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

A friend with whom I live here in Rome was gracious enough to translate the "Internet Prayer" into Vietnamese!  Kindly say a "Hail, Mary" for him right now. 

The fellow who translated this for us asked me "Why St. Isidore?"  I gave him the explanation which is on the main page for the "Internet Prayer". 

Remember!  You can substitute another beloved saint for St. Isidore if you so choose!  I don’t think St. Isidore will mind sharing the bandwidth.

Here is the updated list of language available:

LINGUA LATINA
ENGLISH
DEUTSCH (GERMAN)
ESPAÑOL (SPANISH)
FRANÇAIS (FRENCH)
ITALIANO (ITALIAN)
KINYAMBO (spoken in Tanzania)
KISWAHILI (SWAHILI)
KOREAN
MALTI (MALTESE)
NEERLANDISCH (DUTCH)
POLSKI (POLISH)
PORTUGÊS (PORTUGESE)
ROMANACCIO (ROMAN)

And now at last….

VIETNAMESE  NB: This may not appear correctly if you do not have the proper fonts.

Lôøi nguyeän tröôùc khi duøng Internet
Laïy Thieân Chuùa toaøn naêng vaø haèng höõu
Chuùa ñaõ taïo döïng chuùng con theo hình aûnh Chuùa
vaø truyeàn  daïy chuùng con tìm Chaân, Thieän, Myõ,
nhaát laø ôû Con Moät Chuùa laø Ñöùc Kitoâ Chuùa chuùng con,
xin thöông giuùp chuùng con,
nhôø lôøi baàu cöû cuûa Thaùnh Isiñoâroâ Giaùm Muïc Tieán Só,
trong khi haønh trình treân maïng löôùi toaøn caàu,
chæ ñöa tay vaø maét tìm nhöõng gì ñeïp loøng Chuùa
vaø ñoùn nhaän trong baùc aùi vaø kieân nhaãn
moïi taâm hoàn maø chuùng con gaëp.
Nhôø Ñöùc Kitoâ Chuùa chuùng con. Amen 

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  3rd Sunday of Easter

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

Let us continue our comparison of the first draft of the ICEL translation of ordinary prayers of Holy Mass, the second draft, and our own WDTPRS version which we worked through in fourth year of this series (2003-04).  Before Lent we had reached the Roman Canon’s Simili modo.  This brings us to the responses after the priest says “Mysterium fidei… The mystery of faith”:  WDTPRS LITERAL VERSION: The mystery of faith. R. 1:  We proclaim your death, O Lord, and we profess belief in your resurrection until at length you come!  R. 2:  As often as we eat this bread and drink this chalice, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until at length you come! R. 3:  Save us, O Savior of the world, who freed us through your Cross and resurrection!  1^st NEW ICEL DRAFT: The mystery of faith.  R. 1:  We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come.  R. 2:  When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come.  R. 3:  Save us, Savior of the world, for by your cross and resurrection you have set us free.  2^nd NEW ICEL DRAFT (changes underscored): Great is the mystery of faith. R. 1:  We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come in glory.  R. 2:  When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.  R. 3:  Savior of the world, save us, for by your cross and resurrection you have set us free.

It is interesting to note among the changes in the second draft that the choice was made to capitalize the words “Bread” and “Cup”.  I also find it interesting that “cup” was used in both drafts for the Latin word calix.  Let’s get picky about this.

In his letter under date of 16 March 2002 headed “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal” blasting ICEL’s treatment of the 1975 edition of the Missale Romanum the former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) Jorge Card. Medina Estévez made this comment about the inadequate choices the translators had made (my emphasis):

G. For patena, calix, etc., the translators avoid the use of specifically sacral terminology, and use words commonly employed in the vernacular for kitchenware. In an already secularized culture, it is difficult to see what legitimate purpose could be served by a deliberate desacralization of religious terminology. There do exist in English words for these items having sacral connotations, such as "paten" and "chalice", but these are assiduously avoided in the translation. The Congregation views this tendency with regret, especially in conjunction with certain other tendencies enumerated in these Observations, by which the sense of the transcendent is not only inadequately conveyed, but actively obscured.

In the document Liturgiam authenticam (LA) from the CDWDS, which established the translation norms, this issue is addressed (my emphasis):

50. c) One should maintain the vocabulary that has gradually developed in a given vernacular language to distinguish the individual liturgical ministers, vessels, furnishings, and vesture from similar persons or things pertaining to everyday life and usage; words that lack such a sacral character are not to be used instead;...

On the other hand, His Excellency Donald W. Trautman, the Erie bishop and also chair of the USCCB’s committee on liturgy, commented on this in his campaign speech against the norms of the CDWDS delivered at Collegeville (MN) on 27 March 2006 (my emphasis):

Liturgiam Authenticam mandates a sacred vocabulary.  ...  Therefore, the proposed Order of Mass uses the word “chalice” where we had previously said “cup”.  Eucharistic Prayer I says: “When supper was ended, he took this precious chalice into his holy and venerable hands.”  Did Jesus at the Last Supper use a “precious chalice” or a “cup”?  The gospels clearly say “cup”, but even in the Lectionary from Rome we have the word “chalice” imposed on the inspired text to carry out this “sacred language”.  “Chalice” is not the translation of the New American Bible, nor the New Revised Standard Bible, nor the Oxford Annotated Bible, nor the Jerusalem Bible, nor any current or older translation.  Greek-English lexicons and authoritative biblical commentaries all say the meaning of the Greek word which describes what Jesus drank from is “cup or drinking vessel”.  To say not just “chalice” but “precious chalice” in Eucharistic Prayer I is clearly not a reflection of the biblical text.  Should the agenda of a sacred vocabulary, no matter how well-intentioned, be allowed to circumvent the inspired word?

It is interesting to note that in his campaign speeches against Liturgiam authenticam and the CDWDS His Excellency seems to have relegated to silence the pro multis issue.  One of the readers of the WDTPRS blog (wdtprs.com) asked where Pope Benedict stood on this issue.  While we don’t know yet what His Holiness will decide on the pro multis point (in my opinion the most important single point of conflict in the Translation Wars), we do know what Joseph Card. Ratzinger wrote.  This bears on the issue of words like “cup”.  Therefore, while I have given this to you WDTPRSers on other occasions, it bears repeating.  Writing as Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope confronted the pro multis question in his book God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003).   He makes three points: 1) Jesus died to save all and to deny that is not in any way a Christian attitude, 2) God lovingly leaves people free to reject salvation and some do, and 3):

The fact that in Hebrew the expression “many” would mean the same thing as “all” is not relevant to the question under consideration inasmuch as it is a question of translating, not a Hebrew text here, but a Latin text (from the Roman Liturgy), which is directly related to a Greek text (the New Testament).  The institution narratives in the New Testament are by no means simply a translation (still less, a mistaken translation) of Isaiah; rather, they constitute an independent source (pp. 37-8, n. 10 – my emphasis added).

Are you reading this Cardinal Arinze?  Bishop Trautman?  Cardinal George?  Father Harbert?  Cardinal Pell?  I know you are pressed with many and heavy cares.  I know your time is limited.  Still, I ask you, are you reading?  Please offer me a correction if I am entirely misunderstanding the situation:  write to me at frz@wdtprs.com or write to ask my snail-mail address if that is more appropriate.  Otherwise, if I am on the mark (with the Pope), I hope you will all work with even greater diligence for a correct translation of pro multis and the other difficult puzzles the Latin texts present.  If I can be of help in no other way, be assured of my sincere daily prayers for all who are involved in this very complex task.

