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

What Does The Prayer Really Say? 23rd Sunday Of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2003

I made comments about the ungrammatical ICEL rendering of “all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father.” This incited various notes from readers, including that from Fr. PN via e-mail: “In reference to your recent column (August 21) you criticize the translation ‘all honor and glory is yours.’ The Latin has ‘est’ and my Tridentine Maryknoll Missal translates it ‘all honor and glory is given to you.’ Do we need to revisit this?”

Interesting question, Fr. PN. Let’s do just that. You prompted me also to look at old hand missals. In the St. Andrew Bible Missal (1960): “Through him and with him and in him is given to you, Father almighty together with the Holy Spirit all honor all glory.” In the St. Joseph Daily Missal (1959): “Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to You, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory.” In the Saint Andrew Daily Missal (1959): “By Him and with Him and in Him are ever given to You, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit all honor and glory.” So, as they say auctores scinduntur, though there is a preference, it seems, for the singular “all honor and glory is yours.” In Latin it is not unusual to find singular verbs in a sentence with more than one subject, but it is less common in English. That is how we account for the est in the end of the Roman Canon: est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti…omnis honor, et gloria. We can think of examples, however. Consider the night watchman’s cry of “All is well!” Clearly it is possible that some translators simply stuck to the singular est without making a change to the plural in English. I also consulted experts in English usage on this one. They suggested that perhaps such weight is being given to “all” that “honor and glory” are felt as one combined concept. It also could be that the “is” goes primarily with “honor,” leaving “glory” as an add on, or after word. That might be the reason, actually, if you examine the punctuation of the Latin original: est…omnis honor, et gloria….
Do you see, folks, how tricky this all is? I have always been uncomfortable with the singular because I feel a real difference between honor (something we give to God) and gloria (a divine characteristic God wishes to give to us). On the other hand, perhaps we are extending to God all our expressions of honor and we are glorifying Him in the sense of honoring and praising Him. Thus, honor and glory may be conceptually similar enough to be pulled easily into the gravitational orbit of that singular “is.” So, throwing up my hands in puzzlement, I retract my previous claim about ICEL’s ungrammatical choice (in this case) and will leave the matter open to various flexible approaches. After all, in the Congregation for Divine Worship’s (CDW) 2001 document which lays down norms for translations of liturgical texts, Liturgiam authenticam (LA), we read: “57. b) In the translation of terms contained in the original text, the same person, number, and gender is to be maintained insofar as possible.”

Prepare to be delighted and charmed. Dr. SR, MD, writes: “We had not heard of The Wanderer until about three years ago when (my wife) found a copy lying in a waiting room at the (hospital where I work), undoubtedly left there by some friendly soul hoping somebody like my wife would pick it up! She brought it home, and we read it cover-to-cover. I was immediately impressed by WDTPRS, and I knew that this was something that I just HAD to read every week. So I have been a Wanderer subscriber ever since. Your thoughtful Latin translations and associated commentary really do bring out the deeper meaning of the prayers. Moreover, you provide wonderful discussions on church Latin, which tends to be missing in my classical Latin background. What a great weekly Latin review you provide!”  What a great story. Do you see what subscribing and sharing the wealth can do?

But wait, folks, there’s more! SR continues, “The Latin review in WDTPRS is especially useful in our home, where we use Latin daily.” (Emphasis mine.) “(My wife) and I wanted (our daughter)...to be a bilingual child….We were classics majors as undergraduates, and we have a great appreciation for Latin literature and ancient history. We also particularly love the beauty of Latin prayers and hymns, and we wanted to share this love with our child. (Our daughter) hears her mother speak Latin to her all day at home, and when I come home in the evening, we speak mostly English, with traditional Latin prayers and songs before bed. We also read (my wife’s) Latin children’s books to her as much as possible. This has worked out remarkably well. From what we can tell by comparing (my daughter’s) progress in Latin to that of similar American children in English (as well as to native speakers of more inflected languages like Russian and German), her Latin seems to be at least on the level of where an average three-and-a-half-year-old Roman child’s should have been. And we’re happy with her English as well! As something of a ‘native speaker’ of Latin, (our daughter) might miss some of the pedagogical benefit of Latin’s ability to shape her thinking patterns, but we will be able to use Greek for that!”

