From a 2005 article for The Wanderer, where my columns appear weekly, now in the ninth year of the series.
What Does the Prayer Really Say? 34th and Last Sunday in Ordinary Time – Christ The King
We come now to the final WDTPRS on the Collects of the Sunday Masses. This is the last Sunday of the liturgical year. Each year Holy Church presents to us the history of salvation, from Creation to the Lord’s Coming (the First and also the Final). In a sense, today’s Solemnity is an anticipation of the season of Advent, which also focuses on the different ways in which the Lord comes to us. At this time of year (November) we are also considering the Four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven and hell. We are praying for the Poor Souls in Purgatory in a special way this month. The Solemnity of Christ the King (which in the older Roman calendar was celebrated on the last Sunday of October) brings sharply to our attention the fact that the Lord is coming precisely as King and Judge not merely as friend or savior or role-model. In the great Dies Irae prayed at Requiem Masses for so long (and still today), Christ is identified as “King of Fearful Majesty” and “Just Judge”. Consider today’s feast in light of what we read in 2 Peter 3: 10-12: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!” Christ Jesus will judge us all, dear friends, and submit all things to the Father (cf. 1 Cor 15:28). Having excluded some from His presence, our King, Christ Jesus, will reign in majestic glory with the many who accepted His gifts and thereby merited eternal bliss.
COLLECT – (2002MR):
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,
qui in dilecto Filio tuo, universorum Rege,
omnia instaurare voluisti,
concede propitius,
ut tota creatura, a servitute liberata,
tuae maiestati deserviat ac te sine fine collaudet.
While this Collect is of new composition for the Novus Ordo, it is similar to what was in the 1962 Missale Romanum for this feast with variations in the second part: Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui dilecto Filio tuo universorum Rege, omnia instaurare voluisti: concede propitius; ut cunctae familiae gentium, peccati vulnere disgregatae, eius suavissimo subdantur imperio… “so that all the families of peoples, torn apart by the wound of sin, may be subject to His most gentle rule.”
Universus is an adjective and universorum a neuter plural, “all things.” Since we have another “all things” in omnia I will make universorum into “the whole universe.” Our Latin ears perk up when we hear compound verbs (verbs with an attached preposition like sub or de or cvm). In our own copy of A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. – (aka Lewis & Short or even L&S) we find that de-servio expands the meaning of servio to mean “serve zealously, be devoted to, subject to.” Col-laudo, more emphatic than simple laudo, means “to praise or commend very much, extol highly.” You veterans of WDTPRS know how maiestas is synonymous with gloria which in early Latin writers such as Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose and in early liturgical texts, the equivalent of biblical Greek doxa and Hebrew kabod. This “glory” and “majesty” is God’s own transforming power, a sharing of His life, that transforms us into what He is in an everlasting “deification”.
Instauro is a wonderful word which deserves more attention: “to renew, repeat, celebrate anew; to repair, restore; to erect, make”. It is synonymous with renovo. Etymologically nstauro is related to Greek stauros. Turning to a different L&S, the immensely valuable Liddell & Scott Greek Dictionary, we find that stauros is “an upright pale or stake.” Stauros is the word used in the Greek New Testament for the Cross of Jesus. Also the word immediately makes us think not only of the motto on the coat-of-arms of Pope St. Pius X, but also the origin of that motto Ephesians 1:10: “For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Eph 1:9-10 RSV). There have been, by the way, some changes in the Latin texts of this passage. The older Vulgate says “instaurare omnia in Christo” while the New Vulgate says “recapitulare omnia in Christo”.
Let’s pause a moment to review what the New or “Neo” Vulgate is. The New Vulgate is a modern and excellent reworking of the venerable Vulgate which for the most part compiled St. Jerome (+420) translations from Greek and Hebrew. This was the standard version of the bible in use for many years. However, with the advent of modern tools of research and scholarship it was determined that the Vulgate could benefit from some review and revision. The New Vulgate was in preparation for many decades and was promulgated in an editio typica prior by John Paul II on 25 April 1979 by means of the Apostolic Constitution Scripturarum thesaurus. It was then reissued in an official version in 1986. What has all this to do with translations of texts for Holy Mass? The document of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) requires in the norms found in its document Liturgiam authenticam (LA) that translators must now refer to the Neo-Vulgate. Some people, including His Excellency Donald W. Trautman the Erie bishop in Pennsylvania and present head of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Liturgy, think LA is a bad document because (as he claims) the New Vulgate is a flawed translation and translators of the liturgy should rather refer to texts in Latin and Greek. However, what LA really says it that the New Vulgate must be used when determining which verses of Scripture are to be translated for the liturgy by the fact that chapter and verse markings differ among ancient manuscripts. A single clear reference was needed.
