Roman Missal[1]

 

I. Introduction

 

When Jesus said, “learn from me, because I am meek and humble of heart” (Matthew 11:29), Jesus proclaimed his philosophy of education.  Jesus was not saying the Faithful should learn meekness and humility, but that they should listen because Jesus would not embarrass them or lord it over them.  Jesus provided learning as a service, rather than as a bludgeon to make the Faithful do as he said.

 

In this regard, the Protestant revolutionary, William Greenhill (1591-1671) warned,[2]

 

When princes are in the seat of honor, [and] have great means coming in, then they look big, begin to deify themselves, to do what they like, not minding him who exalted them but confiding in their own strength, power and greatness, which makes way for their speedy ruin.

 

Where Greenhill writes, “to do what they like,” he means to let the politics of their position determine what is allowed as true, rather than to let truth determine the politics of their position.  The Papacy imposing the 2011 Missal on the Faithful in the United States exemplified “to do what they like.”  The prayer for this Sunday is that the Papacy might not be facing speedy ruin.

 

Despite dysfunctional leadership, the Church persists.  Father John David Ramsey, my pastor at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Newport News, Virginia, explains.[3]

 

In the same way that Israel’s relationship with God is characterized by the physical quality of the word which is to be bound upon their flesh and to pervade their daily lives, so also the church’s relationship with God is characterized by the physical quality of the presence of the incarnate God within the community and the community’s response with a particular way of life patterned upon that of Jesus Christ.

 

Father John David regards the Faithful as having divided loyalties between devotion to the City of God, as Saint Augustine of Hippo expressed it in his book of the same name, and the City of Man.[4]  There is a point, however, where pretending to be counter-cultural is a false dichotomy.  That point is where the Faithful themselves form and help form their own culture.  This is especially the case with the Roman Catholic Faithful who hold public office, like the Vice Presidency of the United States of America.  To the extent that the Faithful are responsible for their own culture, the Faithful cannot be counter-cultural. 

 

Closer to home, Father John David seems to hold the Church above the fray.  There are priestly actions reserved to those ordained that are above the fray in which the non-ordained dare not participate, such as blessing a casket with holy water in Church, just before a funeral Mass begins.  That strikes me, as pre-Vatican II nonsense.  To the extent that the community makes its own culture, the community is responsible for that culture.  The cultural issue is not between the sacramentally ordained and the non-sacramentally-ordained, but between power and truth; whether power determines truth or whether truth determines power. 

 

Democratic elections are very much about the attempt to let truth determine who exercises power.  The Roman Catholic Church derives its human power from a model of monarchy, rather than democracy.  In a monarchy, only the monarch determines what is true.  In the case of the monarch-Papacy, the Papacy determines what and who is reserved for ordination and the ordained.

 

All of which gets back to the illiterate 2011 Missal, a Missal designed to harbor power in the sacramentally ordained and to deny power to the non-sacramentally-ordained.  As with Petruchio below, while nonsense begets nonsense in the realm of truth; nonsense does not beget nonsense in the realm of power. 

 

Denying power to those not sacramentally ordained exposes the hypocrisy of proclaiming one is ordained to serve the Faithful all the while one is lording over the Faithful.  The prayer for this Sunday is that the Papacy might not be facing speedy ruin.  With the Responsorial Psalm, the faithful pray, “Our help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.”  (cf. Psalm 121:27)

 

II. Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

 

A. Missal:      Almighty ever-living God, grant that we may always conform our will to yours and serve your majesty in sincerity of heart.  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:[5]  Omnípotens sempitérne Deus, fac nos tibi semper et devótam gérere voluntátem, et maiestáti tuae sincéro corde servíre.  Per Dóminum.

 

To make the Paraphrased Prayers easier to find, Personal Notes repeats them on the last page.  Only the heartiest souls will want to plow through the preceding Appendix (see the heading on page 6/40), week after week, after identifying more and more repetitious nonsense.

 

C. Paraphrased:      God, let us always join our wills to yours.  Give us the grace to serve your holiness from the depths of our beings.  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: Bold print in the single-spaced material highlights problems developed throughout this essay.

