Roman Missal[1]

                       

I. Introduction

On March 14, 2012, L’Osservatore Romano announced that Cardinal William Levada reaffirmed commitment to the Roman Catholic version of Natural Law.[2]  Like Cardinal Bernard Law avoiding prosecution in Boston, Levada is in Rome, avoiding prosecution in San Francisco for covering up the sexual abuse of children.[3]  Because Cardinal Levada heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both he and the Holy See lack credibility concerning faith and morals.  This announcement of Levada and, through him, the Holy See seems to be a reaction to Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, the former auxiliary bishop of Sydney, Australia.

 

On March 15, Robinson began touring the United States.[4]  On March 20, the National Catholic Reporter got to the point.[5]  He is

 

 . . . urging a much needed review of what and how the church teaches about human sexuality, Bishop Robinson draws on themes central to Vatican II.  The first of these is found in placing the reality of the human person rather than the abstraction of natural law as the central reference point in church teachings and papal pronouncements about marriage and sexual activity.

 

In other words, Robinson and Levada (with the Holy See) are at loggerheads over the meaning of human sexuality.  Levada uses deductive reasoning to move from abstract principles to individual acts.  Robinson uses inductive reasoning to move from individual acts to abstract principles.  Robinson takes an intellectual, Vatican II, literate, functional approach to human sexuality.  Levada (with the Holy See) champions an anti-intellectual, anti-Vatican II, illiterate, dysfunctional approach to human sexuality, an approach as wrong for human sexuality as it is for the 2011 Missal, under consideration here.

 

John Calvin (1509-1564) warns the Faithful, “. . . when Satan begins to entice us, we think that we shall be free to retract our steps whenever we please; but we are ensnared . . . ”[6]  Accepting the 2011 illiterate Missal ensnares the Faithful in their very prayer life.  As the editors of the Adoremus Bulletin put it, those who translated the classic 1611 King James Version of the Bible “eschewed the `Papists’ obscure words—not because they were latinate, but because the words `darken the sense’ and do so `by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.’”[7]  That problem continues in the gross illiteracy of the 2011 Missal.

 

The first thing Stanley Fish, the English teacher, asks when writing a sentence is “What am I trying to do?”[8]  The Faithful may fairly ask what is the Holy See trying to do with the Missal sentences.  If the Holy See is trying to help the Faithful pray, the Faithful have some say-so in the results, a say-so Personal Notes develops.

 

II. Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

 

A. Missal:      Almighty ever-living God, who as an example of humility for the human race to follow caused our Savior to take flesh and submit to the Cross, graciously grant that we may heed his lesson of patient suffering and so merit a share in his Resurrection.  Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God for ever [sic] and ever.[9]

 

B. Italian Latin:  Omnípotens sempitérne Deus, qui humáno géneri, ad imitándum humilitátis exémplum, Salvatórem nostrum carnem súmere, et crucem subíre fecísti, concéde propítius, ut et patiéntiae ipsíus habére documénta et resurrectiónis consórtia mereámur.  Qui tecum. 

 

To make the Revised Prayers easier to find, Personal Notes repeats them on the last page.  Only the heartiest souls will want to plow through the preceding Appendix (see the heading on page 6/19), week after week, after identifying more and more repetitious nonsense.

 

C. Revised:  Heavenly Father, your Faithful cope with suffering by trusting in your goodness—the same goodness Jesus Christ, our Savior, experienced during his suffering.  We accept suffering with the hope of final Resurrection to life everlasting with Jesus.  We ask this through our Lord, Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, forever.

D. Comment: The Appendix explains the single-spaced material in bold print.

 

III. Prayer after Communion

 

A. Missal:      Nourished with these sacred gifts, we humbly beseech you, O Lord, that, just as through the death of your Son you have brought us to hope for what we believe, so by his Resurrection you may lead us to where you call.  Through Christ our Lord.[10]

 

B. Italian Latin:  Sacro múnere satiáti, súpplices te, Dómine, deprecámur, ut, qui fecísti nos morte Fílii tui speráre quod crédimus, fácias nos, eódem resurgénte, perveníre quo téndimus.  Per Christum. 

