What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 3rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in January 2005

ER writes via e-mail (Latin cleaned up): “I am not sure whether I heard it correctly. When watching the Papal Mass at the Vatican for Christmas, on TV, I was jolted when I thought I heard the Pontiff recite ‘pro OMNIBUS’ in the consecration.” No, ER, you did not hear him say in Latin “pro omnibus” (literally “for all”, the equivalent of “pro universis” which the Catechism of the Council of Trent of 1566 explains would be improper (Part II, ch. 4). He said “pro multis”. The Holy Father, poor man, is rather hard to understand in any language right now. Nevertheless, this is another example of why it is so vital that we have an accurate English translation of pro multis. We must move away from the execrable and misleading “for all”. Perhaps this is the single most important of the theologically controversial points in any new draft translation in English. You readers can help to secure one by writing kind letters to those involved. I provide addresses on the WDTPRS website or you can write to The Wanderer to obtain them.

Via e-mail GJ takes me to task for my comments about the quality of an ancient Collect not previously in the Missale Romanum but is now in the Novus Ordo (edited): “You will spend your life helping us get something that (is) sub par though better than what we have now.” Well, GJ, that sounds like a step in the right direction. The problem with some Catholics who are attached strongly to the older, venerable way of celebrating Mass is that they think the Novus Ordo should or could be abandoned and the older Mass restored across the board overnight. GJ stays on the attack: “But the real thing is in a whole different category and a good Catholic will go to the true Mass whether it is “allowed” or not. Why don’t you compare the Olde Mass to the new and tell us what you think about that? Would that make you somehow disloyal to VII and this pope?” You are making my point for me: some people think the Missale Romanum of 1962 and its predecessors back to Trent are the be all and end all of prayer without regard for what the prayers (and rubrics) of the post-Conciliar missals really say! They consider only the banal ICEL translations they have heard and the liturgical abuses they have seen. I do enjoy the “olde” spelling of old, GJ, but perhaps thou art not aware that I have spent a good share of my priesthood promoting the celebration of Ye Olde Mass and I have suffered seriously as a result. I have often compared the olde with the new, usually pointing out how much was have lost to our great detriment. I was not ordained a priest for the sake of a book: I was ordained for people. Thus, I have to consider the well-being of everyone in the Church and not just the people I agree with the most. Patience is needed as well as incremental gains.

Friends, I know quite well that many readers of The Wanderer don’t like the Novus Ordo. Some, probably, have been tempted to stop reading because it is hard core enough. But we have to be realistic about the situation we face in the Church. Like it or not, the Novus Ordo is not going away. Neither is the vernacular. Dear traditional Catholics, I share many legitimate aspirations with you. The promotion of sound and beautiful translations is of benefit to everyone in the Church, even to the most dedicated adherent of the “Traditional Latin Mass”, because we are all in this together. We must improve the state of the Church all around and foster improvements gradually. So avoid this siege mentality. The traditional Catholics ought to be the first to write kind letters of encouragement to those who are preparing the new translations! Consider it this way: if once people start getting more of the “real thing” (as GJ puts it), perhaps they will then want even more and become far more interested in traditional expressions. I have seen this pattern again and again with individuals. Let’s see if it works with the whole English speaking Church. Why do you think the liberal progressivists are trying to sidetrack the present draft of the translation being prepared? I am grateful, GJ, that you read WDTPRS with attention and I hope you will continue. Give some gift subscriptions of The Wanderer and see if you can get others to take me to task too. Have at!