 

III. Prayer after Communion

 

A. Missal:      Grant, O Lord, we pray, that, benefiting from participation in heavenly things, we may be helped by what you give in this present age and prepared for the gifts that are eternal.  Through Christ our Lord.

 

B. Italian-Latin:[6]  Fac nos, quaesumus, Dómine, caeléstium rerum frequentatióne profícere, ut et temporálibus benefíciis adiuvémur, et erudiámur aetérnis.  Per Christum.

 

C. Paraphrased:      Lord, enable us to benefit from the reception of this Holy Communion.  Let what you have given us now, prepare us for your holy gifts, including the Holy Spirit, in the next life.  We ask this through Jesus, the Christ.

IV. ICEL

 

Prayer before reading Sacred Scripture (Collect)

ICEL:[7]           God ever faithful and true, form our wills at all times to accord with your own, and so direct our hearts, that we may render you undivided service. 

 

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:[8]           Foster your life within us, Lord, by the celebration of the heavenly mysteries:  bless us with your help from day to day and so prepare our hearts for the world to come.

 

We make our prayer through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 


Human Rights

 

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 is working 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."[9]  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 coverup of sexual abuse. 

 

GIRM recognizes “. . . prayer for human rights and equality . . . observed . . . at times to be designated by the Diocesan Bishop.”[10]  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.[11]  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.[12]  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. 

 

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.”[13]  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.”[14]  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.[15]  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.”[16]  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 . . .”[17]  The full quotation cited by the Missal is:[18]

 

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 spirit of a human right for people in the United States to pray in standard American English, the newly-founded Association of U.S. Catholic Priests passed the following resolution at its first full meeting in June in Tampa Florida.  Except to change the grammar from “the Association . . . urge . . . ” to “the Association . . . urges,” Personal Notes seconds the resolution.  [19]

 

The New Roman Missal

·                Whereas Canon 278§1 asserts: “Secular clerics have the right to associate with others to pursue purposes in keeping with the clerical state”; and

·                Whereas Canon 298§1 includes clerics among the Christian faithful; and

·                Whereas Canon 212§3 states: “According to the knowledge, competence and prestige which they possess, they (the Christian faithful) have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons”; and

·                Whereas Canon 215 declares: “The Christian faithful are at liberty freely to found and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common pursuit of these purposes”; and

·                Whereas Canon 218 affirms: “Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church”; and

·                Whereas Bishops are guaranteed collegial powers and responsibilities documented in the Vatican II Decree, Christus Dominus, (especially in ¶s 2 through 6), thereby preserving the integrity of their Apostolic Office.  A reference from ¶2 points out:  “Bishops, therefore, have been made true and authentic teachers of the faith, pontiffs, and pastors [sic] through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to them”; and

·                Whereas the Missale Romanum, Editio Typica Tertia (herein, New Roman Missal) has caused disharmony, disruption and discord among many, for both laity (including religious non-clerical men and women), and for clerics, in our Church, frustrating rather than inspiring the Eucharistic prayer experience of the Christian faithful, thus leading to less piety and to less “full, active and conscious participation” in the Mass, (cf. Canons 898 and 899 §s 2 and 3 and Vatican II Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, ¶11 and 14); and

·                Whereas the New Roman Missal, as we have experienced it in our day to day celebrations of the Eucharist with the faithful, has created pastoral problems, in particular because of its cumbersome style, arcane vocabulary, grammatical anomalies, and confusing syntax;

Be it resolved that the Association of United States Catholic Priests urge our Bishops, who are also our Pastors, to exercise their collegial powers and responsibilities by addressing in a collegial way, with the appropriate Vatican authorities, the problematic prescriptions of Liturgiam authenticam [sic] which brought about the New Roman Missal.

 

The two most recent translations of the Code of Canon Law are 1985[20] and 1998.  The official Code has not changed since 1985 and is in Latin.[21]  I have a problem with the veracity of the 1998 [used above] translation because the following ungrammatical sentence made it through proof reading.  “After this review process was completed, it became evident that additional work was still needed to created [sic] a more easily readable English [Code of Canon Law] text.”[22]

 

The Reverend Michael G. Ryan begins to explain the Missal, “To read these [2011 Missal] prayers is difficult; to call them prayerful is to redefine the word; to pray them is almost impossible.” The matter has broad cultural implications.  According to standard American English, the prayers are so difficult to understand that I refer to the “illiterate 2011 Missal.”  Ryan refers to “virtually unintelligible translations.”[23]  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.

