Communication is the key to love. As a child learns to speak, a child learns to love. What love is and may become is the chief parental learning experience.
Outside the biological family, Holy Mother, the Church, teaches the faithful what the love of God is and may become. The Church communicates part of this experience through words saved in both Sacred Scripture and liturgical books, such as the illiterate 2011 Missal. Prayer is the exclusive privilege of Faith.
Protestant Revolutionaries, commenting on the need to read the Book of Daniel, noted, “Here [in Daniel’s great prayer of repentance] we learn that prayer is the chief exercise of faith; indeed, it is the prerogative of faith.” The Vatican Apostolic See, Liturgiam authenticam, paragraph 107 proclaims, “It is to be borne in mind that the composition of new texts of prayers or rubrics is not an end in itself, but must be undertaken for the purpose of meeting a particular cultural or pastoral need.” Part of that end is in Personal Notes. Personal Notes assumes that prayer is the chief exercise and prerogative of faith and, as such, merits standard American English—where the 2011 Missal fails, as the Holy See fails to follow its own rules.
Stanley Fish, an English teacher who begins with the basics, has some pertinent insights for the illiterate 2011 Missal. Before pouring content into language, authors must first master formats.  The missing transparency demands attribution of authorship and credentials.
In Liturgiam authenticam, the Apostolic See demands “a list of the persons who have participated at various stages of the [translation] work, together with a brief description of their experience or abilities, and of their academic degrees . . . ” In this context, commentator Todd Flowerday asks, “Does anyone live in a diocese where these are readily available?” I can see why not. Any name associated with this translation would, ipso facto, join the Holy See with a tarnished reputation.
One of the fruits of studying the 2011 Missal is the realization that the Holy See is not focused on enabling the Faithful to pray better. The Holy See focus is on a political power play.
II. Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)
A. Missal: O God, strength of those who hope in you, graciously hear our pleas, and, since without you mortal frailty can do nothing, grant us always the help of your grace, that in following your commands we may please you by our resolve and our deeds. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God for ever [sic] and ever.
B. Italian Latin: Deus, in te sperántium fortitúdo, invocatiónibus nostris adésto propítius, et, quia sine te nihil potest mortális infírmitas, grátiae tuae praesta semper auxílium, ut, in exsequéndis mandátis tuis, et voluntáte tibi et actióne placeámus. Per Dóminum.
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 4/14), week after week, after identifying more and more repetitious nonsense.
C. Revised: Almighty God, you are our strength and our hope. Help us to please you with our actions. We need your grace to follow your holy commands. 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: As this reception of your Holy Communion, O Lord, foreshadows the union of the faithful in you, so may it bring about unity in your Church. Through Christ our Lord.
B. Italian Latin: Haec tua, Dómine, sumpta sacra commúnio, sicut fidélium in te uniónem praesígnat, sic in Ecclésia tua unitátis operétur efféctum. Per Christum.
C. Revised: May almighty God bless all assembled here. You have received Holy Communion. Communion with God in this life foreshadows the grace of communion with God in the next life. May God bless his Church with such communal leadership. We ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)
ICEL: O God, the strength of all who hope in you, accept our earnest prayer. And since without you we are weak and certain to fall, grant us always the help of your grace, that in following your commands we may please you in desire and in deed.
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, as the communion we have received prefigures the union of all the faithful in you, so may its power bring unity and peace to your Church.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.
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. When the time comes for actual use, two more otherwise unannounced revisions often take place. The first revision occurs a week before Personal Notes are presented to http://www.jamesriverjournal.net/ A second revision takes place after the particular Mass in question. These latter two revisions are uploaded to http://www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes/Personal%20Notes.htm as they occur.
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 in such venues as EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network), the Weather Channel, and the evening news.
The Missal is 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) 471.
James Dallen, a retired diocesan priest 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?” 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 Holy Apostolic 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.
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.
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,” [see graciously hear in the Collect] 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. 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; 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 in both the Collect and the Prayer after Communion, because might expresses a wish, rather than 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.”