Speaking of those trying to axe a better translation, I will decline to share some of the e-mail feedback you have sent about the election of His Excellency Donald W. Trautman, the Erie Bishop in Pennsylvania to the chairmanship of the USCCB’s liturgy committee (BCL). I am trying to maintain a positive tone in this WDTPRS series. The BCL will be involved in the review of the draft translation of the Missal now in preparation. With the Vox Clara committee on the watch and the CDWDS standing firm on the norms they issued in the document Liturgiam authenticam the most the BCL can do is slow the process. This is not nothing, of course. There is an adage in the Church: “cunctando regitur mundus … the world is ruled by delaying.” Oddly, while doing an internet search on my own articles to find when I had quoted that adage in the past, I discovered that WDTPRS is cited in a June 25, 2004 entry in fun blog-site called The Inn At The End Of The World (http://thesixbells.blogspot.com/) run by some liturgically long-suffering soul in Los Angeles who obviously is an aficionado of bagpipes. I have often been associated with bags of hot air, but this is a new one. The blogger wisely and perspicaciously called WDTPRS “indispensable”, which rouses in me the hope that he gave some gift subscriptions to The Wanderer to friends. And now, ad ramos!

COLLECT - LATIN TEXT (2002MR):
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,
dirige actus nostros in beneplacito tuo,
ut in nomine dilecti Filii tui
mereamur bonis operibus abundare.

GJ will be glad that this was in the 1962MR as the Collect for the Sunday in the Octave of Christmas. In the functionally superior Lewis & Short Dictionary we learn that beneplacitum means “good pleasure, gracious purpose”. The preposition in using the ablative case indicates a condition, situation or relation rather than a reference to space where or time when something was occurring. In the Vulgate beneplacitum translates the original Greek eudokia in, e.g., Eph 1:9; 1 Cor 10:5. Other phrases are used for eudokia too (e.g., bona voluntas in Luke 2:14, the famous “peace on earth to men of good will” or “peace on earth good will toward men”). Paul wrote eudokia at the beginning of 2 Thessalonians (1:11-12), rendered as voluntas bonitatis in the Vulgate:

...oramus semper pro vobis ut dignetur vos vocatione sua Deus et impleat omnem voluntatem bonitatis et opus fidei in virtute ut clarificetur nomen Domini nostri Iesu Christi in vobis et vos in illo secundum gratiam Dei nostri et Domini Iesu Christi… we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfill every good resolve (omnem voluntatem bonitatis) and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ (RSV).

We can find connections between 2 Thessalonians and our Collect at several points: mereamur in the Collect with dignetur in Paul (both having to do with meriting or being worth of), beneplacitum with voluntas bonitatis, bona opera with opus fidei (good works flowing from lived faith), nomen Filii with nomen Domini Iesu Christi. Taken in the sense of “gracious purpose” we can make a connection to Paul’s vocatio too, our “calling” or the purpose for which God placed us on this earth with a part of His plan to fulfill.

Abundo means, “to overflow with any thing, to have an abundance or superabundance of, to abound in.” If we go back to the idea of the preposition in and the ablative indicating place or location in space, (in beneplacito tuo) we have an image of our good works originating in God and, coming from Him, overflowing out from us. Some Protestants are under the false impression that Catholics think we can “earn” our way to heaven by our own good works, as if our good works had their own merit apart from God. Catholics believe, however, that true good works always have their origin in God, but the works are truly our works as well since we cooperate with God in performing them. Therefore, having their origin and purpose in God, they merit the reward of God’s promises. Whenever we find a reference to works in these liturgical prayers, do not forget the Catholic understanding of good works.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Almighty eternal God,
direct our actions in your gracious purpose,
so that in the name of Thy beloved Son,
we may merit to abound with good works.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
All-powerful and ever-living God,
direct your love that is within us,
that our efforts in the name of your Son
may bring mankind to unity and peace.