 

James Dallen, a retired diocesan priest[24] and emeritus professor of religious studies at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, 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.[25]

 

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 this vein, on June 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.”[26]  This is apparently different from paraphrasing the 2011 illiterate Missal.  Rowe appealed his removal, first to Braxton, then to the Vatican.  In July, Rowe did not think he had much of a chance for reinstatement.

 

In September, the Congregation for the Clergy reinstated Rowe, if he could find a diocese to accept him.  The Congregation allowed Bishop Braxton to remove Rowe from his parish and to deny Rowe faculties in the Mount Carmel diocese.[27]  Rowe might have a friend in Cardinal Donald Wuerl.  Wuerl may be leading the way when he writes, “Planting the [Gospel] seed may mean that we learn new styles of communication . . . ,”[28] apparently what Rowe is doing.

 

In an attempt to use the prayers the anti-intellectual, anti-Vatican-II, dysfunctional, illiterate current Papacy is now setting forth, these Personal Notes have taken on a yearlong 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.  At that time, the intention is to return to the Lectionary.

 

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 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, except for one comment from Vince Locascio, Saturday, July 21, 2017 at http://www.jamesriverjournal.net/index.php/bloggers/dr-raymond-jirran/110-the-catholic-church-republican-bishops-and-oh-those-women.

 

Although I methodically send Personal Notes to Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond, he has never acknowledged my efforts.  Aymond may be trying to leave the impression either that he can or is ignoring me.  Archbishop 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).  Care for an abusive institutional church and care for souls compromise the bishop.  Standard American English would focus on the care of souls, rather than the preservation of the institutional Church.  That is why, immediately after uploading these ruminations to my web site at http://www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes/Personal%20Notes.htm, I do methodically send a copy to the Archbishop. 

 

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 [sic] (Washington, DC [sic]: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011).  The Collect and Prayer after Communion for this Sunday are on page 489.  Scholars are analyzing that 2011 Missal.

 

Dallen, one such scholar, has written a whole article, quoted from above, that sheds light.  Dallen observes that an institutional Church model exists that prioritizes preserving the Church institution, over 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?”[29]  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. 

 

Before proceeding, 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.  That preference presents grave danger for Faith.  Daisy Grewal has a relevant article, “How Critical Thinkers Lose Their [sic] Faith in God:  Faith and intuition are intimately related.”[30]  Grewal reports that critical thinking takes time that faith and intuition do not require.  Critical thinkers, therefore, tend to lose their faith. 

 

To counter this trend, Personal Notes takes an analytical, critical thinking approach to the prayers of the Missal.  This approach is time-consuming and often painful.  For Personal Notes, this approach begins with an interest in the Black Apostolate for which Faith combined with intuition combine to perpetuate racism, to say nothing of the other irrational prejudices that uncovering racism reveals. 

 

When an analytical scholar like Dallen gets emotional, therefore, 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 pre-Vatican II priests, who received communion for and in place of the people; with the Vatican Holy See not following its own Liturgiam authenticam rules of “translation;” and with substituting uniformity for Christian unity.  In what follows, Personal Notes places the exclamation points in context.  Dallen uses his first exclamation point as follows.

 

Though `many’ and `all’ contrast in meaning in English [at the Eucharistic Prayers], 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.[31]

 

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/trivial, as in the paraphrased 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.  This hurts.  Personal Notes brings concerns and emotions similar to Dallen to the illiterate 2011 Missal.

 

The Papacy is confusing care for souls with care for 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 closely with 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 abuse 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,[32] 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.[33]  Personal Notes will watch to see of Levada dares to return to the United States to face possible prosecution for covering up sexual abuse of children.