Back to our prayer. Recapitulare is related to Latin caput (“head”) and was deemed by the scholars behind the New Vulgate as a better translation of the Greek anakephalaioô, “to sum up the argument.” This harks to the headship of Christ over the Body of the Church and expresses that He is the Final Statement, the Conclusion of All Things. At any rate, in 1925 and in the 1960’s when the older version of Vulgate was in use, the Collect had instaurare and not recapitulare.
Why all this ink about recapitulare? The phrase, “renew/reinstate all things in Christ” points to the Kingship of Jesus. In everything that Jesus said or did in His earthly life, He was actively drawing all things and peoples to Himself. In the time to come, when His Majesty the King returns in gloria and maiestas this act of drawing-to-Himself (cf. John 12:32) will culminate in the exaltation of all creation in a perfect unending paean of praise. In the meantime, by virtue of baptism and our integration into Christus Venturus (Christ About-To-Come), we all share in His three-fold office of priest, prophet, and also king. We have the duty to proclaim His Kingship by all that we say and do. We are to offer all our good works back to Him for the sake of His glory and the expectation of His Coming. This glorious restoration (instaurare) is possible only through the Lord’s Cross (Greek stauros). The Cross is found subtly in the midst of this Collect, where it is revealed as the pivot point of all creation (creatura).
LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Almighty eternal God,
who desired to renew all things
in Your beloved Son, the King of the universe,
graciously grant
that the whole of creation, having been freed from servitude,
may zealously serve Your majesty and praise You greatly without end.
The first objective of our participation in the Church’s sacred rites is to praise God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and give God glory. Liturgical and Biblical Latin is rich with words and phrases which exalt and express praise of God. In fact, the concepts of “glory” and “majesty” are nearly interchangeable in this light. We, on the one hand, render up honor and glory to God in a way external to God. On the other hand, glory and majesty are also divine attributes which we in no way give Him, which He has – or rather is – in Himself by His nature. When we come into His presence, even in the contact we have with Him through the Church’s sacred mysteries, His divine attribute of splendor or glory or majesty, whatever you will, has the power to transform us. His majestic glory changes us. So, it is right to translate these lofty sounding attributions for God when we raise our voices in the Church’s official cult.
ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Almighty and merciful God,
you break the power of evil and make all things new
in your Son Jesus Christ, the King of the universe.
May all in heaven and earth
acclaim your glory
and never cease to praise you.
As we come to the end of another year’s work in this fruitful WDTPRS project, some comments and reminders are in order. In the introductory article of this series I stated that it was not my intention to offer alternative translations to be used instead of those provided by ICEL with the approval of proper authority (no matter how bad the lame-duck ICEL versions might be). I set out to provide you with “literal translations” in order to give even non-readers of Latin a glimpse into the original structure of the prayers, their elegance, and also the world-view inhering in them. At times my versions adhere “slavishly” to the Latin originals but, since I am not trying to give you a liturgically appropriate text, that’s fine by me. Sometimes my versions extend and paraphrase difficult words or passages, but I usually provide explanations of my choices, good or bad as they may be. I am sure that my WDTPRS versions are flawed in many ways. I know these articles are sometimes hard for the average reader. When they are, I beg your patience. The tradeoff is that WDTPRS is now being cited in some university level classes and quite a few people working in the Holy See’s Curia have told my they follow them with attention.
Moreover, WDTPRS aims to stimulate and support the evolution of good, sound, accurate and beautiful translations in the future. In the past I asked you to write to those in charge of making the new translations. Many of you have and I have reason to believe that your letters touched the hearts of more than one official. In addition, I have always invited and welcomed your feedback via letters and e-mail. You honor me with your time and observations. Over the past five years, I have also urged, cajoled and pled with you to pray for our bishops and give them positive support. The work of the bishop is extremely difficult. We may sometimes be struck with amazement at some of their actions (or inactions), but we must offer them prayer-filled support while we express courteously our legitimate observations. Lastly, the most important goal of this series is to inspire in you a greater love of the rich content in our Church’s beautiful sacred liturgy both in Latin and in English. If these articles help you listen more closely when attending Sunday or weekday Mass and think about what the prayers really say, then our efforts have been worthwhile.
Loading ...
“A servitute … deserviant” is a fun turn of phrase. I wonder what more could be said about it?
