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

The second reading for Holy Mass today, Sunday, is from 2 Corinthians 12: 7-10.   We hear about Paul who was tormented by the Devil with God’s permission and given his proverbial “thorn in the flesh”.   This was to bring Paul down a notch of two and build him back up in a new and better way. 

It also reminds us that the Devil exists and that our true source of strength is in Christ.  

”But Father!  But Father!” you are by now exclaiming, “Are you saying that torments and temptations from Devil are good for us?  This sound mediaeval!!  We are modern people now, grown ups!” 

Oh yah?  Our perspectives might have changed with the centuries, but human nature and the fundamental human condition and need for redemption does not.  Let’s take a look at some snippets from various works of the great Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine, all about this passage from 2 Corinthians.

“And so,” they ask, “is the Devil good because he is useful?”  On the contrary, he is evil insofar as he is the Devil, but God who is good and almighty draws many just and good things out of the Devil’s malice.  For the Devil has to his credit only his will by which he tries to do evil, not the providence of God that draws good out of him.  (c. Manichaeos 2.28.42 – FC 84:140).

Remember, the Devil hates you so much that he will overcome the agonies the presence of the sacred will always inflict, just so as to have a chance to help you to eternal damnation.  God permits this and gives you the necessary helps to resist and come through victorious.  Some people, however, do not make it, do they?!
<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>
Let’s go one with Augustine:

Therefore, in these trails which can be both our blessing and our bane, “we don’t know how we should pray,” yet, because (our troubles) are hard, because they are painful, because they go against the feeling of our human weakness, by a universal human will we pray that our troubles may owe to the Lord our God, that, if He does not remove them, we are not to think that He has deserted us but rather, by lovingly bearing evil, we are made perfect in infirmity.  To some, indeed, who lack patience, the Lord God, in His wrath, grants them what they ask, just as, on the other hand, He in His mercy refused the apostle’s requests.  (ep 130.14.25 ad Probam – FC 18:396)

We must persevere with confidence! 

Consider this next part in light of the error of many that the Church is merely a tool for social change, or who consider the need to do penance each and every day merely an immature remnant of outdated mediaeval piety: 

Not everyone who spares is a friend, nor is everyone who strikes an enemy…. Love mingled with severity is better then deceit with indulgence.  It is more profitable for bread to be taken away from the hungry, if he neglects right living because he is sure of his food, than for bread to be broken to the hungry, to lead him astray into compliance with wrongdoing.  The one who confines the madman, as well as the one who rouses the lethargic, is troublesome to both but loves both.  Who could love us more than God does?  Yet He continually teaches us sweetly as well as frightens us for our good.  Often adding the most stinging medicine of trouble to the gentle remedies with which He comforts us, He tries the patriarchs, even good and devout ones, by famine (cf. Gen 12:10; 26:1; 41:54; 42:1; 43:1); He chastises a stubborn people with heavier punishments; He does not take away from the apostle the sting of the flesh, though asked three times, so as to perfect strength in weakness.  (ep. 93.2.4 ad Vincentium – FC 18:60)

Moreover,

The more one easily conquers, the less one needs combat.  But who would fight within himself if there were no opposition from self?  And why is there opposition from self if nothing remains in us to be healed and cured?  Therefore, the sole cause of our fighting is weakness in ourselves.  Again, weakness cautions against pride.  Truly, that strength and virtue by which one is not proud in this life, where he could be proud, is made perfect in weakness.  (c. Iulianum 4.2.11 – FC 35:175)

The spiritual life is not easy.  The Cross MUST be a dimension of our life.  You can bet that if you think you are not being challenged, then you are probably doing something wrong.  Even when we overcome our principal faults, we can still go deeper… all the way to the point within us where we see that even our slight flaws are looming and large and requiring attention.  Do not be complacent. 

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  14th Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2003

Here is some of your correspondence, which always… well almost always… brightens my day.

KP writes via e-mail: “I faithfully read "What Does the Prayer Really Say" each time the Wanderer comes out and I want to say thank you and God Bless.  I cannot begin to tell you what a blessing your work has been, which kind of leads me to my question. Can you recommend a faithful English translation of the Code of Canon Law?”  Well, KP, this is a bit outside my bailiwick but, since Cult (worship/liturgy), Code (law) and Creed (the doctrine of faith), are all inextricably linked together, and since Bl. Pope John XXIII announced a revision of the Code of Canon Law and the same moment that he announced the Council which would revise the Church’s liturgy about which these WDTPRS articles are concerned, I will give this a shot.

