“Our Father who art in heaven . . . For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, Forever and ever Amen,” is about reverence for the Kingdom of God, reverence sought in prayer this Sunday. That doxology only entered Roman Catholic prayer life with the new Missal following Vatican II.
The doxology associated with the Lord's Prayer is found in four Vetus Latina [Old Latin] manuscripts, only two of which give it in its entirety. The other surviving manuscripts of the Vetus Latina Gospels do not have the doxology. The Vulgate translation also does not include it, thus agreeing with critical editions of the Greek text.
In the Latin Rite liturgies, this doxology is never attached to the Lord's Prayer. Its only use in the Roman Rite liturgy is in the Mass as revised after the Second Vatican Council. It is there placed not immediately after the Lord's Prayer, but instead after the priest's prayer, Libera nos, quaesumus... [Delver us, Lord, we pray…], elaborating on the final petition, Libera nos a malo (Deliver us from evil).
Reverence for the Kingdom of the doxology is one theme running through Personal Notes for this Sunday. Protestant Revolutionaries and the Reverend John David Ramsey, now a Catholic priest, both insist on reverence for the Kingdom of God, which is known through the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. The Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture asks for the grace of reverence. That grace is sorely needed in the 2011 Missal as comments below on the use of the word embolism attest.
The editors of the Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Ezekiel, Daniel can help the Faithful understand the 2011 Missal. “. . . the house of Israel has become dross to me; all of them are bronze and tin and iron and lead in the furnace; they are dross of silver” (Ez 22:17). The editors explain, “Dross is deceptive. It gives the appearance of metal, but it is not metal.” The illiterate 2011 Missal, as fancy as it is, is mere dross when it comes to prayer.
Father John David writes in line with G. K. Chesterton, who said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” Reverence and respect for the Kingdom of God is a struggle. Father John David writes,
Of course the church too had revealed its tendency to faithlessness from the outset—Peter’s denial of Christ is the most basic and perhaps most paradigmatic example—but as with Israel, it was the tendency to give these practices so at odds with the gospel a basic, significant and fundamental shaping influence upon Christian faith and practice, that proved most destructive.
Nowhere is this tendency more evident than in the church’s relationship to the Roman Emperor Constantine, who offered the church, after centuries of alternate persecution and tolerance, an apparent, final and lasting security. But the security provided by this human king required a compromise of the church's singular relationship with and dependence upon and trust in God as known in Jesus Christ, and so a compromise of the particular identity and dynamic of the church. Thus the same tension that proved so destructive for Israel, arising from divided loyalty between the sovereignty of God and the sovereignty of the human king, was introduced into the life of the church. During the remaining centuries of the existence of the western Empire after Constantine’s reign, the church was established in a particular manner whereby the distinction between church and empire was increasingly blurred, leading over time to the development of a form of unity between Christianity and Western European civilization, known as Christendom. Over the course of the centuries that constitute the age of Christendom, the tension introduced in the fourth century grew more powerful and complex, leading in time to the tearing apart of the church, and ultimately to the captivity in which a large part of the Christian community is held to this day. It is an examination of this tension, this bifurcation of loyalties and trust, that will throw the contemporary situation and the fresh consideration of the framework and dynamic of the Christian community—the main task at hand—into higher relief.
The problem, with focusing on reverence for the Kingdom of God, revolves around the definition of Church. If Church is limited to the Papacy and its minions, then the Papacy never had control of Western Civilization. If Church is extended to include all of the accouterments associated with the university system, then it is the Church that has realized the dreams of the ancestors seeking the truth of the Kingdom of God in the midst of the earthly politics of the day. The dreams of the ancestors were that truth should determine politics, rather than politics truth. This devotion to truth is what makes Western Civilization both Christian and wealthy. This effort at getting the Missal into standard American English is an effort at getting Papal politics at an appropriate level of influence in service of the Kingdom of God, headed by Jesus, who is “the truth, the way, and the life.” 
The embolism in Christian Liturgy (from Greek ἐμβολισμός, an interpolation) is a short prayer said or sung after the Lord's Prayer. It functions "like a marginal gloss" upon the final petition of the Lord's Prayer (". . . deliver us from evil"), amplifying and elaborating on "the many implications" of that prayer. In the Roman Rite of Mass, the embolism is followed by the doxology or, in the Tridentine Mass (which does not have that doxology), by the Fraction.
Evidently, doxology refers to “for the Kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever [sic].” This used to be the way Protestants said the Our Father, as implied above in the comment that the Tridentine Mass does not have that doxology.
According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, "[t]he embolism [Deliver us, Lord, we pray . . . ] may date back to the first centuries, since, under various forms, it is found in all the Occidental and in a great many Oriental, particularly Syrian, Liturgies."