Well, dear WDTPRS readers, I had better get busy and finish this series of articles: I don’t think my dwindling ego could bear being supplanted by a 10-year-old Latin speaker. SR continues, “Interestingly, (my wife) has found another mother in the (area) who speaks Latin to her children, and they get together from time to time, resulting in quite an interesting scene. The problem for me is that this means that I have to try to actually speak Latin on an adult level with the other mother, which is quite difficult! In any case, our experience suggests that Latin is not as much of a ‘dead language’ as one might think. The amazing thing is that my three-year-old is better at Latin than I am, which is a fact that is becoming increasingly difficult to hide from her!”

Post Communionem
Latin (2002 Missale Romanum):
Da fidelibus tuis, Domine,
quos et verbi tui et caelestis sacramenti pabulo
nutris et vivificas,
ita dilecti Filii tui tantis muneribus proficere,
ut eius vitae semper consortes effici mereamur.

This was not in earlier editions of the Missale Romanum, but it had an influential predecessor in the Missale Parisiense of 1738. Once you sort out the et…et…et… situation and grasp the ita…ut construction with the subjunctive, this prayer presents no special difficulties, though getting it as one sentence into English is a task. Most of the ICEL prayers take the easy route and succumb to splitting prayers into more than one sentence. I think it is far better to be faithful to the text and maintain the one sentence format, even though doing so results in sentences that are more complicated than people ordinarily use. I also do not think that our prayers should be reduced to the simplistic language of everyday life. In our old friend LA we are given guidance: “57. That notable feature of the Roman Rite, namely its straightforward, concise, and compact manner of expression, is to be maintained insofar as possible in the translation. Furthermore, the same manner of rendering a given expression is to be maintained throughout the translation, insofar as feasible.” Also, in LA we read: “57. a) The connection between various expressions, manifested by subordinate and relative clauses, the ordering of words, and various forms of parallelism, is to be maintained as completely as possible in a manner appropriate to the vernacular language.”

In that mighty bulwark against the temptation simply to be satisfied with “getting the gist,” the Lewis & Short Dictionary, we see that proficio means “to go on, advance, make progress; to profit, derive advantage; to perform, effect, accomplish, obtain, etc.,” and thus also “to grow, increase” and “to be useful, serviceable, advantageous, etc., to effect, accomplish; to help, tend, contribute, conduce.”

Literal Translation:
Grant, O Lord, to your faithful,
whom you feed with the food both of your word and also of the heavenly sacrament,
and whom you enliven,
to make progress by means of these great gifts of your beloved Son in such a way
that we merit to be made always the sharers of His life.

Please compare the following, which you will more than likely hear in church on Sunday. Out of fairness, keep in mind that a new translation is in preparation and that LA is applying corrective principles based on our past experience with a view to future translations.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
may the eucharist you have given us
influence our thoughts and actions.
May your Spirit guide and direct us in your way.

The first thing that I would observe (about the content of the Latin version) is that, while very often in our Post communion prayers we listen to the priest refer to the effect of the Sacrifice, today we hear the priest emphasize the meal dimension of Mass.

Holy Mass is both the Sacrifice of the Cross renewed, and the Supper, a meal foreshadowing the heavenly banquet to come. It is Calvary being renewed inseparably within the context of the renewal of the Last Supper Christ celebrated with His Apostles as His Passion began. Holy Mass is simultaneously both Supper and Sacrifice.

Perhaps in the last two decades and more, we have all experienced descriptions of Holy Mass which emphasize the meal dimension of the liturgical action to the point that the sacrificial dimension of Mass is so completely obscured that it is virtually obliterated. This eclipsing of the sacrificial aspect by the more warm and comforting meal facet results nearly always in a choice of a liturgical style that, to put it mildly, departs from the traditional Roman style. I think it is not unusual in the least to find in the meal point of view a greater measure of fellowship and celebration, commonality, and even informality (particularly in a culture becoming ever more informal). While the meal characteristic might be described as more “horizontal,” the sacrificial element is decidedly more “vertical.” The very thought of “sacrifice” might lead most people to be introspective rather than outgoing, quiet and reserved rather than boisterous, solemn rather than informal. Therefore, the style of service at the altar, the content of homilies, the choice of music, the quality of vestments and so forth, will be very much influenced by the gravitational pull exerted by one “force” in the Mass or the other, meal or sacrifice, horizontality or verticality, introspection or outward expressiveness.

