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

In 412 St. Augustine was preaching on the meaning of a psalm in the city of Carthage. 

Remember that Augustine had stenographers who wrote with astonishing accuracy everything he said.  You can hear the "oratorical" quality of this piece.  You can tell it is a sermon and that the people are reacting to him as he speaks.  The force of it builds and builds.  Here is the bishop:

When some festival of the martyrs falls due, perhaps, and some holy place is named at which all are to assemble to celebrate the solemn rites, remember how the throngs incite one another, how people encourage each other, saying, “Come on, let’s go!”  Others ask, “Where are we going?”  And they are told, “To that place, to the holy site.”  People talk to each other and catch fire with enthusiasm, and all the separate flames unite into a single flame.  This one flame that springs up from the conversation of many people who enkindle one another seizes them all and sweeps them along to the holy place.  Their devout resolve sanctifies them. 

If, then, holy love energizes people and tugs them to a material place, what kind of love must it be that tugs persons united in heart toward heaven, as they say to each other, We are going to the Lord’s house?  Let’s run, let’s run fast, they say, for we are going to the Lord’s house!  Let’s run and not weary, because we shall reach a place where fatigue will never touch us.  Let’s run to the Lord’s house, and let our soul be gladdened by those who tell us these things; for those who cheer us on have seen out homeland before we have, and they shout from afar to us latecomers, “We are going to the Lord’s house!  Walk!  Run!”  The apostles have seen it, and they exhort us, “Run, walk, follow: we are going to the Lord’s house!”  And what do we reply, every one of us?  “I rejoice over those who told me, We are going to the Lord’s house.  I rejoiced over the prophets and I rejoiced over the apostles, for all of them have told us, We are going to the Lord’s house.” 

(En. ps. 121.2)

There is simultanously in this tour de force imagery of pilgrimage and also of the athletic race.  This is so appropriate for today, which is the feast of the Proto-martyrs of Rome. 

Yesterday, on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, Rome saw thousands upon thousands of people flow to the Basilica of St. Peter and outside the wall to the Basilica of St. Paul to visit the tombs of the martyrs. 

Each day in Rome people visit the churches and catacombs to venerate the tombs of martyrs, some few who are famous and many thousands whose names are known only to God and their blessed companions in heavenly glory.

This prayer was not in earlier version of the Missale Romanum, though it was in the Proper for Rome itself. 
<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>
COLLECT:
Deus, qui Romanae Ecclesiae copiosa primordia
martyrum sanguine consecrasti,
concede, quaesumus,
ut firma virtute de tanti agone certaminis solidemur
et pia semper victoria gauedeamus.

There are ancient fragments here, however: the origin seems to be from the so-called “Leonine” Sacramentary, better known as the Veronese for the feast of the Roman deacon and martyr St. Lawrence (IIII IDUS AUGUSTAS. NATALE SANCTI LAURENTI): Concede nobis, domine, gratiam tuam in beati Laurentii martyris celebritate multiplicem, ut de tanti agone certaminis discat populus christianus et firma solidari patientia et pia exsultare victoria.

Words like agon and certamen, words for “battle” and “struggle” and “athletic contest” which St. Paul himself employs to describe the Christian apostolic experience, are used often for the early martyrs.  Martyrs “run races” and win “unfading crowns”.  Their “victory” in death is the reward of heaven.

LITERAL VERSION:
O God, who consecrated the rich beginnings
of the Roman Church with the blood of martyrs,
grant, we beseech You,
that from the struggle of such a great contest may be made steadfast in constant virtue
and we may rejoice always in pious victory.

When certain ancient portions of this prayer were crafted, the memories of the martyrs had not really faded from memory.  The people of the Church knew that their freedom of Faith had been won by the blood of their forebears. 

Can we say the same?   The comfy Church of the 21^st century may yet have to face terror, persecution and death.  It already does in not so comfy places in the world.  When will the “comfy” part change?   We should remember the martyrs, friends, and take upon ourselves something of a daily martyrdom with the practice of voluntary penances.  These will help us to secure a holy victory in the moment of challenge and a reward in heaven.

We can and must encourage each other each and every day.  In a way, is not what many of us are doing with the Catholic blogosphere another way of urging each other on?  With the technology of creating links and interconnecting our comments and informing each other, are we not in a way doing what in that sermon Augustine describes as making many individual flames become one brighter flame? 

For this reason I thank all of you who, read, comment and link.  Something special occurs thereby.

Bishop Lynch of Florida has begun to comment on the new translation (which is still in preparation).  I was amused to read:

new principles of translation were forthcoming which insisted on a slavish, strict translation of the Latin text

 

LOL!!  Look… I do "slavish, strict" translations in my columns and on this blog.  What was prepared by ICEL and what is asked for in the norms is decidedly not slavish.

Today during Holy Mass in the Basilica of St. Peter, near to Peter’s tomb, the Holy Father gave the pallium to new metropolitan archbishops.  I didn;t have a front row seat, but I wasn’t too far back either.  There some advantages to my state here.

The pallium is a sign of the jurisidication metropolitans have in their provinces and also a sign of their closer bond with the person of the Successor of Peter.  This is one of the reasons why before the pallia are granted, they rest in a niche at Peter’s tomb.

Before they receive the pallium the Archbishops are to take an oath:

Ego…
Archiepiscopus…
beato Petro apostolo,
Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae,
ac tibi, Summo Pontifici,
tuisque legitimis Successoribus
semper fidelis ero et oboediens. 
Ita me Deus omnipotens adiuvet.

I…
Archbishop of the _ diocese (these are adjectives)
will always be faithful and obedient to
St. Peter the apostle,
the Holy Roman Church,
and to you, the Supreme Pontiff
and to your legitimate Successors.
So help me God Almighty.

