Christians have an inheritance of love that overcomes the evils of life.  For Catholics, one of the major evils of life includes the prayers in the miserable 2011 illiterate Roman Missal written in non-standard American English.  The readings are about love conquering evil.  The ministry of Elijah in the Book of 1 Kings 19:16b, 19-21 runs parallel to the ministry of Jesus in Luke 9:51-53.  The Lectionary uses both of those readings this Sunday.  Both Elijah and Jesus demonstrate a ministry of love in difficult circumstances, in the one case a reluctant Elisha in the other Samaritans.  When necessary, love can overlook evil.

Spiritual facilitators Clifford M. Yeary, and Yozefu - B. Ssemakula and Pastor John David Ramsey use Luke to demonstrate how Jesus loved his enemies in the persons of the Samaritans.  Joseph M. Doyle, S.S.J. also uses Luke in a little inspirational book that I like to send for those recently confirmed.  At a deeper level, scholars use Galatians 5:1, 13-18 to comment in varying ways on some of the most searing problems of our times:  contraception and feminism, within an imperative command to love.  When necessary, love can overlook problems endemic to ambiguous situations.

Because God is love, God can overlook poorly-worded prayers.  So can the Faithful.  In the prayer at Mass immediately following the forgiveness of sins, the Faithful using the 2011 Roman Missal can listen for “the grace of adoption,”[1] which suits the Responsorial, you are my inheritance, O Lord (cf. Psalm 16:5a).  With this God of love as their inheritance, the Faithful can endure poor translations along with the other pains of earthly life. 

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass derives its value from turning evil into an expression of love.  Ezra 3:4 points the way.  They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day [sic] required (Ezra 3:4).[2]  The daily burnt offerings of the Faithful, then, consists of turning nonsense that cannot be changed for the time being into an expression of love.  This accounts for both how and why the Catholic Faithful keep attending Mass, Sunday-after-Sunday, despite the poorly written 2011 Missal.  In the United States of America, the Faithful are quietly rejecting nonsense coming out of the Teaching Magisterium of the Church.  Understanding the prayers is good reason to use standard American English when praying in the United States of America.  When necessary, love can overlook nonsensical prayers and keep on using that outrageous Missal.



First Reading                     1 Kings 19:16b, 19-21

Responsorial Psalm:          Psalm 16: 1-2, 5, 7-8, 9-10, 11 (cf. 5a)

Second Reading:               Galatians 5:1, 13-18

Alleluia:                             1 Samuel 3:9; John 6:68c

Gospel:                             Luke 9:51-62


Annotated Bibliography

Musings above the solid line draw from material below.  Those uninterested in scholarly and tangential details should stop reading here.  If they do, however, they may miss some interesting details.

1 Kings 19:16b.  19-21

1 Kings 19:4-21

Anne M. O’Leary, P.B.V.M., Review of Adam Winn, Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative:  Considering the Practice of Greco-Roman Imitation in the search for the Markan Source Material[3]

O’Leary reports that Winn parallels “Elijah’s call of Elisha and Jesus’ call of his disciples in sharper relief than has heretofore been demonstrated.”  The Lectionary avoids the opportunity to link Mark and the Elijah-Elisha narrative, but does use Luke.


Psalm 16: 1-2, 5, 7-8, 9-10, 11 (cf. 5a)


Galatians 5:1, 13-18

Gal 4:21—5:1

Susan Eastman, review of Michael Bachmann, Anti-Judaism in Galatians?  Exegetical Studies on a  Polemical Letter and on Paul’s Theology[4]

Eastman reports, “In separate chapters, B. addresses . . .  `the  allegory in Gal 4:21—5:1 . . . ”  The allegory is between the children of Abraham, one born naturally of the slave woman, and the other born through a promise of a free woman.



Gal 5:1, 13-26

William F. Murphy Jr., “Revisiting Contraception:  An Integrated Approach in Light of the Renewal of Thomistic Virtue Ethics”[5]

Murphy supports the central teaching of Humanae vitae that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil.  Part of his argument is “To the extent that one is so transformed `in Christ,’ one can live in true Christian freedom, which both enables and, paradoxically, binds Christians to serve one other [sic] in love (Gal 5:1, 13-26).”  Since Murphy writes, “I generally limit myself to a single primary source text to support my main points on action theory . . . [page 818]” and “interaction with the work of contemporary Catholic writers in sexual ethics—such as Margaret Farley, Lisa S. Cahill, and Cristina L. H. Traina—is beyond the scope of this article [footnote 12],” I am unimpressed.


Gal 5:13

Paul Rhodes Eddy, review of Alan G. Padgett, As Christ Submits to the Church:  A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission[6]

Eddy reports that Padgett includes Gal 5:13, serve one another through love, to make

explicit a key claim of this book:  Yes Christ did submit to the church.  In his earthly ministry, humiliation, passion and crucifixion, Christ voluntarily gave up power in order to take the role of a slave so as to serve the needs of his disciples. . . . Servant leadership is simply type II [voluntary] submission for those in leadership roles” (55).


Padgett is following a hermeneutic of adult relationships as a challenge to a complementarian perspective.


Galatians 5:14

Daniel B. Wallace, With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes: Greek Grammar:  Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament[7]

Where the Lectionary has one statement, the Greek for statement is a derivative of logos or word.  More importantly is the Greek emphasis contained in shall love.  Contemporary standard American English uses shall and will interchangeably whereas in days bygone, shall with the second and third person and will with the first person were signs of strong determination.  The Greek is emphatic, imperative future tense, you shall love.