Yet, the Holy Mass of Catholics must be allowed to reveal both dimensions, meal and sacrifice, in a dynamic unity. What I mean by dynamic here is that from day to day, week to week, season to season, Holy Mother Church may highlight one more than the other according to the time and feast. Also, within a Mass we might be more sensible of now one, now the other as being the primary focus of a prayer, an action, and even a silence and rest. All of us are challenged to maintain a balance of vision and perception during Mass. When the meal dimension is being brought to the fore, we must always strive to view the meal through the lens of sacrifice, and vice versa. This is particularly the challenge of the priest, sometimes banally described by some who emphasize the horizontal, as the “waiter” at the “meal.” He must be both “servant” in the sense of “ministry” (from Latin ministro which among various things means “to serve out or hand out food”) as well as the priest/victim, simultaneously offering sacrifice and being sacrificed on the altar, which is simultaneously a “table.”

This week’s prayer calls us to be mindful of how God effects His gracious work in us through the banquet He lays before us at Mass. He nourishes us on Himself, present both in the sacred Words of Holy Writ and also in the Sacrament of His Most Precious Body and Blood. Without in any way forgetting the fact that all of this was made possible by the Sacrifice of Calvary, we can also at times simply rest upon the Lord, amidst the nourishing morsels He grants us, much in the way that the Apostle John did upon the breast of Jesus on the night of His betrayal.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  23rd Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

BF writes via e-mail, “In one of your columns you quoted a Latin dictum which, as I recall, means, ‘things pick up speed at the end’.  I have forgotten the Latin and cannot locate the column.  If you have time, I would appreciate your letting me know the Latin original.” Sure, BF.  That was in my column on the Post Communion of the 4th Sunday of Advent published in The Wanderer back at the end of 2002.  I was talking about how at the end of the season of Advent things just seem to go faster and faster as we approach Christmas.  The phrase you are interested in, which is of unknown provenance, is “in finem citius”.

Two more people wrote to say they would be happy to give their active participation to a WDTPRS pilgrimage to Rome and other places in Italy.  I have no experience in organizing such trips, but perhaps it is time to take some concrete steps.

MH writes via e-mail (edited): “I am a new subscriber to The Wanderer, but I’ve been reading your blog online for a month or so. Thanks for enlightening us and enriching my understanding of the Catholic faith. I converted 9 years ago from Lutheranism and I’m continually in awe at the depth of the Catholic faith in every imaginable aspect. [Me too, MH!]  I don’t know if you’ve already addressed this but I would be interested in knowing about how we’ve progressed from addressing God as Thee, Thy, Thou; to He and You; and now to you. I’m always somewhat uncomfortable with being so familiar with God – like maybe we’re trying to bring Him down to our level. Am I being too picky and not with the program?”

No, MH, I think you are quite reasonable in your desire that liturgical prayer give due recognition to God’s exalted nature, indeed, His transcendence.  We have looked at the issue of “Thee” and “You” in the past but it bears repeating.  Many think “Thee” and “Thou” are formal.  Actually, these are familiar forms for the second person singular as once used by a superior to an underling or between equals or friends.  The “You” form (derived from “Ye”) is historically the more formal.  In traditional prayers (“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name…”) we are addressing God with a familiar, intimate form.  Our style of speaking has shifted and now people think those forms sound formal, probably because they are now found only in traditional prayers and older writing.  That is, unless you are Amish or Quaker, who still use these forms properly.  I like those old, now archaic forms for liturgical prayer.   They sound formal to our ears while they remain familiar in origin. They are fitting for liturgical prayer, in my opinion, but I am afraid we won’t be seeing them in our future ICEL translation.

Apropos liturgical style and tone, in The Tablet (19 August) there was a piece by Dot Wordsworth called “Mind Your Language” which reprised comments of His Excellency Arthur Roche, Bishop of Leeds and chairman of ICEL to the last plenary session of the USCCB which I reported to you faithful readers in an earlier number of this series.  Let’s see some of it.  First, something about the choice not to use the word “deign” in the new translation in preparation.  Reference is made to a “register” of language.  Bishop Roche is talking about a sacral tone or style of liturgical prayer which is simultaneously accessible while remaining properly courteous and dignified.

