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

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  13th Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

During their plenary meeting in Los Angeles last week the American bishops voted overwhelmingly to approve a new English draft translation of the ordinary of the Mass, their (and our) magnum opus et arduum.  There was no high noon shoot-out at the corral, as many foresaw.  The bishops got vote over quickly.  I am sure they were aware they needed to provide us with a demonstration of unity, much in the same way the cardinals in the 2005 conclave elected Pope Benedict XVI.  To their credit the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy (BCL) made the division of recommended changes and things to be rejected ahead of time.  “But what”, you ask, “did they recommend?  What did the bishops actually vote to approve?  They voted on the ICEL translation, right?”

Before the vote the National Catholic Register (June 11-17, 2006) reported on the stated intentions of His Excellency Donald W. Trautman, the BCL Chair:

“I stand in favor of many amendments,” Bishop Trautman said. “I want as many amendments as possible in order to make this translation proclaimable and understandable. We’re not talking about hundreds of amendments, but we’re talking about a substantial amount to improve the texts to make them conform to the wishes of Vatican II.”

Someone could respond that it was a command, not a “wish” of Vatican II that Latin should be retained as the language of Holy Mass and that the vernacular might be used occasionally.  It was a command, not a “wish” of Vatican II that no changes be made unless for the true good of the Catholic people.  It was a command, not a “wish” of Vatican II that… well… you get the idea.  We ought to read the texts of the Council’s documents instead of referring to its “spirit”.

In any event, after the vote Bishop Trautman said, “I’m pleased that the text has been significantly amended. That made an important difference for me.”

Imagine my shock.

And So It Came To Pass that the bishops voted to approve a battery of adaptations and amendments (read emendations) to the translation and then, once those were approved, they voted to approve the amended and adapted translation.  The amended and adapted translation is now Rome bound.  The next move belongs to the Congregation.  Despite any hesitation we might harbor about a text which pleased His Excellency the Chair, I am sure you are as grateful as I am that the bishops moved decisively on this issue.   Eppure, si muove, as Galileo might say were he a WDTPRS reader.

If you are in any way anxious about those amendments to the ICEL text, remember that the USCCB draft is a proposal, a request.  The Holy See can approve it, refuse it or emend it.  If the Congregation deems that the proposed draft does not adhere to the norms, it will act accordingly.  The important thing is that the Holy See can finally move forward.  We hope Rome will work with swift diligence.  The clock ceaseth not its tick.

What would be an example of an adaptation made by the USCCB?  The bishops asked Rome to consider the inclusion of the memorial acclamation “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”, which is not in the Latin Missale Romanum at all.  What about an emendation?  They rejected ICEL’s new wording in the Creed which was the more accurate and far more engaging “consubstantial with the Father” (“consubstantialem Patri”) in favor of the older lame-duck ICEL version “one in being with the Father”.  The reasoning was that “consubstantial” is too hard. 

Similarly, despite the fact that we all know what “dew” is (the stuff on the grass in the morning), on the recommendation of the Chair, the bishops voted against the more accurate rendering in the epiclesis of the Second Eucharistic prayer “therefore make holy these gifts, we pray, by the dew of your Spirit” as being too hard.  Bishop Trautman said, “It’s a literal translation, and it doesn’t mean anything to Americans…. The ‘dew’ of your Spirit — what does that mean?”  In response, the witty Executive Secretary of ICEL, Msgr. Bruce Harbert riposted that he didn’t understand why anyone wouldn’t like “dew”.  “I think there is dew in America,” Msgr. Harbert said, “I saw some the other day.” 

Dew has long been a symbol of the Holy Spirit.  While people might not know that now after decades of the old ICEL version and little in the way of traditional sacred music and catechesis, we could start by explaining the images, rather than explaining them away.

Still, as Bishop Trautman said in his NCReg interview, he thought the proposed translation from ICEL had “too many complicated words, as well as sentences and phrases that are too long.”  Furthermore, they were concerned that texts which are different might upset people. 