 

C. Revised:   Reception of the Holy Eucharist brings to life the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and continues to live in the lives of the Faithful.  The resurrection experienced by Jesus Christ, raises hopes for a similar resurrection in us.  Heavenly Father, lead us to the eternal redemption to which you are calling us.

 

IV. Prayer over the People

 

A. Missal:      Look, we pray, O Lord, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ did not hesitate to be delivered into the hands of the wicked and submit to the agony of the Cross.  Who lives and reigns for [sic] ever and ever.

 

B. Italian Latin:  Réspice, quaesumus, Dómine, super hanc famíliam tuam, pro qua Dóminus noster Iesus Christus non dubitávit mánibus tradi nocéntium, et crucis subíre torméntum.  Qui vivit et regnat in saecula saeculórum. 

 

C. Revised:   Our Lord, Jesus Christ, accepted death on the cross so that those gathered here might join the family of God with heavenly grace.  Jesus Christ lives and reigns forever.

 

V. ICEL

 

Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

ICEL:            Almighty and eternal God, when you sent our Saviour into the world, you gave us all an example to follow:  in humble obedience he took upon himself a body like ours and gave himself up to death on the cross.  In your mercy, grant us the grace to learn from the example of his passion and to share in the glory of his resurrection.

 

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God for ever [sic] and ever.

 

Prayer after Communion

ICEL:            Lord, you have fed us with this holy food and, through the death of your Son, have inspired us to hope for what our faith promises; lead us by his resurrection to the haven we so earnestly desire.

 

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

Prayer over the People

ICEL:            Look with favour, O God, on this your family, for whose sake our Lord Jesus Christ did not hesitate to be delivered into the hands of the wicked and suffer the torment of the cross.  He lives and reigns for ever [sic] and ever.

R. Amen.

 


 

 

 

 

 

A note to readers:  Personal Notes are uploaded to the internet at http://www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes/Personal%20Notes.htm and otherwise distributed as much as three months in advance.  These particular Personal Notes were originally overlooked.  They are composed just in time for uploading to jamesriverjouirnal.com  Possible revision of  Personal Notes takes place after Mass the next Sunday. 

 

With the new Missal, the Roman Catholic Church is showing for what and how to pray.  According to standard American English, the prayers are so difficult to understand that I refer to the “illiterate 2011 Missal.”  The revised prayers are my translation of the Bible-babble in the Missal into standard American English as heard on EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network), the Weather Channel, and the evening news.

 

 

James Dallen, a retired diocesan priest[11] and emeritus professor of religious studies at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, has written an article that sheds light on the 2011 Missal.  Dallen observes that an institutional Church model prioritizes preserving the Church institution, rather than the Gospel, for which the Church exists.  He asks the question, “What Kind of Ecclesiology?”[12]  His answer is that higher clergy, with an untenable and dysfunctional model of the Church as an institution, imposed the 2011 Missal on the United States and elsewhere. 

Long-time readers may have noted that Personal Notes rarely uses exclamation marks.  The reason is an academic preference for scholarship, rather than emotion.  When a scholar like Dallen gets emotional, however, Personal Notes pays attention.  In “What Kind of Ecclesiology?”  Dallen avoids exclamation points, until he reaches page 27/36.  With Dallen, Personal Notes is upset with for many versus for all; with priests receiving communion for and in place of the people; with the Vatican Holy See not following its own Liturgiam authenticam rules of “translation;”  and with substituting uniformity for Christian unity.

 

Though `many’ and `all’ contrast in meaning in English, linguists and exegetes say that is the not case in Aramaic or Hebrew.  Roman [Vatican Apostolic Holy See] authorities say otherwise and make explaining that `for many’ really means `for all’ the task of catechesis.  Surely it would have been better if that had been reversed!  It will be more difficult to convince people that what they hear means something entirely different.  Liturgy and life are once more divorced.

 

Many promotes the institutional Church at the expense of the Gospel, for all.

 

The next exclamation point happens on page 30/36.

 

A few points indicate its [General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)] perspective.  GIRM says little about the Eucharist in relation to ecclesial communion.  It says little about the significance of sacramental communion.  Its incomplete theology of Eucharistic sacrifice centers almost solely on the priest.  This Counter-Reformation clerical emphasis is central in GIRM and the new English translation reinforces it.  This affects the theology of Eucharistic and ecclesial communion and the role of the assembly, all of which are crucial to postconciliar reforms.  It reminds us that we are not that far removed from the time when the priest “said” Mass alone and he received communion for and in place of the people!

