Roman Missal[1]

 

I. Introduction

The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is confusing care of souls with care of the institution.  The institutional Church requires protection in order to pass down the Gospel from one generation to the next.  Since the hierarchy functions so close to the institutional Church, its confusion is understandable, if not damnable. 

 

The confusion in the hierarchy is evident in at least two places:  first in the highly publicized sexual abuse coverup; second in the less publicized 2011 Roman Missal.  First, is the sexual cover up.  Lacking a true care for souls, means that the sexual abuse coverup, including extricating Cardinal Bernard F. Law and Cardinal William J. Levada from the United States to Rome,[2] is an irresponsible derelict of duty, power play.  Levada is the Papal point man for the so-called War on Women against those Sisters who think.

 

Rome promoted Law to a position helping choose bishops throughout the world.  Rome promoted Levada to the position from which the Cardinal Conclave chose Pope Benedict XVI.  Rome, therefore, reinforced and promoted a culture of confusion.

 

Such imperial Roman behavior only makes things worse.  Lest there be any misunderstanding of the criminal seriousness of the sexual abuse coverup, Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri has not been able to escape. He is currently going to trial for not reporting sexual abuse.[3]  On June 22, 2012, a jury found Monsignor William Lynn guilty of child endangerment associated with the sexual abuse cover up by Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua of Philadelphia.  Bevilacqua died shortly before the Lynn Trial.[4]

 

The second hierarchic confusion is found in the 2011 Missal.  Care of souls is the first responsibility of the hierarchy.[5]  Lack of due diligence and leadership for the care of souls results in authority producing an anti-intellectual, anti-Vatican II, dysfunctional, illiterate 2011 Missal and the so-called War on Women.  Lack of standard American English prevents the Faithful from clear, critical thinking about God.  The Apostolic See is exercising an unadulterated power play.  Follow along and witness how it plays games with reality.

 

Imperial Rome has rules of translation from the Latin into the vernacular languages.  In 2001, Pope John Paul II issued Liturgiam authenticam.  In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued ratio translationis.  The Latin promotes a focus on the institutional Church.

 

In apparent loyalty to the institutional Church, in agreement that the 2011 Missal follows the rules of translation, Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond grants his Concordat cum originali (agrees with the original), on page 4.  The Missal does not have an Imprimatur (let it be printed) or Nihil obstat (contains nothing contrary to faith and morals), the standard Roman Catholic procedures for permission to publish.

 

Closer examination of the Missal reveals how Rome perverts reality to protect itself, much like where Shakespeare, in “The Taming of the Shrew,” has Petruchio publically breaking the will of Katherina to agree with whatever nonsense Petruchio proclaims.  In real life, the Apostolic See has publically broken the will of Archbishop Aymond to agree with whatever nonsense the Apostolic See proclaims. 

 

From “The Taming of the Shrew:”[6]

Katharina’s spirit is broken.  Petruchio’s power play has won.  As the audiences watching poor Katherina try to cope with Petruchio’s nonsense, their hearts go out to her.  Likewise, hearts must go out to Archbishop Aymond.

 

The Missal contains compound, complex, convoluted sentences, often extending over forty words, resulting in non-standard American English.  The Teaching Magisterium imposes such nonsense, read from the altar each Sunday, with the excuse that is a better translation of the Latin, thereby focusing on the institutional Church.  English sentence structure forced into Latin sentence structure is a frustrating, unmitigated, tragic farce. 

 

Poor Archbishop Aymond knows all of these things, but must grant his Concordat cum originali in the 2011 Missal in order to remain subservient to the imperial power in Rome.  As the audience at the play hopes that Katherina can live with the conscience of a broken spirit, the Faithful can only hope that Archbishop Aymond can live with the conscience of his broken spirit.  Only time will tell what Rome will do next.

 

II. Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

 

A. Missal:      O God, who through the grace of adoption chose us to be children of light, grant, we pray, that we may not be wrapped in the darkness of error but always be seen to stand in the bright light of truth.  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, qui, per adoptiónem grátiae, lucis nos esse fílios voluísti, praesta, quaesumus, ut errórum non involvámur ténebris, sed in splendóre veritátis semper maneámus conspícui.  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 6/23), week after week, after identifying more and more repetitious nonsense.

 

C. Revised:   Holy God, our Father, you have adopted us as your children.  Now, may we enjoy the sunshine of your everlasting truth.  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: Appendix II, “Specific Comments . . . ,” explains the single-spaced material in bold print.

 

III. Prayer after Communion

 

A. Missal:      May this divine sacrifice we have offered and received fill us with life, O Lord, we pray, so that, bound to you in lasting charity, we may bear fruit that lasts for [sic] ever.  Through Christ our Lord.

