Roman Missal[1]

I. Introduction

Since the 1789 French Revolution, nation-states have more loudly proclaimed human rights than have churches.  God, not nation-states, bestows all human rights.  Personal Notes continues to work through the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), demonstrating that GIRM is about centering power in the Papacy, rather than about supporting human rights for anyone, specifically for women.

 

GIRM recognizes “. . . when it is feared that a certain text might give rise to some difficulties for a particular group of the Christian faithful."[2]  The passive voice, it is feared, omits who is doing the fearing.  The Papacy seems full of fear.  The Papacy proclaims verses that encourage the Faithful to pay-pray-and-obey and women to keep their heads covered, their mouths shut, and their feet in the house.  The Papacy does not want to risk having to explain, for example, the scriptural basis for defending the institutional Church at the expense of the cover-up of sexual abuse. 

 

GIRM recognizes “. . . prayer for human rights and equality . . . observed . . . at times to be designated by the Diocesan Bishop.”[3]  Amazingly, the centerfold of the May 23, 2012 L’Osservatore Romano includes a picture of Eleanor Roosevelt holding the English text of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4]  The Papacy has never endorsed that Declaration specifically by name.  The closest thing to it may be the 1963 Encyclical “Pacem in Terris” by Pope John XXIII, fifteen years after the original Declaration. 

 

The article in L’Osservatore is an attack by the journalist Marguerite A. Peeters.  The title of her article explains a lot, “Parallel Event organized by the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See:  Towards preserving the universality of human rights:  The gender agenda divorces the human person from himself or from herself, from his or her body and anthropological structure.”  Peeters objects to examining the relationship between the relatively non-malleable nature of human biology and the relatively malleable nature of human culture.

 

The first unstated problem is the current so-called War on Women the Papacy is waging.  Peeters mentions the 1945 United Nations (UN) Charter; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court.  Peters shows no formal Papal support for any of that. 

 

In the 2012 American Historical Review, David S. Bovée reviewed Patrick J. Hayes, A Catholic Brain Trust:  The History of the Catholic Commission on Intellectual and Cultural Affairs [CCiCA], 1945-1965.[5]  Paul VI reigned 1965-1978.  The Commission assisted in writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which incorporated many Catholic concepts.  The UN incorporated what the Church had to offer, though the Church did not reciprocate by incorporating what the UN had to offer.  “Bovée reports,

 

Hayes breaks off his detailed treatment of the CCICA in 1965, when it began to decline in vitality.  In his view, the commission lost its edge largely in response to Vatican II, after which the church became more concerned with accommodating itself to the outside world than with standing as a beacon in opposition to it.  After several decades of deepening torpor, the CCICA was finally dissolved in 2007.

 

Pope Benedict XVI ruled 2007-2013.

 

Besides human rights, the second unstated problem is the relationship between “a manipulative use of language” in UN documents and the 2011 illiterate Roman Missal.  It never occurs to Peeters to look in the direction of the Missal.  Peeters asserts that the mid-1950s western postmodern intelligentsia is reinterpreting the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights in such a way that it is “at once intellectually incoherent, socially conflictual and politically unsustainable.”  That charge also applies to the 2011 illiterate Missal and for the same manipulation-of-language reasons.

 

Peeters fails to mention the most important and divisive document of Vatican II, the 1965 Dignitatis Humanae, that spelled out church-state relations.  Personal Notes is dedicated to the proposition that truth should determine politics, whether the politics of a return to patristic and scriptural sources, ressourcement or a wider and less literal approach to Vatican II documents, aggiomamento.  Neither ressourcement nor aggiomamento should determine truth. 

 

 

 

While I do not mind condensing what Peeters has to say, I hesitate to do that with GIRM, because misunderstanding GIRM is more serious than misunderstanding Peeters.  What follows quotes GIRM to show that I have done my homework and am not making it up and to show what is actually in the instructions for saying Mass.  The Appendixes apologize for being repetitive and long and drawn out.  At least the following material will not be repeated, but the researcher will be able to return to see exactly what Personal Notes says.