On the other hand, would many rejoice?  I stipulate that some people will be inconvenienced by a change and irritated at what they will be asked to hear. That forces a question.  Are the Catholic people not inconvenienced by being denied what the Catholic Church has really established in its official texts?  I think so.  I take as a case in point an amendment the USCCB made to the ICEL’s first choice, the abovementioned “consubstantial”. 

“Consubstantial” is one of those hard words.  We can’t see here the whole history and theology of this word which in Latin was coined very early by Tertullian (Against Hermogenes 44) to convey the meaning of Greek homoousios.  Homoousios was the hard won term emerging from the theological war with the Arians over whether or not the Son was also divine, also God like the Father, and how.  While every human expression will be lacking, homoousios (consubstantialis) was chosen to express how the Son is “of one substance” with the Father.  The Son, a different Person from the Father, shares the same divine nature. Thus, the Son is neither another god (polytheism) nor a different “mode” of the Father’s way of being God (modalism). 

Complaints are often made that the older ICEL version “one in being with the Father” risks the heresy of modalism.  The simplistic expression sounds as if the Son shares “being” pure and simple.  “Being” is far too comprehensive a category for a Creed.  The alternative to “being” is “non-being”.  All things which God created have “being”.  “Being” without further distinction doesn’t allow for diversity of Persons or of operation. 

You might object, “But Father!  But Father! You’re saying that people in the pews have to be metaphysicians in order to pray!”  No, I’m not!  Leaving aside the philosophy and theology lessons, the simplistic version (apart from being wrong) forecloses on further thought or consideration.  By eliminating a traditional and accurate technical term, as hard as it is, and opting instead for something simplistic you kill reflection.  By dumbing it down you slam door on understanding.  People don’t have to be theologians or metaphysicians, but they do have to think.  The pretense that we can’t understand words or long sentences during Mass guarantees that we won’t even think about the content of the prayers.  We should be able to think about these hard things as well as expect Father’s good explanations.

Can we move along now to our so-called “Prayer over the gifts” for this week?  This was in the ancient Veronese or “Leonine” Sacramentary for July, though not in a pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum.

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Deus, qui mysteriorum tuorum
dignanter operaris effectus,
praesta, quaesumus,
ut sacris apta muneribus fiant nostra servitia.

Let’s try cracking the tricky nut of plural servitia (from servitium) first by hammering it with our hefty Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary.  The noun servitium concerns the condition of being a servant or slave (“servitude”).  Concretely it means “a body of servants, the class of slaves.”  In this prayer we find plural nostra servitia.   L&S tells us that Livy (2, 10, 8) uses the plural servitia for “servants as individuals” as if it were servi, “slaves.”  While helpful, this doesn’t get us where we need to go, since the Latin then sounds like we are about to sacrifice the choir members… which… on second thought….  But, no.  As nutty as those songs they make us listen to might be, we can’t very well do that, can we.  Whacking the shell of servitium with the weighty book of Christian Latin Blaise/Chirat gets us to the meat of the word.  Under servitium, Blaise/Chirat cites this very prayer!  Servitia means the service rendered by the ministers of the cult, of the liturgical worship.  In saying “our services” the priest is talking about his own actions at the altar.  Servitia is a cultic word, not a social justice term.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, who do favorably work the effects
of Your sacraments,
grant, we beseech You,
that our cultic acts may be made suitable for these sacred gifts.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord God,
through your sacraments
you give us the power of your grace.
May this eucharist
help us to serve you faithfully.

Today’s ICEL version will cause nearly all WDTPRSers to fear a heart attack.  What is that word I see?  Could it be… the “G-Word”?  Yes, folks, “grace” makes a cameo appearance in the lame-duck ICEL version.  The exquisite irony of this is, of course, that the word for “grace” does not appear in the Latin.  I happily grant that the effect God works in us is grace.  I accept readily that “mysteries” are “sacraments” (in Latin the words are nearly interchangeable).  I even rather like the “Lord God” touch, though the Latin only says Deus.  But, those nice touches aside, is this what the prayer really says?  Let’s try it another way.

A SMOOTHER BUT STILL CLOSE TRANSLATION:
O God, who graciously work in us
the effects of Your sacraments,
grant, we beseech You,
that our services at this altar may be rendered by You fitting for these sacred gifts.