We now move on to the examination of this week’s

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Suscipe munera, Domine, quaesumus, exsultantis Ecclesiae,
et, cui causam tanti gaudii praestitisti,
perpetuae fructum concede laetitiae.

This prayer was originally in the 1962 Missale Romanum as the Secret of the Sunday after Easter, in albis, also called “Low” Sunday.  It was also in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary on the Saturday of the Octave of Easter.

The helpful Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary slakes our thirst for knowledge.  The useful little word causa has therein a complex entry.  First we learn that the spelling shifted from causa in the time of Cicero (+43 B.C.) to caussa in the time of Quintillian (+A.D. 95).  Causa in its basic meaning is “that by, on account of, or through which any thing takes place or is done; a cause, reason, motive, inducement; an occasion, opportunity.” By extension it comes to mean other things, such as a judicial proceeding (“case” or “cause”) or a business undertaking. 

Praesto is another complex word with a vast range of meanings.  Initially it signifies, “to stand before or in front” and thus it is also “to stand out, be superior, to distinguish one’s self, to be excellent, distinguished, admirable.”  By logical extension it conveys the meaning of, “to become surety for, to answer or vouch for, to warrant, be responsible for, to take upon one’s self” and even “to fulfill, discharge, maintain, perform, execute”.  Thus, it has in some contexts a juridical impact.  Notice that we had juridical language in causa.  In the context of our prayer today, praesto seems most likely to mean “to show, exhibit, to prove, evince, manifest” or “to give, offer, furnish, present, expose.” 

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Take up, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the gifts of the exulting Church,
and grant the fruit of perpetual rejoicing
to whom Thou hast already furnished the motive of such a great joy.

In this Super Oblata we are heaping joy upon joy in a growing crescendo of exultation.  We acknowledge that already God has given us every reason to be glad in the resurrection of His Son which we celebrated on Easter Sunday.  Now we are deepening that same joy and extending it into the future.  We are clearly linking our present and future hopes and happiness to the resurrection we will one day experience.   The gifts we bring to the altar at this moment become in the hands of the priest the efficacious sign of our own rising to new life.  Running the risk of pushing the vocabulary a bit far, we might even say there are nuances of a solemn bond between God and His Church, a legal covenant, in the use of juridical language. 

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
receive these gifts from your Church.
May the great joy you give us
come to perfection in heaven.

The Latin prayer has a repetition of “joy” words (exsultantis…gaudii…laetitiae) which build in a crescendo.   The lame duck ICEL prayer gives us a single, albeit perfect “joy”.  To my mind, the Latin prayer gives the impression of something ever more to come.

Between God and man there will always be an infinite difference.  Even after our bodily resurrection and (hopefully) admission to the Beatific Vision, our joy will never have an end or even a climax.  In heaven we will see God “face to face” (1 Cor 13:12).  Nevertheless, there will always be something new to discover about God.   Forever we will be able to find in Him something new and beautiful to contemplate.  We will never get to the bottom of God.  Therefore, our joy in knowing Him and loving Him will build without ending for all eternity, never decreasing, never failing or slowing.  Our heavenly joy will never be “perfected” in the sense of being brought to completion so that it needs nothing else.  Our joy will be “perfected” in the sense that we will have finally found the perfect object of consideration and the perfect motive for happiness.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  3rd Sunday of Easter

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2005

I had a nice long hand written missive from WGH in the USA who sent copies of letters he wrote to the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Card. Ratzinger, and of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS), Francis Card. Arinze (either one of whom might wind up one day being elected to the See of Peter).  WGH’s letters were cordial, sincere, and direct.  In addition to being concerned about the pro multis issue (as I hope we all are), he was also hopeful that there might be a good translation of the Sanctus.  WGH also wrote something wonderful.  He made use of my WDTPRS column back on 25 April 2005 in we examined how the USCCB’s document Built of Living Stones distorted the translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal regarding the placement of the altar.  You will recall that while the Latin clearly said an altar should be far enough from the wall so that the priest can walk around it or say Mass from either side when opportune, the English rendering of that Latin inaccurately conveyed that Mass must be said facing the people.  That mendacious translation survived even though the CDWDS had issued some time before an official clarification of that precise point, about that very paragraph, in which even the Latin grammar had been explained.  Also, WDTPRS has written of the importance of the unicity of the altar in the sanctuary (i.e., one altar, not two) and that even the same CDWDS has stated that “table” altars ought not be set up in front of important and clearly dominant main altars (cf. Notitiae (May) 1993).  At any rate, WGH took that WDTPRS column to his parish priests, at a parish where Holy Mass is also celebrated using the 1962MR. The portable altar set up in front of the main altar was whisked away never to return.  Amen. (T.P.  Alleluia, alleluia.)

On 19 March the The Tablet had a piece by Robert Mickens entitled “Vox Clara clears way for new text.”  Vox Clara is the committee implemented in 2001 by the CDWDS to ride shotgun on ICEL during the preparation of a new translation of liturgical texts according to the norms issued in Liturgiam authenticam.  The Vox Clara Committee met in Rome from 8-10 March to discuss tricky points of the working draft.  After the meeting Vox Clara issued a rather positive statement and the chairman, His Eminence George Card. Pell of Sydney has expressed a positive view of ICEL now that it has been eviscerated and revitalized by the Holy See.  According to a source for The Tablet, “They’ve successfully turned ICEL into what they wanted in the first place, so they [Vox Clara] probably just close down.”   At any rate, according to the press release after the last Vox Clara meeting, “The committee was provided with a copy of the latest revision of ICEL’s translation of a selection of prayers from the Proper of Seasons in the Missale Romanum.” No projected completion date was provided.  However, Francis Card. George of Chicago and a member Vox Clara told the left-leaning National Catholic Reporter’s nearly ubiquitous Rome correspondent John L. Allen, Jr. that he thought it would take least, and this is optimistic, three more years to produce a new Missal.

COLLECT - LATIN TEXT (2002MR):
Semper exsultet populus tuus, Deus,
renovata animae iuventute,
ut, qui nunc laetatur in adoptionis se gloriam restitutum,
resurrectionis diem spe certae gratulationis exspectet.

This Collect is an ancient prayer though it was not in previous editions of the Missale Romanum before the Novus Ordo.  It has antecedents in both the Veronese and Gelasian Sacramentaries about which you readers are now experts.   The second part of our Collect is quite elegant: qui nunc laetatur in adoptionis se gloriam restitutum, the infinitive esse being understood… laetatur se restitutum (esse) in gloriam adoptionis.  The slightly odd wording puts a special emphasis on the word gloria.  This elegant and poetic word order also gives some weight to a connection I will make to another famous Easter Latin prayer.  Adoptio of course is “adoption” in the sense of “to take as one’s child.”  We find the phrase adoptionem filiorum Dei … “adoption of the sons of God” in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (Romans 8:23, Gal 4:5 and Eph 1:5).  Gratulatio means “a manifestation of joy; a wishing joy, congratulation; a rejoicing, joy and also “a religious festival of joy and thanksgiving, a public thanksgiving.”