 

Continuing with a human rights theme, GIRM commands, “In all the Dioceses of the United States of America, January 22 (or January 23, when January 22 falls on a Sunday) shall be observed as a particular day of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life and of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion,” whatever that sixty-three word sentence means.  The Missal repeats that exact sentence at “Special Days of Prayer for the Dioceses of the United States of America.”[6]  The Flesh-Kincaid Reading Level is 28.6, meaning it takes 16.6 years of college education after high school to understand what that sentence means, whatever it means.  In a spirit of full disclosure, I have twenty years of college education after high school.  The General Roman Calendar is clearer, “(USA) Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection of Unborn Children.”[7]  Such protection seems to be open to the absurd idea that every lustful glance between human males and females requires legal protection for the unborn children that would result did the natural law continue unabated.

 

Unaware that human rights developed differently in the southern hemispheres, GIRM refers to “various particular Churches whether of the West or the East,” apparently ignoring Africa.[8]  Unlike GIRM, Peeters does not ignore Africa.  She writes, “Westerners who love Africans as brothers are eager to learn from them, from their richness in humanity, from their cultures.” 

 

Peeters also notes the contemporary divide between North and South, rather than East and West.  Peeters writes, “The cultural resistance of many Southern Governments to some of the agencies . . .”  Finally, Peeters rejects reality when she writes, “To believe one is a victim amounts to be put in the dependence of an ideology, a system.”[9]  Personal Notes would add, either that or to recognize a malleable system at work that makes one a biology-based victim and, therefore, needs changing, as, some might think, racially segregated education.

 

GIRM goes on to mention the Second Vatican Council, as follows, “The norm established by the Second Vatican Council, namely that in the liturgical renewal innovations should not be made unless required by true and certain usefulness to the Church, nor without exercising caution to ensure that new forms grow in some sense organically from forms already existing . . .”[10]  The full quotation cited by the Missal is:[11]

 

23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful [sic] investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised.  This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral.  Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places.  Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

 

What GIRM presents, as the focal point of this section of Sacrosanctum Concilium, is practically a concluding afterthought to the section.  GIRM is manipulating language and twisting the original intent expressed in Vatican II.

 

In the Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture, the Faithful are able rightly to implore God for mercy in the context of the nonsense described above.  In the Prayer after Communion, the Faithful are able to go on to want to inherit the Kingdom of God, which is based on transparency and truth, suffering in the context of present liturgical realities.

 

II. Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

 

A. Missal:      O God, who manifest your almighty power above all by pardoning and showing mercy, bestow, we pray, your grace abundantly upon us and make those hastening to attain your promises heirs to the treasures of heaven.  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:[12]  Deus, qui omnipoténtiam tuam parcéndo máxime et miserándo maniféstas, multíplica super nos grátiam tuam, ut, ad tua promíssa curréntes, caeléstium bonórum fácias esse consórtes.  Per Dominum.

 

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 10/33), week after week, after identifying more and more repetitious nonsense.

 

C. Revised:   Lord, God, cover our sins with your holy mercy.  Help us pursue your promises.  Make us heirs to heaven above.  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 Appendices explain the single-spaced material in bold print.

 

III. Prayer after Communion

 

A. Missal:      May this heavenly mystery, O Lord, restore us in mind and body, that we may be coheirs in glory with Christ, to whose suffering we are united whenever we proclaim his Death.  Who lives and reigns for ever [sic] and ever.

 

B. Italian Latin:[13]  Sit nobis, Dómine, reparátio mentis et córporis caeléste mystérium, ut simus eius in glória coherédes, cui, mortem ipsíus annuntiándo, compátimur.  Qui vivit et regnat in saecula saeculórum.

 

C. Revised:   Holy Father, may the mystery of your Triune Eucharistic presence make us heirs in glory with the crucified Christ.  We ask you to raise us on the last day, through Jesus, who lives and reigns forever with you and the Holy Spirit.

IV. ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy)

 

Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

ICEL:[14]          God of heaven and earth, your almighty power is shown above all in your willingness to forgive and show mercy; let your grace descend upon us without ceasing, that we may strive for the things you have promised and come to share the treasures of heaven.