It is interesting that in recent decades this oath is witnessed by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople or his delegate.

The Holy Father blessed the pallia today with these words (my close but not too literal translation):

O God, eternal Pastor of souls, who committed to blessed Peter the Apostle those who are called "the flock" by Jesus Christ Your Son, that  they should be governed by him after the model of the Good Shepherd (boni Pastoris typo) , through our ministry pour forth the grace of Your blessing upon these Pallia, which as symbols You desired to be concrete signs (documenta) of pastoral care.

Receive the our humble prayers and grant through the intercession and merits of the Apostles, that whoever will bear them, You generously making it so, may understand himself to be the Shepherd of Your flock, and will show forth in his work that which is signified by the name.

Let him take up the evangelical yoke lain upon his neck, and let it be for him so light and sweet, that in running by example swiftly along the way of your commands, he may merit to be admitted into the everlasting pasture.

When the Pope places the pallium on the neck of the archbishop kneeling before him, he says:

For the glory of Almighty God and the praise of the blessed Virgin Mary and of saints Peter and Paul, for the decorum of the Sees committed to you, unto a sign of the authority of a metropolitan, we bestow upon you the Pallium taken from the Confession of saint Peter, so that you may use it within the confines of your ecclesiatical provinces.

May this Pallium be for your a symbol of unity and a token (tessera) of communion with the Apostolic See; may it be a bond of charity (vinculum caritatis) and a spur of fortitude, so that in the day of the Coming and the revelation of the great God and prince of shepherds Jesus Christ, you may together with the the flocks entrusted to you obtain (potiamini) the stole of immortality and glory.

There are some nice things here.  First, the image of a tessera is lovely.  A tessera is literally a small block or cube.  It is used to describe the little cubes that make up a mosaic.  It is still the Italian word for an officially issued pass or a ticket or i.d. card.  In this case it makes me think of how each of these archbishops, so different in themselves and in very different places through the world, are contributing in their individual way to the "big picture". 

Also in mosaics in the apses of ancient Roman churches you often see very courly sheep processing solemnly to the center of the mosaics where they are being gathered together under Christ, flanked by his apostles.  The are coming to drink of flowing, living water.  These are symbols of the life to come.  I believe that this is what the prayer is driving at.  It is meant to invokce this image.  The play on the word potiamini is a subtle triumph here. Potiamini is from potior, one of those word that takes the ablative, and means "attain, obtain" or "drink".  However, it also calls instantly to mind the word potio "a drinking".

This Collect is in part inspired by that of the parallel prayer in the 1962 Missale Romanum. However, it seems to be a rather new creation, if not entirely new.

COLLECT:
Deus, qui huius diei venerandam
sanctamque laetitiam in apostolorum
Petri et Pauli sollemnitate tribuisti,
da Ecclesiae tuae
eorum in omnibus sequi praeceptum,
per quos religionis sumpsit exordium.

There is a usage in late Latin of sumo and exordium which is surely at work here: "to make a beginning". 

Since this seems to be a fairly new prayer we have a little flexibility with religio.  It might be hard to do better than entry in the great Lewis & Short Dictionary says: "Reverence for God (the gods), the fear of God, connected with a careful pondering of divine things; piety, religion, both pure inward piety and that which is manifested in religious rites and ceremonies; hence the rites and ceremonies, as well as the entire system of religion and worship, the res divinae or sacrae, were frequently called religio or religiones".  On the other hand, the source for liturigcal Latin Blaise/Dumas suggests merely: "piete" and "religion".  Religio in our context needs a word or phrase that gets at the external express or our interior attitude.

VERY LITERAL VERSION:
O God, who for the solemnity of the
apostles Peter and Paul
bestowed the holy and venerable joy of this day,
grant to Your Church
to follow in all things their instruction
through whom she made a beginning of the life of faith.

This is a great day for the Roman Church and the Catholic Church throughout the world.  Let’s get some insight into the importance of Peter and Paul through the writings of St. Augustine.  Here is a starter from s. 295.

1. This day has been consecrated for us by the martyrdoms of the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul.  It’s not some obscure martyrs we are talking about.  Their sound has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the wide world (Ps 19:4).  These martyrs had seen what they proclaimed, they pursued justice by confessing the truth, by dying for the truth.  The blessed Peter, the first of the apostles, the ardent lover of Christ, who was found worthy to hear, And I say to you, that you are Peter.  He himself, you see, had just said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.  Christ said to him, And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:16.18).  Upon this rock I will build the faith which you have just confessed.  Upon what you have just said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church; because you are Peter.
            Peter, Rocky, from rock, not rock from Rocky.  Peter comes from petra, rock, in exactly the same way as Christian comes from Christ.  Do you want to know what rock Peter is called after?  Listen to Paul: I would not have you ignorant, brothers, the apostle of Christ says; I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized in Moses in the cloud in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink.  For the drank from the rock that was following them, and the rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:1-4).  There you have where Rocky, Peter, is from.

In that passage, Augustine makes a close connection not only between the confession of Peter and the Church (which is what most Protestants think Christ did, and did only) but also between the person of Peter and the establishment of the Church.

But in Augustine’s understanding, Christ went beyond saying that His authority to bind and loose rested in the person of Peter alone.  He connects Peter and his actions with the Holy Spirit.  Augustine speaks of how Christ gave the keys to Peter and explains:

It is the dove that binds, the dove that looses, the building built upon the rock that binds and looses. 

Let those who are bound fear, those who are loosed fear.  Let those who are loosed be afraid of being bound; those who are bound pray to be loosed.  Each one is tied up in the threads of his own sins (Prv 5:22).  And apart from the Church, nothing is loosed.