St. Ambrose of Milan (+397) wrote in his prologue to On the Holy Spirit, “nostra enim servitia, sed tua sunt sacramenta.”  The verb is missing in the first part.  I think we can supply the plural sunt.  Here is Ambrose:

18. … Ours the ministry, but Yours are the sacraments.  It is indeed not man’s place to confer divine things, but it is, O Lord, your place and that of the Father, as You said through the prophets, saying: “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy.” This is, in a foreshadow [in typo], that heavenly dew, that freely given rain shower, as we read: “Setting apart a freely given rain, your inheritance.” For the Holy Spirit … is not subject to any foreign power or law, but is the Arbiter of His own freedom, dividing all things according to the authority of His own will, to each, as we read, severally as He wills.

Enough said.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2005

I am delighted to receive from AK this wonderful missive (edited): “When we first started receiving The Wanderer your WDTPRS column was solely my husband’s domain. He would sometimes point out parts for me to read or quote you out loud. (He likes your writing style.) It wasn’t until we decided to home school, with the daunting task of teaching something neither of us has ANY clue about (Latin), that I started skimming your column. I am sure your WDTPRS archives will be very helpful when our girls get into Latin. Certainly, the dictionary you always refer to is a Must Buy for them. Thank you for your insightful columns and interesting articles. I look forward to reading more – any that you write.” O wise parents are they who plan to obtain the mighty Lewis & Short Dictionary for then offspring! Remember, AK, that the L&S is not a good beginner dictionary. There is too simply much information in each entry for young learners. A smaller student dictionary will suit their needs better. Also, AK, if you have enjoyed the columns and found them useful, perhaps you will share the experience and give gift subscriptions of The Wanderer to friends – even to priests. Rev. Mr. TK writes (edited): “Thank you for the great and very important work that you do. I am a regular reader of your column in The Wanderer. I also enjoyed hearing your comments on FOX News during our ‘Papal April’. I am a permanent deacon…. I would like to know if there is a better English translation of the Liturgy of the Hours than ICEL has given us.” Well, TK, I don’t use English myself (I use Latin or Italian) but perhaps the three volume edition of the Liturgy of the Hours for England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Australia (reprint 1983) is superior to the American edition. The important thing is that we clerics pray the hours with reverence, whatever the version or language.

COLLECT - (2002MR):
Deus, qui, per adoptionem gratiae,
lucis nos esse filios voluisti,
praesta, quaesumus, ut errorum non involvamur tenebris,
sed in splendore veritatis semper maneamus conspicui.

According to the abovementioned L&S the verb involvo involves “to roll to or upon anything.” By extension it also means, “wrap up, envelope” and “cover, overwhelm, surround.” WDTPRS has been “wrapped up” in translating Latin prayers so that you know what they really say and so that you will “involved” by writing letters to those in charge of preparing new translations. Conspicuus, a, um, as opposed to occultus, is an adjective for something that is in view or comes into view. Thus, it is means “that attracts the attention to itself, striking, conspicuous, distinguished, illustrious, remarkable”. The noun splendor is, “sheen, brightness, brilliance, luster, splendor” and moreover, “dignity, excellence.”

At work in the prayer, which has its roots in the 9th c. Sacramentarium Bergomense (Bergamo, Italy), are themes of divine adoption and the splendor of truth. Before the saving mission of Christ we were separated the Father. Without baptism we are separated from His family. Before Christ, mankind walked in darkness. Our prayer connects separation from the Father with being wrapped up in error. It joins divine adoption with coming into view in the light of Truth. Christ’s Sacrifice and our baptism takes us out of the darkness and brings us once more into view and into God family.

