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

Over at one of my favorite blogs, Cha Xiu Bao, there is a grand photo of a fellow with a knife.

At that entry you can see how he uses his little knife to make some really yummy looking soup.

I am scheduled to have another Chinese duck on Thursday, since I cannot have a turkey!

... "consubstantialem Patri"?

Let us remember with fondness this Protocol Number:

Prot. n. 467/05/L

Here is something very important in the letter His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze wrote to the bishops (conferences) through the whole world.  My emphasis.

Rome, 17 October 2006

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. n. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

The replies received from the Bishops’ Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father.  At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:...

This is not the decision of either the CDWDS or the CDF.  This was the Pope’s decision.  As I have written elsewhere, the translations of sacramental forms are reserved to the Pope alone. 

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

There is no appeal against this decision. 

 

In Rome on Sundays Holy Mass is celebrated with the 1962 Missale Romanum at the Church of Gesù e Maria on the Via del Corso.  Here are a few images.

Dominus vobiscum… 

And now for the shot of the day… 

You have read the news from CWN about the pro multis decision.  I reported this a long while back, but it is nice to have additional confirmation… this time from His Eminence Card. Arinze himself. 

I have no words to express my joy about this.  We also know that the battle will now be waged in the open by some bishops and liturgists who will completely freak out.

Here is the CWN piece.  If you don’t subscribe to CWN, btw, you ought to.  That is something worth supporting.  My emphasis added and comments.

Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules 

Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) – The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.

Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use [Not all of them.] render the phrase as "for all." Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.  [Remarkably, the French got it right with "pour la multitude".]

Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio – news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world’s episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. [Let the battle be joined!] For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal’s letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts "in the next one or two years."

The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):

...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:

...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Critics of the current translation [hmmm…. who could he be talking about?] have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ’s redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved. 

Cardinal Arinze, in his letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences, explains the reasons for the Vatican’s decision to require

• The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
• The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice. [This is precisely what I pointed out to His Eminence during a meeting last year when I surprised him with the citation from the Roman Catechism explaining that the Church cannot say "pro omnibus".]
• The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.  [This was another critical point.]
• “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis. [EXACTLY.]
• The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.
• In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions. [The decisive argument is that the liturgical text constitutes its own valid theological source.]

The points enunciated by His Eminence are exactly what I have been hammering in WDTPRS for years now.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2003

DW of CA writes via snail-mail: “Thank you for your weekly column which gives any would-be Latinist a brisk turn around the track (or should I says circus ?). As much as I enjoy your scholarship, I admire even more your patience and charity with the ICEL translations. The days of their continued publication may be numbered… but, while yet they last, they would seem to merit something more than gentle remonstrations. ICEL should not be given a pass for poor translations; when so often they exit the land of paraphrase into a lost world of changed meaning. Poor laymen such as I are left in the pew with thin gruel when what we need is stronger fare. We seek bread and receive liturgical stones…. Thanks again for your excellent work, a high point in each week’s reading of The Wanderer.” Many thanks to you, DW, for your kind words about the column.

I know that you and others are deeply frustrated by what you hear in church. I am too. This column is a response to the desire for “stronger fare”. Together with my hope that these poor words each week will help you love the Mass more and more and pray more in harmony with the Church’s desires, this column has had in part the intention of continually stirring the pot not so much for the sake of discontent or griping about the bad translations, but rather to promote a positive yet realistic view of what can be accomplished in the future. The older ICEL translations are a “lame duck” but ICEL itself is not. It has been overhauled and is being closely guided by the Holy See. It still has use and much work to do. Therefore, I have urged, begged, admonished, everything short of threatened all you kind readers both to pray and fast for the bishops and the ICEL translators and also to write them positive notes of encouragement. Their work now will shape the next few decades of the Catholic experience.

Surely there is little doubt in the minds of reasonable people that the past translations were sub-optimal. Let’s just stipulate and move on. Everyone knows there are new norms for translation. The work is underway and must be accomplished soon. Therefore, we all must take a realistic yet positive approach and be supportive of what can now be done to produce a translation which is accurate, beautiful and prayerful. Yes, DW, I could use my energies and this space to bash and slash at the old ICEL texts. But… cui bono? What good would that be and for whom? In exasperation once in a while I add sharper editorial comments about what we have been forced to use/hear for thirty years, but that is not my overall and consistent modus operandi. After all, “charity deserves to be increased” as they say.