First, I assume that you are talking about the Code now in force for the Latin Church, the 1983 CIC, rather than the older 1917 CIC or the present 1990 Code for the Eastern Churches.  Just in case you mean the older Code, there is a new edition by Edward Peters, Curator, The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law in English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001).  For the newer 1983 Code there are the useful English versions, The Code of Canon Law: New Revised English Translation (London: Harper Collins, 1997) and also the Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition (Washington D.C.: Canon Law Society of America,1983).  If you want to get into it more, look at J. Coriden, et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America (Paulist Press: New York/Mahwah, 1985).  This is somewhat dated and not really complete, since much if it was drafted during and soon after the promulgation of the 1983 and also not always terribly objective, since clearly authors had dogs in the fight concerning new canons.  Still it is quite useful, especially in showing the differences of the older CIC and the newer.  Also very good are E. Caparros, et al., eds., Code of Canon Law Annotated, prepared by the University of Navarre (Spain) and Saint Paul University (Canada), (Wilson & Lafleur: Montreal, 1993).  This corrects the rather euro-centric approach of the first version and it is very useful for N. Americans.   Also see, G. Sheehy, et al., eds, The Canon Law: Letter & Spirit, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, in association with the Canadian Canon Law Society (Michael Glazier Book of Liturgical Press: Collegeville MN, 1995).  This is quite reliable concerning the intent of canons.  There really are differences in translations, since translation is a tricky undertaking.  In the matter of law, you must strive to reach the intent of the lawgiver without confining the lawgiver’s intent too closely. 

Most of the translations available are adequate for the purposes of most lay people.  Remember, however, that the Latin text is always the official text and it always must be consulted in every official context.  This is one of the reasons why the 1983 CIC c. 249 says that seminarians must be very well trained in Latin (linguam latinam bene calleant).   They must be able to read the foundational texts of the Roman Catholic theological tradition as well as the canons that govern the daily life of the Church and reflect thereby on the mind of the lawgiver (the Roman Pontiff).  This is honored more in the breech than in the observance in seminaries these days, alas.  At the same time, I am of the opinion that men going into seminary should be well trained in Latin before they are admitted to theology studies.  It seems to me that major seminary is too late to try to learn Latin: there is simply too much else to do.  So, we need a radical rethinking of seminary training as a concept, rather than remedial classes in Latin once they get there.  Is there a good solution here?  I don’t know and the whole question is far far above my pay grade. 

Now back to something I know something about.  J writes via e-mail: “I am teaching the "Panis Angelicus" to a group of homeschool children. I have seen your column in the "Wanderer" and was wondering if you could give me a literal translation for the "Panis Angelicus." I have tried looking on the internet, and know just enough Latin to know they’re not literal.”  I know, J, that I am late in responding and that Corpus Christi was a while back now, but here is my quick attempt at the penultimate stanza of St. Thomas’ hymn called Sacris sollemniis composed for the abovementioned feast: 

Panis angelicus fit panis hominum;
dat panis caelicus figuris terminum.
O res mirabilis: manducat Dominum
servus pauper et humilis.
<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>

The bread of angels becomes the bread of men;
The heavenly bread provides a conclusion to the foreshadowings.
O wonderous thing: the poor and humble servant
sups upon the Lord.

Figura here refers to all the Old Testament prefigurings that pointed to the Eucharist of the New Covenant in Christ: the manna given to the people in the desert and the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were advance glimpses of what was to come.  The Eucharist, therefore, is the terminus of those figures.  Thus, the “heavenly” (caelicus) conclusively supplants the “earthly” at the same time heaven itself (God’s presence) is given to earth bound men to eat.  Second, we may be very (overly) influenced by the musical rendering of this great stanza by the French composer César Frank (1822-1890).  Hearing that in our head as we read this may cause us to loose the spectacular rhythm of the meter as Aquinas wrote it.  Note that it has the quality of a solemn religious dance summoning to mind the choruses of ancient Greek theatres in which the audience could hear the rhythmic pounding of the feet of the chorus as they sang to the ringing of drums and flutes.  Note especially how the last line changes from dactyls (trimeter – three syllables – ́ˇˇ) into iambs (dimeter – two – ˇ ́).  It nearly hurls you in a new direction.  Read it aloud right now with some speed to see what I mean: DUM dum dum, DUM dum dum…PAnis anGELicus FIT panis HOminum;/ DAT panis CAElicus FIguris TERminum. / O res miRAbilis: MANducat DOMinum // serVUS pauPER et HUMilIS.  Incredible.  This is beauty in form, intent and content. 