 

B. Italian Latin:  Vivíficet nos, quaesumus, Dómine, divína quam obtúlimus et súmpsimus hóstia, ut, perpétua tibi caritáte coniúncti, fructum qui semper máneat afferámus.  Per Christum. 

 

C. Revised:   We have received the person of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Eucharist.  May that holy reception bind us to our Creator in charitable works forever.

 

V. ICEL

 

Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

ICEL:            Merciful God, you willed that by the grace of adoption we should become children of light; grant that we not be cloaked in the darkness of error but rather stand forth in the splendour of truth. 

 

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:            Give us new life, Lord God, through the divine gift we have offered and received, so that, bound to you in unfailing love, we may bring forth fruit that remains.

 

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

These Appendices are designed to enable the busy reader to skip repetitious parts.  Some of the details become dense and distracting, except for anyone with the time and devotion to work through pages of material in order to understand two relatively minor prayers, the Collect and the Prayer after Communion.  New material begins here and continues to the solid line. 

 

The faithful deserve readability, integrity, scholarship, “`language which is easily understandable’ to the faithful.”[7]  “. . . Liturgiam authenticam calls for the development and consistency of a distinctive translation style with these principal characteristics [including]. . .  (2) easy intelligibility . . . ”[8]  That easy intelligibility is the reason for Personal Notes.  That is why Personal Notes pays attention to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  That nothing coming from the Apostolic See recognizes a need to check Grade Level Readability brings to mind “The Taming of the Shrew.”

 

The fifty word 23.9 post graduate Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability sentence that follows exemplifies that it is the moon, or the sun, or whatever else it may be that the Apostolic See declares.

 

Even if it has [sic] perhaps [sic] become less frequently used in contemporary English than in the past, subordination remains comprehensible to the speaker and hearer of English, and therefore should be used to the extent that is necessary in order to translate accurately the prayers of the Roman Rite.[9]

 

Personal Notes strongly disagrees with the grammar of the above run-on sentence but agrees with the substance and offers paraphrasing, which ratio translationis legitimates in another place.[10]  Personal Notes, then, paraphrases, rather than translates, the illiterate 2011 Missal into standard American English.

 

Excruciating detail, at least here, is essential for making the case that the Apostolic See is vacillating and arbitrary, expecting others to follow directives, it, itself, ignores.  Not to burden the ordinary reader, with the compound, complex, confusing sentences from the Apostolic See, Personal Notes relegates these sentences to the footnotes for the more curious readers. 

 

Commentator Todd Flowerday uncovers some of the secrecy involved, hiding the Apostolic See standards of translation.  Flowerday explains, “PrayTell was tipped to the leak of this document, a secret/private one, which is here.  This [ratio translationis] document was produced in the middle of the last decade, and holds a 2007 copyright.”[11]  The Apostolic See is secretive and, because secretive, also arbitrary.

 

Regular readers will note that capitalization in English does not follow capitalization in Latin.  Liturgiam authenticam offers some special rules.  Allowing for exceptions from what is capitalized in Latin is new to Personal Notes.  Ratio translationis lists Terms for Capitalization,[12] a list unavailable until April 1, 2012, mainly because of my unwillingness to start research until the text for the 2011 Missal became fully available, just in time for Advent 2011.

 

In other cases, translators are to follow, with some exceptions, Latin capitalization.[13]  Flowerday comments,[14]

 

Capitalization is an interesting separate issue raised, especially in light of LA 32 [Liturgiam authenticam, paragraph 32].  First, liturgical texts are primarily an aural/oral tradition.  I don’t know how caps are communicated in speech.  A slight pause, perhaps?

It might be seen that a plunge into capitalization is itself a political fad.  If a vernacular language is moving away from it, what’s the sense in introducing it?  Do the clergy need reinforcement on the doctrine of upper case?

And finally, the various versions of the English MR3 [the 2011 Missal] have shown an uneven application of capital letters.  ICEL, Vox Clara [the committee the Apostolic See used to hijack the translation] , or Msgr [sic] Moroney [James P. Moroney, Executive Secretary to the Vox Clara Committee][15] don’t seem to have read up on their 2007 ratio translationis.  It all seems rather arbitrary–which strikes me as counter to this church document, not to mention the whole thrust of post-conciliar liturgy.

 

Besides Liturgiam authenticam, published in 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2007 added Ratio Translationis for the English Language.  Some of those directives include:

 

“ . . . The following translation of the Collect for the Mass of the Eleventh Sunday of the year [sic] . . . ” The reference is to the Eleventh Sunday in Ordinary Time, rather than of the year.  The text is from Prayer over the Offerings, rather than the Collect.[16]

 

The Apostolic See attacks the venerable Chicago Manual of Style.[17]  The problem is that the 2007 Ratio is citing a 1982 Chicago Manual.  1982 is the Twelfth Edition.  By 2007, the Chicago Manual was in the 2003 Fifteenth Edition.[18]  Like Petruchio, the Apostolic See is making it up as it goes along.