Libera nos, quaesumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis, da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut, ope misericordiae tuae adiuti, et a peccato simus semper liberi, et ab omni perturbatione securi: expectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi.
In the revised English translation adopted in 2011 (on 27 November in the United States, but earlier elsewhere) the prayer is:
Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Líbera nos, quæsumus Dómine, ab ómnibus malis, prætéritis, præséntibus et futúris: et intercedénte beáta et gloriósa semper Vírgine Dei Genitríce María, cum beátis Apóstolis tuis Petro et Páulo, atque Andréa, et ómnibus Sanctis, da propítius pacem in diébus nostris: ut, ope misericórdiæ tuæ adiúti, et a peccáto simus semper líberi et ab omni perturbatióne secúri. Per eúndem Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum. Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus. Per ómnia sæcula sæculórum.
One translation of this is:
Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present and to come, and by the intercession of the Blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, together with Thy blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and Andrew, and all the Saints, mercifully grant peace in our days, that through the bounteous help of Thy mercy we may be always free from sin, and safe from all disquiet. Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son our Lord. Who is God living and reigning with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, World without end."
Speaking of the Roman-Rite embolism in its then-current form, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia said: "The Roman Church connects with it a petition for peace in which she inserts the names of the Mother of God, Sts. Peter and Paul, and St. Andrew. The name of St. Andrew is found in the Gelasian Sacramentary, so that its insertion in the Embolismus would seem to have been anterior to the time of St. Gregory [the Great, Pope, 540-604]. During the Middle Ages the provincial churches and religious orders added the names of other saints, their founders, patrons, etc., according to the discretion of the celebrant."
The embolism is not used in the Greek Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. In the Liturgy of St. James the English translation of the embolism is as follows: "Lord, lead us not into temptation, Lord of Hosts! for thou dost know our frailty; but deliver us from the wicked one, from all his works, from all his assaults and craftiness; through thy holy name, which we call upon to guard us in our lowliness."
In the Mozarabic Rite this prayer is recited not only in the Mass, but also after the Our Father at Lauds and Vespers.
Difficulty understanding the word embolism is another sign that the Papacy is trying to confuse those for whom it presents the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).” Reverence for the Kingdom of God is missing.
II. Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)
A. Missal: God of might, giver of every good gift, put into our hearts the love of your name, so that, by deepening our sense of reverence, you may nurture in us what is good and, by your watchful care, keep safe what you have nurtured. 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 virtútum, cuius est totum quod est óptimum, ínsere pectóribus nostris tui nóminis amórem, et praesta, ut in nobis, religiónis augménto, quae sunt bona nútrias, ac, vigilánti stúdio, quae sunt nutríta custódias. Per Dóminum.
Both the Missal and Personal Notes are bypassing the opportunity to connect Dean Martin and his “That’s Amore” ballad with the amórem of the Italian Latin prayer.
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 9/27), week after week, after identifying more and more repetitious nonsense.
C. Revised: Heavenly Father enable us to be reverent to you and your holy name. Please keep us safe, while nourished under your watchful care. 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: Renewed by this bread from the heavenly table, we beseech you, Lord, that, being the food of charity, it may confirm our hearts and stir us to serve you in our neighbor. Through Christ our Lord.
B. Italian Latin: Pane mensae caeléstis refécti, te, Dómine, deprecámur, ut hoc nutriméntum caritátis corda nostra confírmet, quátenus ad tibi ministrándum in frátribus excitémur. Per Christum.
C. Revised: The reception of Holy Communion renews the Spirit of grace within us. Strengthen reverence for God in our neighbors. We pray through Christ our Lord.
Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)
ICEL: God of hosts, from whom every good gift proceeds, implant in our hearts the love of your name. Nurture within us whatever is good by binding us more closely to you, and in your watchful care tend the good fruit you have nurtured.
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: God of blessings, we have been fed at this table with the bread of heaven. Give us this food always, that it may strengthen your love in our hearts and inspire us to serve you in our brothers and sisters.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.
These Appendices enable the busy reader to skip repetitious and boring parts. Some of the details become dense and distracting, except for anyone with the time and devotion to work through more than twenty pages of material in order to understand two relatively minor prayers, the Collect and Prayer after Communion. The reason to keep repeating the material, Sunday after Sunday, is for first-time readers, especially first-time readers associated with the Papacy. Someone seems to be paying attention. Googling for Jirran May 5, 2012 found about 84,600 results; Raymond Jirran found about 49,100 results; Raymond J. Jirran found about 72,600 results from all around the globe. Anticipating pushback from this volume is scary, though, so far, not happening.
Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond tried to follow Papal directives to approve a translation that does not follow other directives the Papacy sets out in Liturgiam authenticam or ratio translationis. As mentioned below, on page 4 of the Missal, Aymond grants his Concordat cum originali (agrees with the original). Personal Notes, by privileging standard American English over Papal Italian Latin focuses on the care of souls, rather than preservation of the institutional Church. 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.
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 Reverend Michael G. Ryan refers to “virtually unintelligible translations.” The revised prayers are a paraphrase of the 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 for 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) 482.
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 the higher clergy is using a model that prioritizes preserving the Church institution, rather than the Gospel, for which the Church exists. Personal Notes draws attention to exclamation marks of Dallen with bold red print! Dallen 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 observed 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 [LA] 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 Papacy is insistent, on April 14 ordering German Catholics to stop postponing the change from for all to many.
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.
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 coverup. 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, is an irresponsible derelict of duty, power play.
The Papacy promoted Law to a position helping choose bishops throughout the world. The Papacy promoted Levada to the position from which the Cardinal Conclave chose Pope Benedict XVI. The Papacy, 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.
Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia died in January, before he could be charged with covering up allegations that Roman Catholic priests sexually abused children. A jury convicted his top-priest-in-charge. Telling of the trial, The Wall Street Journal headlined “Top Priest: `Did Best I could.’”
The second hierarchic confusion is in the 2011 Missal. Care of souls is the first responsibility of the hierarchy. 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. As Martin Luther (1483-1546) reminded the faithful, “ . . . the Jews are no longer Israel, for all things are to be new, and Israel too must become new.” In other words, the Faithful need to be open to the vagaries of the New Covenant.
As Father John David writes, “Thus the church became increasingly open to the cultures which surrounded it, and often saw the hand of God at work through people outside the church, for the benefit of the church.”
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 the Papacy perverts reality to protect itself, much like 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 Papacy has publically broken the will of Archbishop Aymond to agree with whatever nonsense the Papacy proclaims.
From “The Taming of the Shrew:”
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 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 the Papacy will do next.
The Faithful deserve readability, integrity, scholarship, “`language which is easily understandable’ to the faithful. . . . Liturgiam authenticam calls for the development and consistency of a distinctive translation style with these principal characteristics . . . (2) easy intelligibility . . . ” that easy intelligibility is the reason for Personal Notes. That is why Personal Notes pays attention to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability indicates the number of formal school years it takes to understand the material. 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, from ratio translationis, 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 [the technical term is hypotaxis] 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.
Personal Notes strongly disagrees with the above abusive run-on sentence grammar but agrees with and offers paraphrasing, which ratio translationis legitimates in another place. Personal Notes, then, paraphrases, rather than translates, the illiterate 2011 Missal into standard American English.
Boring 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 Appendices for the more curious readers.
Commentator Todd Flowerday uncovers some of the secrecy involved, hiding the Papal 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.” The Papacy is secretive and, because secretive, also arbitrary.
Those who have followed Personal Notes over the past ten years, know “sloppy scholarship” appears too often. Here is another case of “don’t care” sloppy scholarship, this time from ratio translationis.
“ . . . 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.
The Papacy mocks the venerable Chicago Manual of Style. 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. Like Petruchio, the Papacy is making it up as it goes along.
By its use of the word noble twice and nobility once, the Papacy continues to regard itself as part of Medieval nobility, rather than modern democracy.
“However, the use of `sense lines' or colometry (`the measuring of the length of phrases’) has now been introduced into liturgical books . . . ” 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. Personal Notes examines the Latin in the context of the translations.
A further 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 far 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 is 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.
Collect is the technical term for Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture.
On the first sentence of the Collect, my version of Microsoft Word 2010 Spelling & Grammar checker remarks:
Dallen explains something of the jarring nature of the Missal prayers.
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.”
The Collect for this Sunday prays for reverence. Stanley Fish puts it this way, “good writing indicates you are in the company of a mind that has thought it all out and is delivering it to you with complete mastery.” That is why the revised Collect has four, rather than two, sentences. The revised Collect has a 6.1 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.
Dallen points out that none of the heads of the Congregation of Divine Worship (CDW) 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. At the time, Mayer was a past head of the CDW. 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 the Prayer after Communion, 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.”
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.
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 illiterate 2011 Missal matters.
The first sentence of the Collect contains forty-six words, in a 17.2 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability. The first sentence of the Collect is a fused sentence.
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.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2009, thirty-three percent of Fourth graders read below basic achievement levels; twenty-five percent of Eighth Graders fall below. The Department of Education divides students in four categories of those eligible for free or reduced price lunch: 0-25 percent; 26-50 percent; 51-75 percent; 76-100 percent. I am taking that last category as 100 percent eligible for free or reduced price lunch.