 

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:[15]          Gracious God, let this holy mystery restore us in mind and body, that we who proclaim the death of Christ and are joined to his suffering may become co-heirs with him in glory, who lives and reigns for ever [sic] and ever.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Rationale

Clarity is not a prerequisite for prayer.  The search for clarity can be a means to prayer.  As part of catechesis, Personal Notes sets 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.[16]  Michael G. Ryan explains, “To read these prayers is difficult; to call them prayerful is to redefine the word; to pray them is almost impossible.”[17]

 

On June 23, 2012, the bishop of Mount Carmel, in southern Illinois, Edward Braxton removed William Rowe as pastor for ad-libbing prayers at Mass.  Rowe “would often personalize prayers to better match the message of his homily or the songs sung.”[18]  This is apparently different from paraphrasing the 2011 illiterate Missal.  Rowe intends to appeal his removal, first to Braxton, then to the Vatican.  Rowe does not think he has much of a chance for reinstatement.

 

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.

 

Dallen refers to an “omitted rubric” that makes one wonder how free presiders may be to use and adapt paraphrasing of the current illiterate 2011 Missal.[19]

 

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.

 

Skipping over these Appendices enables the busy and preoccupied 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 primarily for first-time readers, especially first-time readers associated with the Papacy.  The secondary reason is to improve the presentation.

 

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).  Privileging standard American English in Personal Notes over Papal Italian Latin focuses on the care of souls, rather than preservation of the institutional Church.  That is why, after 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.”[20]  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.  Standard American English is my first language.

 

Personal Notes begins the examination of “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)” at Reading 1130 Missal 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time_A Catholic Bible Study 120805, that is August 5, 2012.  The Missal, referenced for this Twenty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time, 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).  The Collect and Prayer after Communion for this Sunday are on page 486.

 

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 the higher clergy is using a model that 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 observed that Personal Notes rarely uses exclamation points.  The reason is an academic preference for reason over emotion; for analysis over intuition.  Daisy Grewal has an article, “How Critical Thinkers Lose Their [sic] Faith in God:  Faith and intuition are intimately related.”[23]  Her research shows that people who analyze tend to lose their Faith.  Personal Notes reaches out to critical thinkers mainly by using critical thinkers, like Dallen, to demonstrate compatibility between analysis and intuition.

 

When an established scholar like Dallen gets emotional, 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.[24]

 

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.

 

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, in altering the focus, 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 promulgated by 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,[25] is an irresponsible derelict of duty, power play. 

 

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. 

 

On July 1, 2012 Pope Benedict XVI announced that Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller of Regensburg, Germany would succeed Levada as Prefect of the CDF.  Müller is a strong friend of the Peruvian Gustavo Gutiérrez, O.P., widely regarded as the Father of Liberation Theology.  Müller, himself, however, is not known as a liberation theologian, but as a conservative much in the mold of Pope Benedict XVI.[26]  Personal Notes will watch to see if Levada dares to return to the United States to face possible prosecution for covering up sexual abuse of children.

 

The imperial behavior of the Papacy, enabling Cardinals to evade courts in the United States, 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.  On Thursday, September 6, the Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court officially made Finn a criminal felon, complete with a two-year suspended sentence of probation with nine conditions. 

 

Prosecutors did not charge his Monsignor, Robert Murphy, who reported the covered up crime to the police.  By that time, Murphy knew what had happened to Lynn.  Monsignor Murphy lacked episcopal permission from his local ordinary, namely Finn, to make that report.  The Monsignor assumed Finn was not happy that he did.[27]

 

Earlier, 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.  The Philadelphia court sentenced Lynn to three to six years in prison.[28]  No court has sentenced Murphy to anything.

 

The first hierarchic confusion centers on the sexual abuse coverup.  The second hierarchic confusion is in the 2011 Missal.  The papacy at least gives lip service that care of souls is the first responsibility of the hierarchy.[29]  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 [and Christians] are no longer Israel, for all things are to be new, and Israel too must become new.”[30]  In other words, the Faithful need to be open to the vagaries of the New Covenant. 