So, for a moment put yourself in the shoes of an ICEL staffer or a bishop who is aware of this heavy responsibility. You knows that the past efforts were not successful. You feel the tremendous pressure to work quickly and satisfy everyone. Imagine how you would feel picking up this newspaper or pulling this column off the internet just to read a sustained weekly diatribe attacking what you hold dear and are obliged to work on. If… if (please, God) someone in charge of anything having to do with the creating of new liturgical translations reads any of these columns, even once, I want him or her to know that there are people who wish them well and dearly hope that by both grace and elbow grease the goal can indeed be attained. And we will praise their efforts when they do well. Translation of liturgical texts is really hard, DW, but it isn’t astrophysics. It can be done and must be done.

And with that, let us move without delay onto this week’s….

POST COMMUNIONEM
LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Sumpsimus, Domine, sacri dona mysterii,
humiliter deprecantes,
ut, quae in sui commemorationem
nos Filius tuus facere praecipit,
in nostrae proficiant caritatis augmentum.
<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>

This was in the 1962MR the Postcommunio of Ember Friday in the time of Pentecost with some changes here and there: ...ut, quae in sui commemorationem nos facere praecepisti, in nostrae proficiant infirmitatis auxilium. It changed from an address to God the Son to a prayer to the Father with reference to the Son and changed the object of the prayer from aid in weakness to an increase in charity. That might also sum up something of what I wrote above about the purpose of these columns, but I digress. There is a lot of alliteration with both hard and soft “k/c” sounds to be noted, as well as the humming of the “m” which predominates in the prayer.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Father,
may we grow in love
by the eucharist we have celebrated
in memory of the Lord Jesus.

Yes… well…. Let us stipulate that this can bear improvements and move forward. So important is our prayer that we will not want to remain satisfied with this version. Nor will our translators want to give us anything resembling this old version we now hear in church. We WDTPRSers want to be sure that our comprehension of each prayer’s vocabulary is clear and complete. Therefore the exceptionally complete and clear Lewis & Short Dictionary will help us to dispel the fogs and doubts about the ICEL version above and move into what the prayer really says with greater confidence. For example, deprecor has been used in our Post communions before: on the 22^nd Sunday of Ordinary Time and for Palm Sunday and also in the Super oblata for Holy Family. Deprecor is not just “to pray”, but “to pray earnestly.” Deprecor is a compound of the preposition de + precor meaning “to avert, ward off (from one’s self or others) by earnest prayer; to deprecate; also to pray, to intercede for the averting of any evil, or to obtain pardon for any transgression” and also “to pray for, intercede in behalf of (that which is in danger)”. If my memory is not faulty I believe there was a prayer in the older Rituale Romanum using a form of deprecor (prex deprecatoria) against invasions of mice (contra mures) and other annoying critters. No doubt an observant reader will correct me if I am wrong in my recollection. I assume that in this Post communion it means “ward off” by earnest prayer. In today’s prayer we clearly want to obtain something by earnest prayer.

The tenses are helpful. You students of Latin probably learned to recognize deprecantes as a present active participle. That idea of “present” is a little misleading and at the same time right on. What do I mean? First, “present” in the case of this tense in Latin is better rendered as “contemporary”. That means that it is taking place at the same time (contemporaneously) as the time of the main verb. If that is really in the present time, fine, but it could be in the past or future. Today the time of deprecantes is determined by the time of the verb sumpsimus. The form sumpsimus is present perfect which means that in the moment of the speaking, the action indicated by the verb is completed: so, it is a past tense with reference to present reality. In this case we have a form of sumo, which has the principle parts sumo, sumere, sumpsi, sumptum. So, in today’s prayer, when we “received by eating” (sumpsimus) the Sacred Host in Holy Communion, we were simultaneously, contemporaneously, “praying earnestly to obtain” (deprecantes) something. In way, our prayer is an admission to God of what we were praying for a moment ago rather than a prayer right now.