1 Samuel 3:9; John 6:68c


Luke 9:51-62

Luke 9:28b-33, 51-52a

Clifford M. Yeary, Pilgrim People:  A Scriptural Commentary[8]

After quoting the Transfiguration in Luke, Yeary goes on:


The kingdom of God is made known through action, through deeds of healing and liberation from evil.  Prayer, however, is the circumstance that reveals Jesus’ glory.  This special insight into the transfiguration [sic] is emphasized only in Luke.  He also is alone in emphasizing the content of Jesus’ conversation with Moses and Elijah.  In doing so, Luke sums up the teaching of all the Law and the Prophets and depicts their message as something Jesus will personally fulfill.  Jesus will bring all of Scripture to fulfillment in “his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.”


Luke 9:51

Luke Timothy Johnson, “Narrative Perspectives on Luke 16:19-31”[9]

Johnson points out that to journey to Jerusalem (9:51) through 19:44 is entirely the literary construction of Luke.  In other words, Luke is not offering a geographic travelogue, but rather a type of theological travelogue.


Luke 9:51-53

John T. Carroll, review of Jaroslav Rindoš, He of Whom It Is Written:  John the Baptist and Elijah in Luke[10]

Carroll reports


The primary argument is for the most part convincing.  That is, Luke’s coloring of Jesus’ ministry employing an Elijah palette (see, e.g., 4:25-26; 7:11-17) does not attenuate the evangelist’s portrayal of the baptizing prophet John as the promised Elijah . . . John prepares the way of the Lord (Jesus) by forming a people for the LORD (God).  As the promised messenger, John then becomes the “prototype” for disciples of Jesus who are later sent to “prepare his ways (9:51-53 [used here]; 10:1; see pp. 182-83).


Luke 9:51-56

Joseph M. Doyle, S.S.J., When Jesus Was Twelve[11]

Doyle depicts the Holy Family:


Now they were on a much better road toward Beth Shean and Pella, across the Jordan River.  Why did they not continue south for a direct, short route to Jerusalem?  Simply because that territory was Samaria, and the Samaritans had little use for the Jews, to put it mildly.  They actually hated one another, as we know from the episode (Lk 9:51-56) where the “sons of thunder,” James and John, wanted to burn down the Samaritan city because the Samaritans would not let Jesus and his companions through.  The hostility heightened when Jews were on their way to Jerusalem for Passover.  This is why the return trip to Nazareth could have gone through Samaria, and probably did, as we shall see later.


Luke 9:51-56

Fr. Yozefu – B. Ssemakula, The Healing of Families:  How To Pray Effectively for Those Stubborn Personal and Familial Problems[12]

Ssemakula develops Sacred Scripture,


Here was God Himself not being welcomed in this tiny Samaritan village with its Samaritans, moreover so minimized by the Jews but which He has created out of love, and which He was practically elevating by His intended pause and presence in it.  When they rejected Him, He had all the right to be angry and to let them have it at least this one last time—that they may remember Him as that true prophet that once walked the land.  Probably the disciples feel that way, [sic] and hence the suggestion, and the Lord says, We do not do that!


Personal Notes gave up systematically examining the illiterate 2011 Missal November 25, 2012.  On April 7, 2013, with Reading 045C 2nd Sunday of Easter_A Catholic Bible Study 130407, Personal Notes began to incorporate material from A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal:  A New English Translation:  Developed under the Auspices of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, Edward Foley (ed.) (Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2011).  The intention is to call attention to the Commentary as an addition to Reading 1610 Missal:  The Last Sunday in Ordinary Time.  The hope is that this systematic approach will help the Faithful pray with the new Missal, despite itself.


Anscar J. Chupungco, “The ICEL2010 Translation”[13]


“through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” is a mistranslation that Chupungco takes three paragraphs to explain.  My intention is to quote these paragraphs, one-by-one over the next three weeks.


Based on Latin syntax, mea culpa is in the nominative case, unlike the preceding cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione, which are in the ablative case expressing means or instrumentality.  The triple mea culpa is separated from the preceding sentence by a colon.  The phrase after a colon expands or explains the preceding sentence.  Syntactically, therefore, mea culpa is in the nominative case with unexpressed or implicit verb.  It is not in the ablative case.  Other examples of nominatives without verbs are Dominus vobíscum, Verbum Domini, and Mysterium fídei.  The nominative case, even without an explicit verb, is not to be translated as ablative of means (“through my fault”).


For more on sources see the Appendix file.  A complete set of Personal Notes, dating from the Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time, July 14, 2002 to the present, is on the web site at 


[1] 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, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011) .


[2] UMI Annual Commentary 2012-2013:  Precepts for Living: Based on the International Uniform Lessons, Vincent E. Bacote, Ph.D., (ed.) (Chicago, IL  60643: UMI (Urban Ministries, Inc., 2012) 522-523.


[3] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 2013), 177.


[4] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (July 2010) 636.


[5] Theological Studies, Vol. 72, No. 4 (December 2011) 827-828.


[6] Theological Studies, Vol. 73, No. 3 (September 2012) 694.


[7] Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan, 1996, 238, 453, 570, 719.


[8] Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2010, 66.


[9] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 209.


[10] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 2013) 171.


[11] Phoenix, Arizona:  Tau Publishing, LLC, 2012, 38.


[12] [no publisher or place of publication is listed], 2012, 56-57.


[13] in A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal:  A New English Translation:  Developed under the Auspices of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, Edward Foley (ed.) (Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2011) 138-139.