Overall though, I think I prefer the older version of the prayer, with its talk of families and healing; it just seems more pertinent to today.
Fr. Z:
Please don’t be angry at me for not liking the neo-vulgata: I use it all the time but I prefer the old one. “Neque mittunt vinum novum in utres veteres … ” :-)
Curious why they would have changed “instaurare” to “recapitulare”.
Recapitulare = bring back to the beginning (caput – head)
Instaurare = conform to a sample (instar – sample)
Both seem to express the same idea, each from a different angle, but why not leave the original “instaurare” intact? Certainly it was not deficient, was it? Moreover, translators should try to leave the text unchanged unless a sufficient fault needs to be corrected: which does not seem to apply here. One reason for not changing the text unless necessary is that so many commentators through the centuries used the existing text so why yank it around. I have a small edition of the neo-vulgata with small notations at the bottom of each page wherever it differs from the old vulgate. Most of the time the notations make you wonder why the change was introduced in the first place.
My impression is that “classicist” might be happy about the neo-vulgata because I detect an effort to make the Latin a little more “ciceronian”.
I appreciate what you wrote about our Bishops. It is a very difficult time and the demands on them are incredible. We need to continue to pray for them for sure!
Father Z.,
This post is a good reminder to us of all the hard work that you do. I will say a prayer for you at mass today. Thanks again for your most excellent blog.
Father, thank you for efforts on this project. I do now pay particular attention to the Proper prayers during Mass and ponder them even after Mass – whereas before, they would pretty much go in one ear and out the other. Thank you again for your ministry.
Today was the Last Sunday after Pentecost. Period. End of story. The Feast of Christ the King was several weeks ago. I don’t follow the Ukrainian Byzantine or any other foreign rite in my private or spiritual life.
P.K.T.P.
PKTP: the feast of Christ the King in the Byzantine Catholic Church is an import from the modern Western Calendar. In fact it conflicts with the fact that the East started Advent on Nov 16.
Speaking of calendars, the commemoration of Blessed Miguel Pro SJ was omitted this year because it fell on Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the second reading of the Office of Readings of the Society of Jesus for him. It seems especially consoling for me given some things going on in our world today:
” The persecution is a fact; the reprisals, especially in Mexico
City, will be terrible; the first to be struck will be those engaged
in religious activities, and I am in the thick of it all. I wish I
was given the privilege of being one of the first … or the last,
for that matter, but one of the number anyway! …
“(My superior always fears for my life) But what is my life? Would
I not gain it even if I lost it for my brothers and sisters? True,
we do not have to give it away stupidly. But what are the sons of
Loyola for if they flee at the first flare? I am not speaking in
general; some should certainly be spared because they will be very
useful some day. But types like myself? …
“The present trial is turning out an ever-increasing number of
fearless Catholics and has even produced martyrs. … Victory will
not be late in coming! The splendour of the resurrection is in the
offing, precisely because the darkness of the persecution is now at
its worst. We get reports from all sides of outrages and reprisals;
the victims are many; the martyrs are on the increase day by day.
Oh, if I had the luck! …”
For those who follow both forms of the Roman rite — for instance, one form in Mass and the other in the Office — this final Sunday before Advent is probably the calendar’s day of greatest disjunction.
Every year on the Last Sunday after Pentecost, with its emphasis on the Last Judgment–ending our annual journey through history beginning the previous Advent–I am amazed again with the reminder that today’s powerful EF Gospel appears nowhere in the new OF lectionary:
“When you shall see the abomination of desolation … And immediately after the tribulation of those days … and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven … and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty …” (Matthew 24: 15-35)
And the Epistle for today, which in the new lectionary only appears (as I recall) on every other Thursday of some Sunday deep in Ordinary Time:
… that you may walk worthy of God … strengthened with all might according to the power of His glory … who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness … in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins.” (Colossians 1: 9-14)
What were they doing when they so diluted the Scriptures in the liturgy? And why?
Joe: And speaking of readings and happenings in the world today, St. Basil’s lesson for the 2nd nocturn in the EF Matins for today:
“When the inclination to sin comes upon you, I wish you would think of this dread and awful tribunal of Christ, where He will sit and judge on His throne on high. There every creature will appear, and stand trembling in His presence, and there shall we be led, one by one, to give an account of the actions of our life. And immediately afterwards those who in life have wrought much evil will be surrounded by fearful and hideous angels, who will throw them headlong into a bottomless pit where in impenetrable darkness burns a fire which gives no light …”</b?
Again, not worthy of the New Order?