 

By its use of the word noble twice and nobility once, the Apostolic See continues to regard itself as part of Medieval nobility, rather than modern democracy.[19]

 

“However, the use of “sense lines” or colometry (`the measuring of the length of phrases’) has now been introduced into liturgical books . . . ”[20] except the Italian Latin.  Personal Notes, therefore, is not able to compare English with Latin colometry.

 

The illiterate 2011 Missal is a model for lack of academic integrity.  Personal Notes only examines Collects, Prayers after Communion, and an occasional Blessing over the People found in the 2011 Missal.  Personal Notes examines the Latin in the context of the translations.  Archbishop Aymond tried to follow Roman directives to approve a translation that does not follow other directives Rome sets out in Liturgiam authenticam or ratio translationis.  Standard American English focuses on the care of souls.  That is why, when I upload these ruminations to my web site at http://www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes/Personal%20Notes.htm, I always send a copy to the Archbishop. 

 

My intention is to include the above insights in the template used to critique the Missal prayer.

 

 

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 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 a paraphrase of the babble in the Missal into standard American English as heard on EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network), the Weather Channel, and the evening news.

 

The source for prayers this Sunday 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) 473.

 

James Dallen, a retired diocesan priest[21] 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?”[22]  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 points.  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 concerns and emotions similar to Dallen to the illiterate 2011 Missal.

 


 

 

 

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

 

Bold print in the single-spaced lines helps readers compare the English translation with the Latin original.  Bold print in the double-spaced lines helps readers identify paraphrased prayers.

 

On the first sentence of the Collect, at we may not be wrapped, my version of Microsoft Word 2010 Spelling & Grammar checker remarks:

 

Passive Voice

For a livelier and more persuasive sentence, consider rewriting your sentence using an active verb (the subject performs the action, as in "The ball hit Catherine") rather than a passive verb (the subject receives the action, as in "Catherine was hit by the ball"). If you rewrite with an active verb, consider what the appropriate subject is - "they," "we," or a more specific noun or pronoun.

The revision changes the passive voice to the active.  Section 3 Grammatical Sentences, #14 Verbs, Voice J. Active (She wrote it) vs. Passive (It was written) in The Little Brown Handbook explains the difference between active and passive voice with the following large letter sentence.  “Generally, prefer the active voice.  Use the passive voice when the actor is unknown or unimportant.”[23]  In this case, Lord, the actor, is both known and important.

 

The Collect revision changes the passive voice to the active.  Section 3 Grammatical Sentences, #14 Verbs, Voice J. Active (She wrote it) vs. Passive (It was written) in The Little Brown Handbook explains the difference between active and passive voice with the following large letter sentence.  “Generally, prefer the active voice.  Use the passive voice when the actor is unknown or unimportant.”[24]  In this case, Lord, the actor, is both known and important.

 

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.[25] 

 

Dallen explains,[26]

 

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.[27]  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. 

 

Someone like Mayer may have had such a difficulty, which I would have overlooked, as I reached out to him.  For example, I overlook the street sign that warns, “Caution:  Bridge may freeze,” rather than “. . .  might freeze.”

 

Might versus may in the Missal:  might connotes ability, wish, or desire;[28] 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.”[29]

 

Dallen comments,[30]

 

Unfortunately, catechesis is also needed to explain that what we hear at worship is not what we really mean.  Unfamiliar words can be misleading [as can familiar words used in an unfamiliar way].  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.[31]

 

 . . . 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 English 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 463 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-three words, in a 14.9 upper division college 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.[32]  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,”[33] from sophomore high school to graduate school college.

 

The first sentence of this Prayer after Communion contains thirty-six words, in a 13.8 college 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 second sentence of the Collect has twenty-six words with a 9.5 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  That is reading at the sophomore high school level.  The Little, Brown Handbook has a section, “Writing Concisely” that is helpful for the wordiness here.[34]

 

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 three, rather than two, sentences.  The revised Collect has a 6.1 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.

 

Non-American English, such as Scottish or British, can appear illiterate to Americans in the United States.[35]  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),[36] 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.[37]  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 Little, Brown Handbook has some advice, of which the 2011 illiterate Missal seems entirely oblivious.[38]

 

 . . . 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 and Prayer after Communion have 6.9, and  6.2 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 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 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.”)  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. 

 

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 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).

 

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 890 (212/362) , 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 891 (214/362), 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).

 

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.[39] 

 

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.[40]

 

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.