 

L’Osservatore Romano carried a politically correct interview with Müller that offers hope.  Müller said, “We must never be afraid of intellectual confrontation.”  I will believe he means that when the administration of The Catholic University of America engages the censure of the American Association of University Professors.  Müller also said “the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] must first of all promote the faith and make it understandable. . . . we can listen in our own language to the one Word of God.”  I will believe that when I see him authorize consideration revamping the 2011 illiterate Missal.[34] 

 

To stay with the first hierarchic confusion about the sexual-abuse coverup, imperious Roman behavior only makes things worse.  Lest there be any misunderstanding of the criminal seriousness of the sexual abuse coverup, unlike the Cardinals, Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri has not been able to escape.  On Thursday, September 6, 2012, 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.[35]

 

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.  On July 24, the Philadelphia court sentenced Lynn to three to six years in prison.[36]  No court has sentenced Murphy to anything.  The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) said, “Considering all the kids whose innocence was shattered (or, in some whose lives were lost to suicide), we believe that Msgr. Lynn deserved the harshest punishment.  Still, this sentence sends a powerful message:  cover-up child sex crimes and you’ll go to jail.”

 

Additionally, on June 28, Jackson County, Kansas Judge John Torrence ordered Finn and his Kansas City-Saint Joseph diocese to grant prosecutors access to their child pornography investigative files.  Involvement with child pornography would be a separate trial.[37]  On August 2, a Kansas City-Saint Joseph diocesan priest, Shawn Ratigan, pled guilty to federal charges of possession, production [sic] and attempted production of child pornography.  The Western District of Missouri Federal Court did not set a date for sentencing.[38]

 

Catholic officials are fighting back, against the very ones at SNAP trying to excise the sexual-abuse coverup from Holy Mother, the Church.

 

Any day now, we may hear from the Missouri Supreme Court  about our emergency writ seeking to block the ten-month effort by Kansas City Catholic officials to get potentially hundreds of pages of records—spanning twenty-four years—from victims, witnesses, whistleblowers, police, prosecutors, journalists and parishioners who have sought SNAP’s help.  Last month, on very short notice, we filed the writ, along with positive amicus briefs by twenty-six groups, four former prosecutors and two current prosecutors.  We were humbled by the outpouring of support from so many.  (Copies of these documents—and all the pleadings in the case—are posted on our website [SNAPnetwork.org].

 

I did not find the documents at the SNAP website.  On August 20, 2012, I sent an email to SNAP asking for a complete URL.  So far, there has not been a response.

 

The second hierarchic confusion is in the 2011 Missal.  To begin, the Papacy does offer lip-service that care for souls is the first responsibility of the hierarchy.[39]  In reality, lack of due diligence and leadership in the care for 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.”[40]  In other words, the Faithful need to be open to the vagaries of the New Covenant. 

 

As the Father John David writes about ancient Christianity, “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.”[41]  The new 2011 Missal is closed to such openness.  This time the problem is finding the hand of God inside the church.

 

Lack of standard American English inhibits the Faithful from clear, critical thinking about God.  The Apostolic See is exercising an unadulterated power play.  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, rather than the spiritual welfare of the Faithful.

 

In apparent loyalty to the institutional Church, in agreement that the 2011 Missal follows the rules of translation, Archbishop Aymond grants his Concordat cum originali (agrees with the original), on page 4.  The Missal has neither an Imprimatur (let it be printed) nor 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:”[42]

That “list” comports with whatever clarity the Congregation for Divine Faith (CDF) had about how the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) Sisters were to change.  Petruchio was no more vague than the Papacy.

Katharina’s spirit is broken.  Petruchio’s power play has won.  As the audience watches Petruchio’s nonsense, their hearts go out to poor Kate, trying to cope.  Likewise, hearts go out to Archbishop Aymond.

 

Shakespeare wrote in the Seventeenth Century.  Father John David bemoans the Seventeenth Century development of Biblical studies that continues to the present.[43]  

 

Instead of providing the framework wholly sufficient for the [Seventeenth Century and later] guidance and identity of the church in every aspect of its life, the Scriptures provide a matrix for a larger, more abstract framework of “salvation history” which inhabits the narrative but also transcends it.