This Collect suggests to me that there may have been a conscious attempt on the part of the Church to remind us of the stupendous moment of the Easter Vigil a few weeks back.  Perhaps we are recapturing something of that moment?  After all, this is still Easter season, Paschaltide.  The words exsultet and adoption bring this to mind.  On the Vigil of Easter, the deacon’s great moment to shine, the hymn or Praeconium Paschale called the Exsultet is sung.   We had a special column about the Exsultet last year.  It was composed perhaps as early as the fifth century, parts perhaps going back to St. Ambrose of Milan (+397).  This hymn or lucernarium came into the Roman tradition through a ninth century addition to the so-called Gregorian Sacramentary.  You know how this is supposed to work.  The Paschal or “Christ” candle is prepared and lit with the new fire.  After processing to the sanctuary and thrice singing Lumen Christi, the deacon (or a priest) dressed in his dalmatic incenses the Paschal candle.  The hymn begins like a Preface (Sursum corda!  “Up with your hearts!”).  He invites the vast array of heavenly angels to join him in praising Christ symbolized in the candle.  The text is a long meditation on this candle as it symbolizes Christ, now gloriously risen, and how He has saved humanity from sin.  The famous phrase O felix culpa is found here, “O happy fault that merited so to have so great a redeemer.”  Many times the hymn refers to the amazing nature of the night itself, during which Christ rose.  There are constant contrasts of light and darkness.  One of the images of meditation in the Exsultet concerns the flame of the candle: wax, the work of bees, nourishes the divided and yet undiminished flame.  Above, I explained that adoptio is a “spiritual adoption” in the sense of the effects of baptism making us members of the risen Christ and children of the loving Father.  Our old pal the Lewis & Short Dictionary reveals that adoptio is also the “admission of a bee into a new hive.”  What a marvelous way to think of a newly baptized Christian!  May all our works and words be as sweet as honey.

Some of you are probably thinking, “Okay, Father, you have gone too far this time in making that connection.”  Have I?  I admit that we must always be careful in making our connections and avoid getting too creative, going too far afield.  But, since I am writing a column and not actually making the official translation I suppose I allow myself some real latitude.  After all, these articles are meant to draw you in, help you to love the prayers and pray them with full, active and conscious participation.  Be that as it may, our prayers and especially the prayers having ancient roots, Christian as they undoubtedly are, all spring forth from a vast heritage formed and permeated in great part by two thousand years of Latin literature and culture.  In previous centuries, people made rapid connections between texts, sometimes needing only a few words to provide the hook, sometimes requiring only a single unusual or surprisingly placed word.  In the pages of Scripture we hear Our Lord constantly make allusions to the psalms and Prophets and His listeners caught those allusions immediately.  Oral/aural cultures were and are better at that than we are today in modern Western society.  So, the use of the word adoptionis together with exsultet would be sufficient for Latin speakers to make the connection between the prayers.  It might be hard for us in modern times to do this, but that is why you subscribe to The Wanderer and give gift subscriptions, isn’t it! 

At any rate, just to show that this idea about our prayer’s tendrils back into the Exsultet or works of Ambrose is not just a flight of fantasy on my part, several passages in Ambrose reveal similar vocabulary, as in his Exposition of Psalm 118 and his De mysteriis, a post-Easter explanation of the sacred, liturgical mysteries to the newly baptized.  For example, “… adulescens vel certe renovatus aquilae iuventute per baptismatis sacramenta…” (ex. Ps. cxviii, lit. 18, cap. 26).

The deep connection between our prayers and the roots of Western culture is all the more reason to pray for those who must provide us the English speaking faithful with truly accurate and beautiful translations of the Latin prayers in the Missale Romanum.  We must have texts which simultaneously hearken to roots and avoid the banal and ephemeral.

As the document of the CDWDS Liturgiam authenticam states:

47. While the translation must transmit the perennial treasury of orations by means of language understandable in the cultural context for which it is intended, it should also be guided by the conviction that liturgical prayer not only is formed by the genius of a culture, but itself contributes to the development of that culture. Consequently it should cause no surprise that such language differs somewhat from ordinary speech. Liturgical translation that takes due account of the authority and integral content of the original texts will facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship, even though it is not to be excluded that it may exercise an influence even on everyday speech, as has occurred in the languages of peoples evangelized long ago.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):

God our Father,
may we look forward with hope to our resurrection,
for you have made us your sons and daughters,
and restored the joy of our youth.

Is this what the prayer really says?   Let’s take a look at a…

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, let your people rejoice always,
the youth of their spirit having been renewed,
so that, he who now rejoices that he has been restored in the glory of spiritual adoption
may await the day of the resurrection in the hope of true thanksgiving.

In the Easter season I would invite that we pray in a special way for Pope John Paul II.   Our Holy Father has remained youthful in spirit but he now labors under the burden of years and illness.  During one of his recent stays in the hospital he wrote in his letter to priests for Holy Thursday:  “‘Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on towards the goal’ (Phil 3:13-14).  The priest is someone who, despite the passing of years, continues to radiate youthfulness, spreading it almost ‘contagiously’ among those he meets along the way.  His secret lies in his ‘passion’ for Christ.  As St. Paul said: ‘For me, to live is Christ’ (Phil 1:21).” 

Pray for the Holy Father and pray for all priests, that God will renew them, give joy to their youth, and give them, together with their flocks, the hope of the resurrection.  In this Year of the Eucharist and in life we are all pressing on toward the resurrection and true thanksgiving (Greek eucharistia) of which of Mass is the perfect anticipation.

NB: The above was written in 2005, shortly before the death of His Holiness Pope John Paul II

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 3rd Sunday of Easter

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2003

More than one of you have asked via e-mail and other means for news about the Marine Corps Captain serving in Iraq.  At last report he is fine and, as you might expect, is getting the job done.  Thank you for asking.  Please continue to pray for him and his K Company.

Since my last column the Holy Father has issued, on Holy Thursday, the encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (EdE) in the place of his usually letter addresses to his brother priests.  In EdE His Holiness is seeking to revive and foster a love of and “amazement” in our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.  He uses the language of prayer in urging us to contemplate the face of the Lord:

To contemplate the face of Christ, and to contemplate it with Mary, is the “programme” which I have set before the Church at the dawn of the third millennium, summoning her to put out into the deep on the sea of history with the enthusiasm of the new evangelization. To contemplate Christ involves being able to recognize him wherever he manifests himself, in his many forms of presence, but above all in the living sacrament of his body and his blood. The Church draws her life from Christ in the Eucharist; by him she is fed and by him she is enlightened. The Eucharist is both a mystery of faith and a “mystery of light”.³ Whenever the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the faithful can in some way relive the experience of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: “their eyes were opened and they recognized him” (Lk 24:31). (EdE 6)

The Pope is also working to apply corrective measure for various abuses of the Eucharist occurring in the celebration of Holy Mass.   He also speaks to the beauty and care with which Mass has been and ought to be celebrated.  WDTPRS seems to be on the same page with the Pope in his presentation of how our inward disposition affects the form of prayer and vice versa.  There is a reciprocal relationship between how we pray and what we believe.  Also, longtime readers of WDTPRS will recall how on many occasions, especially after the promulgation of the Congregation for Divine Worship’s document Liturgiam authenticam, establishing norms for translations, we have addressed the issue of inculturation, and how it must be properly understood.  In the dynamic exchange taking place between the Church and the world over centuries within different cultures and peoples, for inculturation to be legitimate and fruitful in a way consistent with the Church’s God-given mission, what the Church gives to the world must be logically (if not chronologically) prior to what the world offers to the Church.  The Holy Father writes in EdE:

49. With this heightened sense of mystery, we understand how the faith of the Church in the mystery of the Eucharist has found historical expression not only in the demand for an interior disposition of devotion, but also in outward forms meant to evoke and emphasize the grandeur of the event being celebrated. This led progressively to the development of a particular form of regulating the Eucharistic liturgy, with due respect for the various legitimately constituted ecclesial traditions. On this foundation a rich artistic heritage also developed. Architecture, sculpture, painting and music, moved by the Christian mystery, have found in the Eucharist, both directly and indirectly, a source of great inspiration.