 

Emphasis on institutional priorities comes at the expense of the rest of the Faithful.

 

The next exclamation point comes at page 32/36.

 

 . . . A clerical perspective often overshadows the pastoral and the role of central authority is overemphasized.  The consequence is to downplay the role of the assembled community and the local Church.  The official English translation accentuates these attitudes beyond what is in the Latin—curiously, the requirement of literal translation (“formal correspondence”) is not always observed!

 

Institutional emphasis on Latin, which the Faithful do not understand, deemphasizes standard American English, which the Faithful do understand.

 

The final exclamation point comes at page 34/36.

 

Two traditional adages support making changes of this [minimal, as in the revised prayers here?] type.  Even when the institutional [Church] model was dominant, an adage for interpreting canon law said de minimis non curat lex:  law is not concerned with trivial matters.  In practice, of course, the passion for uniformity regarded little as trivial.  Someone once tried to calculate the stupendous number of mortal sins that a priest could commit praying the breviary!  Despite that unfortunate precedent, generally mortal sin presumes grievous matter and violating the bonds of communion in liturgy presumes a substantial change of the expected texts.

 

The juridical Church downplays the loving Church of the Gospels.   Personal Notes brings similar concerns and emotions to the illiterate 2011 Missal.

 

 


 

 

 

Collect is the technical term for Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture.

 

The Latin does not capitalize crucem and resurrectiónis, but the Missal does capitalize Cross and Resurrection.  Since the Faithful will not hear the difference between an upper and lower case word, there is no reason to stray from the Latin, except, perhaps, to show the arrogance of the translator in the face of anyone objecting to the illiterate 2011 Missal.  The revision takes into account the hearing of the faithful.

 

Dallen comments,[13]

 

Unfortunately, catechesis is also needed to explain that what we hear at worship is not what we really mean.  Unfamiliar words can be misleading.  Grammar and style intended more for the eye and ear can be misheard or misunderstood or ignored. . . .  Even more dangerously, language communicates attitudes and outlooks at a level deeper than the surface meaning of words. . . .The new translation (and the hype surrounding it) presents views on Church, tradition, unity, Eucharist, priesthood, laity, liturgical assembly, symbol, and liturgical participation.  Sometimes these are unclear or conflicting or at odds with Vatican Council II perspectives.

 

The Little, Brown Handbook has some more advice, of which the 2011 illiterate Missal seems entirely oblivious.[14]

 

 . . . writing for readers is not the same as speaking to listeners.  Whereas a reader can go back and reread a written message, a listener cannot stop a speech to rehear a section.  Several studies have reported that immediately after hearing a short talk, most listeners cannot recall half of what was said.

Effective speakers adapt to their audience’s listening ability by reinforcing their ideas through repetition and restatement.  They use simple words, short sentences, personal pronouns, contractions, and colloquial expressions.  In formal writing, these strategies might seem redundant and too informal; but in speaking, they improve listeners’ comprehension.

 

Language is the tool humans use to think.  All languages have some thoughts that cannot be expressed in other languages.  Language is the window of the mind to reality.  Because language matters, the 2011 illiterate Missal matters. 

 

The Missal translates the Latin Missale into English.  I name the Missale Italian Latin, because of the accent marks, which do not appear elsewhere.  See pagina 283 and 284 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/  The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website.  (accessed March 24, 2012).

 

The first sentence of the Collect contains forty-seven words, in a 21.0 Post Graduate Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  It is a fused sentence.  See Chapter 18, “Comma Splices, Fused Sentences,” H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 339-444. 

 

My version of Microsoft Word 2010 Spelling & Grammar checker provides the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.[15]  Dallen explains, “Applying readability criteria indicates that the number of years of formal education required for understanding Eucharistic Prayers on first reading has increased from 10.75 to 17.21,”[16] from sophomore high school to graduate school college.

 

The first sentence of this Prayer after Communion contains forty-four words, in a 15.7 Senior High School Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  It is a fused sentence.  The revised Prayer after Communion has a 7.3 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  The revised Prayer over the People has a 5.8 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.