 

Father John David is struggling with the relationship between the church imposing its version of politics upon the truth and the state accepting the truth, wherever it may lead.  I see this struggle most clearly in students who are creationists, because of the Bible—students who were never taught creationism in any classroom.  By a show of hands, between one and two-thirds of my Thomas Nelson Community College students, fifteen years ago, believed in creationism, despite what thy had been taught in public schools, all of their lives.  Father John David neither combines nor separates the distinction Catholics make between Sacred Scripture and tradition.  Tradition can be understood as church politics imposed upon Sacred Scripture.  Personal Notes regards tradition as something that can fluctuate, depending on how the Faithful understand Sacred Scripture. 

 

At the time of the Protestant Revolt, John Mayer (1583-1664) warned, during the Seventeenth Century “. . . how great a sin it is for the wicked and those seduced by error in religion to hate the professors of the truth.  For this the wrath of God shall burn against them until they be destroyed . . . ”[44]  Mayer was commenting on Ezekiel 25:1—26:21, which the Sunday Lectionary does not use.  With Mayer, Personal Notes is suggesting that there are consequences when the institutional church denies the truth, with the result, in this instance, that salvation history can both inhabit and transcend history.  With Father John David, Personal Notes asserts that Sacred Scripture is embedded in history and can transcend history only artificially.  The effort Personal Notes is putting into understanding the illiterate 2011 Missal is a search for truth in the midst of unwarranted church politics.

 

Like other scholars, such as theologians, historians, like me, interpret facts.  The difference is that the subject matter for historians includes everything that has ever happened, whereas other scholars, such as theologians, focus on a slice of history, such as the relationship between God and humanity.  Personal Notes has no problem feeling the everyday presence of God in the ongoing struggle between truth and politics and is disinclined to slice God off into transcending the historical narrative.

 

Personal Notes is arguing that theologians had little option other than to transcend salvation history above the narrative, because otherwise the narrative would not suit current church politics.  To illustrate:  it took the Papacy four hundred years to apologize to Galileo for saying that Earth is not the center of the universe.  The current Missal is set on a similar track, heading back into an era that never existed, rather than making the best of the current situation and looking forward to future options and possibilities.

 

The Missal contains compound, complex, convoluted sentences, often extending over forty words, resulting in non-standard American English.  As the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests puts it, “cumbersome style, arcane vocabulary, grammatical anomalies, and confusing syntax.”  The Teaching Magisterium imposes such nonsense, read from the altar each Sunday, with the excuse that 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 Papacy gives hypocritical lip-service that the Faithful deserve readability, integrity, scholarship, “`language which is easily understandable’ to the faithful.[45]  . . .  Liturgiam authenticam calls for the development and consistency of a distinctive translation style with these principal characteristics . . . (2) easy intelligibility . . . ”[46] that easy intelligibility is the reason for Personal Notes.  That is why Personal Notes pays attention to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  That nothing coming from the Apostolic See recognizes a need to check Grade Level Readability brings to mind “The Taming of the Shrew.”

 

The fifty word 23.9 post graduate Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability sentence that follows, from ratio translationis, exemplifies that it is the moon, or sun, or star, 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][47] 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.[48]

 

Personal Notes strongly disagrees with the above abusive run-on sentence genre but agrees with and offers paraphrasing, which ratio translationis legitimates in another place.[49]  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.”[50]  The Papacy is secretive and, because secretive, also arbitrary.

 

Few care.  For others the Papacy is irrelevant.  To illustrate, many care where secrecy matters to people, for example the United States Internal Revenue Service records of presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney.  For example on July 19, goggling, on the one hand, for “`Romney’s tax records’” found about 55,500 results in 0.24 seconds.  Goggling for “`Papal rules of translation,’” on the other hand, found no results.

 

Those who have followed Personal Notes over the past ten years, know “sloppy scholarship” appears too often.  Below is another case of “don’t have to 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.[51]

 

The Papacy mocks the venerable Chicago Manual of Style.[52]  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.[53]  Like Petruchio, the Papacy is making it up as it goes along.

 

In a larger context, 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.[54]

 

Finally, the Missal asserts, “However, the use of `sense lines' or colometry (`the measuring of the length of phrases’) has now been introduced into liturgical books . . . ”[55] 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 is 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 is 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.