Let us take note also of the word sui, from ­suus, -a, um which is a reflexive possessive pronoun. In English we get along with the ambiguous word “his” for possessive. But that leaves us in doubt about who the “his” is. In Latin, we use suus to refer to the subject of the verb, so that it “reflects back” upon the actor (or acted upon) in the sentence or clause and leaves eius to refer to some other “his” or “her” or “its”. In this case sui goes back to the subject of the verb praecipit who is Filius tuus.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
We have, O Lord, consumed the gifts of the sacred mystery,
at the same time humbly praying in an earnest way,
that, the things which Your Son commanded
us to do in commemoration of Him
may bring about an increase in our charity.

We may have another echo in this Post communion of the Summa Theologica of the Angelic Doctor citing something he attributes to St. Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John 74. In the Summa Aquinas worked mainly from memory and so he has the Doctor of Charity writing “caritas meretur augeri, ut aucta mereatur perfici… sacrificial love deserves to be increased, so that having been increased it deserves to be brought to perfection” (IIa IIae, q. 24, a. 4, s.c.). In fact, St. Thomas remembered incorrectly. The real quote of the Bishop of Hippo was in Letter 186, 10 written around 417 to Paulinus against the errors of the Pelagians and was slightly different (in CSEL 57, 53; PL 33, 819: gratia meretur augeri…) but this is a small point for our use now. And St. Thomas, in his examination of the issue of whether charity can be increased says (op.cit.) that charity can be increased for those of us who are here on the “way”, in this pilgrim existence of this world, traveling to the next: Caritas viae potest augeri. Ex hoc dicimur esse viatores….” A viator is a “pilgrim” or a “wanderer”. Thus, is the Angelic Doctor is using Augustine to tell us that the charity of The Wanderer and its readers can be increased?

Coming out of the myriad distractions of our daily lives, we must remind ourselves when we enter our parish churches for Holy Mass that what we are about to participate in is not merely a “memory” of something that Christ did a long time ago, and for which we are now nostalgically grateful. This is not merely a “memory” of a noble gesture of sacrifice that ought to inspire us to do similar things for others. Mass is not a just good example to promote social work or warm caring feelings. When we go into a church and Mass begins we have passed suddenly into a mysterious and timeless space wherein what we do and say not only recalls to mind past events but actually, by the doing and saying and God’s own action through our words and deeds, makes those events present to us now and we to them. The actions of the Last Supper and the Passion with its Cross and Resurrection are renewed in Holy Mass and Christ, the true actor in the events makes us present with Him in his acting. Thus, conscious of our participation in sacred and transforming mysteries which were the pivot point of the history of every created thing in the universe, we unite our minds, wills and hearts to the words of our priest and mediator standing for us at the altar and imploring God by this bold and daring act of receiving Holy Communion to “bring about an increase in our charity”. Thus, nourished we can do not only in church what Christ commanded, but leaving church afterwards we can carry out in concrete ways His command of love for our neighbor.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 33rd Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

There are many things afoot these days. The French bishops, meeting in plenary session, voiced strong opposition to a possible Motu Proprio by which His Holiness would derestrict the use of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass. His Eminence Jean-Pierre Card. Ricard, President of the French Conference and member of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, contrary to all indications, intimated that a Motu Proprio was not only not signed yet but perhaps is not much more than a suggestion on the part of the Commission’s President, Darío Card. Castrillon Hoyos. Despite French bishops breathing threats of zero compromise with Traditionalists and bishops of the USCCB expressing “unease”, Card. Ricard will be going to Rome to participate in work on the draft document. This is pretty concrete, though there is no indication of a schedule.

On another front, the Pope may be doing something about sacred music. The Holy Father will visit the Saint Cecilia Music Academy on 22 November, the feast of the virgin martyr who is the patroness of music. His Holiness will surely address the state of sacred music in the Church, a topic dear to his heart. You can bet he will stress the need for more Gregorian chant and polyphony. However, some think he may include such a desire in a weightier document. Furthermore, on 19 November His Eminence Christoph Card. Schönborn will be celebrant for Holy Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. The Vienna Philharmonic will provide the music: W.A. Mozart’s Coronation Mass. The Pope often addresses the congregation after Masses celebrated by others in the Basilica. Do you think he will talk about sacred music?