Bishop Roche writes, in the Catholic weekly, The Tablet, that ‘“Deign” was greeted with howls of derision from all sides: it was thought to belong to too formal a register.’ Then they tried, ‘Please grant’. This was too informal. So finally, the bishop relates, they ‘settled on “be pleased to grant” which seems to fall between the two’.

“Too formal a register”.  Frankly, I like the word “deign”, which derives from Latin dignari, found often in our prayers.  Still, Bishop Roche’s alternative is acceptable.  I personally favor a formal “register”, but at the same time I realize we are addressing ourselves to our God who is not only Almighty and transcendent but always Father.  The Son is not only the Eternal Word and King of Fearful Majesty, but also our brother in our humanity.  The Holy Spirit is not only Lord and Giver of Life, but also He who dwells in the most intimate temple of our souls, closer to us than we are to ourselves.  Moreover, while we must not avoid vocabulary that many people will have to stretch themselves to grasp, we shouldn’t make things too difficult, so that the texts seem artificial.  When the prayers were first “translated” after the Council, with less care than was really called for, it was decided to use “dynamic equivalence”.  Here is the The Tablet article again:

Translating prayers for such a solemn ceremony is not like translating a novel, or even the Bible. The translation of the 1970s was done in a hurry, after the Second Vatican Council. The method used was that of ‘dynamic equivalence’.

Dynamic equivalence was invented by Eugene Nida, born in Oklahoma City in 1914. The idea was to render a sentence in terms that would have the same effect on the hearers as the original, even if it didn’t follow it word by word. It leant to the approach of Ronald Knox. Dr Nida used it for language communities that had not encountered the Bible before, which is far from the position of habitual Mass-goers. Bishop Roche says Dr Nida ‘ceased to use’ dynamic equivalence in his later work.

The last time I mentioned Dr. Nida in WDTPRS a kind reader JB wrote by e-mail to say (edited):  “Eugene Nida, the inventor of  ‘dynamic equivalence’ was primarily a bible translator, and worked with the Wyckliffe Bible Translators, whose goal was to translate the bible into all the languages of primitive peoples in South America, Africa, etc., for the use of Protestant missionaries.  Clearly if you are dealing with a tribe whose only experience is of the Amazon jungle, you will have a lot of trouble trying to directly translate the Book of Jonah into terms that will mean anything to them, to whom the sea, a whale, or a large walled city would be incomprehensible.  ... Later he became involved with projects like the Good News Bible, which uses very loose and colloquial translations.  ...  Nida and his cohorts were both strong Protestants and had the aura of ‘scientists’ – two things that seem to have had irresistible appeal to post Vatican II Catholic liturgists.  As in so many other areas, they would have been better off sticking to their own incomparably beautiful and venerable tradition!”  Thanks for that, JB.  I am reminded of how the argument of Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias, before whom so many bowed in awe, that Greek tò perì pollôn (Latin pro multis) was really supposed to mean “for all” was automatically accepted by so many.

Going back to that article in The Tablet we find an interesting observation:

In any case, the Mass was never expressed in current speech, even in the fourth century, when Latin replaced the Greek version in Rome. That great liturgical scholar Christine Morhmann calls early liturgical Latin ‘a strongly stylised, more or less artificial language’, much of it ‘not easily understood by the average Christian of the fifth century or later’.

The Canon was characterised by parallelism, alliteration, rhyme and juridical precision, like formal prayers in pagan Rome. Some people think that falls into the ‘polylogy’ condemned by Jesus (‘Use not vain repetitions’, Matthew vi, 7). But Bishop Roche says the new translators have tried to ‘forge a new register of courteous address to God’. And, he adds, that ‘will need to be learnt’.

Public liturgical prayer must not be characterized by a tone or, as Bishop Roche calls it, a “register” which is too informal, self-centered, or imprecise.  When the new translation comes, it will require work on the part of pastors to help their flocks understand how it is to their benefit that changes were made.

With this in mind, we can move on to examine this Sunday’s “Prayer over the gifts” as it was called by the previous incarnation of ICEL and see if the lame-duck version now in use corresponds to what the prayer really says in Latin.  This prayer was not present in the older, pre-Conciliar editions of the Missale Romanum but with a minor variation it is in the ancient Veronese Sacramentary in the month of September.