The lame-duck ICEL version’s “All-powerful and ever-living God” for omnipotens sempiterne Deus is not so bad. Quite bad, on the other hand, is their “direct your love that is within us”. The Latin clearly connects God’s own purpose for us and the actions that flow from that purpose. In the ICEL version we have a vague term “love”, rather than the indication of God’s eternal plan. Perhaps this is a bit picky, but when I hear “we may merit to abound with good works”, I think we are abounding because of God’s action within us through the good works He makes meritorious. They overflow from us because of His generosity. In the ICEL version God’s “love” is in us, but this leads to “our efforts”. Yes, this can be reconciled with a Catholic theology of works, but it just doesn’t sound right. Also, I don’t think that “efforts” to “bring mankind to unity and peace” means the same as us “meriting” by God’s grace to “abound with good works”. Please understand: I don’t object to praying for unity and peace, but I think we ought to pray the prayer as the Church gave it to us, what the prayer really says. When we feed the hungry and console those who mourn, visit the shut-in and imprisoned and pray for the dead, sure we are building “unity and peace”, but that phrase is so vague as to mean very little to someone in the pew. The Latin does not say “conatus nostri genus humanum ad unitatem et pacem inducant”.

Is it possible that the guitar strumming and all those kumbayas of the 1960’s affected the ICEL translators choice of words? I suppose we could all stand outside the headquarters of the USCCB and sing, “All we are saying, is give Latin a chance!” while swaying back and forth holding our lighters in the air.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in January 2003

Some feedback: VR writes by e-mail: “Sometimes I think an important quality is lost, an emphasis, when Latin order is restructured to fit ordinary English phrasiology. In the PostCommunion prayer for Epiphany, starting the translation with the “Caelesti lumine” seems more effective to me. “With celestial light, we beseech you Lord, always and everywhere go before us…” At least, I like that better. My husband and I greatly enjoy your column.” I appreciate the comment. At the same time I want to emphasis the fact that I am not trying in these columns to produce smooth and graceful translations fit for use in church. That has never been my purpose. While I accept readily that there are many more elegant ways to render these prayers, I am trying to open up what they mean in a quite literal way. Until such time as the powers-that-be ask me to get involved, I leave the work of making them beautiful to someone else.

In the initial article of this year’s WDTPRS series on the Post communion prayers, using The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development by Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann, SJ I gave a very condensed introduction to the history of this prayer’s development and made comments about its structure. At that time I said that, along the way, we might consider more issues concerning the Post communions as we experienced them. You will by now have started to notice that these prayers invariably concern the effects and benefits we ought to receive from a proper reception of the Holy Communion we will have consumed moments before. Even though the priest is the one saying the prayer, the voice of the prayer is all the faithful who received, not just the priest. We seem always to begin with a phrase of gratitude about the gifts we have received, often with a phrase describing how we have been filled or satisfied or else as a starting point for some effect we are praying for. We often find this as a fact being expressed in the form of an ablative absolute construction or as an independent clause.

Usually what we get in our Post communion prayers is a description of our Catholic Christian belief in the mystery of the Eucharist. We call it “holy” and “gift”. We describe it as a “banquet” which is “heavenly”. It is “nourishment” which is “spiritual”. It does something to us. It is efficacious. Our prayers do not usually speak to Christ, the Head of the Body and High Priest. Rather, they concern themselves with the sacrifice we have just participated in, which in unity with the priest, alter Christus, we have raised up anew to the Father, through Christ (per Dominum). Even though we rarely say explicitly, “thank you”, these prayers are expressions of thanksgiving at the same time as they are petitions. They mirror in this way the “already but not yet” of the Mass and our journey here on earth. The Mass is the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary and the Last Supper, already complete, and at the same time the foreshadowing of the heavenly banquet we have not yet partaken of. Our Christian experience is shaped by the knowledge that out humanity is already ascended to the Father in the victorious resurrection and ascension of the Lord. At the same time, we are yet here in this veil of tears. Already, but not yet. This is why, in my opinion, the Post communion prayers have such a strong element of confident petition: it is a “done deal” as it were, but there is still so much more to be done, both in us and by us. So, we always focus on the sacramental effect of the Communion just made.