 

My pastor at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Newport News, Virginia, the Reverend John David Ramsey, writes, “[through time] 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.”[31]  In the process, the Church moved from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the vernaculars, including English.

 

Lack of standard American English in the illiterate 2011 Missal prevents the Faithful from clear, critical thinking about God.  Research shows that encouraging people to think analytically reduces their tendency to believe in God, whereas encouraging people to think intuitively (naval gazing) increases their tendency to believe in God.[32]  Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both, are in the intuitive, naval-gazing mode.  In the present circumstance, the Apostolic See is exercising an unadulterated power play, closed to cultures in the United States of America.  Follow along and witness how the Papacy 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 of the Missal.  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:”[33]

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.  Time will tell what the Papacy will do next.

 

The Papacy gives lip-service that the Faithful deserve readability, integrity, scholarship, “`language which is easily understandable’ to the faithful.[34]  . . . Liturgiam authenticam calls for the development and consistency of a distinctive translation style with these principal characteristics . . . (2) easy intelligibility . . . ”[35] 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 intuitively 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][36] 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.[37]

 

Personal Notes strongly disagrees with the above abusive run-on sentence grammar but agrees with the substance and offers paraphrasing, which ratio translationis legitimates in another place.[38]  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 Appendices for the more curious readers. 

 

Commentator Todd Flowerday uncovers some of the secrecy involved, hiding the Papal standards of translation.  In July 2011, Flowerday explained, “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.”[39]  The Papacy 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 (as of July 1, 2012) to Personal Notes.  Ratio translationis lists Terms for Capitalization,[40] 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.  On April 1, I was developing material for July 1.

 

In other cases, translators are to follow, with some exceptions, Latin capitalization.[41]  Flowerday comments,[42]

 

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 Moroney [James P. Moroney, Executive Secretary to the Vox Clara Committee][43] 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.

 

See Appendix II, Specific Comments for this Sunday, beginning on page 22/31.

 

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.[44]

 

The Papacy mocks the venerable Chicago Manual of Style.[45]  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.[46]  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.[47]

 

“However, the use of `sense lines' or colometry (`the measuring of the length of phrases’) has now been introduced into liturgical books . . . ”[48] 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 the 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 the Sunday, when Personal Notes are presented to http://www.jamesriverjournal.net/.  Uploading to the James River Journal ended about 2013.  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.

 

God, who manifest is not standard American English.  God, who manifests is standard American English.  Lack of subject-verb agreement sounds like Black or African American Language (BL or AAL), defined as “a style of speaking English words with Black flava—with Africanized semantic, grammatical, pronunciation, and rhetorical patterns.”[49]  I have a reservation about this definition, because my students, both Black and White, pointed out that Blacks learned their English mainly from lower-class Whites.  I have heard Whites speaking Black English, not with the sophistication Smitherman brings to the subject, but at least in diction and pronunciation.

 

Misuse of interjections, such as we pray and 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 discombobulation.[50]  One priest has found a solution. 

 

Father Jim Blue writes, “I find that all the `O’s’ can be dropped easily, as well as all the instances of `we pray.’  But those are merely cosmetic improvements that can’t conceal the ugliness of the whole.”[51]  The O’s are not in the originating Latin, so editing the O’s seems to suit Papal rules for translation.  There is more on the O’s below.

 

Dallen explains,[52]

 

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 problem is whether Church politics determines truth or truth determines Church politics.  Ramsey offers insight.[53]

 

. . . Modernity, so thoroughly characterized by the rise of the nation-state and the privatization and marginalization of “religion,” can be identified as the decadent form of Christendom, rather than its replacement:  for the post-Constantinian church, Modernity is the logical outcome of the failure of the church to remain singularly faithful to the God who saves them, the result of the church’s tense devotion to two powers [the empire of Constantine and the nation-states of Modern Times].

 

Faithfulness to God means Faithfulness to truth, rather than politics, in particular the politics of prioritizing (1) the welfare of the institutional Church over the welfare of the victims of clerical sexual abuse and (2) the Latin language of the institutional Church over standard American English in the United States.