Might we be able to add to the Holy Father’s instruction in EdE that the language of the Mass ought to reflect the “grandeur” and “mystery” of the mystery being celebrated?   I think so.   He goes on:

Such was the case, for example, with architecture, which witnessed the transition, once the historical situation made it possible, from the first places of Eucharistic celebration in the domus or “homes” of Christian families to the solemn basilicas of the early centuries, to the imposing cathedrals of the Middle Ages, and to the churches, large and small, which gradually sprang up throughout the lands touched by Christianity. The designs of altars and tabernacles within Church interiors were often not simply motivated by artistic inspiration but also by a clear understanding of the mystery. The same could be said for sacred music, if we but think of the inspired Gregorian melodies and the many, often great, composers who sought to do justice to the liturgical texts of the Mass. Similarly, can we overlook the enormous quantity of artistic production, ranging from fine craftsmanship to authentic works of art, in the area of Church furnishings and vestments used for the celebration of the Eucharist?  It can be said that the Eucharist, while shaping the Church and her spirituality, has also powerfully affected “culture”, and the arts in particular.

The Roman Pontiff then speaks to the issue of architecture and how it must reflect the reality being celebrated within, its raison d’être as it were.  As you read this, mentally substitute in the most fundamental “architecture” for the Mass, its language:

The architectural and mosaic splendours of the Christian East and West are a patrimony belonging to all believers; they contain a hope, and even a pledge, of the desired fullness of communion in faith and in celebration…. Within this context of an art aimed at expressing, in all its elements, the meaning of the Eucharist in accordance with the Church’s teaching, attention needs to be given to the norms regulating the construction and decor of sacred buildings. As history shows and as I emphasized in my Letter to Artists, the Church has always left ample room for the creativity of artists. But sacred art must be outstanding for its ability to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith and in accordance with the pastoral guidelines appropriately laid down by competent Authority. This holds true both for the figurative arts and for sacred music.  (EdE 50)

For a true revival of any of these great liturgical arts to take place, the first great “art” that must be resurrected is the language of the Mass.  We need far more Latin in the Latin Rite and we need truly beautiful and accurate translations.  If we want new and grand forms of artistry for use in the liturgy, then we need language that reflects the reality of what the Church believes about the Mass.  If we want vestments that look better than horse blankets or 1960 couch covers, buildings that don’t instantly remind you of juvenile detention centers, movie houses or bomb shelters, music that doesn’t cause you instantly to crave Campbell’s Soup or reruns of Gilligan’s Island, then the most fundamental element – the language – must change.

POST COMMUNIONEM

LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Populum tuum, quaesumus, Domine, intuere benignus,
et, quem aeternis dignatus es renovare mysteriis,
ad incorruptibilem glorificandae carnis resurrectionem
pervenire concede.

This post communion prayer appears to be a new composition for the 1970MR, having traces of the Gelasian Sacramentary and also of St. Leo the Great’s Sermon 71, 6 (CCL 138A, p. 440, ll. 131-2; PL 54, 389D). The phrase from Leo which is integrated into our prayer is from the very last line, before the doxology with which he typically ended, of a sermon preached on Holy Saturday 3/4 April 443 concerning the Passion of the Lord: “Et quia antiquorum morborum difficilis et tarda curatio est, tanto velocius adhibentur remedia, quanto recentiora sunt vulnera, ut semper ab omnibus offensionibus in integrum resurgentes, ad illam incorruptibilem glorificandae carnis resurrectionem pertinere mereamur in Christo Iesu Domino nostro, qui vivit et regnat… And since the cure of old ills is slow and difficult, the more recent the wounds, the more promptly let the remedies be applied, so that always rising up anew from our stumblings, we may merit to attain that incorruptible resurrection of the flesh which is to be transformed unto glory, in Christ Jesus our Lord, who lives and reigns…”.  The apparatus criticus (that is, the footnotes in a critical edition of a text indicating the variations found in the history of different manuscripts available) of the definitive 1973 CCL (Corpus Christianorum Latinorum) edition published by Brepols and edited by Antoine Chavasse, indicates a variation in the text of the line that interests us.  The CCL reads pertinere instead of pervenire but shows the variation pervenire in the apparatus.  Variations in manuscripts happened over centuries through inaccuracies in recopying or transcribing during dictation.  By cataloguing variations we can identify “family trees” of manuscript traditions for ancient works.  This helps to establish the best and most accurate text possible.  The older standard edition of most of the texts of the Fathers of the Church, the PL edition (Patrologia Latina edited by Migne) no doubt reads the less likely pervenire.   This is how we wound up with pervenire in our prayer rather than the pertinere that Leo probably said back in 443.  Remember, that today’s prayer was put together sometime between December 1963 (when the Second Vatican Council mandated the reform of the liturgy) and 1969 when the Novus Ordo was unleashed.  Thus, the composer of this prayer used the older PL edition of Leo’s sermons since the definitive CCL would not have appeared for at least another three years.

Our treasured Lewis & Short Dictionary remind us that intueor, a word we know from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Adoro te devote and from the prayers for Epiphany, means “to look upon” as well as “to give attention to”.  It also signifies, “to regard, observe, contemplate, consider, give attention to”.  Given our humble posture at this moment of Holy Mass, I choose to render intueor here as “gaze down upon.”

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):

Lord,
look on your people with kindness
and by these Easter mysteries
bring us to the glory of the resurrection.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

Gaze down kindly, O Lord, we beseech thee, upon thy people,
and grant them, whom thou hast deigned to renew by means of eternal sacramental mysteries,
to attain unto the incorruptible resurrection of the flesh which is to be glorified.

In EdE the Holy Father uses (in the English version) some form of “contemplate” 10 times, always in reference to Christ and usually regarding His “face” (since the Holy See’s website inexplicably did not provide the Latin text, but only the English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish) I am not sure what the Latin word was for “contemplate”).   As we have noted many times, the word gloria in the Church’s prayer is very special, particularly when there is a connection with the thought of the Father’s of the Church.  In this context, gloria is a divine characteristic which God will share with the blessed in heaven.  By beholding the “glory” of the Lord and partaking of His splendor as we look Him in the face forever, we (images of God that we are) will be thereby transformed to be more and more like Him throughout eternity.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  Third Sunday of Easter

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2002
<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>

News: In a recent number of the weekly English edition of the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano (N. 12 (1735) – 20 March 2002) we see a box with a large bold headline “Holy Father receives New Roman Missal”.  There is a photograph of the Pope looking at a beautiful edition of the new third typical edition of the Missale Romanum (2002MR) bound in white leather.  The accompanying story recounts, inter alia, some interesting information.  With the publication of the 2002MR, after a 10 year process, “another stage begins that is in the hands of the Bishops’ Conferences: the work of revising the translations in use to ensure that they faithfully reflect the official Latin text in accord with the measures prescribed by the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam approved last year by the Holy Father.  Once the Bishops’ Conference gives its approval, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has to issue the necessary recognitio for the revised texts.”  (Emphases added) 

The superb English language weekly National Catholic Register (NCReg) just had a front page article “Head of Liturgy Panel Resigns: New Direction for the Mass?” (vol. 78 No. 13 March 31-April 6, 2002).  It reminds us that the U.S. representative to ICEL and the elected next chairman of the U.S. Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, Chicago’s excellent Francis Card. George, fired Mr. Gabe Huck, the former director of the Liturgy Training Publications.  They also state that Fr. Michael Spillane resigned as executive director of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions.  NCReg reports, “there has been a significant turnover in ICEL’s advisory committee,” according to Franciscan Fr. Gilbert Ostdiek, former chairman of ICEL’s subcommittee on translation and revision of texts.   Sour grapes abound, apparently.  The aforementioned Mr. Huck in NCReg said that they have been revising English translations now for 10 years, and that they were “unequalled in the Catholic world.” Mr. Huck said, “There are better translations in that book.  They are pastorally workable.  But it will all be wasted or sit on a shelf maybe until a new Pharoah (sic) rises over Egypt.”  Also, the executive secretary of ICEL, Mr. John Page, is resigning as of 15 August.  Mr. Page hinted to NCReg that his resignation has some connection with a statement made His Excellency Bishop Maurice Taylor of Galloway (Scotland). According to NCReg, “Bishop Taylor said that since the two-year trial period for implementing ICEL’s new constitution will be reached at the end of July, Page felt that August would be a good time to leave.”