We implore God the Father, through the Body and Blood of Christ we have received, to progress surely and securely toward the final triumph of the Lord. Therefore, in our Post communion prayers we are always mindful of the obstacles we face in this life. We are challenged and even attacked in both mind and body. Our interior and exterior lives are both to be helped by God in Communion. The nexus of the Christians interior and exterior (internal spiritual landscape and outward physical words and deeds) is Christian sacrificial love, called charity, which the Lord Himself bound us to. We therefore pray in these prayers for an increase in those things having to do with charity. We want increased fellowship with our neighbors, companions in this earthly pilgrimage. We ask for greater focus on our state in life (pietas…devotio). In effect it is almost as if we are picturing ourselves as perfect in this exact moment of a good holy Communion and we do not want that perfection to slip away. We beg God for that state to continue and persevere in our lives. The power of the One within has in this moment transformed us into Himself (provided, of course, that we have made a good Holy Communion and not a sacrilegious). As the very word indicates, we are “together in union”. When we eat normal food we transform it into who we are: bone, flesh, blood, etc. When we eat of the One Body of Christ, it transforms us into who He is. At the same time we realize that this is only the first fruits of what we have been promised in heaven.

POST COMMUNIONEM
LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Praesta nobis, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus,
ut, vivificationis tuae gratiam consequentes,
in tuo semper munere gloriemur.

This was the Postcommunio of the Second Sunday after Easter in the 1962MR.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
God, all-powerful Father,
May the new life you give us increase our love
and keep us in the joy of your kingdom.

Our well-designed Lewis & Short Dictionary can help us unpack the Latin vocabulary. We just had consequor in our prayer for the Feast of the Holy Family, the Sunday of the Octave of Christmas. Here it is in the form of a present active participle in agreement with a nos that is understood. It means “to follow, follow up, press upon, go after, attend, accompany, pursue any person or thing” as well as “to follow a model, copy, an authority, example, opinion, etc.; to imitate, adopt, obey” and “to reach, overtake, obtain”. Thus, by extension this means “to become like or equal to a person or thing in any property or quality, to attain, come up to, to equal.” The object of this participle is gratiam “grace”, the freely given gift. Vivificatio or “a making alive, quickening, vivification” according to L&S is found in the works of the early Latin Christian writer Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c. 160 – c. 225) and is not classical. It is probably a neologism, a word he created to express a new (then) Christian theological concept perhaps taken from Greek terminology.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Almighty God, grant to us, we beseech you,
that, conforming to the grace of your quickening,
we may take pride always in your gift.

There it is literally, which I think our reader VR whom I quote above will find less than optimal. I agree. I will admit that I find this prayer rather hard, though it looks simple. We can give it a quick surface rendering and say something like, “Almighty God, grant, we beg you that, obtaining life-giving grace, we may rejoice in your gift”. That is simple and literal. I want to dig at it a little more.

Numerous times in the past we have reviewed that gloria, at the basis of the verb glorior, means more than simply “glory”, or in the case of the verb, “to glory, boast, vaunt, to brag of any thing, pride one’s self on any thing”. In early Latin writers such as Hilary of Poitier, whose feast day it is at the time of this writing, gloria is a divine characteristic which God will share with us, which will transform us forever and ever to be more like Him. If we speak in this prayer of something that vivifies us in this life (vivification), now we are talking about something that “deifies” us. Note also that glorior is a deponent verb, having a passive form but an active meaning. Sometimes deponents will give us something like a Greek “middle” voice, in which the content of the action reflects back on the subject in a way. St. Paul wrote using a form of glorior several times, and some of those texts are a crowbar for us to pry open this prayer. In 1 Cor 1:28-30, in an introductory section that also concerns how we are baptized in Christ and Christ alone, (not in Paul or Fr. Whozits back when, etc.) and how we are not to empty the Cross of its power” we have: “God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast (glorietur) in the presence of God. He is the source of life in Christ Jesus… in order that… “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord (qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur).” Also, Paul writes at the very end of his letter to the Galatians 6:14: “May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (mihi autem absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesu Christi), by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Or also to the Ephesians in 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God – not the result of works, so that no one may boast (ne quis glorietur). For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.” Properly understood, there is no confusion in this with the false understanding of some Protestants about faith and works.