 

In a word, Faithfulness means devotion to truth rather than politics.  The Protestant Revolt tracked the problem to Ezekiel (deported to Babylon in 598 BC).[54]  Protestants concluded, “It was principally their hatred of the truth that evoked the wrath of God,” sending Juda into captivity and exile.[55]  Obfuscating the truth with incomprehensible language is one sign of hating truth in this Twenty-first Century.

 

Dallen points out that none of the heads of the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) were fluent in English.[56]  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;[57] 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 at the second may 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.”[58]

 

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.”

 

Dallen comments,[59]

 

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.

 

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. 

 

Readability

 

The first sentence of the Collect contains thirty-eight words, in an 18.1 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability indicates the number of formal school years it takes to understand the material.  The first sentence of the Collect is a fused sentence.[60]

 

My version of Microsoft Word 2010 Spelling & Grammar checker provides Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.[61]  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,”[62] 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 breaks down the statistics in four categories of those eligible for free or reduced price lunch:  0-25 percent; 26-50 percent; 51-75 percent; 76-100 percent.  Personal Notes is taking that last category as 100 percent eligible for free or reduced price lunch.[63]

 

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.  In 2013, it was thirty-two percent for Fourth Graders, twenty-two percent for Eighth Graders.[64]  Little change.  The Department 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 thirty-four words, in a 15.0 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  It is a fused sentence.  The paraphrased Prayer after Communion has a 9.1 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.

 

The second sentence of the Collect has twenty-seven words with a 9.7 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.[65]

 

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

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

 

That is why the revised Collect has four , rather than two, sentences.  The revised Collect has a 4.5 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.

 

Non-American English, such as Welsh, Scottish, British, or South African, can appear illiterate to Americans in the United States.[66]  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),[67] but no one is trying that.

 

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.[68] 

 

Foreign-born priests need their local ordinaries (bishops) to insist they keep improving their use of standard American English.  In my personal experience, Filipino priests mispronounce the sounds accents, and rhythm 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 respective ICEL Collect and Prayer after Communion have 9.8 and 17.0 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readabilities. 

 

The Latin omits the O in the Missal O God and O Lord.  The argument that the English is to stay close to the Latin does not hold up.  The English has O Lord.  The Latin has only Dómine, without the O.  O is a Latin word.[69] 

 

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.[70]

 

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

 

Through . . . is a sentence fragment the Missal uses throughout the book.  The Little, Brown Handbook explains,[71]

 

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> . . . .”  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 otherwise unchallenged by Personal Notes.

 

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.

 

Returning to the capitalization problem, from Appendix I, in the Prayer after Communion, the Latin does not capitalize mortem, but the Missal does capitalize Death.  Death is not on the list of words capitalized, regardless of the Latin.[72]  Since the Faithful will not hear the difference between an upper and lower case word, there is no reason to make up inconsistent rules, except, perhaps, to show the arrogance of the translator in the face of anyone objecting to the illiterate 2011 Missal.  Revisions take into account the hearing of the faithful.  Capitalizing Death is meaningless for the Faithful, who will only hear (rather than see and read) the Prayer after Communion. 

 


Lord, God, cover our sins with your holy mercy.  Help us pursue your promises.  Make us heirs to heaven above.  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.

 

Holy Father, may the mystery of your Triune Eucharistic presence make us heirs in glory with the crucified Christ.  We ask you to raise us on the last day, through Jesus, who lives and reigns forever with you and the Holy Spirit.

 



[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] Personal Notes begins the examination of “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal” at Reading 1130 Missal 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time_A Catholic Bible Study 120805, that is August 5, 2012.  The Missal, referenced for this Twenty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time, 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, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011) page 49 Section #154  Subsequent references are to the numbered sections, which run to #399 on page 87.  These references will first provide the page number in my Missal, followed by the section number, as follows:  79, #361.

 

[3] 81, #373.