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Deus, auctor sincerae devotionis et pacis,
da, quaesumus, ut et maiestatem tuam
convenienter hoc munere veneremur,
et sacri participatione mysterii fideliter sensibus uniamur.

Keep in mind the concept of “register” as we look at our vocabulary.  The grand Lewis & Short Dictionary reminds us that convenienter is an adverb from convenio meaning “fitly, suitably, conformably, consistently.”  The verb veneror is “to reverence with religious awe, to worship, adore, revere, venerate.”  It can also mean “to ask reverently for any thing, to beseech, implore, beg, entreat, supplicate; with ut.” Unio is post-Augustinian and very rare.  The instance L&S provides is from De anima 17 by the third century writer Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225) in a chapter which treats, serendipitously, “the fidelity of the senses”.  The thing to which another thing is being joined is in the dative case.  A truly amazing word is the noun auctor.  This means, according to the L&S “he that brings about the existence of any object, or promotes the increase or prosperity of it, whether he first originates it, or by his efforts gives greater permanence or continuance to it; to be differently translated according to the object, creator, maker, author, inventor, producer, father, founder, teacher, composer, cause, voucher, supporter, leader, head, etc.”

The trickiest word in this prayer is the fifth declension noun sensus, sensÅ«s (from the verb sentio).  In the second entry for sensus in the L&S we see how complex the word is.  Basically, sensus means “the faculty or power of perceiving, perception, feeling, sensation, sense, etc.”   In a physical context it is “perception, feeling, sensation; a sense, capacity for feeling.”  In the mental context it is “feeling, sentiment, emotion, affection; sense, understanding, capacity; humor, inclination, disposition, frame of mind, etc.” and then also “opinion, thought, sense, view.”  It also means “the common feelings of humanity, the moral sense, taste, discretion, tact in intercourse with men, often called in full sensus communis (sometimes with hominum).”  Going on, sensus signifies “the thinking faculty, sense, understanding, mind, reason (synonyms being mens, ratio)”.  There is more, but that suffices.   Given the use of unio and assuming that sensibus might be dative, we could argue that fideliter sensibus uniamur means something like “may we be faithfully united to our sensibus”.  Interesting, that, and hard.  However, it is often preferable to use an easier reading than a harder.  Less interesting, but often preferable.  I think prayers should be interesting, and not the mind-numbingly banal we have had for so long now.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, author of sincere devotion and peace,
grant, we beg, both that we may fittingly
revere Your majesty by means of this gift offering,
and that we may be united faithfully in all our heart and mind
by participation in the sacred mystery.

How does the lame-duck version now in use stack up?  Again, think in terms of “register” or a “sacral tone”.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
God of peace and love,
may our offering bring you true worship
and make us one with you.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2005

AB of MO sent me this via e-mail (edited): “My wife and I have subscribed to The Wanderer for a year now and always go first to WDTPRS.  Thank you for your commitment to the true translation of the Latin.  You have inspired us to begin a home study of Latin.  After three weeks of study, we have found that the classes we took to learn NT Greek are very useful in learning Latin.  … Can the USCCB English translation [of the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church] coming out in October be trusted to be an accurate translation of the original Latin?  And, would you know how we might obtain an original Latin version of the new Compendium?”  I think, AB, we have to “trust but verify”.  I don’t believe too many translation shenanigans will be permitted after the dust-up some years back over the Catechism itself and, more recently, the liturgical texts coming from the USCCB and ICEL.   For a Latin edition, maybe keep an eye on the website paxbook.com.  It isn’t there at the time of this writing, but it probably will be.

It must have been Missouri week.  Rev. Mr. SM writes, also from MO (edited): “Thank you so much for your intelligent and prayerful column every week in The Wanderer.  You help to make present the fierce and passionate love of God for His people.”  You have perfectly grasped the point of the articles, SM.  Hopefully, people will desire to know more about Holy Mass, love it always better and participate at Mass more perfectly.