 

At conform in the first sentence of the Collect, my version of Microsoft Word 2010 Spelling & Grammar checker remarks:

 

Verb Confusion

For correct usage, you may need to reword your sentence by adding a preposition directly after the marked verb or by substituting a more appropriate verb. It is incorrect to put a direct object after the marked verb.

In the Prayer after Communion, by placing the verb, grant, first, the Missal does not follow either Latin (subject-object-verb)[56] or standard American English (subject-verb-object) word order.  Word order in Vatican Italian may not provide the subject before the verb.  The Little Brown Handbook explains standard American English.  “Word order in English sentences may not correspond to word order in the sentences of your native language.  English, for instance, strongly prefers subject first, then verb, then any other words, whereas some other languages prefer the verb first.”  That is what is happening in this prayer.  The verb, grant, is first.[57]

 

Misuse of interjections, such as O Lord and we pray, contributes to the conglomeration of meaninglessness and is very confusing to listeners.  The Little, Brown Handbook gives some examples, hey, oh, darn, wow.  An interjection is “a word standing by itself or inserted in a construction to exclaim or command attention.”  A forceful interjection is set off with an exclamation point, a mild interjection with a comma.  The Missal only uses mild interjections and that is a cause of discombobulating.[58]  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.”[59]  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.

 

The problem is whether Church politics determines truth or truth determines Church politics.  Father John David offers insight.[60]

 

 . . . 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.

 

Faithfulness means devotion to truth rather than politics.  The Protestant Revolt tracked the problem to Ezekiel (deported to Babylon in 598 BC).[61]  Protestants concluded, “It was principally their hatred of the truth that evoked the wrath of God,” sending Juda into captivity and exile.[62]  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 of Divine Worship (CDW) were fluent in English.[63]  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. 

 

Dallen explains more,[64]

 

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.”

 

To return to the history, Father John David notes,[65]

 

The rise of the state as an abstract entity demanding the primary allegiance of its citizens in combination with Luther’s undercutting of the church’s authority assured that by the end of the seventeenth century the long-standing relationship between civil and ecclesial authority which defined Christendom had been transformed, such that the civil or nation-state had become the primary object of allegiance, with “religion” playing a supporting role as privately held belief which engenders loyalty to the State, whether that “religion” be Protestant, Catholic or anything else.

 

Personal Notes takes a different understanding of ecclesial authority which defined Christendom.  The problem for both church and state is whether truth determines politics or politics truth.  Father John David  accepts the secular notion that it is legitimate for politics to determine truth. 

 

Personal Notes maintains that, with Christianity, in every age and under every circumstance, truth is to determine politics.  This means that, in Christendom, both church and state derive their authority from truth, rather than from either one or the other.  What happened in Modern Times was the truth that a monetary economy replaced the Medieval barter economy.  The state realized this sooner than the church, which, for Roman Catholics still winds up deliberating just how long the Cardinal cappa magna (like a bridal train) may be.  It used to be 14 meters, but, in 1952, before Vatican II, the Papacy reduced it to seven meters.[66]

 

Might versus may in the Missal:  might connotes ability, wish, or desire;[67] may connotes permission.  According to the Dictionary, may is used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction <may he reign in health> <may they all be damned> <may the best man win>.  I think might sounds better, because the Faithful are expressing a desire, rather than asking permission.  Asking permission (may) suits approach an elitist monarch, like Constantine or the Pope.  Expressing an ability, wish or desire (might) suits approaching a friend.  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.”[68]

 

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,[69]

 

Unfortunately, catechesis is also needed to explain that what we hear at worship is not what we really mean.  Unfamiliar words can be misleading [Familiar words used in an unfamiliar way can also be misleading and make the Faithful distrustful.].  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.

 

Readability

 

The first sentence of the Collect contains twenty-three words, in an 11.8 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.[70]

 

My version of Microsoft Word 2010 Spelling & Grammar checker provides Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.[71]  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,”[72] 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.  In 2013, it was thirty-two percent for Fourth Graders, twenty-two percent for Eighth Graders.[73]  Little change.  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.[74]

 

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 thirty-four words, in a 14.3 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.  It is a fused sentence.  The paraphrased Prayer after Communion has a 7.2 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.[75]

 

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 paraphrased Collect has three, rather than two, sentences.  The paraphrased Collect has a 6.9 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability.