People are also waiting for the Holy Father’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, the follow up to last year’s meeting (which the Pope cut short by a week) of the Synod of Bishops who gathered to discuss the Holy Eucharist. It is very unlikely that His Holiness will merely regurgitate the proposals of the Synod. That is not his style. We are left to wonder if His Holiness will use such a letter to cover several of these burning issues in a global view.

Keep this in mind: His Holiness wrote a book called The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), precisely the same title as a 1918 book by the great German liturgist Romano Guardini which helped to give impetus to the Liturgical Movement of the twentieth century. Cardinal Ratzinger said he consciously used the same title as Guardini’s book because he wanted to spark a new movement of liturgical renewal. This was a key dimension of Pope Benedict’s vision for the Church for years before the conclave of 2005. Would he abandon it now that he is in a position to effect real change? Benedict knows the important of sacred music. Benedict has argued that use of the older form of Mass will help to redirect the way the newer Mass is being celebrated. The wait is, for us, a matter of greater agony than any child feels before Christmas. The Pope’s homilies, addresses, appointments and documents nevertheless suggest that he is on his target, if not on our schedule.

Benedict XVI has been deeply involved with all these matters for decades now. No one knows the lay of the land better than he. If he really has been aiming to free up the “Tridentine” Mass, is he going to be in the least surprised by the vehement opposition of the French bishops or the “unease” of the USCCB? If he really has been working on a document, will the complaints add anything to the mix he hasn’t already heard a thousand times?

At the same time, extensive work is needed to craft a document on the older form of Mass. It isn’t possible simply to derestrict the old Mass for every priest everywhere at any time for any reason without reference to bishops or religious superiors. That would be madness. Therefore, the role of bishops in such a project needs to be sorted out. Bishops cannot be excluded from the provisions.

Any document on the “Tridentine Mass” needs to be well-framed. If it is sloppy or filled with holes, if it does not adequately foresee obvious thorny scenarios that will certainly arise, the net effect for those who want the use of the older Mass would be catastrophic in the long run. The results for a healing of the schism or avoiding another would be seriously damaged. Bishops must be involved for the sake of order. Moreover, the role of the existing Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” and its mandate would have to be rethought.

And what about liturgical dilemmas or questions? There is a wide divergence of practice in the use of the “Tridentine” Mass. The Holy See gave permission for use of the 1962 editio typica of the Missale Romanum. But some priests and laymen involved in “Tridentine” liturgies seem to think they can do anything they please, arguing that their variations are “traditions”. Are they doing anything other than implementing their personal preferences? They are ironically similar to the wacky liturgists of the Church-Of-What’s-Happening-Now, but they have far better taste. A new Motu Proprio must to establish greater discipline. Consequently, an authoritative point of reference must be determined for the liturgical questions that will no doubt arise. Bishops will have to maintain fidelity to rubrics also for the “Tridentine” Mass. Ponder that for a moment.

We are going to have to have patience, my friends, even more patience. It takes very little time to tear structures apart, and a long time to build anew something worth building.

Do you remember the news from a few weeks ago about the famous Roman Latinist Fr. Reginald Foster, OCD? For decades Fr. Foster has trained up hundreds of students in Rome to an expert knowledge of the Latin language and communicated his infectious love for Latin Literature. Foster had been unceremoniously given the heave-ho from the Gregorian University and his students, who need both training and credits for their studies, were out in the street. Former and future students of Fr. Foster will be reassured to know that the “experiences” are back on track in the heart of Rome. Students will once again be beating their brains out against Foster’s legendary ludi domestici (homework sheets) each week. Pray for them.

Foster’s new Latin Academy has its quarters through the kind help of the American Institute for Roman Culture, run by one of Foster’s former students. Since I am one of his old veterans, I went to the first organizational meeting on Monday, 6 November. The Latin “experiences” began again the very next day. Foster rightly deplores the loss of Latin from educational formation, ecclesiastical formation especially. As he put it last Monday, “I could not stand to be in a classroom today to teach theology, canon law, history, philosophy to anyone knowing that the students know nothing! It would drive me crazy. I couldn’t do it.” In post-graduate programs people are working on topics that absolutely need strong Latin skills, but they don’t have a clue. They can’t read primary texts because they are in Latin.