 

The Little, Brown Handbook has a section, “Writing Concisely” that is helpful for the wordiness here.[17]

 

You may find yourself writing wordily when you are unsure of your subject or when your thoughts are tangled.  It’s fine, even necessary, to stumble and grope while drafting.  But you should straighten out your ideas and eliminate wordiness during revision and editing.

 . . . wordiness is not a problem of incorrect grammar.  A sentence may be perfectly grammatical but still contain unneeded words that interfere with your idea.

 

That is why the revised Collect has six, rather than two, sentences.  The revised Collect has an 8.0 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.

Non-American English, such as Scottish or British, can appear illiterate to Americans in the United States.[18]  That is why oral prayers in anything other than standard American English are irrelevant, in the United States.  An exception to this may be African American Language (AAL),[19] but no one is trying that scenario. 

Because American English is not the first language for many Catholics in the United States, pastoral care requires standard American English.  Otherwise, the Faithful are subject to two contrary conclusions about the readings.  The first conclusion for the Faithful is that the Church does not respect what the marginalized, particularly immigrants, are doing to learn standard American English.  In addition to the laity, twenty-two percent of the active diocesan priests in the United States are from outside the country.[20]  They need their local ordinaries (bishops) to insist they keep improving their use of standard American English.  The second conclusion is that the Church is actively sabotaging any attempt to learn standard American English, just as it is sabotaging Vatican II.

 

The Missal Resurrection translates the Missale resurgénte.  The problem is that resurgénte is a verb meaning rising again, rather than a noun, meaning resurrection.[21]

 

The Little, Brown Handbook, again, has some advice, of which the 2011 illiterate Missal seems entirely oblivious.[22]

 

 . . . writing for readers is not the same as speaking to listeners.  Whereas a reader can go back and reread a written message, a listener cannot stop a speech to rehear a section.  Several studies have reported that immediately after hearing a short talk, most listeners cannot recall half of what was said.

Effective speakers adapt to their audience’s listening ability by reinforcing their ideas through repetition and restatement.  They use simple words, short sentences, personal pronouns, contractions, and colloquial expressions.  In formal writing, these strategies might seem redundant and too informal; but in speaking, they improve listeners’ comprehension.

 

The respective ICEL Collect, Prayer after Communion, and Prayer over the People have 12.5, 5.5, and 8.6 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readabilities. 

 

The Latin omits the O in the Missal O Lord.  The argument that the English is to stay close to the Latin does not hold up.  The English has O Lord.  The Latin has only Dómine, without the O.  O is a Latin word.  Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English and English-Latin, revised by J. R. V. Marchant, M.A. and Joseph F. Charles, B.A. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1952) 371.

 

In the Prayer over the People, Jesus Christ is in apposition to our Lord and standard American English would set it off with commas.  The Little, Brown Handbook has a "using appositives” subsection.

 

An appositive is usually a noun that renames another noun nearby [in this case Jesus Christ], most often the noun just before the appositive.  (the word appositive derives from a Latin word that means “placed near to” or “applied to.”)  An appositive phrase includes modifiers as well . . . .  All appositives can replace the words they refer to:  [our Lord/Jesus Christ]  . . . Appositives are economical alternatives to adjective clauses containing a form of be . . . [our Lord [who is] Jesus Christ. . . ] you can usually connect the appositive to the main clause containing the word referred to . . . An appositive is not setoff with punctuation when it is essential to the meaning of the word it refers to [in the United States of America, which has no secular lords, our Lord is not essential to Jesus Christ] . . .  When an appositive is not essential to the meaning of the word it refers to, it is set off with punctuation, usually a comma or commas [as is the case here, our Lord, Jesus Christ,] . . .

 

H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 254-255. 

 

A prepositional phrase is a modifier consisting of a proposition (such as in, on, to, or with [including through]) together with its object and any modifiers (see pp. 242-43).  A prepositional phrase cannot stand alone as a complete sentence . . .