 

I wonder if Guy has been spending too much time out there in the Piazza under the blazing hot sun!? 

o{];¬)

He wrote:

the NCR (you know…the "Wanderer" of the left)

Now, really!  That isn’t the case at all.  The NCR is far more to the left than The Wanderer is to the right!  There are quite a few publications which make The Wanderer look rather like… well, the NCR, now that I think of it!

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  The Roman Canon / 1^st Eucharistic Prayer – 1: The Preface

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2004

We move now to the Roman Canon, the “First Eucharistic Prayer” in the editions of the Novus Ordo, the Missale Romanum of 1970, of 1975, and the most recent third edition of 2002.  Again, our working tool will be very literal translations, recognizing that the translation will always be lacking, not trying to make translations to be used instead of the officially recognized texts, but prompting interest in, knowledge of and love for God, the Church, and Holy Mass as the source and summit of our Christian Catholic lives.  We must build awareness of the problems in the present official translations, not in a polemical way (though I might slip a bit here and there), but in a way that will inspire you to pray for those involved in preparing new translations and to write to them and tell them of your support.   In a recent conference in Rome held for the 40th anniversary of Second Vatican Council’s document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, I spoke with His Eminence Francis Card. George of Chicago (head of the USCCB committee on liturgy and a member of the Vatican’s Vox Clara committee).  In my feedback for the week, His Eminence knew these WDTPRS articles, said he liked them though he didn’t get to read all of them, and that he appreciated the positive support of people who take time to write.   Friends, we must tell these people of our desires and expectations for new translations.  The next set of translations will influence the next generations of the faithful.

Let us put the Roman Canon into some historical and functional perspective.  Where did it come from and what does it do?    Entire sets of books could be written on either question, much less a series of articles, or, audaciously, a few paragraphs.  I cannot allow myself to be anything like exhaustive. 

First, what is a “canon”?   The awe-inspiring A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott and revised by Jones (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1940 – called also just Liddell and Scott or the LSJ – the intermediate version is called “Middle Liddell”) informs us that kanón means first, “straight rod, bar, especially to keep a thing straight”.   By extension it means, “a rule, a standard” and is also applied to a table or a list.   “Canon” thus means many things in English, including a secular or ecclesiastical law, rule, or code of law; an established principle as in ‘the canons of polite society’; a basis for judgment; and so forth.  In matters of the Church “canon” describes also a cleric attached to a chapter of a church or cathedral and, especially, the list of books in the “Bible” officially recognized as written with the inspiration of God.  Kanón in the Byzantine Rite is the arrangement of the nine odes according to the order in which they are to be sung.    The “Roman” Canon is the name for the First Eucharistic prayer in the Holy Mass in the Latin Rite.  In his letters Pope St. Gregory “the Great” (540-604) uses “canon” to describe the “Eucharistic Prayer”. The Gelasian Sacramentary has a heading before the prayer “Incipit Canon Actionis” before the Sursum corda (the so called “lift up your hearts”).  Since the 7th c. “canon” has been the title for this central, consecratory, part of Holy Mass.    I recommend that you read over the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “The Canon of the Mass” and also consult the great Joseph A. Jungmann’s two volume monument The Mass of the Roman Rite.   The less history I can do here, the more translation and commentary I can accomplish.

You will note in your older hand Missals, that the Canon was thought to begin after the Sanctus.  Later hand missals reflect better scholarship.  More accurately, the introductory dialogue before the Sanctus is considered to be part of the Canon, and so that is where we will begin our work this week.  The Eucharistic Prayer includes an introductory dialog between the priest (or bishop) celebrant and those present.  Ideally it is sung.

The Preface
LATIN TEXT (2002MR)

S. Dominus vobiscum.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
S. Sursum corda.
R. Habemus ad Dominum.
S. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
R. Dignum et iustum est.

Would a WDTPRS column be complete without citations from our illustrious Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary?   First, dominus means “one who has subdued or conquered; hence, a master, possessor, ruler, lord, proprietor, owner.”  Dominus came to be a form of a address, such as “Lord” or “Sir”.   The address of “My Lord, My Lady” is still common in the world.  In Romance languages we have (It.) Signore, (Fr.) Seigneur, (Sp. Señor).   Monsignor would be “my lord”.  It is always good to be polite to monsignors, by the way.  This is an honorary title that connects them, for whatever motive of their good service in the past, directly to the Pope’s household.   They remind us that we have a universal Church and union in the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ insofar as he is the Successor of Peter.  Being made a monsignor doesn’t make the priest more of a priest (a fact lost on some monsignors) and it is not a sacramental reality.   Some wags suggest that the matter and form of a “sacrament of monsignor” would be the conferring of the cassock with the purple or red trim with the words “In pace in idipsum” to which the newly made monsignor would respond “Dormiam et requiescam” (cf. the older, traditional rite for Christian burial).  Vobiscum is a combination of the preposition cum requiring an ablative, with a pronoun.   It is a general rule that cum follows personal pronouns.   This is an ancient greeting among Christians as we see in 2 Thess 3:16: Dominus sit cum omnibus vobis.

Sursum (a contraction of sub-vorsum, antonym deorsum) is an adverb meaning “from below, that is, up, upwards, on high” denoting either motion upwards or (rarely) simply location of something high up.    Dignum could give us cause to write volumes.  We can associate this word influenced by rhetorical categories and so forth, with aptum (that which is apt or suitable) and pulchrum (that which is beautiful).   Here it is with iustum.  Dignum et iustum est harkens to Jewish morning prayer forms and is rather like an “Amen”, a solemn approbation.   Iustum, from iustus, means not only what is “just, righteous; in accordance with law, right, equitable, just” but can also indicate in the plural (iusta) a religious ceremony properly carried out.        