 

Non-American English, such as Scottish, British, or Australian, can appear illiterate to Americans in the United States.[76]  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),[77] or Spanglish,[78] but no one is trying such a scenario.

 

American English is not the first language for many Catholics in the United States.  According to the 2010 United States Census, one in five people, five years and older, speak a foreign language at home.[79]  Pastoral care requires standard American English.  Otherwise, the Faithful are subject to two debilitating conclusions about the readings. 

 

The first untoward 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.[80]  They 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 Little, Brown Handbook has some advice, of which the illiterate 2011 Missal seems oblivious.[81]

 

 . . . 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 10.9 and 8.0 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.  O is a Latin word.[82] 

 

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.[83]

 

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.  See The Little, Brown Handbook explains,[84]

 

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 paraphrase 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.

 

Rationale

Clarity is not a prerequisite for prayer.  The search for clarity can be a means to prayer.  As part of catechesis, these Personal Notes 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.[85]  This Appendix I applies an overview to the whole Missal.  Appendix II concentrates on specific comments for this Sunday.

 

Whenever the Faithful begin Mass with the prayer, “I confess to almighty God . . . that I have greatly sinned,” separating the helping verb (have) from the main verb (sinned), is non-standard American English.  The Little Brown Handbook sets out, “The helping verbs of standard American English may be problematic if you are used to speaking another language or dialect.”[86]  That is the mess into which the Papacy is placing American Catholics in the United States.

 


Lord, enable us to benefit from the reception of this Holy Communion.  Let what you have given us now, prepare us for your holy gifts, including the Holy Spirit, in the next life.  We ask this through Jesus, the Christ.

 

God, let us always join our wills to yours.  Give us the grace to serve your holiness from the depths of our beings.  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.

 



[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] William Greenhill, “An Exposition of Ezekiel,” Exposition, 653-54 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) 156. 

 

[3] John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-une Dynamic of the Christian Life (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002) 95.

 

[4] John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-une Dynamic of the Christian Life (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002) 66-68.

 

[5] 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 479 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/  The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website.  (accessed July 23, 2012).

 

[6] See pagina 479 at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/  The Holy See, Congregation for the Clergy runs this website.  (accessed July 23, 2012).

 

[7] For the Collect see, International Commission on English in the Liturgy:  A Joint Commission of Catholics Bishops’ Conferences (ICEL), The Sacramentary:  Volume One—Sundays and Feasts (Washington, D.C.:  International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1998), page 886 (208/362) , downloaded from https://rs895dt.rapidshare.com/#!download|895l35|387089704|ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip|6767|R~00A3D4012C6FE19956DB84F71E5405F6|0|0 at http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/?page_id=23 (accessed December 8, 2011).

 

[8] For Prayer after Communion see, International Commission on English in the Liturgy:  A Joint Commission of Catholics Bishops’ Conferences (ICEL), The Sacramentary:  Volume One—Sundays and Feasts (Washington, D.C.:  International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1998), page 887 (210/362), downloaded from https://rs895dt.rapidshare.com/#!download|895l35|387089704|ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip|6767|R~00A3D4012C6FE19956DB84F71E5405F6|0|0 at http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/?page_id=23 (accessed December 8, 2011).

 

 

[9] 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.

 

[10] 81, #373.

 

[11] “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.

[12] 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.

 

 

[13] 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.

 

[14] 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.

 

[15] 86, #397.

 

[16] 86, #397.  The Missal references Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 23.

 

[17] 86, #398.

 

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

 

[19] http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/07/14/association-of-us-catholic-priests-calls-for-reexamination-of-liturgical-translation/  (accessed July 15, 2012 @ 2:47 p.m.).  I feel obligated to leave unchanged the non-standard noun/verb agreement in the final resolution, because of the nature of the message.

 

[20] The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by The Canon Law Society of America, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel (eds.) (New York: Paulist Press, 1985)

 

[21] Telephone conversation with the office of the Canon Law Society of America, July 17, 2012.