Step into the Twilight Zone for a moment and picture, if you will, someone being admitted to, say, graduate school for a Ph.D in French Literature without knowing how to read any French. Make sense? Imagine a medical school admitting someone who never studied biology. Crazy, right? This is going on everywhere in the Church’s institutions of higher learning today, and the missing indispensable key is Latin. Personal anecdote: years ago a doctoral student in theology paid me to translate sermons of a mediaeval theologian found only in a volume of the Patrologia Latina. Why? He was writing his doctoral dissertation on the fellow’s theology but couldn’t read Latin. Get it? He was writing his thesis on something he couldn’t read. How does that work?

Treasures of stupefying beauty and value are gathering dust on shelves in seminary and university libraries because students and professors can’t read them. They are entirely dependent on what someone else says the works say, if they have ever been translated at all. Without Latin, a vast store of Western Civilization’s achievements is locked shut and inaccessible. There are works of, for example, St. Robert Bellarmine which have not been translated. Students of theology won’t have a clue what this great Doctor of the Church said in those pages. This has also been the case for countless people in parish churches since 1973, hasn’t it? They thought the ICEL versions of the prayers they heard were what the Church was really saying to God. They weren’t. Even today I am still getting e-mail from priests who say they never knew what they were missing all this time until they started reading WDTPRS. But I digress.

The situation may be dire but Fr. Foster sees good signs for Latin in secular institutions. His classes are also frequented by numerous lay students, many non-Catholics, and his flame-hot summer course is attended by nearly all lay students from secular schools. Dozens of applicants for the intensive summer course have already come in, he said at the Monday meeting. He rewrote the entrance exam. It is now much harder.

Clearly, not everyone needs to know Latin. But can all agree that students of philosophy, theology, liturgy and canon law in fact do. For Foster, the bottom line can be summed up in one of his classic, no holds barred explanations to his students: “If you have this thing, you have something, friends. If you don’t have Latin you’re just sitting there looking stupid!”

Just to be a little annoying, I ask: Does this apply to priests who want to celebrate the “Tridentine” Mass? Does it make a difference if Father has no idea what the prayer really says?

Let’s move on to this week’s “Prayer over the gifts” as the lame-duck ICEL version calls it, but what we know in Latin is this Sunday’s

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Concede, quaesumus, Domine,
ut oculis tuae maiestatis munus oblatum
et gratiam nobis devotionis obtineat,
et effectum beatae perennitatis acquirat.

This was the Secret of the Saturday Ember Day in September and it was in the ancient Gregorian Sacramentary. I love the beautiful cadence in the last line: perénnitátis ácquírát.

The superlative Lewis & Short Dictionary lets us know that perennitas means “lastingness, continuance, perpetual duration, perpetuity.” We also see here the now familiar devotio and maiestas we have recently examined at length. Just out of curiosity, we could see how one of those old “hand missals”, the St. Andrew Bible Missal, worked through this prayer: “Almighty God, we pray you to grant that the gifts which we are offering in the sight of your majesty may win for us the grace of faithfulness unto a happy life everlasting.” We could do worse than that. Remember that in these articles we are not attempting a smooth, liturgically useful version. For now, however, and until a new translation comes forth, this is what you will hear at English language masses wherever ICEL is spoken:

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord God,
may the gifts we offer increase our love for you
and bring us to eternal life.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Grant, we beg, O Lord,
that the gift raised to the sight of Your majesty,
may both obtain for us the grace of devotion,
and acquire for us the accomplishment of a happy eternity.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 33^rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2005

WDTPRS wishes His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and titular Cardinal Bishop of (my) Suburbicarian Diocese of Velletri-Segni, a warm and prayerful “Ad multos felicissimos annos” on the occasion of his 40^th anniversary of episcopal consecration.