St. Augustine of Hippo (+430) delivered sermons which were literally written down by stenographers as pronounced, and we have many of them.  He described the liturgy in his church in Hippo 1600 years ago.  Friends, consider how ancient what you do at Mass actually is!   This was old when Augustine said:

After the greeting, which you know, that is Dominus vobiscum, you heard Sursum cor… and when you heard it from the priest, Sursum cor, you responded Habemus ad Dominum…. And when you heard that your hearts were lifted upward unto the Lord, it follows that the priest says, Domino deo nostro gratias agamus (s. Denis 3,6, – cf. PL 46,835 – c. AD 405-11; cf. also s. 227 and de vera religione 3,25, et al.).

The so-called Apostolic Constitution in Greek of the 4^th c. also witnesses to this same exchange.  There is some controversy in modern scholarship about the Apostolic Constitution so I won’t look at it too closely.  Augustine remarks (cf. s. 227 – PL 38, 1100 ff) that it is the response Habemus ad Dominum which presses the priest to move to the next step, bringing us to the core of why we are gathered: gratias agamus Domino … eucharistésomen toi kuríoi… let us give thanks to the Lord.

What do we have here?   In this dialog we have one of the most ancient of Christian prayers which has its roots in blessing prayers (berakha) of the Jews and of the ancient Church of the East as well.    It is dramatically different from the simple invitation to prayer used by the priest everywhere else: Oremus… Let us pray.   This is a dialog with a distinct scope and different stages, passages from one concept to the next in a movement toward the whole purpose of why people are gathered: thanksgiving to God (Greek: eucharistein). 

Cor (pl. corda) means much more than just “heart”.   Closely connected with nous “mind”, cor… kardia… is more our interior emotional landscape, that in us which loves and grieves and fears and suffers and plans.  Corda can be “hardened” (cf. 2 Cor 3:14) or “strengthened” (cf. 2 Cor 1:20-22).  This is a dimension of man given short shrift in a rationalistic approach to liturgy by which everything must be simplified and rendered easily “understandable” so as to promote a shallowly interpreted “active participation”.  We humans grasp things on more levels than just the intellect.   So, corda is very inclusive, pointing to the very center of who we are.  This is the dimension of us that must be “up!” before we can begin the consecratory part of the Mass.  The preposition ad can indicate either motion towards or proximity near or next to something.  Our hearts must be ad Dominum: going toward Him on high, next to Him in His presence.  Remember that in the Risen Jesus our human hearts (mind, desires, aspirations) are already seated at the right hand of the Father!   Will this affect the way you speak this dialog?  Ad can also mean “in conformity to which, from which, or for which, any thing is or is done”.   We are made ad imaginem Dei…according to the image of God (Gen 1:26ff – Vulgate).  Is the heart of who you are in conformity with God, in whose image you are made?   Are you striving to present it always upward to Him, rather than mire it in the world and its seductions?  Is it with Him now or has the life of grace been killed in your soul through mortal sin?  “Habemus ad Dominum”?

Saint Cyprian presents Sursum corda as the disposition that every Christian should have as he begins his prayer, that is, he should leave behind all carnal and mundane thoughts which might keep him from fixing his attention entirely on the Lord (cf. De dominica oratione 31, CSEL 3, 289).  St. Augustine connects this part with the words of St. Paul: quae sursum sunt quaerite… seek ye the things that are above (Col 3:1)!  I am very tempted to translate simply: “HEARTS UP!!”  I am not an advocate of boisterous liturgy, but sometimes when I hear these prayers, and I sense the depth and the breadth of them through countless generations bursting from well-springs of Christian experience nourished by the actual blood of those who first prayed them, and I hear responses at Mass which are anemic, pale, timid, feeble, thin, mumbled, I simply want to stop everything, take people by the collective hands and say: “Do you NOT GET THIS??!”  Like Leo the Great in his homily for Christmas I want to stop and shout “O Christian!  Be mindful of your dignity!”  We are not Christian and Catholic today by our own merits merely.  When we pray these prayers we transcend by the Holy Spirit working in us as we pray, space (connecting us to Catholics everywhere) and time (connecting us with generations before us) and even the veil of this world (connecting us to the heavenly host before the throne of God).  Our Mass is an echo of the past, a link with Catholics across the globe, and fore glimpse of the continuous liturgy in action before the throne of God.   

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

S. The Lord be with you!
R. And with your spirit!
S. Raise your hearts on high!
R. We now have them present to the Lord!
S. Let us then give thanks to the Lord our God!
R. This is worthy and just!

Could those be questions?  “Are your hearts with God, in conformity to Him?  Shall we then give thanks to the Lord our God?”  Truly, this is worthy and just!  Let our next translations also be dignum et iustum for what we are doing in Holy Mass.

This is extracted and edited from an article in the WDTPRS print version in The Wanderer published in 2004.

Many arguments have been forwarded to justify the choice to translate pro multis as “for all”.  In Latin pro multis means “for many”.  All the Latin rites, historical or modern, have pro multis and not pro omnibus or pro universis. 

Some preliminary notes.  We get “pro vobis et pro multis … for you and for many” in the formula of consecration from a blending of the accounts in Mark 14:24 (translated from Greek: “this is my blood of the covenant (diatheke) shed for many (tò peri pollôn)”) and Matthew 26:28 also says “for many” together with Luke 22:20 (translated from Greek: “Likewise also the cup, after the supper, saying ‘This cup is the new covenant (diatheke) in my Blood which will be poured out for you.’”   The choice to fuse these together had theological significance. 

Our patristic sources, such as the writings of the 4th c. Doctor of the Church St. Ambrose of Milan, when describing the words of consecration in the Eucharistic liturgy, has pro multis and not pro omnibus, etc.  The liturgical formulas were from Scripture.  The 4th c. Doctor of the Church St. Jerome, who translated from Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin giving us a Bible translation called the Vulgata, chose to use pro multis when translating the Greek tò peri pollôn (genitive plural of polus) in describing Jesus’ words at the Last Supper.  