Holy God, our Father, you have adopted us as your children.  Now, may we enjoy the sunshine of your everlasting truth.  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.

 

We have received the person of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Eucharist,.  May that holy reception bind us to our Creator in charitable works 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] By Rome, I mean global Church governance emanating from Rome, in which the Vatican City State is found.  Sometimes Rome is used to mean the Holy See or the Apostolic See.  Holy See is  not quite right, because all dioceses are Holy.  Apostolic See is arrogant and is how Rome prefers to refer to itself. 

 

[3] Joshua J. McElwee, “Judge orders Kansas City bishop to stand trial in abuse case,” National Catholic Reporter at http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/judge-orders-kansas-city-bishop-stand-trial-abuse-case  (accessed April 5, 2012). 

 

[4] Brian Roewe, “Guilty verdict in Philadelphia a first in sex abuse cases,” http://ncronline.org/print/news/people/guilty-verdict-philadelphia-first-sex-abuse-cases (accessed June 23, 2012).

 

[5] Already evident in the [1545-1563] Trent] Council’s teaching is that the celebration of Mass is of undoubted validity in any language but that the cura animarum, or care of souls, which is at stake in the participation of the faithful in the Liturgy, is the first responsibility of the Bishops, no matter what language may be used for the Liturgy.  n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis1.pdf for page 13 (accessed March 31, 2012).

 

[6] http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=tamingshrew&Act=4&Scene=5&Scope=scene&displaytype=print  (accessed March 30, 2012).

 

[7] “. . . .It is important to note that vernacular renderings of a Latin text must be made in a kind of language which is easily understandable’ to the faithful . . . ”  n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis1.pdf for page 10 (accessed March 31, 2012) #9.

 

[8] n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis3.pdf for page 78 (accessed March 31, 2012);  http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis4.pdf for pages 100-130 (accessed March 31, 2012) #114 .

 

[9] n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis2.pdf for pages 40 (accessed March 31, 2012).

 

[10] . . . Translations may not be made from a translation of the editio typica . . .   Paraphrase, as a method of restating a perceived meaning in terms other than those found in the original Latin, is not to be equated with translation.  Paraphrase aims to convey meaning directly and quickly in a given language . . .   n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis2.pdf for pages 34-36 (accessed March 31, 2012) 41, 42.

 

[11] When it may be deemed appropriate by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, a text will be prepared after consultation with Bishops, called a “ratio translationis”, to be set forth by the authority of the same Dicastery, in which the principles of translation found in this Instruction will be applied in closer detail to a given language.  This document may be composed of various elements as the situation may require, such as, for example, a list of vernacular words to be equated with their Latin counterparts, the setting forth of principles applicable specifically to a given language, and so forth.

http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/  (accessed April 1, 2012) 9.

 

 

[12] n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis4.pdf for pages 117-122 (accessed March 31, 2012).

 

[13] The use of capitalization in the liturgical texts of the Latin editiones typicae as well as in the liturgical translation of the Sacred Scriptures, for honorific or otherwise theologically significant reasons, is to be retained in the vernacular language at least insofar as the structure of a given language permits. http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/liturgiam-authenticam-32-33/ (accessed March 31, 2012) 33; n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis3.pdf for page 82, 83 (accessed March 31, 2012) #17, #19.

 

[14] http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/liturgiam-authenticam-32-33/ (accessed March 31, 2012).

 

[15] http://www.blogger.com/profile/17013903890674545477  (accessed March 31, 2012).

 

[16] http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/  (accessed April 1, 2012).  Go to pagina 461 #56 .

 

[17] In sum, no style sheet can be used to “restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits” than is intended by the Liturgy itself.  The Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press, 1982), p., 208, for example, instructs its readers that the names of rites other than the Eucharist “are not capitalized in run [sic] of the text,” including all the Sacraments, whereas clearly in English-language liturgical books it has been a long-standing and well-founded practice to capitalize the words such as “Confirmation” as the proper name of a particular sacrament.  n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis2.pdf for pages 52 (accessed March 31, 2012) 79.  .

 

[18] http://www.worldcat.org/title/chicago-manual-of-style/oclc/51553085/editions?editionsView=true&referer=br  (accessed April 1, 2012).

 

[19] n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis3.pdf for page 78, (accessed March 31, 2012).

 

[20] n.a., Ratio Translationis for the English Language (Vatican City:  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007)  as found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ratio.translationis4.pdf for page 126 (accessed March 31, 2012) #6.

 

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

 

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

[23] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 299.

 

[24] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 299.

 

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

 

[26] 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.

 

[27] 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.

 

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

 

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

 

[30] 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.

 

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

 

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

 

[33] 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.

 

[34] 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.

 

[35] 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).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39] 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).

 

 

[40] 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.