Fr. Z (or anyone else who might know): I was puzzled by the Old Test. reading Sunday for Christ the King. (Ezek.34) The NAB says the shepherd will “destroy” the fat and healthy sheep. But on looking at the Douay-Rhiems and the RSV, the same verse says the shepherd will “watch over” or “preserve” the sheep. That makes much more sense!
I’ve never much liked the NAB, and don’t own one, but now I am seeing what looks like a gross misinterpretation that changes the whole meaning of a passage. And I am ticked that our Bishops have forced us all to listen to this translation of God’s Word at every single Novus Ordo Mass.
Can someone tell me if there is some way of reconciling the NAB wording with the other two Bibles? Or is the NAB wording just plain wrong when it says “the fat and healthy sheep I will destroy”?
Henry Edwards, yes indeed! I always tremble a bit during the Byzantine Liturgy during the Litany of Supplication when we pray for \\”a Christian end to our lives, painless, unashamed, and peaceful and a good defence before the awesome tribunal of Christ.”
Janet said: The NAB says the shepherd will “destroy” the fat and healthy sheep. But on looking at the Douay-Rhiems and the RSV, the same verse says the shepherd will “watch over” or “preserve” the sheep. That makes much more sense!
Perhaps it makes more sense if one just looks at that single verse in isolation from the rest of the Ezekiel 34, but if you read the next four or five verses, you will find God pronouncing judgment on the sins and oppression of the fat and healthy sheep, and threatening them with His wrath for the way the fat and healthy sheep took all the best things for themselves and spoiled and soiled what they left for the weak sheep. Looking at both the manuscript testimony and considering the surrounding context, “destroy” is the correct reading here, not “preserve.” This prophecy anticipates what the Gospel teaches about God lifting up the lowly but humbling the proud and powerful, satisfying the hungry and sending the rich away empty, the first being last and the last being first, the poor being blessed and the rich having a very hard time making it into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Henry Edwards said: I am amazed again with the reminder that today’s powerful EF Gospel appears nowhere in the new OF lectionary
Indeed, it’s puzzling to say the least how they could craft a new, expanded lectionary with the purpose of increased the amount of Bible read during Mass, and yet somehow the only verses from Matthew 24 that made it into the new lectionary were verses 42-51, on Thursday during the 21st week of Ordinary Time – not a single verse from the traditional Gospel for the Last Sunday After Pentecost made it into the new lectionary. A few parallel verses from Mark and Luke are included, but nothing from Matthew.
Jordanes, that’s a very good point. I’d read earlier in the chapter and could see that the bad shepherds were being condemned, so was thinking that the sheep themselves were all innocent and helpless victims of the bad shepherds. I didn’t read far enough past the verse in question to see that God was comparing the sheep also with each other.
Perhaps either “destroy” or “watch over” could be used, then. Perhaps the watching over of the fat sheep was to make sure they didn’t pick on the weak ones. But your further reading and seeing the bigger picture is a good lesson to me, Jordanes. Thanks for reminding me to read not only ahead of, but after, a passage when it seems to make no sense.
And I’ll try to be less suspicious of our Bishops and their NAB translation, even though it is still not a translation I’ll ever be fond of.
Thanks, Janet. I agree with you that the NAB isn’t all that great, especially in terms of translation “style” – from what I can tell the NAB translations are usually accurate, and it usually is based on some solid textual or manuscript scholarship, but I think the NAB departs too greatly from the style or diction of prior English translations, both Catholic and Protestant. It doesn’t sound or feel “biblical” or sacral enough. Consequently the common cultural language of well-known scriptures has been lost. That’s a shame, introducing discontinuity in the current generation which is no longer learning the verses our grandparents used to know.
By the way, I should mention that the “destroy” vs. “preserve” difference has an ancient history behind it. It is the Septuagint that first translated it as “preserve,” whereas the extant Hebrew manuscripts apparently attest to the “destroy” reading. (I say this as someone who can’t read biblical Greek or Hebrew, but who consults the works of the experts.) The Septuagint was the basis for the Vetus Latina Bible, predecessor of the Latin Vulgate. When St. Jerome prepared the Vulgate, he often did a revision of the Vetus Latina’s Old Testament books rather than a fresh translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic, and I believe that is the case here: the Douay Rheims got “preserved” from the Vulgate, which probably got it from the Vetus Latina, which got it from the Septuagint. I’ll do a little more digging to see if I can find out the reason the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew: whether it was a scribal error, or an ambiguous Hebrew word that could be translated in more than one way (such as the Hebrew word for “to bless,” which sometimes means “to curse”).