 

[22] Canon Law Society of America, Code of Canon Law:  Latin-English Edition:  New English Translation (Washington, DC  20017:  Canon Law Society of America, 1998) xviii.

 

[23] 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).

 

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

 

[25] 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.

 

 

[26] 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.

 

[27] Tim Townsend, September 27, 2012, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Vatican lifts suspension of priest who altered prayers at Mass,”  http://ncronline.org/print/news/people/vatican-lifts-suspension-priest-who-altered-prayers-mass (accessed October 5, 2012).

 

[28] Cardinal Donald Wuerl, “The Good News:  What is the Synod on the New Evangelization?  We cannot share what we do not have,” The Priest, Vol. 68, No. 10 (October 2012) 12.

 

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

 

[30] 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.

 

 

[31] 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).

 

[32] 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. 

 

[33] 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).

 

[34] Astrid Haas, “Interview with Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:  The crucial factor:  We must make what is entrusted to us shine out, overcoming ideological conflicts in the Church,” L’Osservatore Romano: Weekly Edition in English, Vol. 45, No. 31, Vatican City Wednesday, 1 August, 2012 pages 3-5.  The quotations are from page 3, column 3, below the fold; column 4, below the fold; and page 5 column 3, 4-6 lines from the bottom.

 

[35] 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). 

 

[36] 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).

[37] Joshua J. McElwee, “Diocese ordered to turn over files,”  Kansas City, Missouri, National Catholic Reporter: The Independent News Source, Vol. 48, No. 20 (July 20—August 2, 2012), page 8, columns 1-3, below the fold.

 

[38] Joshua J. McElwee, “Priest pleads guilty to child porn charges,”  Kansas City, Missouri, National Catholic Reporter: The Independent News Source, Vol. 48, No. 22 (August 17-30, 2012), page 11,  below the fold.

 

[39] 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).

 

[40] 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. 

 

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

 

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

 

[43] John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-une Dynamic of the Christian Life (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002) 61.

 

 

[44] John Mayer, “Commentary Upon All the Prophets,” Prophets, 443,

for Ezekiel 25:1—26:21 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) 139. 

 

 

[45] “. . . .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.

 

[46] 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 .

 

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

 

[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.translationis2.pdf for pages 40 (accessed March 31, 2012).

 

[49] . . . 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.

 

[50] 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.

 

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

 

[52] 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.  .

 

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

 

[54] 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).

 

[55] 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.

[56] http://www.google.com/search?q=Does+the+verb+come+last+in+Latin+word+oarder%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=IXc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=iKzVToqRPKLx0gHWxdDrAQ&ved=0CBkQvwUoAQ&q=Does+the+verb+come+last+in+Latin+word+order%3F&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=c5f9ab36cd8b91fa&biw=1472&bih=754  (accessed November 30, 2011).

 

[57] H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, Eleventh Edition:  The Little, Brown Handbook (New York:  Longman, 2010) 236.

 

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

 

[59] 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).

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

 

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

 

[62] 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. 

 

[63] 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.

 

 

[64] 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.

 

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

 

[66] #84 and # 86 Jeffrey Pinyan; #85 Bill deHaas; at http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/07/06/putting-back-whats-missing-in-the-new-mass/ (accessed July 9, 2012).  Also, see http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/understanding-cappa-magna (accessed July 9, 2012); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope (accessed July 9, 2012).

 

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

 

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

 

[69] 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.

 

 

[70] 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. 

 

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

 

[72] 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.

[73] 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).

 

[74] 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.

 

[75] 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.

 

[76] 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).

 

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

 

[78] http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=Spanglish&x=0&y=0  which uses the lower case (accessed April 22, 2012).  My Word 2010 spellchecker uses the upper case, which I am using.

 

[79] Rachael Huggins and Sam Ward, USA TODAY snapshots ®, “Speaking a foreign language at home,”  Source:  Census Bureau, USA Today, Wednesday, July 18, 2012, page  A, column 1, at the bottom.

 

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

 

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

 

[82] 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.

 

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

 

 

[84] 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).

 

[85] 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).

 

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