First, note that consequor has something to do with following a model or conforming to an example as well as it is obtaining or attaining something. The point of Holy Communion is that we are consuming that with conforms us to it, unlike regular food which we conform to us. In our baptism we are reborn as new men and women conformed to Christ. In the Eucharist we bring more and more to completion what was begun in baptism by nourishing with celestial food the new man who was reborn. We are perfecting and conforming God’s image to be more and more like the perfect visible image of the invisible God, Jesus Christ, eternal God made man. This is something to rejoice and take pride in indeed, not because of our own merits, but because of the merits of the one really present in the Host just consumed who is actually working this good work in us. So, at this moment after and of Communion we are praying about the present reality of actually obtaining and the life-giving, “quickening” grace that makes us sons and daughters of God, and then continuing that present reality in an ongoing way, such that we can justly “vaunt.” We can take a cue from the Blessed Apostle to the Gentiles.

Now that we have pried at this with the tools given us by Scripture and a good dictionary, maybe we can make a reader or two happy and attempt a wordier and

SMOOTHER VERSION:
Grant us, O Almighty God, we beseech Thee,
that, as we are now attaining to Thy life-quickening grace,
we may always glory only in this Thy gift now within us.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? Third Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer

This week we plunge directly into our…

SUPER OBLATA:

LATIN (1970 Missale Romanum):
Munera nostra, Domine, suscipe placatus,
quae sanctificando nobis, quaesumus,
salutaria fore concede.

Some vocabulary is in order. Do not be perturbed by that odd looking word fore. It is actually an irregular infinitive from the obsolete verb fuo which you are never going to see anywhere, though fore is actually rather common in classical literature. Feel free for finding fuo under the voice sum in the dictionary. This explains why perfect forms of sum are based on fui and you see sometimes forem in place of the imperfect subjunctive forem. For you pro-lifers out there (hopefully all of you), this is related to the Greek word phuo, “to beget”, whence comes “fetus.” Fore is equivalent to futurum esse which functions as a future infinitive of sum. In the last line we hear salutaria which comes from the adjective salutaris meaning “of or belonging to well-being, healthful, wholesome, salutary, serviceable, beneficial, advantageous”. The mighty Lewis & Short Dictionary tells the eager student that the substantive neuter form salutare is “salvation, deliverance, health” when used in later Latin. Interestingly, when it is in the neuter plural (as it is in our prayer) we say in Latin bibere salutaria alicui… “to drink one’s health” or literally “to drink healths to someone”. One is reminded of Mercutio’s famous Queen Mab’s speech from Romeo and Juliet. While distracting Romeo from his melancholia he weaves a fantastic tale of how we are inspired with dreams. When Mab comes to soldiers, she makes them dream “of spanish blades, of healths five fadom deep” (I, iv, 85) or in Henry VIII the King says to Cardinal Woolsey “I have half a dozen healths to drink to these” (I, iv, 105) and Pompey says in Anthony and Cleopatra “Sit – and some wine! A health to Lepidus!” (I, ii, 13). Perhaps this is based on the wisdom found in the sage advice of St. Paul to St. Timothy: “No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim 5:23). Wine of course was often safer to drink than water in the ancient world. In sacramental terms, during Mass, we drink for our spiritual health the gifts of wine and water being presented with our Super oblata once they are changed at the consecration into the Blood of Christ.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Appeased, O Lord, receive our gifts
which, we beg, by sanctifying, you grant
will be for us means of salvation.

This prayer is rather convoluted for our English minds and presents some difficulties in rendering into language that sounds right to our ears. As I mentioned last year with some frequency in WDTPRS articles about the collects of the Mass, the language of the prayer is very formal and “courtly”. ICEL’s translator clearly gave up and sort of got “the gist of it” by dropping concepts altogether. The two imperatives (suscipe and concede) make this a little tricky to get into smooth English. Given all this, I will also this week make an attempt at a smoother version that remains faithful to the Latin original while not sticking to its structure:

SMOOTHER TRANSLATION:
O Lord, having been appeased, receive our gifts
and, we beg, grant that by sanctifying them they
will be for us the means of salvation.