Here is Fr. RF (edited): “I suspect you can answer a question I have wondered about for a long time.  In the second Eucharistic prayer, ‘astare coram te’ seems inescapably to mean ‘stand’.  From what I have read of Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition, that phrase is appropriate because the section is after the ordination of a bishop – who would be standing. Lo, these many years when using that Canon, I have wondered why ‘they’ didn’t change it to something like ‘be in your presence and serve…’ so as to include everyone not standing (i.e. the laity) in that sentiment.  Unless ‘they’ were working for the day when universally the rubrics would change to have all standing throughout the Eucharistic prayers.  Comment?  By the way, I am a recent Wanderer subscriber.  Ordained 27 years, I read your article every week, because after buying the Missale Romanum and beginning to make comparisons, I have lost all faith in the English speaking Bishops’ ability to translate Latin.  I am heartened to hear the ‘alternative’ opening prayers will be eliminated, but I am still afraid of what will happen in the next translation.”   First, Fr. RF, I will not rush to claim that the translation choices made in the late 60’s and early 70’s were entirely without guile.  Second, from what I have seen of the working draft translation, I think you will be pleased with the improvement.   Now we must do our part to help those making the final decisions about the translation to screw their courage to the sticking place lest they lose their resolve under the relentless onslaught of those clinging to the old ICEL style.  They think we are too stupid to understand what the prayers really say and will do all they can to scuttle the improvements being made according to the norms of Liturgiam authenticam.

To your question about astare: I wrote about this in the series on the Eucharistic Prayers in June 2004.  The Preface of the 4th Eucharistic Prayer uses similar vocabulary.  I wrote in these WDTPRS pages last year but, Fr. RF, you made me dig a little more.  Some might not immediately recognize asto as adsto, which the precious Lewis & Short Dictionary says means, “to stand at or near a person or thing, to stand by”.  The L&S will also make clear that asto has the synonym adsisto.  If you have ever heard the phrase “to assist (adsisto) at Holy Mass” this is the concept: you are present and actively participating.  Also, during the Roman Canon the priest describes the people as circumstantes, literally “standing around”.  This doesn’t mean ought to be physically standing around the altar with their hands in their pockets (though I must confess I have seen precisely that). Rather, they are morally and spiritually “around” the altar, participating each according to their vocation and capacity.  In his supplement to L&S, A. Souter says that adsto is the equivalent of sum.  A. Blaise, on the other hand, says liturgical adsto is “to be nearby; to serve”. The same goes for adsisto.  I think anyone who would try to use this as a defense of standing during the consecration would be using a terribly superficial argument.  Moreover, whatever the translation says, the Church’s clear liturgical law says that at that moment, unless they are impeded, everyone must be kneeling at the time of the consecration in most of the world’s dioceses.  In the USA people must kneel from the end of the Sanctus, through the whole of the Eucharistic Prayer, to the end of the great “Amen” (GIRM 23).  This adaptation was purposely sought by the bishops of the USA and it was approved by Rome.  Are people kneeling?

COLLECT - (2002MR):
Deus, per quem nobis et redemptio venit et praestatur adoptio,
filios dilectionis tuae benignus intende,
ut in Christo credentibus
et vera tribuatur libertas, et hereditas aeterna.

This is also the Collect for the Fifth Sunday of Easter.  It was not in a previous edition of the Roman Missal, but it was in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary found in a section for evening prayers during paschaltide.   Take note of the lovely chiasms: redemptio venit…praestatur adoptio (subject verb… verb subject) and also vera libertas…hereditas aeterna (adjective noun…noun adjective).   Vocabulary connections suggest to me some Patristic sources for this prayers (e.g., in Hilary of Poitiers, de trin 6, 44; Ambrose of Milan, ep 9, 65, 5).

Our consultation of the thick Lewis & Short Dictionary convinces us that the correct praesto must be chosen for us to understand what our prayer really says.  Praesto, iti, atum means effectively “to stand before or in front”.   It has a wide range of meanings, however, including “to fulfill, discharge, maintain, perform, execute” and concepts surrounding the same, making praesto a little confusing.  The lexicographer Souter says that praesto meant in about the 2nd century, “lend” (like French “prêter”) and from the 4th century onward “offer”.  Cassiodorus and other authors use praesto for “help, aid, give”.   A. Blaise suggests French “accorder” when it concerns God.  Some weeks ago, (19th Sunday) I addressed at some length the word adoptio.  Hereditas can be, “heirship, inheritance” or the inheritance itself, patrimony.  