Someone like Mayer may have had such a difficulty, which I would have overlooked, as I reached out to his English. For example, I overlook the street sign that reads, “Caution: Bridge may freeze,” rather than “ . . . might freeze.”
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 461 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website. (accessed March 18, 2012).
The first sentence of the Collect contains forty-seven words, in a 17.6 Graduate School 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. 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,” from sophomore high school to graduate school college.
The first sentence of this Prayer after Communion contains twenty-eight words, in a 13.5 college level 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 Little, Brown Handbook has a section, “Writing Concisely” that is helpful for the wordiness here.
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 four, rather than two, sentences. The revised Collect has a 4.3 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.
Non-American English, such as Scottish or British, can appear illiterate to Americans in the United States. 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), but no one is trying that caper.
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. 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 respective ICEL Collect and Prayer after Communion have 8.9 and 6.0 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readabilities.
The Latin omits the O in the Missal O God and O Lord. The argument that the English is to stay close to the Latin does not hold up. The Latin has only Deus and 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 Collect, 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.”) [sic] 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.
Comma Use (from the Explain part of my Spelling and Grammar checker in Word 2011)
If you are using a conjunction to connect only two items, it is incorrect to use a comma before the conjunction [see pleas, and in the Collect]. In addition, if you are using a conjunction to add a phrase that cannot stand alone as a complete sentence, it is incorrect to use a comma before the conjunction.
· Instead of: Meng, and Kim are hiking across Ireland.
· Consider: Meng and Kim are hiking across Ireland.
· Instead of: Two books of fiction, and a book of poetry were on the table.
· Consider: Two books of fiction and a book of poetry were on the table.
Through . . . is a sentence fragment the Missal uses throughout the book. See The Little, Brown Handbook explains, A prepositional phrase is a modifier consisting of a preposition (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> . . . .” Unity is a noun meaning “1a: the quality of stage of being or consisting of one.” 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).
In the Prayer after Communion, the Latin does not capitalize sacra commúnio, but the Missal does capitalize Holy Communion. 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.
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 than the 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.
. . . 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.
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 886 (208/362), 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).
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 887 (210/362), 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).
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.
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.
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-Vatican-II, 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.
Almighty God, you are our strength and our hope. Help us to please you with our actions. We need your grace to follow your holy commands. 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.
May almighty God bless all assembled here. You have received Holy Communion. Communion with God in this life foreshadows the grace of communion with God in the next life. May God bless his Church with such communal leadership. We ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
 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.
 N.a., “Introduction to Ezekiel & Daniel,” Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) lvi.
 http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/category/post-conciliar-liturgy-documents/liturgiam-authenticam/ (accessed March 18, 2012). This material is on page 34/40 on my printout.
 Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011) 35-36.
 http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/category/post-conciliar-liturgy-documents/liturgiam-authenticam/ (accessed March 18, 2012). This material is on page 7 and repeated on 10/40 on my printout.
 http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/category/post-conciliar-liturgy-documents/liturgiam-authenticam/ (accessed March 18, 2012). This material is on page 11/40 on my printout.
 http://salinadiocese.org/priests/231-priests/980-dallen-rev-james (accessed March 11, 2012).
 http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Translation-Ecclesiology-Jim-Dallen-3-6-2012.pdf (accessed March 11, 2012).
 H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition: The Little, Brown Handbook (New York: Longman, 2010) 233, 431, 893.
 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.
 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.
 http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=might&x=15&y=10 (accessed January 29, 2011).
 H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition: The Little, Brown Handbook (New York: Longman, 2010) 274.
 For a description of readability levels, go to http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp (accessed March 11, 2012).
 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.
 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.
 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).
 Geneva Smitherman, Word from the Mother: Language and African Americans (New York: Routledge, 2006) 3.
 http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/it-doesn%E2%80%99t-sing (February 26, 2012).
 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.
 H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition: The Little, Brown Handbook (New York: Longman, 2010) 856.
 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).
 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.