Do you remember that the CDW’s document Liturgiam authenticam says that we should make use of the great literature of the language we are translating into when making choices about what to do with the Latin so as to make the translation rich and beautiful?

32. The translation should not restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits. To be avoided on this account are expressions characteristic of commercial publicity, political or ideological programs, passing fashions, and those which are subject to regional variations or ambiguities in meaning. Academic style manuals or similar works, since they sometimes give way to such tendencies, are not to be considered standards for liturgical translation. On the other hand, works that are commonly considered “classics” in a given vernacular language may prove useful in providing a suitable standard for its vocabulary and usage.

What would happen if we took LA seriously and did the translation this way? Let’s try some poetic language and iambic pentameter in…

A SORT OF SHAKESPEAREAN TRANSLATION:

PRIEST: O Lord, receive our offerings now appeased
and grant, we beg, that by their hallowing
they shall for us be hosts and saving healths.

As I look this over, I call to mind the phrase uttered by the priest during the Roman Canon (first Eucharistic Prayer) when referring to the Host and Chalice now by his words replete with the Real Presence: Panem sanctum vitae aeternae et Calicem salutis perpetuae…(we offer) “the holy bread of life eternal and the chalice of unending salvation.”

ICEL:
Lord,
receive our gifts.
Let our offerings make us holy
and bring us salvation.

Thud. Oh well…. Let’s move directly to some of your wonderful feedback. This last week brought in a great deal of mail from you. Some was “snail mail” and some “e-mail.”

KF of IL sent a veritable tome about various issues and roundly chides me for my explanation of how to count the days in an octave. He says, “If the feast occurs on day F, then as Americans ordinarily count (emphasis added), the first day after the feast is day F+1, … and the eighth day F+8. So, if an octave actually contained the feast day itself and the eight days following…. it would consist of nine days! In fact, I believe the octave consists of the eight days F, F+1….F+7. The octave day thus occurs exactly one week after the feast itself; thus January 1 is the octave day of Christmas December 25.” Okay, if you say so. The only problem I see here is that the Romans counted their days backwards and this method seems still to be used in the Roman Church. If you look in the 1975 editio typica altera of the Missale Romanum you will find that the Calendarium Romanum Generale still includes, as it always did traditionally, also the Roman reckoning of dates. Thus, the Church’s calendar still operates using also the ancient demarcations of months called the Calends (which is herein spelled with a “c” in the Latin rather than a “k” as in classical usage), Nones and Ides. We therefore have a Roman system of dating that flows backwards from these points. For example, from the Calends, the first day of a month, we go backwards to pridie Calendas Ianuarias which is 31 December. Here a wondrous and inexplicable thing occurs. The next day back is ante diem tertium Calendas Ianuarias or more simply a.d. III Cal. Ian. for 30 December. There is no a.d. secundum or II! Somehow pridie has a special status and get counted by itself. But the other days flowing back before pridie are counted in such a way as to include the Calends itself even though literally a.d. III Cal. means “the third day before the Calends” and it is really only the second day before … “as Americans ordinarily count.” The only way out of this is, I think, to think like a Roman rather than an American. In any event, gentle readers, as you scratch your heads and wonder why I am giving so much ink to this, pick your favorite explanation and go with it. It is consoling that KF also writes, “You are willing to recognize the merits of ICEL’s work where it has merit.” Well, I do try to be fair. Nothing is served by refusing to recognize the truth. The whole point here is to stir people to pray for and urge kindly the faithful treatment of the Latin texts so that we can have better translations… and soon!