No one hearing this prayer can miss the phrase: in splendore veritatis. Some Fathers of the Church and many Medieval writers used the phrase splendor veritatis in different contexts. For the Fathers, the splendor – associated with light and with the divine presence – variously describes the pillar of cloud and fire which lead the People out of bondage and into the light of freedom, the cloud that settled on the mountain or tent when God wished to speak with Moses, after which his face would be resplendent with light, or the shining light of the transfigured Lord on Mount Tabor. St Augustine of Hippo (+430) twice connected “splendor of truth” with “fervor of charity” (fervor caritatis) a connection which centuries later the “Seraphic” Doctor of the Church, cardinal and Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (+1274) would take up and expand. For Augustine and Bonaventure, living in the light of the truth, which is love of God also meant also love of neighbor. With what kind of love must we treat our neighbor? With fervor, “a boiling or raging heat, a violent heat, a raging…” This is no lukewarm love which Jesus will spew away. This is fervid feverish burning raging love after His lacerated Sacred Heart, that “burning furnace of love”. We cannot love God and not love neighbor. In our words and deeds, in “a raging heat of charity”, we must reflect this two-fold love or we are not true Christians. Being one in Christ means concrete actions.

In our own time, the late Pope John Paul II in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor began to correct erroneous and dangerous tendencies in some contemporary moral theologians. The Pope wrote:

The splendor of the truth shines forth in all the works of the Creator and, in a special way, in man, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26). Truth enlightens man’s intelligence and shapes his freedom, leading him to know and love the Lord. Hence the Psalmist prays: “Let the light of your face shine on us, O Lord” (Ps 4:6). ... Called to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ “the true light that enlightens everyone” (Jn 1:9), people become “light in the Lord” and “children of light” (Eph 5:8), and are made holy by “obedience to the truth” (1 Pet 1:22).

Truth brings us into the light and sets us free. Error binds us up, prevents us from acting like free persons. In the light of day we can walk freely and know where we are going without getting hurt or lost. In darkness we grope, stumble, and run against unseen obstacles. In today’s Collect “shadows of errors” are presented like a horrible smothering envelopment hiding God from our sight and us from His sight as if we were caught in a dark forgotten tomb: buried alive. The wounds of original sin make it difficult to know what is good and right and true. Our intellects are clouded. When through either the working of our minds or the help of human or divine authority we discern the good, then we still need to choose it with our wounded will. We often convince ourselves that actions which are in reality bad, wrong and false are actually good, right and true. Thus we come to believe we are “free” and acting rightly when doing things that are quite wicked. If this is habitual, after a while we numb ourselves both to the truth and also to error and sin. Once we are enwrapped up in the darkness of errors, which began in self-deception, ever after we lurch through life like horror movie zombies, grotesque mockeries of what God intended for His holy images. However, God makes it possible to put off the darkness and put on the light (Rom 13:12-14). By the merits of Christ’s Sacrifice and through His sacraments and teaching through the Church we can be the free and beautiful images God wants us to be in this life and later in life everlasting. This is what every restless human heart truly desires. As Augustine wrote: “Late have I loved You, O Beauty so ancient, and so new. You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I rushed headlong upon these lovely things which you have made. You were with me but I was not with you. Created things kept me far from You, those things which could not exist but in You. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed you fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burn for your peace” (Confessions 10,27).

Another theme of this Collect is our identity as children of God through adoptio gratiae, adoption of grace. During Mass keep your ears pricked up, ready to pick up Biblical references in the prayers. St. Paul writes often about spiritual adoption (e.g., Gal 4:5 and Eph 1:15, et al.). Writing to the Romans he tells us something about the moral implications of spiritual sonship:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh ‑‑ for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship (adoptio filiorum). When we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:1-15 RSV)

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, who wanted us to be children of the light
through the adoption of grace,
grant, we beg, that we not be bound up in the shadows of errors,
but rather that we remain always striking in the splendor of the truth.

