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

There are things called "memes" which I have not figured out yet.  However, I think memes involve my creating a list and then provoking others to respond with their own lists.

Here is a meme.  If I get this wrong, so what….

Imagine you are hosting a weekend at, say The Sabine Farm (some newcomers to the blog might not know that that is my place in the USA), beginning with cocktails on Friday night, continuing with gatherings and activities on Saturday, Sunday Mass, and Sunday events. 

Meals are leisurely and the period equivalent of white tie (as you would have at The Sabine Farm). 

You may invite FIVE pairs of FICTIONAL ENEMIES for the weekend. 

There will be no murders.

Here are my five.

Lex Luthor
Superman

Jean Valjean
Inspector Javert

Athena
Juno

Arthur
Mordred

Sam
Gollum

My mind reels with possibilities, but, here is one list I could make.  Perhaps other bloggers can take up the issue and post their lists.

Weekend with informal activities, formal meals… fictional enemies mixing… like Agatha Christie without the murders.

UPDATE: The image at the top right is from blog participant Vincent (in a comment below).

With a biretta tip to Rorate and commentors on this blog.  o{]:¬)

Card. Bertone confirmed in an interview with Le Figaro, to be published in the Sunday magazine insert, that there is a Motu Proprio which will give every priest in the world the faculty (or remove any debate about the faculty) to celebrate Mass using the so-called "Tridentine" Rite. 

I can’t get here the Sunday insert for Le Figaro, since there is a reduced edition sold in the edicole here. According to sources, the magazine of Le Figaro has this (my translation and emphasis):  

Is a Decree broadening the possibility of celebrating the Latin Mass according to the rite from before Vatican II (the so-called Mass of St. Pius V) still planned?

Cardinal Bertone:  ... the Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII, with its own calendar, ... there is no valid reason not to grant to every priest in the whole world the right to celebrate according to this form. ...  The publication of the Motu Proprio detailing this authorization will take place ("aura lieu"), but it will be the Pope himself who will spell out his reasons and the framework of his decision.  The Sovereign Pontiff will personally give his vision for using the old Missal to the Christian people and in particular to the bishops.

So, several things can be gathered here.

1) It will be the 1962 Missale Romanum, and not another edition, such as the 1965.
2) It appears the calendar may be left unchanged.
3) It will concerned all priests, which means religious and not just diocesan.
4) It will happen, but no timeframe is given.

I note with interest the Cardinal’s statement that the Pope is going to explain this to the bishops in particular.  Given that this is a French publication, and the French bishops were the major opponents to this move, this is like a shot over their bow. 

A great deal is still left for the Pope to explain.  I gather this means the M.P. must be entirely in his hands at this point.  He is a) still revising or b) preparing his explanations.  You can bet he will talk about his reasons for doing this with great clarity.

Many of us thought it might happen this week and that it is unlikely it would be during Holy Week… though I still won’t rule that out categorically. 

His dictis ... at some point soon you might think about heading to the store to get that bottle of Veuve Clicquot, or whatever it is you prefer. 

o{];¬)

You all know about the minor victory for Truth obtained by the correction of an error in the official English version of Sacramentum caritatis.  An error occurring in the English translation at the time of the public release of the document, was corrected on the Vatican website.

This is a good thing.  But it raises other problems.

A participant, "Janet", in another blog entry (the Snoopy Dance entry) wrote the following in a comment (edited):

Will this correction in translation be brought to the attention of bishops in some official way, or was it just quietly changed to the correct wording? My diocese’s retired acting bishop has already written in our diocesan newspaper about the exhortation last week, and pointed out that latin “could be” used in “large international gatherings” for mass. ...  I’m guessing he’s not likely to take a second look at the thing and see the correction unless someone shoves it under his nose and points it out to him, and even then he won’t likely change what he’s already said.

Janet is no doubt correct.  She also puts her finger on a verrrrrrry sore spot.

I have been harping on this stuff like Cassandra for years, but from another point of view.  Consider the following.

Q: When revisions are made to the official version (almost always the Latin), who goes back to revise the vernacular versions?

A: Ummmmm….  nobody?

Welll… people like the Latin translation fanatic who writes for The Wanderer and has a blog.

Documents are not written any more in Latin.  Documents are composed in some modern language, and eventually put into Italian and then all the translators are constrained to work from the Italian. 

This created some pretty absurd situations in the production, for example, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  The language of composition of much of the CCC was French.  Then it went into Italian.  Then all the other languages version were made from the Italian: including the Latin, which is the official version. 