 

At the end of the Collect, the unity is confusing.  A dictionary definition for the word the:  “1 c:-- used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent refers to someone or something that is unique or is thought of as unique or exists as only one at a time <the Lord><the Messiah> . . . .”[1]  Unity is a noun meaning “1a:  the quality of stage of being or consisting of one.”[1]  Does the unity mean that the Holy Spirit belongs to a union, like a labor union?  Does unity in the Collect mean that the Holy Spirit, unlike Jesus, has only one nature, Divine?  Does unity mean the trinitarian unity?  In the same vein, does unity mean that it is the Holy Spirit, which is the relationship between the Father and Son, thereby causing a triune unity?  The last is how the revision would resolve the matter, substituting Divine Trinitarian nature for unity.  Because the Faithful have not challenged the unity since Vatican II, the now traditional silly phraseology remains.

 

See Part 4, “Clear Sentences,” Chapter 17 c, “Sentence Fragments:  Verbal or prepositional phrase,” H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 335.  http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=the&x=0&y=0  (accessed December 4, 2011).  http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=unity&x=0&y=0  (assessed December 4, 2011).

 

Misuse of interjections, such as O Lord, contributes to the conglomeration of meaninglessness and is very confusing to listeners.  The Little, Brown Handbook gives some examples, hey, oh, darn, wow.  An interjection is “A word standing by itself or inserted in a construction to exclaim or command attention.”  A forceful interjection is set off with an exclamation point, a mild interjection with a comma.  The Missal only uses mild interjections and that is a cause of discombobulating.[23] 

 

Dallen explains,[24]

 

The [Missal] language is elitist . . .  Self-deprecating and deferential language entered the liturgy in the fourth through sixth centuries.  To a great extent this copied the language of the imperial court, where petitioners and even officials groveled at the emperor’s feet and were expected to kiss his foot.  Much of this was translated in a more straightforward manner in the old ICEL translation.  The new one restores it—“be pleased to,” “listen graciously to,” and “we pray, O Lord, that you bid”—to avoid seeming to tell God what to do.  The Lord’s Prayer should presumably be rewritten to avoid such direct language as “give us this day,” “forgive,” “lead us not,” and “deliver us.”

 

Dallen points out that none of the heads of the Congregation of Divine Worship were fluent in English.[25]  I am not sure what Dallen means by fluent.  When I spoke with Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer, O.S.B. in 2000 we seemed to have no trouble communicating in English.  Admittedly, the first language for Mayer was German. 

 

Might versus may in the Missal:  might connotes ability, wish, or desire;[26] may connotes permission.  According to the Dictionary, may is used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction <may he reign in health> <may they all be damned> <may the best man win>.  I think might sounds better, because the Faithful are expressing a desire, rather than asking for permission.  The Little, Brown Handbook explains, “the helping verbs of standard American English may be problematic if you are used to speaking another language or dialect.”[27]

 

Whether to include or exclude the 1998 ICEL translation is difficult.  The reason to include ICEL is:  this is the best the American bishops could do, before the Vatican rejected the translation.  The ICEL translation also deals with some of the vocabulary and grammatical problems with which the revisions deal.  The reason to exclude ICEL is:  the ICEL translation is not significantly better than the Missal.

 

For the Collect see, International Commission on English in the Liturgy:  A Joint Commission of Catholics Bishops’ Conferences (ICEL), The Sacramentary:  Volume One—Sundays and Feasts (Washington, D.C.:  International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1998), page 245 (264/604) , downloaded from https://rs895dt.rapidshare.com/#!download|895l35|387089704|ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip|6767|R~00A3D4012C6FE19956DB84F71E5405F6|0|0 at http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/?page_id=23 (accessed December 8, 2011).

 

For Prayer after Communion see, International Commission on English in the Liturgy:  A Joint Commission of Catholics Bishops’ Conferences (ICEL), The Sacramentary:  Volume One—Sundays and Feasts (Washington, D.C.:  International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1998), page 246 (264/604), downloaded from https://rs895dt.rapidshare.com/#!download|895l35|387089704|ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip|6767|R~00A3D4012C6FE19956DB84F71E5405F6|0|0 at http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/?page_id=23 (accessed December 8, 2011).

 

For Prayer over the People see, International Commission on English in the Liturgy:  A Joint Commission of Catholics Bishops’ Conferences (ICEL), The Sacramentary:  Volume One Part 2 (Washington, D.C.:  International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1998), page 849 (172/362), downloaded from https://rs895dt.rapidshare.com/#!download|895l35|387089704|ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip|6767|R~00A3D4012C6FE19956DB84F71E5405F6|0|0 at http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/?page_id=23 (accessed December 8, 2011).