There is serious depth to this Collect. I have barely scratched the surface of what I could write about its content, but I wanted to give you at least something of what it really says. We have been deprived, nay rather cheated of our inheritance for over three decades of ghastly translations. We are sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church, coheirs with Christ in the spiritual adoption of grace. We sons and daughters have rights and we have needs. When will our ghostly Fathers give us the new translation? WHEN? Have you written yet? Think about that on Sunday when you will have to listen to this:

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Father,
you call your children
to walk in the light of Christ.
Free us from darkness
and keep us in the radiance of your truth.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  13th Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2002

I am sure all of you were riveted either to the TV or the computer display watching the live transmission of the US bishops’ meeting in Dallas.  The event is too recent for me to express calmly what I thought of it.  There was an interesting development liturgically during their Mass on Friday evening.  For the Mass they used texts which they called a “Mass for the Gift of Tears”.  TS wrote by e-mail and alerted me to the fact that the bishops put the texts for this “Mass for the Gift of Tears” on the conference’s website (http://www.usccb.org/comm/weblit.htm).  On that website you can read all the texts together with this footnote:

PLEASE NOTE: The Mass for Tears is included among the Masses for the Forgiveness of Sins in the recently revised Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia. This English language translation has been approved at the request of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for this specific occasion. The translation is copyright 2002 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, all rights reserved.

Instantly I consulted the index of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia for the originals and found them on page 1140 under the section called Missae et orationes pro variis necessitatibus vel ad diversa, III. Ad diversa, 38. Pro remissione peccatorum, B, Aliae orationes.  The “A” section has the full Mass “For Remission/Forgiveness of Sins” while the “B” section has alternate prayers for just the collecta, superoblata, and post communionem that can be substituted in to that Mass.  The “B” prayers lack a distinguishing title such as “Pro dona lacrimarum” or something similar.  We ought to look at the Latin for the super oblata of that Mass in the 2002MR and compare it with the conference’s translation, approved by the CDW and transmitted live to a watching world.  Given the fact that the bishops were taken were rebuked for bad translations they had offered to Rome for approval, in a way this might be a foretaste of translations they will present in the future.  What did the bishops prepare “for this specific occasion”?

SUPER OBLATA (Missa pro remissione peccatorum – B)
Hanc oblationem, quaesumus, Domine
quam maiestati tuae pro peccatis nostris offerimus,
propitius respice et praesta,
ut sacrificium ex quo hominibus profluit fons veniae
Sancti Spiritus gratiam lacrimas effundendi
pro nostris offensionibus largiatur.

The collect and super oblata in the “B” section, which interests us today, are in the main taken from the good old Mass Ad petendam compunctionem cordis (“For begging compunction of heart”) in the Orationes diversae section of the 1962MR.  The collect is identical in every respect right down to the long extinct colon and semicolon punctuation (clearly an editing oversight in the production of this new 2002MR).  They changed the super oblata to: Hanc oblationem, quaesumus, Domine Deus, quam tuae maiestati pro peccatis nostris offerimus, propitius respice: et produc de oculis nostris lacrimarum flumina, quibus debita flamminarum incendia valeamus exstinguere… “Graciously look, O Lord God, upon this offering, we beg Thee, which we are offering to Thy majesty for our sins: and draw forth from our eyes a river of tears, by which we may be able to extinguish the merited conflagration of the flames.”   Too much hellfire for our kinder and gentler century, I guess.   

USCCB translation approved by the CDW – as it appears on the USCCB website
We ask you to look with favor upon these gifts, O Lord,
the Gifts and receive our offering
to your sovereign majesty on account of our sins,
that this sacrifice from which pardon flows
as from a fountain
may bestow by your Holy Spirit
the gift of tears for our offenses.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Yes, that is really how it appears on the website…including that obvious error “We ask you to look with favor upon these gifts, O Lord, the Gifts…” and the misspelling “soverign”.  However, I think we must give them the benefit of the doubt and recall that this conference meeting was cobbled together under great pressure and at great speed.  Also, a website page isn’t the same as a printed book.  Clearly what happened is that the poor worker-bee putting this page together simply made some mistakes.  (Hmmm…in the spirit of the way the bishops are now viewing priests, perhaps that website worker-bee should be instantly fired and never permitted to create a web page again?  But I digress….)   But, let us not conclude that bishops share responsibility for their official texts that are found on their official website.  Let the worker-bee take the full blame. We can now make the proper corrections: “We ask you to look with favor upon these gifts, O Lord, and receive our offering….”