In Greek polus means “many” or “much” or even “most” as in the majority: it does not mean “all”.  In the ancient Church, no one said “for all” instead of “for many”.  In the Greek Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus uses a form polus “many”.   The liturgical rites of the East retained a form of polus.  The rites of the Latin West have ever used pro multis.

Theological challenge, especially heresy, forces us to reevaluate our doctrines and their formulations. Theological revolt and heresy constrain Catholics to go deeper.  Disputes bear great fruits in the long run.  During the 16th c. the Church was compelled to battle the Protestant heresies concerning the Eucharist, grace, and justification, the nature of man, etc.  The long process of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) deepened our understanding of the faith and gave clear expression to what we believe.  We find the Church’s teaching enunciated succinctly by the Roman Catechism or Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), the practical guide for pastors of souls.  

This is what the Roman Catechism says about the pro multis topic.  This is really important:

But the words which are added for you and for many (pro vobis et pro multis), were taken some of them from Matthew (26: 28) and some from Luke (22: 20) which however Holy Church, instructed by the Spirit of God, joined together.   They serve to make clear the fruit and the benefit of the Passion.  For if we examine its value (virtutem), it will have to be admitted that Blood was poured out by the Savior for the salvation of all (pro omnium salute sanguinem a Salvatore effusum esse); but if we ponder the fruit which men (homines) will obtain from it, we easily understand that its benefit comes not to all, but only to many (non ad omnes, sed ad multos tantum eam utilitatem pervenisse).  Therefore when He said pro vobis, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen (delectos) from the people of the Jews such as the disciples were, Judas excepted, with whom He was then speaking.  But when He added pro multis He wanted that there be understood the rest of those chosen (electos) from the Jews or from the gentiles.   Rightly therefore did it happen that for all (pro universis) were not said, since at this point the discourse was only about the fruits of the Passion which bears the fruit of salvation only for the elect (delectis).   And this is what the words of the Apostle aim at: Christ was offered up once in order to remove the sins of many (ad multorum exhaurienda peccata – Heb 9:28); and what according to John the Lord says: I pray for them; I do not pray for the world, but for those whom you gave to Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9).   Many other mysteries (plurima mysteria) lie hidden in the words of this consecration, which pastors, God helping, will easily come to comprehend for themselves by constant meditation upon divine things and by diligent study. 

(My translation and emphasis. Part II, ch. 4 (264.7-265.14) from the Catechismus Romanus seu Catechsimus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos ….  Editio critica.  Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989, p. 250. Cf. The Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Cf. trans. John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1934, pp. 227-28.)

Naturally those working towards a new English translation must cope with all of this.  And God help them! 

What is the status quaestionis … the “state of the question”?   What current evidence can we find for what is happening around this thorny problem?  We can look at that in another moment.

 

So, off they go!  A delegation led by Archbishop Claudio Celli has been in China since Sunday, June 25.

Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong told AsiaNews that the visit is "a friendly gesture," but added that "I do not expect the talks will progress very quickly."

Sooo…. at that papal fortress of newmakers the lights dim, the spotlight flashes on and focuses whle the curtain opens and the director of the Holy See Press Office steps into the bright light.  He taps the mike, clears his throat and says carefully:

"I have no comments to make…."

Uh huh.  Clearly nothing is going on. 

Everywhere in the northern hemisphere diligent and charitable priests have, I hope, reminded their flocks how they ought to dress when they come to church.  Rather, they will have at least reminded them how not to dress.  Right now there is a heat wave here in Italy and you can take off only so much.  Or can you?

I picked up this story from the wire.  What do you think?

‘I had to protect her from community’s judgment’ says priest (ANSA) – Treviso, June 27 – A young Italian mother was turned away from her son’s christening because her dress was too short .

As the ceremony was starting, in front of another couple, the priest told Chiara Limido to go and put a more suitable dress on if she wanted to see her son baptised .

Mrs Limido left the ceremony in tears and returned some time afterwards with a longer dress on, having missed most of the baptism .

Her husband Randolfo said he was thinking of suing the priest, 42-year-old Father Loris Fregona .

"I tried to keep cool, out of respect for the other family present", Mr Limido told a paper in this northeastern city .

"The priest is entitled to apply a dress code in his church. But he subjected my wife to public humiliation – blackmail even" .

A friend of Mrs Limido said: "Chiara’s dress was completely normal, a nice black outfit that covered her shoulders. It was a few inches above the knee but there is a heat wave, after all" .

On Tuesday, Father Fregona said he was forced to take action to protect Mrs Limido "from the judgement of the community" .

He said he felt no need to apologise to the family .

The local bishop’s spokesman said: "A parish priest has a duty to point out if there is something wrong with somebody’s clothing" .

This, folks, is a problem.  Of course no one want to be "mean".  Priests in general are not meanies… well… some are, but you know what I mean.  At the same time, here in Italy, this summer even more than last summer, women are dressing in a way that is… well… even more slatternly than ever. The story says "few inches" above the knee.  I don’t know how many a "few" is, but if the skirt was anything like you see around Rome these days…

It is alarming in the extreme to see how the dominant (read: domineering) MTV culture has convinced girls and young women that they must dress like prostitutes.  When the ANSA story describes the skirt as "short", I believe it.  In no way can I be considered a prude, but frankly what kids are wearing in Rome is truly indecent.  And this is not limited only to the young Italians.  In a way the tourists from northern Europe and North America are worse. 

Just how do they get that "clothing" out of those spray cans, anyway?

For some reason I cannot quite fathom, the dress for young men these days is far less problematic.  On the other hand, I hear from various sources that young men are getting more and more unconfortable with the way young women are comporting themselves.  But that is the stuff of other entries.