In the first versions of the Latin, before much screaming allowed common sense to prevail, quotations from LATIN authors had as a matter of policy been translated into French AND/OR Italian, and then – I am NOT making this up – translated back into Latin.  It would occur to most normal people that when it came to quoting a text of, say, a Spanish writer, when it came to the Spanish edition of the document you would simply lift the original text from the very best critical edition available.  Right?  When it came to preparing the LATIN edition of the text, and the citation was from, say, St. Augustine of Hippo, a normal person would look up Augustine’s Latin and then use that in the Latin edition.  Right?   But…. noooo….  And so there was a war to get that sorted out for the eventual publication of the Latin edition of the CCC.  As far as the vernacular editions go… well… don’t ask me.  The whole thing is a mystery.

This is all because the language of composition is no longer Latin, but Latin (just one translation among many) is eventually the OFFICIAL version. 

For the centuries to come, if Pope write and promulgate something important, with rare exceptions (like Mit brennender Sorge) we will accept that he did it because there is a Latin text in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Consider this: When the various language versions of Veritatis splendor were released in October (Latin was one of them, published in L’Osservatore Romano and in booklets), those modern language versions instantly were distributed as the basis for reprinting the document.  Those are the texts everyone cites when thinking about Veritatis splendor.  However, the official Latin version was published in the Acta of December, if my memory serves.  I once compared the text from October and the text from December and started finding lots changes.  I asked myself… who will go back to correct the modern language versions and bring them into harmony with the OFFICIAL text in the Acta?  Nobody, obviously.  And the result is that people might be citing something other than the official text when they cite Veritatis splendor.

Back to Janet’s question, which reveals a whole new situation:

Q: When revisions are made to the vernacular versions, who will go back to correct the vernacular versions.

A:  .... "Shut up", he explained.

Today, I can spread news and opinion by the click of a few buttons.  Information is disseminated nearly instantaneously.  Fewer and fewer people are using paper versions. 

If I can spread news and texts fast, I am nothing compared to what the Holy See can do. 

The Holy See is the guardian of these texts.  We depend on the Holy See for accuracy.

And yet we see changing texts. 

So…. who is guarding the guards?

Do you remember the horrible, I mean unforgivable mess up with the text of the late Holy Father’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia in which there was a change to the words OF HOLY SCRIPTURE so as to make John Paul II appear as if he had made up his mind on the whole "pro multis" question?  If you don’t know this stuff, read this.

I want to know what the Vicar of Christ said, not what some ideologically interested underling thinks the Holy Father ought to have said. 

Capisce?  

We all understand when a mistake is made: errare est humanum.   But we are talking about teachings and laws of the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff.  When it comes to something over the signature of PETER I want the best possible rendering, always understanding the limits of language and translation. 

Folks, I am not nitpicking this translation stuff just for kicks.  This is not amusing.  It is not a matter of joy to find problems. 

We want the Pope’s Magisterium, not the personal magisterium of Msgr. Joe Bagofdonuts who might have a different view of things.

I have written many times in the print version of WDTPRS, that you WDTPRSers make a difference.  The readers of the print version, made an impact on the preparation of the new translation of the Missal by writing the proper letters to the right people and through prayer.

Lately here on the blog I wrote about the bad translations official English version of the Holy Father’s post-Synodal Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis.   Some of you responded well and in a timely manner.  You made a difference.

One of the paragraphs I took special aim at was a par. 62, concerning Latin, which had some pretty bad errors, even when compared to the other vernacular versions.  Among other things I  wrote:

Moreover, the texts they are working with were those released at the time of the presentation of the document, even though the LATIN is itself revised before publication in is final official form in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.  But no one goes back to revise the vernacular versions in keeping with the changes in the Latin  Lot’s of people are misquoting documents because the vernacular docs themselves were never updated.

Now it seems that the official English version has been revised and corrected, at least in respect to par. 62.

The Latin: exceptis lectionibus, homilia et oratione fidelium, aequum est ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina.

In Latin, the phrase aequum est means "it is reasonable, proper, right".  It can be rendered as "it is becoming", to use a somewhat archaic turn of phrase.

The OLD official English:  with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin.

The NEW official English:  with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin.

This blog led the public charge in this matter of the accuracy of the translation into English, but I can assure you that the problems were not missed here in Rome.  I had more than one conversation with "interested parties". 

The other language versions are being scrutinized now as well. 

Exivit a sacculo felis.*

Do not, however, rest even for a moment. 

Keep working. 

I have another entry where you may post what you think are problems.

ALERT: An exhortation TO ARMS!!









*Not to be confused with Exivit ab aedibus Elvis.