POST COMMUNIONEM
LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Tantis, Domine, repleti muneribus,
praesta, quaesumus, ut et salutaria dona capiamus,
et a tua numquam laude cessemus.

Having some ancestry in the Gelasian Sacramentary, in the 1962 Missale Romanum this was the Postcommunio of the Mass of the First Sunday after Pentecost.  But, you will be saying, isn’t that Trinity Sunday?   Indeed it is.  However, the texts of the Mass of the First Sunday after Pentecost are what you would use during the weekdays that follow Trinity Sunday (the first Sunday after Pentecost).   Trinity Sunday was a relatively late addition (14^th c.) to the Roman calendar.  It was first used in Canterbury under St. Thomas Becket and spread to the rest of the Church after that.  In England before the Reformation and, I believe, still among Anglicans of the Church of England – and in the Catholic Dominican Rite, Sundays after Pentecost are counted as Sundays after the octave of Trinity.

If you are in any way hesitant about the meaning of any of the vocabulary the astounding Lewis & Short Dictionary will be of great utility.    Cesso, for example, means “to stand back very much; hence, to be remiss in any thing, to delay, loiter, or, in general, to cease from, stop, give over” indicating a blamable remissness.   You might be familiar with the Latin proverbial saying “Ubi maior, minor cessat… Where the greater thing is, the lesser gives way”.  For example, when the sun shines during the daylight hours the stars, otherwise visible at night, give way and are no longer to be seen.  The detailed L&S, however, does not indicate that cesso is constructed with the preposition a.  So, assuming that this usage is medieval (and thus outside the time range covered by L&S) at the earliest, we need to be flexible in our approach to it.  Capio is an extremely polyvalent word, with meanings ranging from, basically, “to take in hand, take hold of, lay hold of, take, seize, grasp” to, by extension, “to win, captivate, charm, allure, enchain, enslave, fascinate” and “to deprive one of his powers or faculties, to harm”.  In our prayer today we hear something like “to take, seize, obtain, get, enjoy, reap”. 

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
may we never fail to praise you
for the fullness of life and salvation
you give us in this eucharist.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Having been filled, O Lord, with such great gifts,
grant, we beg you, that we may both grasp the saving gifts
and also never cease from your praise.

Frankly, this prayer is tricky to put in to English smoothly without using some circumlocutions and paraphrases.  First, we run the risk of sounding repeative by saying “gifts” (munera) and “gifts” (dona) in such close proximity.  Also, numquam cessare a laude tua clearly means “never cease/quit praising you” while “cease from your praise” though clear in its intent is awkward.  Moreover, capio with its vast range of meanings is a deep enough word that a single English word hardly suffices to get at what it drives at.  I try to solve this by just taking capio as “grasp” and hoping that we can simultaneously “grasp” on to it as meaning both an intellectual “grasping” of the mysterious moment of Communion, if you “grasp” what I mean, as well as a more affective “grasping” after the sole source of our salvation, the Man God Jesus Christ who is really and truly present in the Host we have just consumed moments before this prayer is uttered.   If I were challenged to more fully develop this as a smoother and more liturgical prayer I might write something like:

Reworked Version:
Having been filled, O Lord, with gifts so great as these,
grant, we beseech you, that we may both grasp these salvation bringing gifts
in our hearts and aspirations,
and we may also never cease from rendering to you by all means the praise which is your due.

When I hear a phrase like ut numquam cessemus a laude tua, which is a result (ut with the subjunctive), my mind quickly sorts through the reasons for the result.  We have just been given a share and foretaste of the heavenly life being extended to us by God.  A gift as great as that, the bread of angels become the our spiritual and even physical nourishment, undeserved as it is on our part, demands from us who receive it a response that encompasses our whole person, body and soul.  In heaven, certainly, we will “never cease or leave off from the praise” of God, whom we shall see face to face.  But we are not in heaven now.  We are still here on earth.  Holy Communion requires a response of praise here and now.  How can we praise God in response to the divine gifts He gives us? As the priest would quote (cf. Ps 116) before his own Communion at Mass, “What shall I give back to the Lord for all the things He gives to me?”  We must praise Him.  And not in words or thoughts only, but also in outward, concrete deeds as well, even if, especially when, it also means taking up the chalice He offers daily.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  14th Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

PM writes via e-mail (edited): “Thank you for all of your great work with the blog.  You have inspired me to write to the appropriate bishops regarding the new translations and I pray that all of our efforts are successful.”  Thanks for that, PM.  Remember that the vote taken by the American bishops a couple weeks ago was just the beginning.  They voted on draft of the Ordinary, which they proposed for Rome’s consideration.  The prayers of the Proper must be prepared as well.  The 62 amendments to the draft sent by the USCCB must be reviewed by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS).  Meanwhile, it looks like the Canadian and Australian bishops have also moved beyond this obstacle.  Do you get the sense that Rome has turned by the heat?  Continue to pray for the members of the CDWDS and for the members of the Vox Clara Committee, who will meet in Rome in July.