In the months following the appearance of LA many have opined that the whole issue of preparing or correcting new translations will be in effect “dead on arrival”.  The past track record of the bishops suggests that they will either study the new norms in LA to death and benignly ignore them, thus prolonging indefinitely the use of the old and deficient translations, or they will fight to be excepted from the norms “for pastoral reasons”, and so forth.  I resubmit that the Holy See is not going to let this happen.  The comments in the English edition of L’OR, read by all chancery personnel everywhere English is spoken are a reminder that the stop watch’s start button was firmly clicked when the 2002MR was released.  As I have said many times in these WDTPRS offerings, the heat can be turned on from “below” and not just from the Holy See “above”.  You, dear reader, can keep the pot boiling by both prayers and by kind, respectful, brief, cordial letters to your bishops.  Let them know that you are supportive of their positive efforts to prepare new, accurate, faithful and beautiful translations.  Let them know that you know that the ball in now in their court and the shot clock is running.

SUPER OBLATA:

LATIN (1970 Missale Romanum):
Suscipe munera, Domine, quaesumus, exsultantis Ecclesiae,
et, cui causam tanti gaudii praestitisti,
perpetuae fructum concede laetitiae.

This prayer was originally in the 1962 Missale Romanum as the secret of the Sunday after Easter, in albis, also called “Low” Sunday.  It has an ancient ancestor in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Take up, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the gifts of the Church exulting,
and grant the fruit of perpetual rejoicing
to whom Thou hast already furnished the motive of such a great joy.

Our weekly curiosity brings us back to the helpful Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary.  This time we investigate the word causa and discover a rather complex entry.  Immediately we see that its spelling shifted from causa (in the time of Cicero) to caussa in the time of Quintillian.  In its basic meaning it is “that by, on account of, or through which any thing takes place or is done; a cause, reason, motive, inducement; an occasion, opportunity.” By extension it comes to mean other things, such as a judicial proceeding (“case” or “cause”) or a business undertaking.  Praesto is another complex word with a vast range of meanings.  Initially we see it signify, “to stand before or in front” and thus it is “to stand out, be superior, to distinguish one’s self, to be excellent, distinguished, admirable.” It comes to mean also, “to become surety for, to answer or vouch for, to warrant, be responsible for, to take upon one’s self” and even “to fulfill, discharge, maintain, perform, execute”.  Thus, it seems to have in some contexts a juridical connotation.  We had juridical language in causa as well.  In the context of our prayer today, it seems most likely to mean “to show, exhibit, to prove, evince, manifest” or “to give, offer, furnish, present, expose.” 

In this super oblata we are heaping joy upon joy in a growing crescendo of exultation.  We acknowledge that already God has given us every reason to be glad in the resurrection of His Son which we celebrated on Easter Sunday.  Now we are deepening that same joy and extending it into the future.  We are clearly linking our present and future hopes and happiness to the resurrection we will one day experience.   The gifts we bring to the altar at this moment become in the hands of the priest the efficacious sign of our own rising to new life.  Running the risk of pushing the vocabulary a bit far, we might even say there are nuances of a solemn bond between God and His Church, a legal covenant, in the use of juridical language. 

ICEL:
Lord,
receive these gifts from your Church.
May the great joy you give us
come to perfection in heaven.

Where the Latin prayer has a repetition of concepts of joy (exsultantis…gaudii…laetitiae) which build in a kind of in a seemingly unending crescendo even through the eternal ages of heaven, our ICEL contribution gives us a single “joy” which is perfected.  Since between God and man there will always be an infinite difference, even after the resurrection and we are admitted to the Beatific Vision, there will never be an ending, a final climax, of our joy.  In heaven we will see God face to face.  There will always, for eternity, be something new about Him to discover, something beautiful to contemplate.  We will never get to the bottom of God.  Our joy in knowing Him and loving Him will build without ending for all eternity, never decreasing, never failing or slowing, never being perfect in the sense of being brought to completion so that it needs nothing else.  Our joy will perfected in the sense that we have finally found the perfect subject of consideration and the perfect motive for happiness.  But our joy will not thus be brought to a pinnacle and then be forever without additional perfection.  While the Latin prayer leaves me with a sense of ever more to come, the ICEL prayer does not.

On that note, let’s find a contrast in some feedback to WDTPRS for Easter Sunday concerning the various scandals we are experiencing today.  Via internet someone with the nom de guerre “Sickened Badly” responds:

Priests are not human, at least not the ones who make the "mistakes". I’m sickened, absolutely sickened by these monsters. They should be locked away together, let them molest each other. Then, they should be forced to watch their own nieces, nephews, brothers and sisters be molested by other priests. Sick, sick, sick. Let them burn in hell. There is no place on earth, much less heaven for them.

I respond.  When the Lord taught His disciples how to pray (the Lord’s prayer) the single point He went back over and explained… and He did it twice… is the absolute requirement that we forgive. If we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven. The Lord did not command us to "forget". He did not command us to be stupid, either.   Second, it is interesting that this angry person would find some twisted justice in even more innocent children being hurt by priests…. fascinating way of thinking… no?  This is the thinking of the “beasts” I referred to in WDTPRS that day.  Moreover, I would point out that the writer of the above is a sinner, as we all are. Whoever you may be, friend, you are a sinner. And while we acknowledge without reservation that some sins are far graver than others, we also know that you have hurt people by your sins too. Any one of the mortal sins you committed deserves the everlasting punishments of hell… where the unforgiving are also destined to wind up (according the Christ). To avoid that bad end you will need to ask for forgiveness and give it as well.  The Holy Father put this terrible situation in the proper perspective when he placed it all in the context of the mysterium iniquitatis and the mysterium crucis.   So great is the love of God and the mysterious Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross that we know, without questioning, that forgiveness can even be given to the priests (not to mention all sinners) who have harmed children. Because of Christ, it possible for us to forgive greatly, not just receive forgiveness. This is part of God’s solution to the mysterium iniquitatis.  In our Easter season we resound with the super oblata we examined: grant the fruit of perpetual rejoicing to whom Thou hast already furnished the motive of such a great joy… forgiveness for our sins and the hope of eternal life.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? Third Sunday of Easter

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2001

We are well into the Easter season now.  By reconnecting us with the Vigil liturgy, our collect today stresses some elements of the mystery of Easter that we should keep firmly in mind through the whole Eastertide season.

COLLECT:
LATIN (1970 Missale Romanum):
Semper exsultet populus tuus, Deus,
renovata animae iuventute,
ut, qui nunc laetatur in adoptionis se gloriam restitutum,
resurrectionis diem spe certae gratulationis exspectet.The genitives, adoptionis…resurrectionis… gratulationis, give the end of this collect a very cohesive feeling.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, let your people always rejoice,
now that the youth of their spirit has been renewed,
so that, he who now rejoices that he has been restored in the glory of spiritual adoption
may await the day of the resurrection in the hope of sure thanksgiving.