You have heard there is a new draft translation of the Ordinary of Mass from ICEL. WDTPRS has this text and we have been looking at bits and pieces, comparing them to both the earlier draft translation and the WDTPRS versions we have provided over the years. In the Roman Canon (First Eucharistic Prayer) for the sections called the Hanc igitur and the Quam oblationem the new draft translation reads: “Therefore, Lord, we pray: graciously accept this offering from us, your servants, and from your whole family: order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen. We pray, O God: be pleased to bless, recognize, and approve this offering in every way: make it spiritual and acceptable, that it become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” The older draft translation gave us: “Therefore, Lord, we pray: graciously accept this offering from us, your servants, and from your whole family; order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen. We pray, O God, deign to make this offering in every way blessed, consecrated, approved, spiritual, and acceptable, that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here are the WDTPRS versions. Remember, it was not our objective to make a smooth, liturgically useful translation: “We beseech You therefore, O Lord, that having been appeased you might accept this offering of our humble familial service: and that you might give order to our days in Your peace, and also that you might bid that we be snatched away from eternal condemnation and be numbered in the flock of your elect. Which sacrificial offering, O God, may you deign in every way to make blessed, accepted, ratified, spiritually dedicated, and acceptable: so that it may be made for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

I think the older draft was better than the new draft. The newer draft has lost something of the grace of the earlier attempt, perhaps because the translators abandoned their effort to communicate the structure of the Latin prayers. For example, where the Latin says “Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris…” in which the digneris (“deign”) is preceded by an infinitive (facere) and a series of accusatives, the new version simplifies the syntax to a series of infinitives. In the older version we have a more Latin sounding “deign to make this offering in every way blessed, consecrated, approved, spiritual and acceptable,...” to “be pleased to bless, recognize, and approve this offering in every way” make it spiritual and acceptable,…”. I think the newer version is not an improvement over the older draft and it represents a dumbing down of the text. Is the newer draft better than the lame-duck ICEL version now in use? Without question it is. I think, however, that ICEL could give us something better than this new draft. Sometimes the Latin syntax comes into English only with real effort and difficulty. An English version which adheres to the Latin will sometimes challenge a modern listener to think a bit and listen carefully. The Latin turns of phrase might actually have a greater impact and be more memorable than a version sticking more closely to modern, every-day speech. I don’t think a liturgically useful version needs to slavishly adhere to the Latin syntax, but at the same time there are moments when the Latin structure provides us with gems which make the content of the prayer sparkle and shine with interest and provocative meanings.

COLLECT - (2002MR):
Da nobis, quaesumus, Domine Deus noster,
in tua semper devotione gaudere,
quia perpetua est et plena felicitas,
si bonorum omnium iugiter serviamus auctori.

It is possible that tua could be a neuter plural rather than an ablative linking with devotione. It is possible, but I doubt it. Surely it goes with devotione. Words like iugiter and servio are by now old friends, so we can leave them aside. In other WDTPRS articles I have mentioned “false friends”, that is, words very similar to English cognates but having quite different, even surprising meanings in Latin. Your Lewis & Short Dictionary reveals that in classical usage devotio can mean “fealty, allegiance, devotedness; piety, devotion, zeal.” Devotio also means “a cursing, curse, imprecation, execration, a magical formula, incantation, spell.” It is not too difficult to decide which direction to go in the context of our prayer today! You may find a more extensive examination of devotio in the WDTPRS column for the 4^th Sunday of Lent. Briefly, devotio can be seen as “a devotion to duty”. Our “devotion” must lead the soul to keep the commandments of God and the duties of one’s state before all else. If we are truly devout in respect to God and devoted to fulfilling the duties of our state, as our state in life truly is here and now, then God will give us every actual grace we need to fulfill our vocations. We are, in effect, fulfilling our proper role in His great plan and thus He is sure to help us.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Grant to us, we beseech You, O Lord our God,
always to rejoice in Your devotion,
for happiness is perpetual and full,
if we serve constantly the author of all good things.

I mentioned above how changing the syntax can lose for us something of the impact of the original Latin prayer. Today’s Collect, which is also in the very ancient Veronese Sacramentary as a prayer during July, has a clause beginning with si... “if”. This introduces a conditional statement: we will get Y if we do X. Consider this in light of the the religious attitudes of many today who presume that heaven’s rewards are ours automatically without our having to do anything more than just feel good about ourselves or, in some non-Catholic groups, make a “once for all” affirmation of Jesus as “personal Lord” and so forth.