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
God our Father,
you redeem us,
and make us your children in Christ.
Look upon us,
give us true freedom
and bring us to the inheritance you promised.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, through whom both redemption comes to us and adoption is guaranteed for us,
kindly give attention to your beloved children,
so that both true freedom and the inheritance everlasting
may be bestowed on those believing in Christ.

By that fact of our unity with Christ in His and our common human nature, the way to divine sonship was opened up to us by the Father in Christ.  Christ is the Father’s Son by nature, we are sons and daughters by grace.  Our adoption through grace is “perfect” (adoptio perfecta) because it complete. Perfecta is from perficio, “bring to an end or conclusion, finish, complete”.  From God’s point of view our adoption is perfect because He puts His mark upon us, especially in baptism and confirmation.  Since God is not limited by time and for Him there are no past or future distinct from the present, He sees in perfection the results of every gift of adoption.  From our point of view adoption will only be completed when we see Him face to face.  Because of baptism the Father’s mark is sealed into us forever.  In this marvelous adoption the Holy Spirit brings the Father and Son to us when He takes up His rightful place in our souls, thus creating the perfect communion, even family, within our souls.  

Today’s Collect has its foundation certainly in the New Testament imagery of adoption, but I think it also flows out of ancient Roman legal concepts of manumission and adoption, freeing of slaves and adoption of heirs.  Our adoption by God takes us out of slavery and gives us a new status as free members of the Church and as sons and daughters.  Baptism confers this freedom, membership, and adoption.   Even natural children of a father in Rome required the father’s recognition before they were legally considered to be his legitimate children and heirs with any rights.  Adoption could grant those same rights and privileges.  Roman adoptio removed a person from one familia and put him in another while adrogatio legally placed people not under the power of a parent into a familia, thus placing them under the authority of the paterfamilias.  In Latin, a familia is a house and all belonging to it, a family estate, family property, fortune.  A familia had a head, the paterfamilias (or familiae, this being a Greek genitive), the master of the house.  

The baptized are no longer subject to Satan and destined for hell, but are now under new mastership of God.  In Rome there was also an “adoption” by being named an heir with the right of taking the name of the one bequeathing the patrimony.  However, this was not a complete adoption, in the fullest sense: you became heir of the father’s name and property without the other powers of a paterfamilias until they were confirmed by magistrates, etc.  Even after baptism our state can be deepened through confirmation.  Ancient slaves could be freed, but that did not make them Roman citizens with the greater rights.  By baptism, we become citizens of heaven, members of the family of the Church.  Not only are we free, but we gain even the chance of eternal salvation. In ancient Roman a slave could become a citizen through certain types of manumission, by adoption, through military service, or a special grant to a community or territory.  In a way, we have undergone all of these: by laying His hand on us (manus “hand”), we have been freed.  We have been made sons and daughters of a heavenly Father.  We are now soldiers in the Church militant.  By membership of the society of the Church, a holy and priestly People, we gain privileges and obligations.   God has recognized us as His own children with a perfect adoption.  This is true freedom and true heirship, excluding nothing and, in some sense, lavishing on us even more than we might have had before we fell under the Devil’s dominion through sin.

This is a difficult mystery to grasp: we are already sons and daughters in a perfect sonship by adoption, but that sonship is not yet complete: we lack the final essential component, that is, perseverance in faith and obedience for the whole course of our lives and their ratification in death and our particular judgment.  It is through many trials that we come to the perfection of adoption which we now share in an imperfectly perfect way.   These wonderful collects during the summer, during Ordinary time, contain reminders of who we are and, therefore, what we are to do.  Christ reveals both.

Well… I think Mass is going to be at 0900 Sabine Daylight Time (=CDT) which is 1600 in Rome. If it is going to be earlier, well…. I’ll post what I can when I can.

I could stick a small window of the live stream on the left menu, I suppose, but then you would necessarily get the stream on every page of the blog.

[UPDATE: Yes, Mass is at 0900 CDT.  I will use the 1962 Missale Romanum – which means 14th Sunday after Pentecost and no 2nd Confiteor.  I’ll just have a couple people there today, so tune in an unite your prayers to the Sacrifice.]