Daily Archives: 17 September 2006

EXCERPT:
The vocabulary of our prayer today is very dense, and so our English translation will suffer if we try to come up with one-to-one equivalents for the Latin elements. For example, the word sensus has great weight. It means more than simply “sense”. Even in a non-theological source such as the preferred Latin Dictionary of fame we find that sensus carries meaning beyond what we might perceive by the five physical senses of the body or by the perceiving powers of the mind. It points to that which is common to all human beings, “common sense”. This not the “common sense” which we might have (or lack) in, for example, not standing too close with our back to the lions’ cage when posing for a photo. This is also not the Kantian a priori principle of every judgment of taste, the Kantian term for the so-called subjective principle which determines only by feeling rather than concepts, though nonetheless with universal validity, what is liked or disliked by all people. It is not quite the ancient Greek idea of koine aisthesis according to the Aristotle (De anima – II,6, 418a17-20) which applies to our capacities of perceiving objects through more than one sense. Aristotle suggests a “common sense” power by which we perceive things. Medieval Aristotelians suggest that sensus communis is the root and origin of all sensing. Thus we are able to hear the roar, feel the bite and then see the shaggy mane and realize that it is the one and the same lion gnawing us as he drags our leg into the cage … when we lack the other sort of common sense. So, we might say that this is the power of uniting mentally the impressions conveyed by the five physical senses which constitutes ordinary understanding, without which one is foolish or insane and thus prone to lack common sense.
Continue reading →

Share/Bookmark

EXCERPT:
This prayer, which is at least as old as the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary, was in the pre-Conciliar editions of the Missale Romanum as the Secret of the 5th Sunday after Pentecost. In the more ancient form, however, the priest said “famulorum famularumque tuarum”. In a way that is more “inclusive” in that it has both the masculine and feminine forms of famulus. *gasp*! The Novus Ordo version left out the women! Actually not… you all know by now that Latin masculine plurals include both sexes. Continue reading →

Share/Bookmark