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

In his weekly Word From Rome piece, the ubiquitous fair-minded correspondent of the lefty National Catholic Reporter, John L. Allen, Jr., had an interesting interview (June 23, 2006) with The Chair, His Excellency Donald W. Trautman, head of the USCCB’s Committee on Liturgy (BCL).  You will recall that His Excellency has been a long-time proponent of inclusive language and “dynamic equivalency” and an opponent of the norms for translation established by the CDWDS in Liturgiam authenticam.  Bishop Trautman worked to obtain as many amendments as possible to ICEL’s latest draft, which, once amended, was sent on to Rome.  Here is Bishop Trautman on the matter:

What needs to happen for successful implementation of the new Mass?
What’s required in the first place is a great motivation for priests to take on a major catechetical effort. I would say that we’re at least two years away from [the translation] becoming reality, but we have to gear up for that.  I’m not in favor of any catechetical effort, however, until the whole Roman Missal is ready. Only then will be we able to see the big picture. Then we can talk about the catechetical effort. There’s still a lot of material to be prepared, such as the collects, prefaces, and other texts. We’ve sent a strong message to ICEL … that the collects in their present form are not worthy. They’re too long, they use a sometimes incomprehensible vocabulary, and they follow the Latin word order too closely. There’s a lot of work to be done.”

On another note:

Any other observations on the implementation process?
To date, what has been missing in all of this is the lay voice. It’s just not in the process. Some bishops on their own have sought it out, but at least formally it’s missing. In the United States, we have outstanding scholars in liturgical theology, and we should be using these experts. That needs to be done for the next steps.

I remember that when LA came out, the ex-chief exec of ICEL John Page complained that the “wider church” had not been brought into the conversation.  By coincidence, there appeared a gushy little editorial in a newspaper The Floridian by a young woman of 35 who used all of His Excellency’s arguments.  For example, as a convert to the Catholic Church she has been using the present text for sixteen whole years, which ought to be good enough reason not to change it.  She complains that lay people were not asked for their opinion. 

The most ridiculous bit was her complaint that we may be asked to respond “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.”  She sputters, “My roof? Where is the emotion in that? Where is the feeling? What does it even mean?”

Does this remind you of anything?  Before the recent USCCB meeting The Chair was quoted as saying:  “It’s a literal translation, and it doesn’t mean anything to Americans,” Bishop Trautman said.  “The ‘dew’ of your Spirit — what does that mean?”

I have a great deal more about this and many other things on the WDTPRS internet blog (http://www.wdtprs.com).  On the blog I have lately been exploring what the Fathers of the Church taught about “dew” as an image of the Holy Spirit’s gentle action and about the meaning of “enter under my roof” uttered by the Centurion in his great act of faith before Jesus.

Let’s move along to this week’s so-called “Prayer over the gifts”.

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Oblatio nos, Domine, tuo nomini dicata purificet,
et de die in diem ad caelestis vitae transferat actionem.

This elegant little prayer, which was in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary, was the Secret of the Second Sunday after Pentecost in the pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum.

Our by-now-familiar Lewis & Short Dictionary will help us unpack some vocabulary.  For example, that dicata can be confusing at first.  This is from dico, avi, -atum (not dico, dixi, dictum) which means first, “to proclaim, make known” and, in a religious context, “to dedicate, connsecrate, devote any thing to a deity or to a deified person” (for synonyms cf.: dedico, consecro, inauguro).  Another important word herein is actio, which means in the first place “”a doing, performing, acting, action, act”.  Thereafter, it means also “public functions, civil acts, proceedings, or duties” especially in the juridical sense and in public oratory.  In Christian Latin it can mean “our action, conduct” and by extension the “action” of Holy Mass.  Transfero is “to bear across; to carry or bring over; to convey over, transport, transfer”.   But it also means a range of things from “transplant” (as in plants), “copy” (as in writing and manuscripts), “translate” (as in languages) and rarely “carry along in public, bear in triumph”.   It has the nuance as well of change in such as way as “to apply, make use of (for a new purpose).” 

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
May this offering consecrated to Your name purify us, O Lord,
and from day to day convey us over unto the proceedings of heavenly life.

