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.