And where are the parents of the teenagers who go out out dressed like sluts?  Alas, sometimes they are walking along side them, apparently oblivious to the damage their permissiveness is doing to their children and to others.

And the things written on their apparel!  God save us!

I was not there at that parish and have no idea what the exchange between this parish priest and that family was like.  I don’t know if he was kind or nasty about sending this young woman out.   It was a small community, apparently.  In these parts that still makes a difference.

I can also sympathize with the priest, of course.  I have had weddings and funerals in the USA to which some young women come dressed like hookers.  It’s is so crass and tasteless as to leave me speechless… and that doesn’t happen very often.

There is a story, one of many, about the great and supremely witty Pope Benedict XIV (Lambertini).  This is back in the days of powerded wigs and dramatic décolltage.  According to the tale, during a well-attended to do of the papal court the Pope took an apple from a fruit bowl and gave it to a woman who was displaying herself in a manner somewhat more "dramatic" than was usual.  When she querried the Pope as to why he had given her the apple, His Holiness responded "When Eve ate the apple, she realized she was naked."

It is sad that this baptism drama happened at all.  I am puzzled whey the priest didn’t wait to start the baptism until after she returned, but maybe there were reasons for that too. 

"But Father!  But Father!", you’ll object.  "At least they are coming to church.  Jesus doesn’t care how they are dressed!"  Oh yah??  Don’t hand me that line of BS, ‘cause I am not convinced. 

Perhaps we need to entertain for a moment that the priest did her and other people there a kindness by drawing a line. Forever after she will know that at least one person indicated to her that some ways of dressing are simply wrong.  It might have been the first time in her life that concept became real for her.

Again, I am sad that there were hard feelings, but not every lesson is life is without its scraped knees and red faces.

In the left-wing English The Tablet (June 24, 2006), there is an interesting bit about the “pro multis” issue. Emphasis mine:

“Turning down some proposals, the bishops noted the ‘expressed intention of the Holy See’ to decide in short order on the issue of ‘for many’ as opposed to ‘for all’ in the consecration. Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney and the chairman of Vox Clara – the Vatican body that oversees ICEL’s translations – welcomed the USCCB’s decision.” 

I consider the pro multis issue to be the single most important translation issue.

Back in 2004 when I wrote my weekly columns about the Eucharistic Prayers, I lingered over the consecration of the Precious Blood in four articles. In those articles I exposed the bad philological arguments used to justity the bad translation "for all". To my knowledge no one had ever looked at it from that angle before. My old boss and still great friend, His Eminence Augustine Card. Mayer, one of the holiness men on earth, gave my articles to his close friend and colleague Joseph Card. Ratzinger. Soon thereafter I had a note from his Eminence (now His Holiness) about those articles. Also, I was able to write something up for a certain Prefect of a certain Congregation on this point. I also know some members of the Vox Clara group have read this stuff.

I am told that there is a massive war going on over this issue. Do you remember the debacle in the late Pope’s encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia? That, however, was part of the cause of dismissal of some prelates when the new Pope came onto the scene. But enough said about that.

We have to consider the following.

First, writing as Joseph Ratzinger the Pope himself confronted the pro multis question in God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003). He made three important points (pp. 37-8, n. 10): 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 (emphasis added). 

What Card. Ratzinger did here is cut loose the raft of emotion and conjecture lashed to the pier built by Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias, upon which ICEL justified rendering “for many” as “for all”. Remember that Jeremias (in the ThWNT) and then Fr. Max Zerwick, SJ (in Notitiae in 1970) used Aramaic and Isaiah 53 arguments for their change to “for all.” Whether Jeremias was right or wrong (and I think his argument was at best tenuous) is entirely beside the point now. POINT: We are not Protestants who approach doctrine from a standpoint of sola Scriptura … Scripture alone. POINT: We are not historical-critics when we approach the consecration of the Mass, we are believing Catholics. POINT: The Missale Romanum and the Tradition and teachings of the Church have their own value, a value not to be abandoned in the face of conjecture and the vagaries of historical-critical Scripture scholarship or the concerns of non-Catholics. POINT: The Missale Romanum is in Latin. This is a key point which every reader of WDTPRS must understand.

Second: The Pope is the only one who approves the translations of sacramental forms. We find this in the Holy See’s official instrument of promulgation, Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 28 February 1974 (AAS 66 (1974) 98-99). Here we find a circular letter dated 25 October 1973 over the signature of then Secretary of State Jean Card. Villot, countersigned by Archbp. Annibale Bugnini (my translation from the Latin): “The Supreme Pontiff reserves to himself the power of approving directly all translations into vernacular languages of the formulas of sacraments.”

Sandro Magister has weighed into the concert in the Sistina with Dominco Bartolucci in the presence of the Roman Pontiff.  I commented on this already.

Here is Sandro.  Very interesting:

The person responsible for Bartolucci’s removal in 1997 was the master of pontifical ceremonies, Piero Marini, still in service with Benedict XVI although close to his own dismissal. Marini brought in monsignor Giuseppe Liberto [BLECH!!] as head of the Sistine Chapel, having noticed and appreciated his work as music director during John Paul II’s visits to Sicily.  It was easy to get pope Karol Wojtyla’s permission for the maneuver.

At the time, the only significant figure in the Roman curia who came to Bartolucci’s defense was Ratzinger, for reasons that were both musical and liturgical, as he explained in essays and books.

Right!  And so I described Bartolucci in the Sistina as a thumb in the eye for some and a shot in the arm for old Domenico.

The concert by maestro Bartolucci in the Sistine Chapel is one of these teaching moments that the pope wants to leave a mark.