 

Capitalizing Resurrection is meaningless for the Faithful, who will only hear (rather than see and read) the Prayer after Communion.  The Missale uses Resurrection in the lower case.  The Latin does not capitalize resurgénte.  The argument that the English is to stay close to the Latin does not hold up.  The revision takes into account the hearing of the faithful.

 

By placing the verb, Look, first in the Prayer over the People, the Missal does not follow either Latin (subject-object-verb)[28] or standard American English (subject-verb-object) word order.  Word order in Vatican Italian may not provide the subject before the verb.  The Little Brown Handbook explains standard American English.  “Word order in English sentences may not correspond to word order in the sentences of your native language.  English, for instance, strongly prefers subject first, then verb, then any other words, whereas some other languages prefer the verb first.”  That is what is happening in this prayer.  The verb, Look, is first.[29]

 

Rationale

Clarity is not a prerequisite for prayer.  The search for clarity can be a means to prayer.  As part of catechesis, these Personal Notes set up what the Church needs to explain to enable the Faithful to pray with faith seeking understanding, as Saint Anslem of Canterbury (1033-1109) puts it.[30] 

 

Dallen refers to an “omitted rubric” that makes one wonder how free presiders may be to use and adapt my translations of the current illiterate 2011 Missal.[31]

 

An omitted rubric also suggests a move toward greater uniformity.  In several places the 1973 translation advised the priest that he could say something to the assembly “in these or similar words.”  Whether paragraph 14 of Eucharistiae participationem (1973), which permitted this, has been repealed or not is unclear, but that option goes unmentioned in the new translation.  In some cases, the Latin text (and English translation) does provide a few variations and the impression is that only these are allowed.  Unity again required uniformity.  Apart from the omission of this rubric, the very fact that the many nations divided by a common language . . . are required to use the same translation makes clear the relationship between unity and uniformity.

 

In an attempt to use the prayers the anti-intellectual, anti-Vatican-II, dysfunctional, illiterate Vatican, is now setting forth, these Personal Notes are taking on a new focus.  This new focus began November 27, 2011, the First Sunday in Advent.  From the First Sunday in Advent until just before the First Sunday of Lent, February 26, 2012, these Notes had a double focus, including both the Lectionary and the Missal.  After that, the focus remains on the Missal, until the end of the liturgical year, December 1, 2012.


Heavenly Father, your Faithful cope with suffering by trusting in your goodness—the same goodness Jesus Christ, our Savior, experienced during his suffering.  We accept suffering with the hope of final Resurrection to life everlasting with Jesus.  We ask this through our Lord, Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, forever.

 

Reception of the Holy Eucharist brings to life the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and continues to live in the lives of the Faithful.  The resurrection experienced by Jesus Christ, raises hopes for a similar resurrection in us.  Heavenly Father, lead us to the eternal redemption to which you are calling us.

 

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, accepted death on the cross so that those gathered here might join the family of God with heavenly grace.  Jesus Christ lives and reigns forever.

 



[1] For regular readers of these Personal Notes, the documentation is very repetitive.  For that reason, there is an Appendix, between the end of Personal Notes and the repeated Prayers.  New readers should include that Appendix as they read.  Regular readers should look in the Appendix to refresh their memories. 

 

[2] n.a., “Document by the International Theological Commission:  Theology Today:  Perspectives, Principles and Criteria,” L’Osservatore Romano: Weekly Edition in English, Vol. 55, No. 11 Vatican City Wednesday, 14 March, 2012 page 2 looks like the reaction of the Apostolic See to Bishop Robinson.

 

“In the wake of its document In Search of a :Universal Ethic:  A New Look at Natural Law (2009), the International Theological Commission, as part of its work of assisting the Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in particular, to examine more important doctrinal questions, has today (8 March 2012) issued a new English-language document, entitled Theology Today:  Perspectives, Principles and Criteria . . . ..President of the Commission, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who authorized its publication.”

 

[3] See Reading 124A, 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time, August 28, 2011 at http://www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes/Personal%20Notes.htm.