CZ sent a nice Christmas card and greeting from VA. She writes, “thank you for educating, lifting, entertaining, and stretching the intellect.” You are welcome. There was much more feedback, including from DP of AL asking how to order a Lewis & Short Dictionary through a bookstore. Apparently, his clerk was unable to dig up a reference. As I have mentioned before the real title is A Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. On the spine you will see A LATIN DICTIONARY and under that LEWIS & SHORT. If I read the bibliographical information properly the ISBN is 0-19-864201-6. In libraries I have seen it bound as “Freund” rather than “Lewis & Short.” Go figure. This indispensable tool is available at the hefty price of the best $175 USA you will ever spend (or at today’s rate 154.72 EUROS).

Finally, rivers of cyber feedback came in about my diatribe on blue vestments in Advent. I am always fascinated at what really riles people up. These so-called liturgical experts out there don’t have a clue if they think they can just swoop down on parishes and foist their goofy innovations on the “unwitting.” Let’s hope that people will finally be so exercised at the poor translations we have at present that they will rise up in the righteous hope of something better. At any rate, in response to offering you all that parody version of Veni, veni Emanuel, Fr. VY of SD reciprocates with snippets of other parody songs. I have no doubt that many of you also have some splendid parody songs. Perhaps a collection of them could be assembled?

What Does the Prayer Really Say? Third Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer

Last week’s prayer for the 2nd Sunday of Ordinary Time was found also in the 1962 Missale Romanum and its antecedents (the so-called “Tridentine” Missal) for the 2nd Sunday after Epiphany. Sometimes the collects of the Novus Ordo have their origin in the previous Missal or even ancient sacramentaries. When I make the connection, I will usually mention the coincidence. This week’s seems to have been composed for the 1970 book.

LATIN (1970 Missale Romanum)
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,
dirige actus nostros in beneplacito tuo,
ut in nomine dilecti Filii tui
mereamur bonis operibus abundare.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Almighty eternal God,
direct our actions in your gracious purpose,
so that in the name of Thy beloved Son,
we may merit to abound with good works.

Beneplacitum in the useful Lewis & Short Dictionary means “good pleasure, gracious purpose”. I choose “gracious purpose” here, since it is by God’s good purpose or pleasure and according to His plan that we can do anything that is good or worthy. This Latin word beneplacitum translates the original Greek word eudokia. Beneplacitum appears in the Jerome’s Latin translation of the New Testament called the Vulgate (e.g., Eph 1:9; 1 Cor 10:5). Jerome uses other phrases for the Greek eudokia, such as bona voluntas in Luke 2:14, the famous “peace on earth to men of good will” or “peace on earth good will toward men.” Another passage in which the Greek eudokia is found is the prayer of Paul at the beginning of the second letter to the Thessalonians (1:11-12) where he renders it into Latin voluntas bonitatis:

...oramus semper pro vobis ut dignetur vos vocatione sua Deus et impleat omnem voluntatem bonitatis et opus fidei in virtute ut clarificetur nomen Domini nostri Iesu Christi in vobis et vos in illo secundum gratiam Dei nostri et Domini Iesu Christi... we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ (RSV).

I can’t help but link Paul’s prayer and our Collect today. We can find connections at several points: mereamur and dignetur (both having to do with meriting or being worth of), beneplacitum and voluntas bonitatis (Gr. eudokia - good will or pleasure), opus fidei and bona opera (good works flowing from lived faith), nomen Filii and nomen Domini (in Jesus’ name). Taken in the sense of “gracious purpose” we can make a connection to Paul’s vocatio too: “calling.” This New Testament prayer has also the feel of one of our Collects, with the invocation resolving in the name of the Lord. Notice that in the passage above the phrase is voluntas bonitatis for “good pleasure.” Back to beneplacitum for a moment. With that preposition in and the ablative case, we would usually expect reference to space where or time when something was occurring. In and the ablative also indicates a condition, situation or relation.

Let’s consider now abundo, meaning “to overflow with any thing, to have an abundance or superabundance of, to abound in.” If we go back to the idea of the preposition in and the ablative indicating place or location in space, (in beneplacito tuo) we have an image of our good works originating in God and, coming from Him, overflowing out from us. Some Protestants are under the false impression that Catholics think we can earn our way to heaven by our own good works. We believe, that our good works always have their origin in God. But we believe that they are truly our works as well, and that they merit the reward of God’s promises. Whenever we find a reference to works in these prayers, we should keep in mind always the Catholic understanding of good works.