Only sixty-eight percent of Twelfth Grade Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch graduated with a diploma during 2006-2007 (where statistics are available). Only twenty-eight per cent of that group attended a four-year college the following year. In 2008, five percent of children ages 5-17 spoke a language other than English at home and spoke English with difficulty. Those children would be disproportionately Hispanic. I see no recognition of these problems in the illiterate 2011 Missal.
The first sentence of this Prayer after Communion contains twenty-eight words, in a 6.3 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability. It is a fused sentence. The revised Prayer after Communion has a 6.3 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.
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.
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 irreverent, if not irrelevant, in the United States. An exception to this may be African American Language (AAL), 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. They need their local ordinaries (bishops) to insist they keep improving their use of standard American English. In personal experience, Filipino priests mispronounce the sounds accents, and cadence of standard American English to the point where what they vocalize is meaningless. 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 illiterate 2011 Missal seems 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.
The respective ICEL Collect and Prayer after Communion have 8.9, and 4.9 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readabilities.
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,] . . .
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.
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.
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. Michael G. Ryan elaborates, “To read these prayers is difficult; to call them prayerful is to redefine the word; to pray them is almost impossible.”
Dallen refers to an “omitted rubric” that makes one wonder how free presiders may be to use and adapt my paraphrasing 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-intellectual, anti-Vatican-II, dysfunctional, illiterate current Papacy, 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 will remain on the Missal, until the end of the liturgical year, December 1, 2012.
Heavenly Father enable us to be reverent to you and your holy name. Please keep us safe, while nourished under your watchful care. 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.
The reception of Holy Communion renews the Spirit of grace within us. Strengthen reverence for God in our neighbors. We pray through Christ our Lord.
 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.
 http://www.trade.wordsoflight.co.uk/html/words_2.html (accessed May 28, 2012).
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Prayer (accessed May 28, 2012).
 n.a., “Overview,” for Ezekiel 22:1-31 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) 122-123.
 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/gilbertkc102389.html (accessed May 27, 2012).
 John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith: The Tri-une Dynamic of the Christian Life (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002) 38-39.
 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) page 49 Section #153
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism (accessed May 27, 2012).
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism_%28liturgy%29 (accessed May 27, 2012).
 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) page 665, #125 in “The Order of Mass.”
 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 472 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website. (accessed May 27, 2012).
 See pagina 472 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website. (accessed May 6, 2012).
 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 908 (232/362) , 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 909 (232/362), 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).
 Michael G. Ryan, May 28, 2012, “What’s Next? A pastor reflects on the new Roman Missal,” at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13441&s=2 (accessed May 24, 2012).
 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)
 Jonathan Luxmoore, “Pope orders German Catholics to make the `for many’ change,” National Catholic Reporter at http://ncronline.org/print/news/global/pope-orders-german-catholics-make-many-change (accessed May 4, 2012).
 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.
 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).
 Peter Loftus, “Top Priest: `Did Best I could,’” The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, May 24, 2012, page A 2, col. 2-5, above the fold.
 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).
 Martin Luther, “Preface to the Prophet Ezekiel,” Lenker, 6, 307-308* (WADB 11,1:400 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) 116.
 John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith: The Tri-une Dynamic of the Christian Life (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002) 37.
 http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=tamingshrew&Act=4&Scene=5&Scope=scene&displaytype=print (accessed March 30, 2012).
 “. . . .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.
 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 .
 Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011) 51.
 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).
 . . . 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.
 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.
 http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ (accessed April 1, 2012). Go to pagina 461 #56 .
 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. .
 http://www.worldcat.org/title/chicago-manual-of-style/oclc/51553085/editions?editionsView=true&referer=br (accessed April 1, 2012).
 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).
 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.
 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.
 Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011) 60.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Susan Aud, William Hussar, Michael Planty, Thomas Snyder: National Center for Education Statistics; Kevin Blanco, Mary An Fox, Lauren Frohlich, Jana Kemp: American Institutes for Research; Lauren Drake: MacroSys, LLC; Katie Ferguson, Production Manager: MacroSys, LLC; Thomas Nachazel, Senior Editor; Gretchen Hanne, Editor,: American Institutes for Research, The Condition of Education 2010: May 2010 (NCES 2010-028: U.S. Department of Education: ies: National Center for Education Statistics: Institute of Education Sciences). The condition of Education is available in two forms, print and web at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe. See pages xiii, 17, 33, and 45 in the print edition.
 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).
 H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition: The Little, Brown Handbook (New York: Longman, 2010) 856.
 H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition: The Little, Brown Handbook (New York: Longman, 2010) 254-255.
 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).
 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).
 Michael G. Ryan, May 28, 2012, “What’s Next? A pastor reflects on the new Roman Missal,” at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13441&s=2 (accessed May 24, 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 28-29/36.