From this starting point we can spin out some ideas.  That phrase de die in diem can be rendered into English in many ways.  We could say “from day to day” or maybe something like “day in and day out” or even a paraphrase like “each passing day”.  I don’t think “everyday” is good.  It seems to me important to get a sense of the passing of time in a continual forward flow.  This is one reason why I chose “proceedings” for the tricky actio.  This life is has its continuous movement and process.  Actio also has its overtone of ceremony.  In heaven too there will be an ever deepening process of transformation as God shares His own glory with us.  In heaven we will be participants in the eternal liturgy before God’s throne.

The Eucharistic Prayer is called the actio of Mass.  In this sacred actio there is but one true “actor”, the High Priest Jesus Christ.  We participate in that actio in different modes through our baptism or also by Holy Orders.  Actio has significance for our gestures and words of in public worship: Christ the High Priest makes our gestures and voices His own in the representation and continuation of the saving actions at Calvary.  Knowing this ought to help us participate actively at Mass.   We are “active participants” according as we are lay faithful or priests.  A proper sense of “active participation” must be founded on our baptism and membership in Christ’s Mystical Person.  We must be actively receptive to all the true Actor is giving us through the rites of the Church.  Authentic active participation depends first on our baptism and then on how we unite our minds, wills and hearts to what is taking place even before we get to all the singing, moving, standing, kneeling, carrying things, etc.  Do you see how good and accurate translations of the prayers are critical for our authentic active participation in what Christ is doing through the mediation of His Church?  In our sacred actio in our parish church we are asking God to bring us to the actio of heavenly life.    There must be continuity between the two. 
<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>

In heaven we will behold God “face to face” as participants in the heavenly liturgy.  Mass is a foretaste of the heavenly banquet, an anticipation of what will be opened to us in the next life.  This is so much a part of our Catholic identity that we for centuries placed the words porta caeli … “the gate of heaven” over the doors of churches.  Our architecture, art, music, the language itself, even the solemn ritual gestures with their courtly dignity always reflected a Catholic understanding of what we long for: heaven.  That subtle nuance in transfero contributes to this image of being “borne along in solemn triumph” with the proper accompanying ritual gestures toward the final goal and victor’s reward a crown of glory. 

The loss of dignified and accurate liturgical language (in the present inadequate translation) dealt us a great blow.  The blow upon the bruise was the destruction of sacred architecture and the erection of new and unworthy churches, the sweeping aside of sacred art and installation of strange works, the locking of the Church’s treasury of sacred music and the imposition of jingles often poorly played, the loss of dignified ritual gesture and the pirouette toward rubrical disobedience or illicit creativity.  In many places people have had to endure liturgies resembling picnics or pep rallies in place of the Church beauty Roman Rite to which we have a right.  This injury to our Catholic worship has in many cases eroded our Catholic identity making it so much more difficult to live “day in and day out” in this complicated world. 

Catholics are called to shape and transform the passing world around us, each and every passing day, each according to our vocations, making present here and now the Kingdom of Heaven by our words and deeds.  Our membership in Christ’s Church bears us along in triumphant glory already, even while we remain for now in this veil of tears where this world’s “prince”, the enemy of our souls, attacks us and plays on our wounded nature.  How are we to be who we must be authentically?  How do we attain that unfading crown awaiting us?  We need the sustaining and forming aid given to us by the action of the High Priest in His Church.  We want the real content of the prayers Holy Church gives us.  We do not want any longer to be held back or cheated of our right through the building of churches that smack of the secular, music reminiscent of elevator tunes, sacred ministers who behave like game show hosts, or dumbed-down translations which leave us without inspiration or food for thought.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
let this offering to the glory of your name
purify us and bring us closer to eternal life.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  14th Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2005

In the Washington Post of 17 June, concerning the recent plenary meeting of the conference of bishops of the USA, there is a report concerning a vote on a liturgical translation issue: “The bishops defeated an attempt to replace a popular part of American liturgy – ‘Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.’—with a translation from Latin.  Speaking for the bishops’ liturgical committee, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., said the three lines do not connect to the congregation and come from 20th-century song lyrics with no Latin origin, unlike other acclamations.  Opponents of the changes said the words are popular and the sentiments heartfelt. Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York, pointed out that other lines are not well translated and told his brethren that American Catholics should be allowed to settle into familiar prayers during a time of uncertainty in the church.  Not to do so, Egan said, could leave the impression that ‘everything is up for grabs.’”   It should be known that Card. Egan, for many years an official of the Roman Rota, is an accomplished Latinist.

On my return to the USA from Rome I found letters you sent by snail-mail.  Last March PF of CA wrote (edited): “Deo volent