ICEL:
All-powerful and ever-living God,
direct your love that is within us,
that our efforts in the name of your Son
may bring mankind to unity and peace.

I don’t have any problem with “All-powerful and ever-living God” for Omnipotens sempiterne Deus. When we get to “direct your love that is within us” I am left a bit puzzled. Can the Latin prayer mean that? I think the Latin prayer focuses on God as the one with the gracious good will and purpose which flows from Him to us so that we can merit to perform works worthy of being called “good” in this life that are at the same time opening for us the way to heaven. While the Latin directs us firmly to God, the ICEL seems to focus on us. The Latin prayer simply says “abound/overflow with good works” and ICEL specifies “unity and peace” to be brought about by “our efforts.” I don’t object to praying for unity and peace, and I agree that our efforts are need to bring them about. I think, however, it would have been better to translate the prayer accurately.

Via the Rome Report, an interesting article by Tim Drake from the National Catholic Register on the difficulties faced by newly ordained priests. As a friend of many young priests from different parts of the world, the tensions Drake points out seem particularly a North American phenomenon.

All newly ordained priests face the difficulty of a transition from a style of life with a heavy emphasis on community to a relatively solitary life in a parish. With few exceptions, rectory life, even if there are other priests living there, is a lonely existence. I’ve known of situations where priests, living together, almost never have a conversation, let alone pray together.

There is frequently a generational conflict of younger men living with older men. Styles, patterns, habits, all cause tensions. Most problems, however, seem to emerge from doctrinal differences. The younger, generally more orthodox priests living with older, generally more heterodox pastors. The older priests tend to greet their younger colleagues with a suspicious attitude – after all, these are John Paul’s men, all interested in turning the clock back to 1950. Not that the younger priests are innocent of suspicions either – sometimes, very legitimate demands from the pastor (who is, after all, the “superior” in this relationship) are treated as affronts. Bitterness and acrimony replace mature dialogue, and a parish is often divided as people, for various reasons, chose sides. While Christ promised that the Gospel would bring division, I’m not certain this is what He had in mind.

If the pastor asked the vicar to preach in favor of women’s ordination, the vicar would be required by the demands of faith to do otherwise. Likewise, if the vicar preached on the invalidity of the Second Vatican Council, the pastor would be rightly angered. But let’s create this hypothetical situation: The pastor asks that the parochial vicar preach on stewardship on a particular Sunday – a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The vicar, instead, preaches on the evils of abortion – a perfectly reasonable thing to preach on.

Here’s where manly virtue (something sadly lacking in many quarters of the Church) should come into play. Instead of talking behind each other’s back – complaining to their own cheering sections where they would be reassured of the righteousness of their actions and the deviousness of the other’s – real men would not be afraid of confrontation. Calm, reasonable confrontation, that is. And, owing to the hierarchical nature of the Church and the pastor’s canonical role in the parish, if the pastor isn’t demanding something odious to the faith, his preferences reign. The Christian virtue of obedience isn’t a virtue if it’s only practiced when one agrees with the authority demanding it.

On the other hand, pastors should not dismiss their vicar’s points of view simply because they disagree with them. There is much to be said about the fervor of the newly ordained. On a purely practical level, pastors should take care how they treat their vicars – it is the younger priests who will be taking care of them in their retirement years.

I realize I present this as somewhat of an outsider, but as someone not ordained who has close friends in the priesthood and plenty of experience in rectories, I think I can be relatively objective. My ideological tendencies are alligned with the younger priests, the JP II generation, but there are times when I hear these young priests complain about their pastors and I can’t help but cringe. Young priests need good, solid mentors. Sadly, the generation of priests who naturally should be providing that mentorship are a generation noted for their navel-gazing tendencies and too many are simply concerned about protecting their shrinking ideological base to be good guides.