Well… getting a shot in the eye usually leaves a mark, doesn’t it?

Among the prelates of the Roman curia present at the concert were Marini and Liberto. But Benedict XVI’s attention was entirely dedicated to maestro Bartolucci – a vigorous 89 years old, – his choir, and the superb quality of their performances.

o{]:¬P

If I didn’t know from my years of working in the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio what sort of a gentleman and truly gentle soul His Holiness has, I would cynically wonder if he wasn’t keeping a few folks close to him just to torment them a little. 

I dunno… maybe I’m projecting a little too much.

An esteemed commenter noted in another entry that

aggiornamento and ressourcement must go hand in hand in order to be faithful to both. For without ressourcement, aggiornamento loses its bearings, and with out aggiornamento, ressourcement fails to effectively fulfill any promise of renewal.

 

This is a good concept, if we stipulate that aggiornamento and ressourcement are terms which apply to slightly different fields of interest. 

Here is an analogy I have used to break through the obtundity of both wacko progressivists and  funnel vision traditionalists.

Consider the case faced by Kate and Humphrey, or "Rose" and "Charile" in The African Queen.  They are stuck on this river after going over a rapid which damages the propeller.  They must fix the prop so that they can go faster than the water current.  If they are not able to go faster than the current, they won’t be able to steer the boat and the current will sweep them to their doom.  Without a working engine and prop, you are doomed to crash on the rocks or, as Charlie must, drag the boat by a rope and get leeches all over you.  And who wants that?

This is perhaps a banal way to describe something as important as the liturgical and theological life of the Church.  Nevertheless, it teaches us an important lesson.  The propeller of the boat is the very last part of the boat.  It is simultenously your connection to the past and it impells you to the future.  With a propeller, you can steer a course.  Without it you are doomed.  You must keep moving to remain alive and come through safely to your desired port.

This is why patristiblogging is so important!

Pope Benedict doesn’t do things with out reasons.

At the concert the other day, which you have all read about by now, the Pope said: "Sacred polyphony, especially the so-called ‘Roman school,’ is a legacy that must be carefully conserved, maintained alive and made known."

Say what you want about the work of Domenico Bartolucci, but he had been appointed "Maestro in perpetuo" of the Sistine Chapel.  He was ousted from this position against his will by some of the "Palace guard".

If nothing else, having Bartolucci back to direct in the Chapel and listening to the Pope say waht he said, must have been a real thumb in the eye to those who got rid of Bartolucci and a real shot in the arm for him.

The Pope’s moves and changes are not "seismic" in nature, with dramatic and earthquake-like shifts of officials and dicasteries.  He is opting for slower means, such as erosion.  Suddenly a sink hole opens up here or there and someone drops through. 

This technique gives everyone a chance to reflect on what he has been doing, where he presently is, and whta he would really like to be doing next year if he doesn’t get with the program Benedict is signalling.  We have seen some very highly placed prelates shift their approach to their mandates since Joseph Ratzinger became Pope, haven’t we!

The Bartolucci Chronicles will continue.

The other night there was a concert for the Pope.  At that concert he made some remarks.  Among the useful things he said was this:

"A true ‘aggiornamento’ of sacred music cannot be achieved except by following the great traditions of the past, of Gregorian chants and sacred polyphony. For this reason, in the musical field as in that of other forms of art, the ecclesial community has always promoted and sustained those who seek new forms of expression without rejecting the past, the history of the human spirit, which is also the history of its dialogue with God."

The Holy Father has read the Council documents. 

I mentioned some time ago that I thought Fr. Robert Altier was going to have a weekly feature in The Wanderer.

Yep, there he is again this week!  I just got my weekly express shipped copies of the paper which went to press on Thursday.  Fr. A. has a fervorino for the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time. 

Fr. Altier, an old pal of mine for many years, has taken over the weekly page two feature written for a long time by Fr. John T. Myler.

Now you can get things from Fr. A to Fr. Z every week.

It just goes to show that when a door slams in one place in the house a window blows open in another place.

The Wanderer has a pretty awful website, as you will discover.  If you want to subscribe, and you really ought to, give them a call duing business hours M-F, Central Standar (Daylight) Time at 651-224-5733.   $US per year to the USA.  $60 per year everywhere else.  Not bad for a weekly. 

And after you subscribe for yourself and several gift subscriptions, tell them to get a real website going!
 

When His Holiness Pope Benedict visits Valencia in Spain, he will surely visit the Chapel where people venerate what well might be the actual Holy Grail.

I am quite interested in this topic, since I am more than hopeful that we will eventually get a good and accurate translation of pro multis in the consecration formula for the Precious Blood during Mass.  We all know it means "for many", but let’s move on.

An interesting book by Janice Bennett entitled St. Laurence and the Holy Grail: the story of the Holy Chalice of Valencia (Ignatius, 2004) argues that the 1^st century cup of agate, now mounted on a medieval base of gold and precious stones is the cup that Jesus used at the Last Supper for the consecration of His Most Precious Blood, “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” 

Please understand that this book has big holes, uneven writing and research, and is open to serious skepticism on some aspects.  However, it also relates truly fascinating information about this amazing relic held in Valencia and gives the reader a glimpse into the story of St. Lawrence and translations of various manuscripts of interest.  Take this with a grain of salt, but it is a great read.

The cup itself is of a kind of agate, like chalcedony or sardonyx.  It is like other cups found in Egypt, Syria and Palestine at the time of Christ.  In the British Museum there are stone cups of the same style as that in Valencia dating to A.D. 1-50.  It is of an odd color, reddish, “like a live coal”, and it is hard to say exactly what the stone is.  The ancient naturalist Pliny describes that stone cups were submerged in oil until the stone absorbed some, and then boiled in acid which modified the organic material and changed the colors of the veins in the stone.  The cup was very finely and accurately crafted and lacks ornament other than a fine band around the lip.  It was broken through the middle on 3 April 1744, Good Friday, when it was dropped.  The break was repaired and only a tiny chip is missing.  The cup can hold about 10 ounces.