All in all, this is a very good effort!  It is markedly better than what was prepared in the past. I wondered at first if maybe they simply didn’t have the time to produce something goofy, I but I like to give everyone the benefit of good will. “Sovereign majesty”!  Can you believe it?  It’s so triumphal!   We get “sacrifice” for sacrificium too, and even an old-fashioned “bestow.”  Has the translator has been reading WDTPRS or even Liturgiam authenticam?  Still  (and you know I can’t help it), maybe there are a few things that aren’t quite right.  For example… for hanc oblationem, which is singular, they write “these gifts” in the plural.  Okay, I know you will say that the singular “offering” is actually comprised of two elements, bread and wine.  That gets a pass.  Look closely at the phrase “this sacrifice from which pardon flows” which translates sacrificium ex quo hominibus (to men) profluit fons veniae.  Something’s missing.  What could it be?   Inclusive language was a bone of contention with ICEL, the bishops and the CDW.  So, in this super-charged atmosphere of the bishops’ meeting, when they already had enough problems without making the feminists angrier than they normally are, they side-stepped the landmine and left “men” (or even “humans”) out completely.  So far, they have a plural for a singular and they left out a landmine.  What about that phrase (it doesn’t appear in the other prayers for this Mass, only in the super oblata) from which the Mass, as the bishops labeled it, got its title “Gift of tears”?  In the Latin we have gratia lacrimas effundendi… “the grace of shedding tears” (recall that, as advertised above, this was originally in the 1962MR a “river of tears” we must beg in order to avoid the flames of eternal damnation).  Perhaps we can defend this in that the Holy Spirit, to whom we refer in that same sentence, gives this grace as a gift.  However, the Latin in fact has gratia and not donum, or similar.  Consider how the previous translations, being used now, systematically and obviously avoid using the English word “grace”. I am a bit suspicious.  Maybe they were keying into a phrase that is idiomatic in English: “gift of tears”.   For example, those familiar with liberation theology, et al., might recall a revisionist book by Daniel Berrigan entitled Isaiah: Spirit of Courage, Gift of Tears.  (Fortress Press, 1996) Nevertheless, that change from “grace” to “gift” is, in my opinion, a flaw in an otherwise excellent translation. 

If this is a sample of what we have to look forward to, I think we have real cause for hope.  I compliment the bishops on their good choices and thank them for the encouraging demonstration of what can be accomplished.

SUPER OBLATA:
LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Deus, qui mysteriorum tuorum
dignanter operaris effectus,
praesta, quaesumus,
ut sacris apta muneribus fiant nostra servitia.

ICEL:
Lord God,
through your sacraments
you give us the power of your grace.
May this eucharist
help us to serve you faithfully.

Does the prayer really say this?  We need to look into its vocabulary with our terrific Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary in order to crack this tricky nut…but, I’ve run out of space for this week.  Sorry.  We have room only to note that the noun servitium, as an abstraction, points to the condition of being a servant or slave (servitude).  In the concrete it means “a body of servants, the class of slaves.”  In this prayer we find nostra servitia.   L&S tells us that Livy (2, 10, 8) uses the plural servitia for “servants as individuals” as if it were servi, “slaves.”  I think we can find an analogy in addressing a bishop as “Your Excellency” whereas a servant might be “Your Servitude.”  In Judith 3:6 we read in the Latin Vulgate: “Veni nobis pacificus dominus et utere servitia nostra sicut placuerit tibi… Come to us, peaceful lord, and use us slaves as it will have pleased you” (and Holofernes came and destroyed their shrines) or in Tobit 9:3 we find servitia as “bond” which is a kind of pledge or bail bond, probably given to keep servants. So, in this prayer we have a puzzle. As nostra servitia could be “we servants” we would be asking God to make us ourselves apta.  If we say something like “our service” or even something like “us servants together with the fruits of our service” we might be able to get at the depth of the word servitia.  Seeing as I have written about aptus in the past, dear reader, you can tell me if you think sacris muneribus is dative or ablative.  For this week, I’ll choose dative.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, who graciously produce the effects
of your sacraments,
grant, we beseech Thee,
that our servitude may be made well-suited for these sacrificial gifts.

ICEL:
Lord God,
through your sacraments
you give us the power of your grace.
May this eucharist
help us to serve you faithfully.

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