Notice that we have a rather elegantly scrambled word order in the second part of the collect: qui nunc laetatur in adoptionis se gloriam restitutum, the infinitive esse being understood… laetatur se restitutum (esse) in gloriam adoptionis.  The slightly odd wording puts a special emphasis on the word gloria.  This elegant and poetic word order also gives some weight to a connection I will make to another famous Easter Latin prayer.  But first some vocabulary, as usual.

Adoptio of course is “adoption” in the sense of “to take as one’s child.”  We find the phrase adoptionem filiorum Dei … “adoption of the sons of God” in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (Romans 8,23; Gal 4,5; Eph 1,5).  Gratulatio means “a manifestation of joy; a wishing joy, congratulation; a rejoicing, joy and also “a religious festival of joy and thanksgiving, a public thanksgiving.” 

Now for the connection I mentioned above.  Our collect today makes me wonder if there is not a conscious attempt on the part of the Church, now that Easter and its octave have passed, to remind us of the stupendous moment of the Easter Vigil.  Perhaps this prayer tries to recapture something of that joy.  Maybe we are being reminded that in the Easter season Easter itself is truly being extended.  I guess at this possibility because of the words exsultet and adoptio.  I will explain.  On the Vigil of Easter the great hymn of the diaconate was sung, the magnificent Praeconium Paschale or Exsultet.  Composed perhaps as early as the fifth century and maybe in parts going back to St. Ambrose himself, this hymn (or lucernarium) came into the Roman tradition through a ninth century addition to the so-called Gregorian Sacramentary.   After the preparation of the Paschal candle and the procession to the sanctuary, dressed in his dalmatic the deacon asks a blessing from the priest/celebrant as if he were about to read the Gospel.  He incenses the Paschal candle, or “Christ Candle” as it is often called.  He begins the hymn much as if he were singing a Preface (Sursum corda!  “Up with your hearts!”) He invites the vast array of heavenly angels to join him in praising Christ symbolized in the candle that is lit at the beginning of the Vigil liturgy.  This is a long text: sung at a normal pace the Exsultet is about ten minutes in duration.  It has many beautiful and evocative images.  In the medieval Church, the text was written out elegantly on long parchment rolls, with large beautiful pictures painted on it depicting the mysteries and imagery being sung.  They were painted upside down, so that as the deacon sang and unrolled the scroll over the back of the ambo, the people could see the images right-side up.  The text is a long meditation on the candle as it symbolizes Christ, risen gloriously, and how He has saved humanity from sin.  The famous phrase O felix culpa is found here, “O happy fault that merited so to have so great a redeemer.”  Also, many times the hymn refers to the amazing nature of the night itself, during which Christ rose.  There are constant contrasts of light and darkness.  One of the images of meditation in the Exsultet concerns the flame of the candle itself: the wax which nourishes the divided and yet undiminished flame of the candle is identified as the work of bees.  Above I explained that adoptio is a “spiritual adoption” in the sense of the effects of baptism making us members of the risen Christ and children of the loving Father.  Adoptio is also used in a transferred sense, as The Lewis & Short Dictionary informs us, for the “admission of a bee into a new hive.”  This is a classical Latin usage.  However, we must remember that these prayers, Christian though they may be, come forth from a deep culture formed and permeated in great part by two thousand years of Latin literature. The well-read will remember images and interesting usages of words from classical literature and weave them into what they compose in a conscious way.  This connection with the roots of Western literature is all the more reason to provide the English speaking faithful with truly accurate and beautiful translations of the Latin prayers in the Missale Romanum.

ICEL:
God our Father,
may we look forward with hope to our resurrection,
for you have made us your sons and daughters,
and restored the joy of our youth.

This prayer touches themes found in the Latin.  I think it might be deficient in eliminating what I consider a necessary reference to glory.  Of course, in the Latin prayer, the word gloria is clearly present.  But gloria, which I have explained in previous offerings of WDTPRS, is also that dynamic transforming power by which God will make us more and more “godlike” in the life to come.  Easter is very much about gloria.  Christ reigns now in glory because of the resurrection.  We can share that glory because He is risen.

Another thing that might be worth mentioning is a possible connection between the theme of restored “youth” and the Psalm that the priest would say always at the beginning of Mass: Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat iuventutem meam…. “I will go unto the altar of God, of God who makes my youth joyful.”  In baptism we are made members of Christ’s own mystical Person.  While there is a clear qualitative distinction between the priesthood of the ordained priest and that of the baptized laity, this idea of youthful and renewed priesthood is part of our Easter joy.  All of us, ordained and lay, each in our own way must in the manner of a priest offer our spiritual sacrifices to the Father, uniting them to those of Jesus our High Priest.  In Him, we therefore already share that eternally youthful life that will never age.  We will one day be risen and glorious, with glorified bodies that will not know age or deficiency and will reflect the beauty of the purified soul.  Easter and indeed our own baptism anticipate this glory.  I do not think I would have eliminated the concept of glory from the English translation.

Pray during this Easter season for our bishops, the members of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, and all those to whom making translations has been entrusted.

So, will it be today?

I am not holding my breath.

I tip my biretta  o{]:¬)  to Defensor Veritatis for the link to Mormon 2 Catholic in which its writrix provides quotes she unearthed from under the rock of a Mormon site called Mormon Quotes.   Remember, folks, to put on your best glasses when reading, ‘cause you don’t want to miss a word.  I really like this one she found (emphasis mine):

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church? A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God by denying immediate revelation, and substituting in the place thereof, tradition and ancient revelations as a sufficient rule of faith and practice. Q. Did the great Protestant Reformers restore the Church of Christ to the earth? A. No: for they had no inspired Apostles, Prophets, or Revelators among them, without which the Church could not be restored. Q. But did not the first Protestant Reformers receive their ordination and authority from the Catholics? A. Yes: and in this manner they received all the authority that their mother church was in possession of; and the mother having derived her authority from the Devil, could only impart that which his Satanic majesty was pleased to bestow upon her.

Author: Orson Pratt
Source: The Seer
Page: 205

Yessirie, there it is.  I like how Pratt falls into the use of calling the Church "mother" and "she", don’t you?  BB: Protestants are also pretty much hosed as well.

On the other hand, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faither under Cardinal Ratzinger made an official statement, approved by Pope John Paul II (now deparated to his own planet, perhaps), about Mormon "baptism".  It is a worth reading in its entirety.

RESPONSE TO A ‘DUBIUM’
on the validity of baptism conferred by
«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,
called «Mormons»

Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

 
+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
Prefect

+Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

Over at the excellent blog In The Light Of The Law, Dr. Peter’s made the following observation: 

Of those matters we know anything about (an important qualification when discussing papal activities), Benedict XVI’s letter to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints seems to me to be one of the most important things he’s done to date. It certainly shows the clearest difference between him and John Paul II to emerge so far. Benedict XVI could have communicated his concerns about the beatification and canonization process in a simple telephone call; instead he wrote a short treatise on the topic. The world was meant to take notice.

I cannot in the least quibble with the fact that when a Pope addresses a plenary of a curial dicastery, he is giving direction and often makes course corrections.  All you need to do is review the late John Paul II’s addresses to the Rota and Signatura to see that.  I also agree that the world was meant to take notice.  Why else would it be published (as they always are)?

