    2. ACG 1986 Avila n. 415 seemed to remove ligatures in things like "Quaestiones". Such ligatures don't appear in the ACGs in general. Should we just retroactively remove them from everywhere?
  10. LCO 429: ACG 2004 Krakow n. 380 confirms the changes to this constitution, but it also changes wording from "assistant" to "socius" in II and III. N. 380 does not note that it made this change, but I do here, marking it as a Technical change.
  11. What does ACG 1971 Tallaght ask to be changed?