Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nick A's avatar

I'd love to learn more about the arguments surrounding the validity of consecrations that are signed:

- Peters argues in the affirmative, but what are the arguments against?

- Peters claims that "what is required for sacramental form is the direct expression or communication of the form, not its ‘orality,." Would this same logic permit a priest using solely a TTS/AAC device? Or writing out the form and holding it up for people to read?

- Based on what was cited here, the most recent guidance from Rome was Paul VI, who said that the celebrant must both sign and speak the form. Did Rome ever issue a follow up that permitted priests to sign exclusively? If not, when did this begin? Did local bishops approve it?

Brian OP's avatar

My only personal experience at having an interpreter present for Masses I was celebrating were Funeral Masses for the mother and the father of a large Catholic family, of whom about half the sons and daughters were deaf or partially deaf, and the others were not. The whole Mass was interpreted, but I arranged to get the text of my homilies to the interpreter beforehand, on both occasions, so that the interpreter could work out the translation in advance.

7 more comments...
Latest

No posts

Ready for more?