His Holiness Pope Benedict hasn’t given something new to the Congregation, as far as their regular work and procedure is concerned.  There is nothing new, for example, in what the Pope said about martyrdom.  I had the privilege of completing the full course, or Studium, given by the Congregation for Causes of Saints.  The Studium trains and certifies postulators for causes for beatification and canonization in both the diocesan and Roman phases as well as other collaborators of the Holy See. The things mentioned by Dr. Peter’s, while very important for a wider audience, were nothing new to the Congregation and its collaborators.  The instructors of the Studium made these very same points, emphatically.

Still, Dr. Peter’s has done a service in making this address known to a wider audience.  Take a few minutes and read it yourselves, if you can.  I think little by little we are seeing Pope Benedict reveal more and more of the way he is taking his pontificate.  Themes are emerging. 

Here is what Dr. Peter’s post provoke in me this morning, but first let’s take a step backward.  Go back to what the Holy Father said, for example, in his 1 January Message for the 2006 World Day of Peace (issued also in Arabic, by the way).   In my opinion, that very useful document is actually a lens through which you can read part of what Pope Benedict has in his playbook for his papacy. 

In that Message, Benedict describes the forces which violate the rights of men to have the truth.  Truth is a binding theme for Joseph Ratzinger’s theological reflection.  His motto as a bishop and cardinal on his coat of arms was "Cooperatores Veritatis… Coworkers of the Truth" (from 3 John 1:8).  Let’s look at the Message for a moment before reading what I think is the most important part of his address to the plenary of the Congregation for Causes of Saints.

In the 2006 Message for the World Day of Peace, the Holy Father explored among other things the connection between peace and the Truth.  He spoke about the nature of lies and mendacity.  Then he addressed himself to two violations of the Truth which also violate peace and the rights of man: religious fundamentalism and nihilism.  He said:

10. Looked at closely, nihilism and the fundamentalism of which we are speaking share an erroneous relationship to truth: the nihilist denies the very existence of truth, while the fundamentalist claims to be able to impose it by force. Despite their different origins and cultural backgrounds, both show a dangerous contempt for human beings and human life, and ultimately for God himself. Indeed, this shared tragic outcome results from a distortion of the full truth about God: nihilism denies God’s existence and his provident presence in history, while fanatical fundamentalism disfigures his loving and merciful countenance, replacing him with idols made in its own image. In analyzing the causes of the contemporary phenomenon of terrorism, consideration should be given, not only to its political and social causes, but also to its deeper cultural, religious and ideological motivations.

This was clearly a political comment aimed at two kinds of regimes: those dangerous dinosaurs which are still mired in the materialistic system of Communism (such as N. Korea, the PCR, Cuba, etc.) and also the newer serpents of Islamic fundamentalism (leading even today to ongoing genocide in certain hot zones).  In the areas targeted by Pope Benedict, a savage persecution of Christians taking place.   Except in a few cases and places (such as Saudi Arabia) the persecutors will not admit that it is because of the Christian faith that they are oppressing people.  For example, in the People’s Republic of China it is claimed that Christians might give loyalty to a foreign power rather that the people or state, etc.  Benedict’s point was clear in that 2006 Message for the World Day of Peace.  It was also far more pointed than anything I recall from his predecessor.

Now turn back to his address to the Congregation for Causes of Saints and the point Dr. Peter’s was making about martyrdom.  NB: Martyrs are murdered because of hatred of the Christian faith or those Christian virtues which are part and parcel with living the Christian faith.  Their death is a supreme act of charity, in which the other virtues, in that moment, are entirely embraced and exemplified, thus bearing witness to the faith in Christ, the Gospel and the Church.  Benedict said (my translation from the Italian and emphasis):

If the motive that drives one to martyrdom remains invaried, having in Christ the source and the model, on the other hand changed are the cultural contexts of martyrdom and the strategies "ex parte persecutoris" ("on the part of the persecutor), who is always seeking to make evident less and less in an explicit way his aversion to the Christian faith or to a style of life connected with the Christian virtues, but rather feigns different reasons, political or social reasons for example. 

Put another way, the Congregation and those involved in the causes must work diligently to gather the necessary proofs (testomonies, documents, etc.) which can demonstrate that the person killed was really killed because of hatred of the Faith or those things intimately bound to the Faith.  They must discover if the person killed was accepting martyrdom for the love of God, etc. 

This is often difficult because today those who persecute Christians are not necessarily shouting their reasons when they kill someone.  To contextualize this a little, the Pope, the Diocese of Rome, indeed all of Italy, was deeply moved by the murder, perhaps martyrdom, of an Italian priest of the Diocese of Rome who was serving in Turkey.  Fr. Andrea Santoro was shot dead by a young man shouting "Allahu Akbar".  However, some are saying that the priest, was actually killed not for religious reasons but rather by local organized crime members because of his work to help women get out of prostitution.  Pro-Islamic press is spinning it one way, others are taking the other view.  This is an example of what Pope Benedict is taking about in his address to the Congregation.

Pope Benedict’s comments are full of insight.  In the prevailing relativistic culture (another of his themes) there is a true hatred for things Christian and those who embrace Christianity, especially the fullness of Christianity which is in the Catholic Christian Faith and Church. 

I thank Dr. Peter’s for stimulating my mind today.

I had some mail and comments about my entry on the Latin of GIRM 299 and the English translation.

In one case I was asked by Paul B: "Just to play the devil’s advocate, ... (c)ouldn’t the ‘quod’ be taken, not as a neuter relative pronoun, ‘which’..., but as the conjunction ‘because’....  This would lend weight to the bishop’ BLS translation and give it more force for their ‘facing the people’ agenda."  

While I was pretty sure I had rendered it correctly (namely, that the quod referred to the whole thing that went before) I consulted Fr. Reginald Foster, OCD (Latin secretary to His Holiness in the Secretariat of State) about 299.  As I supposed, the quod refers to what goes before.  It is not "because".  Look at the Latin again.

The Latin:
Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.

The BLS translation (which is now the GIRM translation):
The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. (Emphases added)

The problem with the GIRM translation is that it gives the impression that it is celebration versus populum which is desirable, rather than the separation of the altar from the wall.

My version:
The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out.  (Emphases added)

The Latin does not say that celebrations versus populum are desirable.  It says that separation of the altar from the wall is desirable (or useful or fitting) wherever possible.  The ut clause explains how far the altar should be from the wall by way of explaining the reason for a separation from the wall.  It should be far enough from the wall so that someone can walk around the altar so that if there should be celebration for Mass versus populum the priest will have room. 

In otherwords, since "separated" could technically be only a single centimeter, the paragraph makes the distance a little more specific: far enough so that Mass can be celebrated versus populum.  Furthermore, this separation from the wall is not obligatory.  It is fitting or useful or desirable wherever it is possible.  It is not obligatory.   (Neither is celebration of Mass versus populum, obviously.)

There are any number of reasons why it might not be possible to separate an altar from the wall.  For example, it might be that the altar is of historic importance.  Maybe the architecture of the church is such that to change the altar would ruin the focus.  It might be that there would not be adequate room in the sanctuary if the mensa (or table) of the altar was moved forward.  Maybe in that place the decision was made to have celebrations of Mass ad orientem versus and not versus populum.  All of these would be entirely adequate reasons.  You can probably think of more reasons yourself.  Furthermore, there is no obligation to change an existing altar.  This would apply more to new construction.

The official translation gives the impression that what 299 is asking for is celebration versus populum rather than separation of the altar "wherever it is possible".  Read the GIRM translation again: The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. (Emphases added)

Does the GIRM translation of 299 it not give you that impression as well?