You are asking, “But Father!  But Father! How can anyone claim that this cup in Valencia came from the hands of Jesus in Jerusalem?”

The cup has an interesting story, traced by Bennett in her book.  Here is the super brief version.  Some scholars argue that Christ used two different cups at the Last Supper, one of metal and the other of agate, the latter used for the first consecration.  Some argue that the Upper Room used for the Last Supper belonged to the family of John Mark.  There is some confused about the different “John”s and “Mark”s in the New Testament.  Suffice to say that it is possible that Mark the Evangelist was the son of the women who was a prominent member of the first Christians in Jerusalem.  Peter went to her house when he was released from prison. That house was a meeting-place for the brethren, “many” of whom were praying for Peter when he was in prison: (Acts 12:12-17).  This is possible the same place where the Last Supper took place, which establishes a connection with Mark and with Peter.  It is argued that Mark gave Peter the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper for the consecration of his Precious Blood.  This would be the second cup Jesus handled that night.  St. Peter consequently took the cup with his to Rome, where the Prince of the Apostles used it for Holy Mass until his martyrdom under the Emperor Nero.  Thus, this cup became a precious object within the Christian community in Rome. 

Bennett relates the argument of that the presence of and even use of this cup in the ancient Roman Church is proposed as a possible reason why in the Latin Rite our consecration formula speaks of “hunc praeclarum calicem… this precious chalice” whereas the non Latin rites refer to the Greek “to poterion… the cup”.  Interestingly, in the New Testament the word used is poterion, “cup”, and in Latin it is calix.  However, in Spanish the word caliz (in Italian calice) is used to distinguish this important vessel for Mass from a simple cup, or copa (Italian coppa).  “Cup” is simply not worthy of the moment and the purpose.  Where do the words involved here come from? A Greek kylix was ceramic and had a wide base, was shallow, and had handles parallel to the table along the wide open lip.  This style also came to be made from precious metals.  The Romans called this cup a calyx.  The word “grail” probably derives from old Spanish gral, grail for a drinking vessel, perhaps coming from Latin gradale or grasale a wide dish.  In Provençal, the language of many of the troubadors who spread the grail legends, we have grazal.

 During the time of the Emperor Valerian there was a terrible persecution of Christians.  In A.D. 258 Pope Sixtus II was commanded to turn over the goods of the Church and, when he refused, was killed.  Sixtus, however, had entrusted to his deacon the goods of the Church for their administration.  This deacon was the famous St. Lawrence, a Spaniard from Huesca.  When the Emperor went after Lawrence and commanded that the goods of the Church be rendered up.  Lawrence asked for three days to get everything together.  But instead of giving it to the officials he gave everything away and then produced a group of poor people, saying “These are the true treasures of the Church”.  For that Lawrence was beaten and tortured horribly, even to being fried alive on an iron grate.  For his part, however, Lawrence had already given the precious stone cup to another Spaniard named Precelius, who took it to Spain.  The iron grid of Lawrence’s martydom is preserved in a Roman Church just a few minutes from where I am writing, in San Lorenzo in Lucina while he was martyrdom where there now stands San Lorenzo in Panisperna and buried at San Lorenzo fuori le mura, a Minor Patriarchal Basilica.  Lawrence is obviously the patron saint of cooks as well as several other groups.

This is where the history firms up a bit.  Various manuscripts indicated that the stone cup was kept in several places.   By 533 it was in the Cathedral of Huesca, which was built in that year.  Huesca was where St. Lawrence was from and perhaps where the Spaniard Precelius took it.  After the 711 invasion by the Moslems it was hidden in the Pyrenees in various caves.  After Charlemagne’s journey to the area in 777, the location of the cup, which was hidden, roused up many of the “grail legends” that come down to us in many forms today.  In 830 the cup is at the Monastery of San Pedro de Siresa.  In 1071 it was taken to the monastery of San Juan de la Peña.  In 1190 Cretién de Troyes wrote a 9324 line poem Perceval about the “Holy Grail”.  In 1209 Wolfram von Eschenbach wrote Parcival, based on Spanish legends, which centuries later inspired Richard Wagner’s opera.  In 1322 a Sultan sells a gold cup from Jerusalem, which he claims is the cup of the Last Supper, to Jaime II, King of Valencia and Aragón.  This is perhaps the cup which is converted to become the base for the ancient stone cup. In 1399 the stone cup was given to King Martin the Humane and taken to Barcelona.  King Alfonso V of Aragón sends the cup to Valencia.  In 1744, the cup is broken, repaired and fixed to its base.  In 1936, to save it from the Marxists, a woman named María Sabina Suey smuggled the cup out of the Cathedral wrapped in newspaper.  She hid it in various places to keep it from desecration and destruction.  The cup returns to the Cathedral of Valencia in 1939 with the end of the war where it remains to this day.

Even if this is not the very cup Jesus used at the Last Supper, and it might well be, it is hard to dismiss that this is the cup that inspired all the Holy Grail legends which branch into the stories of the Knights of the Round Table, an Indian Jones movie, and another recent piece of rubbish not worth our time to name.

The ancient stone cup, on its golden medieval base, is now in a beautiful chapel in Valencia.  When Pope John Paul II visited Valencia on 8 November 1982, he kissed the cup and then used it to celebrate Holy Mass.  It might have been the first time, 1724 after Pope Sixtus II, that “Peter” had held the cup again.

I will be watching Pope Benedict’s journey to Valencia carefully to see if he uses the “Holy Grail”.

It could really be it, after all.