 

[4] http://bishopgeoffrobinson.org/  (accessed March 23, 2012).

 

[5] Eugene Cullen Kennedy, “Bishop Robinson and the redemption of Eros,” National Catholic Reporter: The Independent News Source, March 20, 2012 at http://ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/bishop-robinson-and-redemption-eros (accessed March 23, 2012).

 

[6] John Calvin, CTS 23:159-60 (CO 18:382-383) in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 87. 

 

[7] Comments by the Editors in response to a letter from Don Schenk, “King James Bible,” The Adoremus Bulletin, Vol. XVIII, No. 1 Lent, (March 2012) page 10, col. 5, above the first fold.

 

[8] Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One (New York:  HarperCollins Publishers, 2011) 37.

 

[9] n.a., The Roman Missal:  Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II:  English Translation According to the Third Typical Edition:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (Washington, DC [sic]: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011) 284.

 

[10] n.a., The Roman Missal:  Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II:  English Translation According to the Third Typical Edition:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (Washington, DC [sic]: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011) 286.

 

 

[11] http://salinadiocese.org/priests/231-priests/980-dallen-rev-james  (accessed March 11, 2012.)

 

[12] http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Translation-Ecclesiology-Jim-Dallen-3-6-2012.pdf  (accessed March 11, 2012)

 

[13] James Dallen, “What Kind of Ecclesiology?” http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Translation-Ecclesiology-Jim-Dallen-3-6-2012.pdf  (accessed March 11, 2012), page 2/36.

 

[14] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 856.

 

[15] For a description of readability levels, go to http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp  (accessed March 11, 2012).

 

[16] James Dallen, “What Kind of Ecclesiology?” http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Translation-Ecclesiology-Jim-Dallen-3-6-2012.pdf  (accessed March 11, 2012), page 17/36.  Dallen cites http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/02/18/readability-tests-on-the-eucharistic-prayers/ that I accessed March 11, 2012.

 

[17] 8. Effective Words, 39.  Writing Concisely,” H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 523-524.

 

[18] Bette Mae K. Jirran reads widely in fiction and cites the following as examples.  Emily Brightwell, Mrs. Jeffries Forges Ahead, (New York:  Berkley Prime Crime, 2011); Jude Deveraux, Jill Barnett, Geralyn Dawson, Pam Binder, and Patricia Cabot, A Season in the Highlands (New York:  Pocket Books, 2000); Christina Dodd, Stephanie Laurens, Julia Quinn, and Karen Ranney, Scottish Brides (New York:  Avon Books, 1999).

 

[19] Geneva Smitherman, Word from the Mother:  Language and African Americans (New York:  Routledge, 2006) 3.

 

[20] http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/it-doesn%E2%80%99t-sing  (February 26, 2012).

 

 

[21] D. P. Simpson, M.A., Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English  English-Latin, (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc., (fifth edition) 1968) 520.

 

[22] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 856.

 

[23] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 233, 431, 893.

 

[24] James Dallen, “What Kind of Ecclesiology?” http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Translation-Ecclesiology-Jim-Dallen-3-6-2012.pdf  (accessed March 11, 2012), page 17/36.

 

[25] James Dallen, “What Kind of Ecclesiology?” http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Translation-Ecclesiology-Jim-Dallen-3-6-2012.pdf  (accessed March 11, 2012), page 11-12/36.

 

[26] http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=might&x=15&y=10  (accessed January 29, 2011).

 

[27] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 274.

 

[28] http://www.google.com/search?q=Does+the+verb+come+last+in+Latin+word+oarder%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=IXc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=iKzVToqRPKLx0gHWxdDrAQ&ved=0CBkQvwUoAQ&q=Does+the+verb+come+last+in+Latin+word+order%3F&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=c5f9ab36cd8b91fa&biw=1472&bih=754  (accessed November 30, 2011)

 

[29] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 236.

 

[30] http://www.google.com/search?q=faith+seeking+understanding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a  (accessed November 28, 2011) and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/ (accessed November 28, 2011).

 

 

[31] James Dallen, “What Kind of Ecclesiology?” http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Translation-Ecclesiology-Jim-Dallen-3-6-2012.pdf  (accessed March 11, 2012), page 28-29/36.