I had to make a few software adjustments to the blog.  Lately a huge amount of spam is being submitted as comments to entries.  As a result I am tweaking some of the settings here to see if I can cut some of it off at the pass. 

However, it might have happened that some legitmate comments were eliminated when I was clearing out the dead wood to the burn pile (where the spammers themselves will also one day be consigned, I am sure).   Of course there were also comments I deleted simply because they were nasty.  Life is too short for both spam and nastygrams.

In any event, I turned on the option which asks people to be logged in in order to post comments.   I sure would prefer to have a bit more freedom, but the unsolicited garbage has become intolerable.  Someday I may know more about plugins or code tweaks which could help filter the gook out of the system, but until then, let’s try it this way.

So much attention is given to the fallen American troops in Iraq and elsewhere.  Let us not forget that there are troops from other countries who are also making sacrifices for the cause of freedom and the war on terror.

Therefore, please pray for the repose of souls of three Italian soldiers killed this morning in Iraq. Remember their families and say a prayer, right now as you read, for them.

Killed by a roadside bomb were Capt. Nicola Ciardelli, paratrooper, and two NCO’s of the Carabinieri corps, Franco Lattanzio and Carlo De Trizio. A Rumenian corporal was killed too, Bogdan Hancu. A fourth Italian soldier is in critical condition in the US Army hospital in Kuwait City.

For those with too little time to read at length, let me give you a blunt summary: For decades the liturgical establishment has operated as if the Council required the abolition of Latin and the ripping out of versus Deum altars in favor of free standing altars.  They imposed, unjustly and incorrectly, a misperception that Mass had to be celebrated "facing the people".  At the same time, the supremely shallow description of Mass "with the priest’s back to the people" has been lent to celebrations ad orientem versus.  Some good work has been done in recent years to reopen the issue and rethink it in a more balanced way.  

In another entry I said I had attented the presentation of the Italian edition of Turning Towards The Lord by Uwe Michael Lang.  In that entry I mentioned the controversy about the infamous paragraph 299 of the 2000 GIRM (which applies to the 2002 Missale Romanum).  No. 299 refers to the position of the altar in the presbyterium (sanctuary).

Here is something I wrote about this in the pages of The Wanderer for the 5th Sunday of Easter back in 2002.  This gives you a taste of the issue and how the misrepresentation of the altar issue can have dire consequences:

In WDTPRS last week I said we might review the translation controversy surrounding the now-in-force General Instruction of the Roman Missal’s (2002GIRM) paragraph #299, about the placement of the altar and the direction of celebration of Holy Mass.   Background: the U.S. Bishops’ Conference issued on 16 November 2000 a document called "Built of Living Stones: Art, Architecture, and Worship" (BLS).  BLS was intended to replace the heinous 1978 statement Environment and Art in Catholic Worship which served at the foundation for the “denovation” of countless churches even though it really had no authority. BLS has a section about the placement of the altar in which it quotes 2002GIRM #299 (remember that what I now call the 2002GIRM had been released in Latin in 2000, far in advance of the release of the 2002 Missale Romanum). The bishops’ BLS gives an English translation of #299 in footnote #75:

In every church there should ordinarily be a fixed, dedicated altar, which should be freestanding to allow the ministers to walk around it easily and Mass to be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable whenever possible….

In the National Catholic Register of 7-14 April 2002, a statement was made that, according to the new GIRM, it is now preferable to celebrate Mass “facing the people.”  If the Register is making this mistake, it would appear that there was some serious damage caused from the mistranslation of #299 used by the bishops.  Let us look at #299.  The last time we examined it at length was in the third article of WDTPRS for the 2^nd Sunday of Advent in the year 2000: Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.

The English version in BLS (above) is faulty.  The translator failed to see that quod refers back to the main clause of the sentence. The bishops’ translator fell into the common trap of translating the Latin word by word, rather than reading the whole sentence. Their translator made #299 read as if there is a preference or even a requirement in the law itself to celebrate Mass facing the people. But #299 indicates nothing of the kind. That paragraph really says:

  The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out.  (Emphases added)

 

This paragraph explains the distance of separation from the wall: at least far enough so that it can be used from either side, rather than just an inch or two of separation.  The Latin doesn’t even hint that Mass must be said versus populum.  It only provides that it can be.  And that is not an absolute, either. What makes this very troubling is that on 25 September 2000 the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments issued a clarification (Prot. No. 2036/00/L) regarding #299 in the new Latin GIRM. That clarification says:

 

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

 

Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation. 

 

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall).  It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.

 

Clearly, there are continuing difficulties in providing dependable translations of the Latin texts. This particular error demonstrates that we need a good and accurate translation of the 2002GIRM – which is now in force – and we need it NOW.  Is it too much to imagine that the Holy See released the new GIRM appearing in the new 2002MR way back in the year 2000 so that we could have a good translation in hand at the moment it came into force? The texts of the new Latin GIRM and BLS can be found at the U.S. Bishops’ website (http://www.nccbuscc.org).

During the 27 April 2006 presentation of the Italian edition of Lang’s Turning Toward The Lord, there is a preface by Joseph Card. Ratzinger.  Then Card. Ratzinger took up this very issue about the translation of paragraph 299 making it clear, with the Congregation, that (my trans.):

"... the word ‘expedit’ (‘is desirable’) required no obligation, but was a simple suggestion."

Lang in his first chapter takes us through the genesis of that paragraph in the GIRM, pointing out also how it was applied, or rather misapplied, throughout the decades following the post-Conciliar reform for the liturgy.  It is a very useful resource in itself.

It is rather hard to find on the web clear photos of His Excellency Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don (called generally Malcolm Ranjith) who is the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.  So, here is one.  You can now see what His Excellency looks like.  I have written of His Excellency’s appointment to his present mandate elsewhere in this blog.

 

Today I attended the presentation of a book.  The Italian edition of Uwe Michael Lang’s book Turning Towards The Lord (in Italian Rivolti al Signore: l’orientamento nella preghiera liturgica.  Cantagalli, 2006.  Ignatius Press originally published it in English in 2004.)  The preface was by Joseph Card. Ratzinger, whom I think you know.  One of the presenters was Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith who is the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS). 

The book is a positive contribution to the discussion of the importance of rethinking the now prevailing practice of celebration of Holy Mass "toward the people" (versus populum) and making a move back to an orientation of the Eucharistic liturgy "toward God" (versus Deum  or versus orientem).  Uwe picks up on work already provided by scholars like Klaus Gamber, Joseph Jungmann, Max Thurian, Louis Bouyer, and Joseph Ratzinger.

Without descending onto the old Mass v new Mass battlefield, Lang underscores the spiritual dimension of celebrations ad orientem versus.  While there is a strong argument for having the liturgy of the Word versus populum there is similarly a strong, even overwhelming argument in favor of versus Deum celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy.  Without repeating the argument of the whole book, in the case of the former there is a proclamation, while in the case of the latter having priest and people all "oriented" opens the celebration up to an eschatological dimension.  Another strong point of the book is the documentation of how the Second Vatican Council in no way required the repression of Latin or a tearing out of altars or a versus populum celebration.  He provides as well the rubrical evidence for ad orientem celebrations.

During the presentation of the book, there was honorable mention of the correct translation of the 2000 GIRM (which is the GIRM for the 2002 third edition of the Missale Romanum) in the infamous no. 299.  This point was taken up in the preface by Card. Ratzinger as well.  On many occasions in the WDTPRS series I have shown how the USCCB’s document Built of Living Stones retained a faulty translation of 299 even after the aforemention CDWDS had issued a clarification in which it was considered necessary even to explain the grammar of the Latin!

I recommend the book.