Note the words perpetua and felicitas in our Collect. When and if you hear the Roman Canon (First Eucharistic Prayer), you will recognize the names of two ancient martyrs, Sts. Felicity and Perpetua. It is hard to imagine that these two words are in this Collect by mere coincidence. As a matter of fact, in the eighth century Liber sacramentorum Gellonensis or Sacramentary of Gellone today’s prayer appears for martyr. Trivia moment: the cloister of the Benedictine Abbey the Sacramentary came from, Saint-Guilhem-le-Désert of the Gellone valley in France, was disassembled during the terror of the French Revolution and rebuilt in “The Cloisters” in New York City. But I digress. Who are Saints Felicity and Perpetua?

After a lull in the official persecutions of Christians, in A.D. 250 the Emperor Decius determined that Christians were the enemies of the Roman Empire. At that time in the Empire there was widespread corruption and decadence in the aristocracy, the Persians were menacing the Eastern borders and Germanic barbarians were pressing on the North. The economy was a disaster. From the pagan point of view, something had upset both the proper order of society and the relationship of the state with the gods, the pax deorum. A new religion was taking hold in great numbers. Decius issued a decree: under pain of death everyone was to sacrifice to the Roman gods and obtain a certificate that they had done so. The aim was to cut down the leaders of the troublemaking Christian sect. The result, however, was a strengthening of the Church through the blood of martyrs (from the Greek word for “witness”). A new cult of martyrs developed and many were thereby attracted to Christianity.

The whole of the third century was marked by persecutions of Christians, though they were sporadic and often localized. But we know they took place whenever social conditions degenerated enough to warrant a scapegoat. We have documents from that period attesting to the persecution of Christians including the prison diary of a young woman named Perpetua, martyred around 202 in Carthage, North Africa. She was still a catechumen (not yet baptized), but who nevertheless identified herself as Christian. She handed over her still nursing baby and insisted on being put into the arena during a civic festival. After many tried to dissuade her, she got her wish. With great heroism she faced the animals and gladiators. After many torments a young gladiator was sent to finish her off, but he couldn’t bring himself to do it. Finally, Perpetua grabbed his hand and pointed his sword at her own throat. The heroism of Perpetua inspired many people who also began to give strong witness to their faith and were subsequently imprisoned. This is also the fate of a pregnant slave girl name Felicity (Felicitas). Felicity had her baby just before the imprisoned Christians were in their turn all sent to the arena. The acta (trial records and transcripts) and ancient diaries indicate the sort of amazing love these Christian martyrs had for each other in prison. There is a very powerful scene related when Perpetua and Felicity arrange each other’s clothing so as to preserve their modesty even while they were being tortured. They bade each other farewell with the kiss of peace. The kiss of Perpetua and Felicity should remind us today to be dignified and to uphold the solemnity of the moment in Holy Mass if and when the optional sign of peace is invited.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Father of all that is good,
keep us faithful in serving you,
for to serve you is our lasting joy.

Pardon me but…. ARRRGGG! What were they thinking? For years we have seen, again and again, that many of the lame-duck ICEL prayers bear little or no resemblance to the Latin originals. The Holy See says it is determined to remedy this situation. The Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) issued the document Liturgiam authenticam (LA) establishing norms for liturgical translations. LA was a source of great hope for the Catholic faithful in the pew and at the altar alike. Will the members of the Vox Clara Committee and the officials of the CDWDS allow themselves to be intimidated into dumbing down the translations in preparation, draft after draft after draft, slowly chipping away at beauty and accuracy, allowing the erosion of time to blunt the good initiative that was begun now several years ago?

Keep in mind, folks, what we are trying to accomplish in this series, now about to begin another year of service. The liturgical language of formal prayers, which we are examining each week, is meant to be experienced in a living, breathing, sacred action called Holy Mass, not just through smudgy ink on newsprint. The content of these prayers must enter into our hearts through our eyes and ears to become part of who we are. We need our prayers! Please, give us good translations!! Why is this taking so long!? Folks, please pray that our shepherds, especially men like His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze, His Eminence George Card. Pell of the Vox Clara Committee and Fr. Bruce Harbert, Executive Secretary of ICEL, will make every effort to move positively and with determination to implement LA with an enthusiastic response to what it intends. They must resist the pressure to gut the texts of their elegance and content for the sake of the lowest common English denominator. Let our hearts and minds be drawn upward, even if we are challenged, and not forced downward into the shapeless goop of daily prattle where nothing sparks our minds or fills our hearts with hope.

Next week: the final WDTPRS on the Collects of our Sunday Masses.