 

[4] “Parallel Event organized by the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See:  Towards preserving the universality of human rights:  The gender agenda divorces the human person from himself or from herself, from his or her body and anthropological structure,” L’Osservatore Romano: Weekly Edition in English, Vol. 55, No. 21, Vatican City Wednesday, 23 May, 2012 pages 6-7.

[5] David S. Bovée, review of Patrick J. Hayes, A Catholic Brain Trust:  The History of the Catholic Commission on Intellectual and Cultural Affairs, 1945-1965, The American Historical Review, Vol. 117, No. 4 (December 2012) 1622-1623.

 

 

[6] 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) 133.

 

[7] 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) 121.

 

[8] 86, #397.

 

[9] 86, #397.  The Missal references Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 23.

 

[10] 86, #398.

 

[11] http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html (accessed July 1, 2012).

 

[12] 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 476 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/  The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website.  (accessed July 2, 2012).

 

[13] See pagina 476 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/  The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website.  (accessed July 2, 2012).

 

[14] 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 916 (239/362) , 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).

 

[15] 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 917 (240/362), 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).

 

 

[16] 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).

 

[17] 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).

 

[18] n.a., “Ad-libbing priest removed,”  Belleville, Ill,, National Catholic Reporter: The Independent News Source, Vol. 48, No. 19 (July 6—19, 2012), page 3, column 3, below the fold.

 

 

[19] 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.

 

[20] 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).

 

[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] Daisy Grewal, “Advances:  Psychology:  How Critical Thinkers Lose Their [sic] Faith in God:  Faith and intuition are intimately related,” Scientific American, Vol. 307, No. 1 (July 2012) 26.

 

[24] 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).

 

[25] 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. 

 

[26] John L. Allen, Jr., “German friend of liberation theologian named Vatican doctrinal czar,”  http://ncronline.org/print/blogs/ncr-today/german-friend-liberation-theologian-named-vatican-doctrinal-czar and http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/german-friend-liberation-theologian-named-vatican-doctrinal-czar (accessed July 5, 2012).

 

[27] Joshua J. McElwee, Kansas City, Missouri, September 6, 2012, “Update 2:  First bishop found guilty in sex abuse crisis,” http://ncronline.org/print/news/accountability/judge-rule-kansas-city-bishop-diocese-separately (accessed September 7, 2012).  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). 

 

[28] 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).

 

[29] 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).

 

[30] 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. 

 

[31] John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-une Dynamic of the Christian Life (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002) 37.

 

[32] Daisy Grewal, “Advances:  Psychology:  How Critical Thinkers Lose Their [sic] Faith in God:  Faith and intuition are intimately related,” Scientific American, Vol. 307, No. 1 (July 2012) 26.

 

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

 

[34] “. . . .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.

 

[35] 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 .

 

[36] Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One (New York:  HarperCollins Publishers, 2011) 51.

 

[37] 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).

 

[38] . . . 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.

 

[39] 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.

 

[40] 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).

 

[41] 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[45] 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.  .

 

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

 

[47] 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).

 

[48] 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.

[49] Geneva Smitherman, Word from the Mother:  Language and African Americans (New York:  Routledge, 2006) 3.  Also see 6, 9, which is not my meaning or concern.

 

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

 

[51] Fr. Jim Blue on May 17, 2012—1:54 p.m., comment on America magazine at http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/05/17/america-on-the-new-translation/  (accessed May 24, 2012).

 

[52] 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.

[53] John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-une Dynamic of the Christian Life (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002) 50-51.

 

[54] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05737b.htm (accessed June 26, 2012).

 

[55] n.a., “Overview,” for Ezekiel 25:1—27:36 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) 138. 

 

[56] 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.

 

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

 

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

 

 

[59] 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.

 

 

[60] 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. 

 

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

 

[62] 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.

 

[63] 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.

 

[64] https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=U.S.+Department+of+Education%2C+percentage+of+Fourth+graders+read+below+basic+achievement+levels%3B+Eighth+Graders.++  (accessed July 5, 2015).

[65] 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.

 

[66] 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).

 

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

 

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

 

 

[69] 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.

 

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

 

[71] 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).

 

[72] 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 117 (accessed July 4, 2012).